=
j
(1)
subject to the L constraints:
log P
F j
()
log P
F
UB
(2)
where P
F j
() are the logarithms of the limit state failure probabilities
corresponding to j=1, , L different design check equations and load
combinations, w
j
are the associated weights (w
j
=1) assigned to each of the
combinations j, and P
F
*
is the target probability of failure in the reference period
of one year. The additional constraints ensure that no limit state failure
probability exceeds a threshold or upper bound P
F
UB
. Both values are discussed
below, see also Figure 1(c) below.
The L different design combinations refer to all possible combinations of action
effects having different ratios, action COVs, resistance COVs, mean arrival rates,
model uncertainty COVs, structure types, regions, etc The optimal control
parameters are then obtained by numerical solution of the above constrained
optimization. The probability of failure P
F j
for combination j, given any set of
values are obtained using well established SORM methods. Optimization is
performed using multidimensional gradient search.
As mentioned above, calibration involves a weighted optimization using the
objective function (1) and a series of constraints expressed by (2). Figure 1
explains that both actions are required:
the weighted minimization ensures that the set makes the sum of
square differences between the logarithms of the various P
Fj
and the
target P
F
*
as small as possible. But this centering and optimization
action will usually leave some design combinations with an unacceptably
high P
F
as shown in Figure 1(a).
selecting on the basis that all P
Fj
should be forced to be less than an
upper bound value P
F
UB
as shown in Figure 1(b) does resolve the above
problem but P
F
*
ceases to be a true target. Also, this objective is
unrealistic as the entire standard would be dominated by a very small
number of exceptional design situations that carry less than 0.1% of the
total weight of all design cases. A large majority of cases would result in
overdesign.
Accordingly both (1) and (2) are required in a successful calibration, as shown in
Figure 1(c). Figure 1(c) is the approach selected in the present analysis. It is
consistent with Equations (1) and (2) above.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
16
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(a) calibration based on optimizing weighted distances to a target reliability only
(blue line)
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(b) calibration based on a restraining upper bound failure probability (red line)
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(c) calibration based on restrained optimization using both (a) and (b)
Figure 1: Illustration of different calibration objectives.
The DIS standard specifies the values of P
F
*
= 10
5
, 10
4
and 10
3
for exposure
levels L1, L2 and L3, respectively, as shown in the clauses and tables shown
below. The upper bound values of P
F
UB
= 10
4
, 10
3
and 10
2
are selected as
reasonable and acceptable deviations from the target. This is consistent with
previous calibration efforts (e.g. Maes et al., 2004; Srensen et al., 1994). It must
be emphasized that only a very small portion (less than 0.1% in weight) in fact
reaches the upper bound P
F
UB
, which occurs typically for load combinations
consisting of either pure permanent, pure environmental, and pure operational
loading.
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.6]
The r eliability t argets gi ven i n T able 75 are provided t o ena ble t he c alibration o f a ction factors on a
consistent basis with those pr esented i n Table 74. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum
acceptable annual failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO
199041. The targets in Table 75 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009: Table 75] Reliability targets for each limit state action combination
Exposure level Maximum Acceptable Annual Failure Probability
L1 1,0 x 10
5
L2 1,0 x 10
4
L3 1,0 x 10
3
17
Table 1 Design check equations (L1) based on 2 sets of action factors
Set I: Permanent and variable action factors based on ISO 19902:2007
ULS1 1.30(1.00)G + 1.50Q
1
+ 1.50Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS2 no distinction made
ULS3 1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+
E
E
E
ALS4
()
1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
ULS5
()
1.00G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E
()
this design check is not included in 19902, 19903 or 19904 but it is inferred from their accidental
design check.
()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check.
EE: representative value of the extremelevel environmental action having EL as its principal action.
EA: representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action having AL as its principal
action.
Unknown environmental action factors are in red.
Principal actions are in bold.
Set II: Permanent and variable action factors based on the current ISO/DIS
19906:2009 and CAN/CSAS47104
ULS1 1.25(0.90)G + 1.45Q
1
+ 1.20Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS2 1.25(0.90)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.70Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS3 1.05(0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+
E
E
E
ALS4
1.05 (0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
ULS5
()
1.05(0.95)G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E
()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check
EE: representative value of the extremelevel environmental action having EL as its principal action.
EA: representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action having AL as its principal
action. Unknown environmental action factors are in red.
Principal actions are in bold.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
16
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(a) calibration based on optimizing weighted distances to a target reliability only
(blue line)
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(b) calibration based on a restraining upper bound failure probability (red line)
10
4
10
5
10
6
F
all design cases
(c) calibration based on restrained optimization using both (a) and (b)
Figure 1: Illustration of different calibration objectives.
The DIS standard specifies the values of P
F
*
= 10
5
, 10
4
and 10
3
for exposure
levels L1, L2 and L3, respectively, as shown in the clauses and tables shown
below. The upper bound values of P
F
UB
= 10
4
, 10
3
and 10
2
are selected as
reasonable and acceptable deviations from the target. This is consistent with
previous calibration efforts (e.g. Maes et al., 2004; Srensen et al., 1994). It must
be emphasized that only a very small portion (less than 0.1% in weight) in fact
reaches the upper bound P
F
UB
, which occurs typically for load combinations
consisting of either pure permanent, pure environmental, and pure operational
loading.
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.6]
The r eliability t argets gi ven i n T able 75 are provided t o ena ble t he c alibration o f a ction factors on a
consistent basis with those pr esented i n Table 74. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum
acceptable annual failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO
199041. The targets in Table 75 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009: Table 75] Reliability targets for each limit state action combination
Exposure level Maximum Acceptable Annual Failure Probability
L1 1,0 x 10
5
L2 1,0 x 10
4
L3 1,0 x 10
3
17
Table 1 Design check equations (L1) based on 2 sets of action factors
Set I: Permanent and variable action factors based on ISO 19902:2007
ULS1 1.30(1.00)G + 1.50Q
1
+ 1.50Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS2 no distinction made
ULS3 1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+
E
E
E
ALS4
()
1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
ULS5
()
1.00G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E
()
this design check is not included in 19902, 19903 or 19904 but it is inferred from their accidental
design check.
()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check.
EE: representative value of the extremelevel environmental action having EL as its principal action.
EA: representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action having AL as its principal
action.
Unknown environmental action factors are in red.
Principal actions are in bold.
Set II: Permanent and variable action factors based on the current ISO/DIS
19906:2009 and CAN/CSAS47104
ULS1 1.25(0.90)G + 1.45Q
1
+ 1.20Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS2 1.25(0.90)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.70Q
2
+
EC
E
E
ULS3 1.05(0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+
E
E
E
ALS4
1.05 (0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
ULS5
()
1.05(0.95)G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E
()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check
EE: representative value of the extremelevel environmental action having EL as its principal action.
EA: representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action having AL as its principal
action. Unknown environmental action factors are in red.
Principal actions are in bold.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
18
Probabilistic Models
6.1 Resistance R
Guidelines for the selection of stochastic models of both actions and resistance
can be found in many sources. The Eurocodes, ISO 2394 (1998), and JCSS
(2007) make the following recommendations for resistance.
Strength / resistance parameters are to be modeled by lognormal distributions.
This avoids the possibility of negative realizations. The coefficient of variation
varies with the material type considered. Typical values are 5% for steel and
reinforcement, 15% for the concrete compression strength and 1520% for the
bending strength of structural timber. The characteristic value is generally chosen
as the 5% quantile. It is clear that the modeling of resistance is quite important as
it critically effects limit state failure probability, even though in the present work
we do not calibrate resistance factors.
A broader range of resistance characteristics was considered in Maes (1986b)
including different structural elements such as columns, plates and soils.
Statistics were generated for the actual strength of certain structural members as
compared with their assumed (factored) design strength. Almost all models
found in the literature are therefore based on the assumption that resistance R is a
random quantity with a lognormal distribution:
R ~ LN (r, v
R
) (3)
where r and v
R
are the mean and the COV of the twoparameter LN distribution,
respectively. If the mean r is related to the (factored) design resistance r
d
by a
factor k
R
(often referred to as the resistance bias) by the following equation:
r = k
R
r
d
(4)
then the ratio of (actual strength/design strength) has an expected value equal to
k
R
with a COV equal to v
R
. In order to ensure that comparable levels of reliability
exist for different degrees of uncertainty regarding the resistance, the parameters
k
r
and v
r
are related as follows, regardless of the parameters of the lognormal
resistance PDF:
2 1 2
1 exp( ( ) ln(1 ))
R R R
k v v
= + + (5)
where
1
is the inverse standard cumulative normal distribution function.
A key assumption in this calibration is that the factored design resistance r
d
defined above corresponds to the 1%ile of the actual resistance. In other words,
on average, in 99 cases out of 100, the actual resistance exceeds the (factored)
design resistance. Therefore, when = 1%, then the
1
(0.01) = 2.326, and
equation (5) requires that k
R
and v
R
take on the paired values listed in Table 2.
6
19
Table 2 Values of the kfactor kR of resistance, for different COV values vR, for
=1%
There exists plenty of evidence to justify the choice of value = 1% (see Maes
(1986b, 2003) for R/C beams, R/C beams in flexure, steel beams, columns,
plates, and soils). It can also be verified that in many standards, including the
current CSAS471 code, the resistance factors are indeed such that, the
probability of R being less than the factored resistance is approximately equal to
= 1%.
Resistance model uncertainty (as embodied, for instance, in the ratio of actual
versus predicted strength) is included in the modeling of R. For most structural
members and soils, this requires us to consider, in the present calibration, a range
of v
R
values, namely10%, 12%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% depending on the type
of structures (ranging from steel members to soils) and limit states (bending,
shear, sliding, ). Also note that this method of calibration assumes that R is the
minimum required design resistance (MRDR). No resistance is added on as a
result of convenience or material availability, for instance due to standard sizes.
As noted in Section 4, the robustness check involved in the abnormal limit states
ALS requires the use of larger resistance COV values due to increased
uncertainty regarding failure mechanisms typically associated with abnormal
level loads. Values of 20%, 25% and 30% are considered for ALS (all the other
assumptions above for ULS are assumed to be applicable only the overall
uncertainty increases).
6.2 Permanent Actions G
Dead and deformation loads are generally represented by a normal distribution.
The representative value g is related to the mean permanent load by a k
G
factor
similar to the one used for resistance; thus, permanent loads are assumed to be
normally distributed with mean k
G
g and a COV equal to v
G
G ~ N (k
G
g, v
G
) (6)
Landbased structures have used values of permanent action between 0.07 and
0.11. Offshore installations are usually subjected to reasonably rigorous weight
audits. Frieze and Plane (1985) adopt v
G
= 0.075. Anzai et al. (1982) use v
G
=
0.08 and k
G
= 1.0, whereas previous Canadian reliability studies have generally
used v
G
= 0.07. The values k
G
= 1.0 and v
G
= 0.08 are adopted in this study.
6.3 Variable actions Q
The key aspect in the modeling of variable (live) loads is the time variability. In
recent code calibrations, these loads are modeled using socalled rectangular
v
R
0.10 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
k
R
1.267 1.330 1.431 1.616 1.828 2.066
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
18
Probabilistic Models
6.1 Resistance R
Guidelines for the selection of stochastic models of both actions and resistance
can be found in many sources. The Eurocodes, ISO 2394 (1998), and JCSS
(2007) make the following recommendations for resistance.
Strength / resistance parameters are to be modeled by lognormal distributions.
This avoids the possibility of negative realizations. The coefficient of variation
varies with the material type considered. Typical values are 5% for steel and
reinforcement, 15% for the concrete compression strength and 1520% for the
bending strength of structural timber. The characteristic value is generally chosen
as the 5% quantile. It is clear that the modeling of resistance is quite important as
it critically effects limit state failure probability, even though in the present work
we do not calibrate resistance factors.
A broader range of resistance characteristics was considered in Maes (1986b)
including different structural elements such as columns, plates and soils.
Statistics were generated for the actual strength of certain structural members as
compared with their assumed (factored) design strength. Almost all models
found in the literature are therefore based on the assumption that resistance R is a
random quantity with a lognormal distribution:
R ~ LN (r, v
R
) (3)
where r and v
R
are the mean and the COV of the twoparameter LN distribution,
respectively. If the mean r is related to the (factored) design resistance r
d
by a
factor k
R
(often referred to as the resistance bias) by the following equation:
r = k
R
r
d
(4)
then the ratio of (actual strength/design strength) has an expected value equal to
k
R
with a COV equal to v
R
. In order to ensure that comparable levels of reliability
exist for different degrees of uncertainty regarding the resistance, the parameters
k
r
and v
r
are related as follows, regardless of the parameters of the lognormal
resistance PDF:
2 1 2
1 exp( ( ) ln(1 ))
R R R
k v v
= + + (5)
where
1
is the inverse standard cumulative normal distribution function.
A key assumption in this calibration is that the factored design resistance r
d
defined above corresponds to the 1%ile of the actual resistance. In other words,
on average, in 99 cases out of 100, the actual resistance exceeds the (factored)
design resistance. Therefore, when = 1%, then the
1
(0.01) = 2.326, and
equation (5) requires that k
R
and v
R
take on the paired values listed in Table 2.
6
19
Table 2 Values of the kfactor kR of resistance, for different COV values vR, for
=1%
There exists plenty of evidence to justify the choice of value = 1% (see Maes
(1986b, 2003) for R/C beams, R/C beams in flexure, steel beams, columns,
plates, and soils). It can also be verified that in many standards, including the
current CSAS471 code, the resistance factors are indeed such that, the
probability of R being less than the factored resistance is approximately equal to
= 1%.
Resistance model uncertainty (as embodied, for instance, in the ratio of actual
versus predicted strength) is included in the modeling of R. For most structural
members and soils, this requires us to consider, in the present calibration, a range
of v
R
values, namely10%, 12%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% depending on the type
of structures (ranging from steel members to soils) and limit states (bending,
shear, sliding, ). Also note that this method of calibration assumes that R is the
minimum required design resistance (MRDR). No resistance is added on as a
result of convenience or material availability, for instance due to standard sizes.
As noted in Section 4, the robustness check involved in the abnormal limit states
ALS requires the use of larger resistance COV values due to increased
uncertainty regarding failure mechanisms typically associated with abnormal
level loads. Values of 20%, 25% and 30% are considered for ALS (all the other
assumptions above for ULS are assumed to be applicable only the overall
uncertainty increases).
6.2 Permanent Actions G
Dead and deformation loads are generally represented by a normal distribution.
The representative value g is related to the mean permanent load by a k
G
factor
similar to the one used for resistance; thus, permanent loads are assumed to be
normally distributed with mean k
G
g and a COV equal to v
G
G ~ N (k
G
g, v
G
) (6)
Landbased structures have used values of permanent action between 0.07 and
0.11. Offshore installations are usually subjected to reasonably rigorous weight
audits. Frieze and Plane (1985) adopt v
G
= 0.075. Anzai et al. (1982) use v
G
=
0.08 and k
G
= 1.0, whereas previous Canadian reliability studies have generally
used v
G
= 0.07. The values k
G
= 1.0 and v
G
= 0.08 are adopted in this study.
6.3 Variable actions Q
The key aspect in the modeling of variable (live) loads is the time variability. In
recent code calibrations, these loads are modeled using socalled rectangular
v
R
0.10 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
k
R
1.267 1.330 1.431 1.616 1.828 2.066
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
20
pulse or FerryBorges & Castanheta (FBC) models. This means that a load
history is schematised as a series of independent rectangular pulses with
presence period n
p
(number of days the process is active per year) and
renewal n
R
(number of times the process renews during these n
p
days). This is
illustrated in Figure 2(a) and 2(b).
a
c
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
one year
n
p
days
n
R
1
2
time
Figure 2(a) Long duration variable action Q1.
a
c
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
time
1
one year
2
3
...
...
=n
p
days
n
R
1 n
R
Figure 2(b) Short duration variable action Q2.
For calibration purposes, we distinguish between longduration and short
duration variable actions, Q
1
and Q
2
, respectively:
the variable action Q
1
of long duration is always active: it is modeled as a
load that is renewed (on average) 3 times a year for a full period of 1/3
year. This corresponds to n
p
= 365 days and n
R
= 3. Alternative values of
n
R
= 12 and 1 are also considered.
the variable action Q
2
of short duration is considered to be refreshed
every day, but is only present for 50 days during that year. This
corresponds to n
p
= 50 days and n
R
= 50. Alternative values of n
p
= 5
days and n
R
= 5 are also considered.
The distinction between variable actions of long duration Q
1
(LD) and short
duration Q
2
(SD) is quite relevant for the design of offshore installations, since
structural members are variously subjected to action effects produced by different
types of operations such as:
drilling operations (LD or SD)
longterm storage of materials and equipment (LD)
21
storage of liquids (SD or LD)
storage of hightemperature substances (SD or LD)
crane operations (SD)
helicopter landings (SD)
fendering and mooring of supply vessels (SD)
variable hydrostatic pressure and ballast (LD)
Clearly, the action effects associated with these operations have very different
temporal and spatial characteristics. The distinction between SD and LD suggests
the use of different partial action factors and action combination factors for each
category of action effects as in Set II (Section 5).
With respect to the oneyear extreme value distribution of variable actions, many
k
Q
factors (the k
Q
is the ratio between the mean and the representative value of Q)
less than unity have been reported in literature, i.e. actual annual extremes are
usually less than their representative value. This observation is related to the fact
that design live loading is usually overestimated since its definition calls for the
most severe of the maximum or minimum combined variable actions, which is a
value that is likely greater than the oneyear (maximum) action on which
calibration is based. Some values of the variable action COV encountered in
literature, are v
Q
= 0.070.80 (Fjeld, 1978), 0.03 (Baker and Wyatt, 1979), 0.10
(Frieze and Plane, 1985) and 0.14 (Anzai et al., 1982). For the present
calibration, the recommendation of the JCSS (2007) to use a Gumbel distribution
for the annual extreme of operational load, is followed
Q ~ Gumbel (k
Q
q, v
Q
) (7)
where q is the representative action value, where k
Q
= 0.85, on account of the
conservatism that is inherent in the prescription of the characteristic variable
action as a maximum, and v
Q
depends on whether the variable action has LD, in
which case v
Q
= 0.15, or SD, for which v
Q
= 0.25. Alternative values of 0.20, 0.30
(LD), and 0.45, 0.60 (SD) are also considered.
As the present calibration also accounts for the combination of environmental
load and companion LD variable action (and vice versa), we require the use of
the aforementioned FBC models as defined in Figure 2(a).
6.4 Ice Actions I
Ice actions I are the focus of this calibration. Their probabilistic characterization
is discussed in detail in the separate Sections 7.1 and 7.2. Ice action model
uncertainties are discussed in Section 7.3.
6.5 NonIce Environmental Actions E
An overview of annual COVvalues for wind, wave, current actions is given in
Maes (2003). Values of 20% to 40% include uncertainties associated with the
transformation of event to action effect, and other action model uncertainties.
These annual maximum COVs are for typical worldwide offshore metocean
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
20
pulse or FerryBorges & Castanheta (FBC) models. This means that a load
history is schematised as a series of independent rectangular pulses with
presence period n
p
(number of days the process is active per year) and
renewal n
R
(number of times the process renews during these n
p
days). This is
illustrated in Figure 2(a) and 2(b).
a
c
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
one year
n
p
days
n
R
1
2
time
Figure 2(a) Long duration variable action Q1.
a
c
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
time
1
one year
2
3
...
...
=n
p
days
n
R
1 n
R
Figure 2(b) Short duration variable action Q2.
For calibration purposes, we distinguish between longduration and short
duration variable actions, Q
1
and Q
2
, respectively:
the variable action Q
1
of long duration is always active: it is modeled as a
load that is renewed (on average) 3 times a year for a full period of 1/3
year. This corresponds to n
p
= 365 days and n
R
= 3. Alternative values of
n
R
= 12 and 1 are also considered.
the variable action Q
2
of short duration is considered to be refreshed
every day, but is only present for 50 days during that year. This
corresponds to n
p
= 50 days and n
R
= 50. Alternative values of n
p
= 5
days and n
R
= 5 are also considered.
The distinction between variable actions of long duration Q
1
(LD) and short
duration Q
2
(SD) is quite relevant for the design of offshore installations, since
structural members are variously subjected to action effects produced by different
types of operations such as:
drilling operations (LD or SD)
longterm storage of materials and equipment (LD)
21
storage of liquids (SD or LD)
storage of hightemperature substances (SD or LD)
crane operations (SD)
helicopter landings (SD)
fendering and mooring of supply vessels (SD)
variable hydrostatic pressure and ballast (LD)
Clearly, the action effects associated with these operations have very different
temporal and spatial characteristics. The distinction between SD and LD suggests
the use of different partial action factors and action combination factors for each
category of action effects as in Set II (Section 5).
With respect to the oneyear extreme value distribution of variable actions, many
k
Q
factors (the k
Q
is the ratio between the mean and the representative value of Q)
less than unity have been reported in literature, i.e. actual annual extremes are
usually less than their representative value. This observation is related to the fact
that design live loading is usually overestimated since its definition calls for the
most severe of the maximum or minimum combined variable actions, which is a
value that is likely greater than the oneyear (maximum) action on which
calibration is based. Some values of the variable action COV encountered in
literature, are v
Q
= 0.070.80 (Fjeld, 1978), 0.03 (Baker and Wyatt, 1979), 0.10
(Frieze and Plane, 1985) and 0.14 (Anzai et al., 1982). For the present
calibration, the recommendation of the JCSS (2007) to use a Gumbel distribution
for the annual extreme of operational load, is followed
Q ~ Gumbel (k
Q
q, v
Q
) (7)
where q is the representative action value, where k
Q
= 0.85, on account of the
conservatism that is inherent in the prescription of the characteristic variable
action as a maximum, and v
Q
depends on whether the variable action has LD, in
which case v
Q
= 0.15, or SD, for which v
Q
= 0.25. Alternative values of 0.20, 0.30
(LD), and 0.45, 0.60 (SD) are also considered.
As the present calibration also accounts for the combination of environmental
load and companion LD variable action (and vice versa), we require the use of
the aforementioned FBC models as defined in Figure 2(a).
6.4 Ice Actions I
Ice actions I are the focus of this calibration. Their probabilistic characterization
is discussed in detail in the separate Sections 7.1 and 7.2. Ice action model
uncertainties are discussed in Section 7.3.
6.5 NonIce Environmental Actions E
An overview of annual COVvalues for wind, wave, current actions is given in
Maes (2003). Values of 20% to 40% include uncertainties associated with the
transformation of event to action effect, and other action model uncertainties.
These annual maximum COVs are for typical worldwide offshore metocean
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
22
conditions and we assume they also apply to the subset of Arctic and subArctic
sea/ocean conditions considered in this study (again, the absolute values may
differ but the probabilistic characterizations should be similar). It should be noted
that the above COV values include modeling uncertainty (environmental process,
processtoaction, processtoactioneffect).
In view of the definitions of the representative action E as the 99% percentile of
the oneyear maximum environmental load distribution, it is sufficient to select
the value of COV in order to fix the remaining extremal parameter of the
assumed Gumbel probability distribution, namely:
E ~ Gumbel (k
E
E
q
, v
e
) (8)
where the k
E
factor, defined as the ratio of mean annual extreme load to the
representative action E
q
at a specified annual probability of exceedance equal to
q, is the following function of v
E
:
1
1 3.137
E
E
k
v
=
+
(9)
In Table 3, the values of k
E
, and the derived normalized extremal parameters a/E
and b/E can be found for a selected reference value of v
E
= 0.35. Alternative
values of 0.20, 0.30 and 0.40 are also considered.
Table 3 Parameters of the probabilistic model for frequent environmental load
v
E
k
E
a/E b/E
0.35 0.477 0.4017 0.1301
For interenvironmental action combinations and environmental variable action
combinations, frequent load effect processes are modeled as FBC processes
similar to Figure 2(a) with n
P
= 365, n
R
= 365/3 (waves, winds, currents) and n
P
=
200 days, n
R
= 200 for certain seasonal actions. Bracketing values are also
considered.
Abnormal level loads are modelled as Poisson pulse processes with variable
intensity and occurrence as shown in Figure 3. Their representative value is
determined at an annual exceedance probability P
E
.
23
(1)
.
(2)
(1): Occurrence of events: Poisson
with variable arrival rate
(2): Intensity is represented using
an (S,H) tail model
L
o
a
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
Time
Figure 3: Stochastic model used for abnormal environmental action effects.
6.6 Action Effect Ratios
It is important to realize that the DCEs for both Set I and Set II (Table 1) are all
symbolic equations, i.e. the relative proportion of each contributing load effect is
varied from 0 to 100%. As certain combinations ratios of actions are not as likely
as others, the following weights are applied as shown in Table 4 and used in
Equation (1). The values were obtained by consensus of the TP10 experts.
Table 4 Relative weight associated with the action effect ratios E/(E+P+Q) and I/(I+P+Q)
Action effect ratio
E/(E+P+Q)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Relative weight (%) 1 4 5 5 5 5 15 20 20 15 5
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
22
conditions and we assume they also apply to the subset of Arctic and subArctic
sea/ocean conditions considered in this study (again, the absolute values may
differ but the probabilistic characterizations should be similar). It should be noted
that the above COV values include modeling uncertainty (environmental process,
processtoaction, processtoactioneffect).
In view of the definitions of the representative action E as the 99% percentile of
the oneyear maximum environmental load distribution, it is sufficient to select
the value of COV in order to fix the remaining extremal parameter of the
assumed Gumbel probability distribution, namely:
E ~ Gumbel (k
E
E
q
, v
e
) (8)
where the k
E
factor, defined as the ratio of mean annual extreme load to the
representative action E
q
at a specified annual probability of exceedance equal to
q, is the following function of v
E
:
1
1 3.137
E
E
k
v
=
+
(9)
In Table 3, the values of k
E
, and the derived normalized extremal parameters a/E
and b/E can be found for a selected reference value of v
E
= 0.35. Alternative
values of 0.20, 0.30 and 0.40 are also considered.
Table 3 Parameters of the probabilistic model for frequent environmental load
v
E
k
E
a/E b/E
0.35 0.477 0.4017 0.1301
For interenvironmental action combinations and environmental variable action
combinations, frequent load effect processes are modeled as FBC processes
similar to Figure 2(a) with n
P
= 365, n
R
= 365/3 (waves, winds, currents) and n
P
=
200 days, n
R
= 200 for certain seasonal actions. Bracketing values are also
considered.
Abnormal level loads are modelled as Poisson pulse processes with variable
intensity and occurrence as shown in Figure 3. Their representative value is
determined at an annual exceedance probability P
E
.
23
(1)
.
(2)
(1): Occurrence of events: Poisson
with variable arrival rate
(2): Intensity is represented using
an (S,H) tail model
L
o
a
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
Time
Figure 3: Stochastic model used for abnormal environmental action effects.
6.6 Action Effect Ratios
It is important to realize that the DCEs for both Set I and Set II (Table 1) are all
symbolic equations, i.e. the relative proportion of each contributing load effect is
varied from 0 to 100%. As certain combinations ratios of actions are not as likely
as others, the following weights are applied as shown in Table 4 and used in
Equation (1). The values were obtained by consensus of the TP10 experts.
Table 4 Relative weight associated with the action effect ratios E/(E+P+Q) and I/(I+P+Q)
Action effect ratio
E/(E+P+Q)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Relative weight (%) 1 4 5 5 5 5 15 20 20 15 5
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
24
Probabilistic Ice Action Models
7.1 Regionalization
As explained in Section 3, we wish to explore the need and the effect of
identifying separate ice action classes based on their probabilistic extreme action
behaviour (their tail). At this stage it is unclear if certain ice actions behave
more like wind actions, wave actions, or other types of actions. To provide more
insight, 8 geographic zones and 8 arctic structural systems were identified in
consultation with TP10. This is shown in Table 5.
Regionalization is based only on differences in uncertainty modeling and
characterization and not on geographical variations in the absolute magnitude of
ice actions. Quantitative input for this task has been obtained from previously
published probabilistic studies and from a substantial CCORE ice load
distribution study (CCORE, 2009).
Clearly not all structures qualify as possible design solutions for all types or
regions. This specificity is shown in Table 6 where weights are assigned by the
ISO TP10 experts per zone so that the sum of weights is 100% in each zone.
Weights w
j
are used in Equation (1) to reflect frequency of use (past, present, and
future) and to provide a measure of importance in the calibration. Table 7
similarly shows estimates of weights for each region also assigned by expert
members of the technical panel TP10. It can be seen that the (global) Beaufort
Sea zone including Southern and Northern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador,
Laptev Sea, NE Greenland, and Arctic Islands are contributing 40% of the total
geographical weight.
Within each cell of Table 5 the ice regime can still vary considerably. This
affects the tail behaviour of the extreme action effect probability distribution as
discussed in Section 7.2 and Appendix A. Table 8 shows the different values of
the mean number of ice loading events per year provided by CCORE,
considered in the calibration. The values in bold refer to the base case for each
combination of zone and structure; this base case value is used in the various ice
action tail plots shown in Section 7.2. It should be noted that the mean number of
ice events (the arrival rate) includes all icestructure interactions of any level of
significance ranging from tiny action effects to very large action effects.
Subsequent values in each cell of Table 8 indicate alternative values considered
in the calibration. Values in red reflect the use of ice management and
disconnection in the case of floaters. The values in brackets denote the relative
weights assigned to each scenario.
7
25
Table 5 Zones and structural systems
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Sea
FYL
Barents Sea
IB
Grand Banks
IB
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
24
Probabilistic Ice Action Models
7.1 Regionalization
As explained in Section 3, we wish to explore the need and the effect of
identifying separate ice action classes based on their probabilistic extreme action
behaviour (their tail). At this stage it is unclear if certain ice actions behave
more like wind actions, wave actions, or other types of actions. To provide more
insight, 8 geographic zones and 8 arctic structural systems were identified in
consultation with TP10. This is shown in Table 5.
Regionalization is based only on differences in uncertainty modeling and
characterization and not on geographical variations in the absolute magnitude of
ice actions. Quantitative input for this task has been obtained from previously
published probabilistic studies and from a substantial CCORE ice load
distribution study (CCORE, 2009).
Clearly not all structures qualify as possible design solutions for all types or
regions. This specificity is shown in Table 6 where weights are assigned by the
ISO TP10 experts per zone so that the sum of weights is 100% in each zone.
Weights w
j
are used in Equation (1) to reflect frequency of use (past, present, and
future) and to provide a measure of importance in the calibration. Table 7
similarly shows estimates of weights for each region also assigned by expert
members of the technical panel TP10. It can be seen that the (global) Beaufort
Sea zone including Southern and Northern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador,
Laptev Sea, NE Greenland, and Arctic Islands are contributing 40% of the total
geographical weight.
Within each cell of Table 5 the ice regime can still vary considerably. This
affects the tail behaviour of the extreme action effect probability distribution as
discussed in Section 7.2 and Appendix A. Table 8 shows the different values of
the mean number of ice loading events per year provided by CCORE,
considered in the calibration. The values in bold refer to the base case for each
combination of zone and structure; this base case value is used in the various ice
action tail plots shown in Section 7.2. It should be noted that the mean number of
ice events (the arrival rate) includes all icestructure interactions of any level of
significance ranging from tiny action effects to very large action effects.
Subsequent values in each cell of Table 8 indicate alternative values considered
in the calibration. Values in red reflect the use of ice management and
disconnection in the case of floaters. The values in brackets denote the relative
weights assigned to each scenario.
7
25
Table 5 Zones and structural systems
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Sea
FYL
Barents Sea
IB
Grand Banks
IB
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
26
Table 6 Relative weights of structural systems used in a specific region/ice environment
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 60 15 5 5 15 100%
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 70 30 100%
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 30 10 20 20 20 100%
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 33 33 33 100%
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Sea
FYL 25 5 15 15 40 100%
Barents Sea
IB 50 50 100%
Grand Banks
IB 50 50 100%
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 90 10 100%
27
Table 7 Relative weights of zones and ice environments
Region
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
Ice environment Relative weight (%)
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 20
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 20
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 15
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 5
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 20
Barents Sea IB 5
Grand Banks IB 12.5
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 2.5
= 100%
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
26
Table 6 Relative weights of structural systems used in a specific region/ice environment
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 60 15 5 5 15 100%
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 70 30 100%
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 30 10 20 20 20 100%
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 33 33 33 100%
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Sea
FYL 25 5 15 15 40 100%
Barents Sea
IB 50 50 100%
Grand Banks
IB 50 50 100%
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 90 10 100%
27
Table 7 Relative weights of zones and ice environments
Region
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
Ice environment Relative weight (%)
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 20
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 20
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 15
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 5
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 20
Barents Sea IB 5
Grand Banks IB 12.5
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 2.5
= 100%
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
28
Table 8 Mean number of ice loading events per year, their range, and the effect of ice management/
disconnection
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FP FPSO unit
ML multilegged structure
GC conically sided GBS
FC conically sided floater
PC vertical piled column
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region Ice GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
S. Chukchi
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
600(25%)
300(25%)
60(25%)
6(25%)
525(25%)
262(25%)
52(25%)
6(25%)
700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenl.
N. Chukchi
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 4200(25%)
2100(25%)
420(25%)
42(25%)
4200(25%)
2100(25%)
420(25%)
42(25%)
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 7600(20%) 7600(20%) 4700(20%) 2800(20%) 4000(20%)
1520(20%) 1520(20%) 940(20%) 560(20%) 800(20%)
3040(20%) 3040(20%) 1880(20%) 1120(20%) 1600(20%)
4560(20%) 4560(20%) 2820(20%) 1680(20%) 2400(20%)
6080(20%) 6080(20%) 3760(20%) 2240(20%) 3200(20%)
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 650(40%) 650(40%) 320(40%)
130(60%) 130(60%) 64(60%)
Caspian
Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%)
50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%)
100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%)
Barents Sea IB 0.0067(10%) 0.0044(10%)
0.0003(90%) 0.0002(90%)
Grand Banks IB 0.126 0.084 (5%)
0.0042(95%)
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenl.
IB 5(25%) 3 (25%)
20(25%) 12(2.5%)
50(25%) 30(2.5%)
100(25%) 60(2.5%)
0.15(22.5%)
0.6 (22.5%)
1.5 (22.5%)
Note:
In this Table, the bold values indicate the base case mean annual numbers of ice load events which
includes all interactions of any level of significance. The annual extreme ice load probability distribution is
based on this value.
Subsequent values in each cell indicate alternative values considered in the calibration analysis (if any).
Values in brackets denote the relative weights in % associated with these cases (their sum is 100% for
each cell).
Values in red apply to ice management and disconnection.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
28
Table 8 Mean number of ice loading events per year, their range, and the effect of ice management/
disconnection
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FP FPSO unit
ML multilegged structure
GC conically sided GBS
FC conically sided floater
PC vertical piled column
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region Ice GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
S. Chukchi
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
600(25%)
300(25%)
60(25%)
6(25%)
525(25%)
262(25%)
52(25%)
6(25%)
700(25%)
350(25%)
70(25%)
7(25%)
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenl.
N. Chukchi
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 4200(25%)
2100(25%)
420(25%)
42(25%)
4200(25%)
2100(25%)
420(25%)
42(25%)
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 7600(20%) 7600(20%) 4700(20%) 2800(20%) 4000(20%)
1520(20%) 1520(20%) 940(20%) 560(20%) 800(20%)
3040(20%) 3040(20%) 1880(20%) 1120(20%) 1600(20%)
4560(20%) 4560(20%) 2820(20%) 1680(20%) 2400(20%)
6080(20%) 6080(20%) 3760(20%) 2240(20%) 3200(20%)
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 650(40%) 650(40%) 320(40%)
130(60%) 130(60%) 64(60%)
Caspian
Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%) 15(50%)
50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%) 50(20%)
100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%) 100(30%)
Barents Sea IB 0.0067(10%) 0.0044(10%)
0.0003(90%) 0.0002(90%)
Grand Banks IB 0.126 0.084 (5%)
0.0042(95%)
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenl.
IB 5(25%) 3 (25%)
20(25%) 12(2.5%)
50(25%) 30(2.5%)
100(25%) 60(2.5%)
0.15(22.5%)
0.6 (22.5%)
1.5 (22.5%)
Note:
In this Table, the bold values indicate the base case mean annual numbers of ice load events which
includes all interactions of any level of significance. The annual extreme ice load probability distribution is
based on this value.
Subsequent values in each cell indicate alternative values considered in the calibration analysis (if any).
Values in brackets denote the relative weights in % associated with these cases (their sum is 100% for
each cell).
Values in red apply to ice management and disconnection.
29
7.2 (S, H) Tail Models
In order to effectively analyze the tail behaviour of extreme actions we use the Q
distribution. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the use and the
benefits of Qdistributions. They can be applied to arbitrary actions in terms of a
nondimensional variable defined in Section A.3 which enables a fair
probabilistic extreme value comparison between all types of actions. It is
anchored on a representative value x
q
, the action with an annual probability of
exceedance equal to q. The Qdistribution is defined in terms of two parameters:
the tail slope S: see Figure A2(a)
the tail heaviness H: see Figure A2(b)
Important advantages of using dedicated tail models such as the Qdistribution
for extreme action effects include:
due to their reliance on the fundamental concept of tail distribution, they
can be used for any type of data set.
they provide very simple plots, so called (, L
*
) tail plots that easily
explain the tail behaviour of a specific action. These figures can also be
used to compare different actions in terms of their tail behaviour.
they can be used to model the extreme value behaviour of continuous
environmental processes, discrete environmental processes such as ice
action effects, intermittent processes and variable action processes.
Qdistributions can easily be adjusted to arbitrary arrival rates for discrete
action processes. This is shown in Section A.4 and Figure A3.
the factors S and H provide a direct link with the required action factors.
This feature is of course very useful in calibration (see Section A.3).
Qdistributions are mathematically convenient in the analysis of limit
state failure probabilities (see Section A.3).
Qdistribution tail models can easily be adjusted for model/epistemic
uncertainty, simply by adjusting tail heaviness. This is shown in Section
A.7, Figure A5 and Section 7.3.
the process of fitting a Qdistribution to an actual data set is very
straightforward and is explained in Section A.1.
A full tail analysis of ice action effect data supplied by CCORE (2009) is
performed. Tables 9 and 10 show the result of this analysis. The central part of
both tables lists sample values as provided by CCORE. Blank lines indicate that
some combinations of zones and actions were not modeled but their tail
behaviour has been inferred from similar zones and structures. The right hand
side of both Table 9 and 10 list the parameters of the Qdistribution: the
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
30
anchoring points (either 10
2
or 10
4
), the tail slope S and the tail heaviness H.
Also mentioned is the reference value of the mean number of action events per
year discussed in Section 7.1, Table 8. Note that in Table 9 all values apply to the
annual extreme ice action effect while in Table 10 they apply to the action given
an impacting iceberg. The values of S and H are also summarized in Table 11 to
provide a clearer contrast between the different zones and structures (the
footnotes are self explanatory).
Appendix B is an extensive case by case representation of ice action effects per
zone and per region. Light tails and heavy tails (depending on the case) can be
observed. It can also be seen that the tail slope S varies considerably. However,
there are certain commonalities. In order to detect them we consider three sets of
figures:
annual extreme ice actions classified per type of structure: Figures 5
10.
all icebergstructure interaction loads for all regions (per impact):
Figure 11.
annual extreme ice actions classified per region for each of the 5 non
iceberg regions: Figures 1216.
In browsing these figures and Table 11 it is important to keep in mind that S and
H are directly related to the minimum required action factor as explained in
Section A.3. In general, the steeper a tail dips (small S), the smaller . Also, the
greater the upward curvature of the tail (the larger H), the greater .
It is useful to contrast the above ice action tails (as represented by their respective
Qdistributions with specific tail parameters S and H) with tails of the annual
extreme environmental actions associated with continuous processes such as
waves and winds. This is shown in Figure 17 where ice actions I are contrasted
with wave/wind/current extreme actions E in the same tail plot. Bracketing
values of
E
are shown in the legend. It can be seen that some zones/structures
should require larger action factors than the environmental action factor
E
while
others need smaller action factors.
31
Table 9: Tail analysis of ice action effects (data and Qdistribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
Location Ice type Structure [  ] [MN] [MN] [  ] [MN] [MN] [MN] [MN] [  ] [  ] [  ] [1/year]
GV 23,940 612.8 105.5 0.172 751 938 1394 1441 10
2
0.087 0.030 697.0
GC 10,000 395.2 106.5 0.269 528 767 1602 1602 10
2
0.157 0.141 697.0
FP 26,241 402.1 67.9 0.169 490 613 903 925 10
2
0.090 0.047 589.0
PC 28,037 213.5 37.0 0.173 262 329 486 496 10
2
0.090 0.030 524.0
MI 10
2
0.100 0.030 700.0
GV 26,978 760.3 106.3 0.140 899 1100 1453 1664 10
2
0.081 0.008 4183.0
GC 10,000 547.2 131.2 0.240 711 1011 1654 1654 10
2
0.137 0.047 4184.0
GV 30,000 286.0 13.3 0.046 304 321 343 347 10
2
0.019 0.145 7588.0
GC 30,000 140.1 14.1 0.101 159 183 232 242 10
2
0.055 0.000 7588.0
FP 30,000 163.3 5.3 0.032 169 182 210 218 10
2
0.032 0.061 4742.0
PC 30,000 67.6 3.6 0.053 72 81 107 111 10
2
0.059 0.157 2822.0
ML
10
2
0.030 0.000 4000.0
FV 40,000 42.6 67.8 1.591 157 199 264 309 10
2
0.057 0.092 654.0
FC 40,000 16.8 27.0 1.606 61 85 186 238 10
2
0.144 0.156 637.0
FP 213,605 27.0 42.2 1.563 98 114 157 370 10
2
0.034 0.331 321.3
GV 99,997 61.1 6.7 0.109 70 81 104 113 10
2
0.061 0.005 15.0
GC 93,042 55.9 4.8 0.085 62 70 87 95 10
2
0.049 0.012 12.6
PC 99,993 18.5 2.1 0.114 21 25 32 36 10
2
0.062 0.001 15.0
ML 10
2
0.062 0.000 15.0
MI
10
2
0.062 0.010 15.0
Tail analysis of the annual
extreme ice load effect
MYI
0.5/10ths
Annual extreme sample values
MYI
3.0/10ths
Beaufort
Sea
Sakhalin FYR
Barents
Sea
FYR
Caspian
Sea
FYL
Table 10: Tail analysis of iceberg action effects (data and Qdistribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
*
Location Ice type Structure [  ] [MN] [MN] [  ] [MN] [MN] [MN] [MN] [  ] [  ] [  ] [1/year]
FV 500,000 11.0 29.8 2.721 26 122 891 2150 10
4
0.394 0.375 0.0067
FP 500,000 12.7 32.7 2.581 30 134 881 2565 10
4
0.370 0.349 0.0044
GV 250,000 15.2 30.8 2.029 35 136 756 1409 10
4
0.333 0.307 0.1263
FP 500,000 15.0 33.5 2.231 35 140 897 2187 10
4
0.368 0.348 0.0839
GV 5,000,000 9.5 23.8 2.511 23 101 606 2867 10
4
0.347 0.320 4.69
FP 5,000,000 9.7 25.5 2.637 23 105 675 3335 10
4
0.362 0.338 2.96
Labrador IB
Icebergs: Sample values (per impact) Tail analysis (per impact)
IB
Barents
Sea
* for annual extreme
Grand
Banks
IB
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
30
anchoring points (either 10
2
or 10
4
), the tail slope S and the tail heaviness H.
Also mentioned is the reference value of the mean number of action events per
year discussed in Section 7.1, Table 8. Note that in Table 9 all values apply to the
annual extreme ice action effect while in Table 10 they apply to the action given
an impacting iceberg. The values of S and H are also summarized in Table 11 to
provide a clearer contrast between the different zones and structures (the
footnotes are self explanatory).
Appendix B is an extensive case by case representation of ice action effects per
zone and per region. Light tails and heavy tails (depending on the case) can be
observed. It can also be seen that the tail slope S varies considerably. However,
there are certain commonalities. In order to detect them we consider three sets of
figures:
annual extreme ice actions classified per type of structure: Figures 5
10.
all icebergstructure interaction loads for all regions (per impact):
Figure 11.
annual extreme ice actions classified per region for each of the 5 non
iceberg regions: Figures 1216.
In browsing these figures and Table 11 it is important to keep in mind that S and
H are directly related to the minimum required action factor as explained in
Section A.3. In general, the steeper a tail dips (small S), the smaller . Also, the
greater the upward curvature of the tail (the larger H), the greater .
It is useful to contrast the above ice action tails (as represented by their respective
Qdistributions with specific tail parameters S and H) with tails of the annual
extreme environmental actions associated with continuous processes such as
waves and winds. This is shown in Figure 17 where ice actions I are contrasted
with wave/wind/current extreme actions E in the same tail plot. Bracketing
values of
E
are shown in the legend. It can be seen that some zones/structures
should require larger action factors than the environmental action factor
E
while
others need smaller action factors.
31
Table 9: Tail analysis of ice action effects (data and Qdistribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
Location Ice type Structure [  ] [MN] [MN] [  ] [MN] [MN] [MN] [MN] [  ] [  ] [  ] [1/year]
GV 23,940 612.8 105.5 0.172 751 938 1394 1441 10
2
0.087 0.030 697.0
GC 10,000 395.2 106.5 0.269 528 767 1602 1602 10
2
0.157 0.141 697.0
FP 26,241 402.1 67.9 0.169 490 613 903 925 10
2
0.090 0.047 589.0
PC 28,037 213.5 37.0 0.173 262 329 486 496 10
2
0.090 0.030 524.0
MI 10
2
0.100 0.030 700.0
GV 26,978 760.3 106.3 0.140 899 1100 1453 1664 10
2
0.081 0.008 4183.0
GC 10,000 547.2 131.2 0.240 711 1011 1654 1654 10
2
0.137 0.047 4184.0
GV 30,000 286.0 13.3 0.046 304 321 343 347 10
2
0.019 0.145 7588.0
GC 30,000 140.1 14.1 0.101 159 183 232 242 10
2
0.055 0.000 7588.0
FP 30,000 163.3 5.3 0.032 169 182 210 218 10
2
0.032 0.061 4742.0
PC 30,000 67.6 3.6 0.053 72 81 107 111 10
2
0.059 0.157 2822.0
ML
10
2
0.030 0.000 4000.0
FV 40,000 42.6 67.8 1.591 157 199 264 309 10
2
0.057 0.092 654.0
FC 40,000 16.8 27.0 1.606 61 85 186 238 10
2
0.144 0.156 637.0
FP 213,605 27.0 42.2 1.563 98 114 157 370 10
2
0.034 0.331 321.3
GV 99,997 61.1 6.7 0.109 70 81 104 113 10
2
0.061 0.005 15.0
GC 93,042 55.9 4.8 0.085 62 70 87 95 10
2
0.049 0.012 12.6
PC 99,993 18.5 2.1 0.114 21 25 32 36 10
2
0.062 0.001 15.0
ML 10
2
0.062 0.000 15.0
MI
10
2
0.062 0.010 15.0
Tail analysis of the annual
extreme ice load effect
MYI
0.5/10ths
Annual extreme sample values
MYI
3.0/10ths
Beaufort
Sea
Sakhalin FYR
Barents
Sea
FYR
Caspian
Sea
FYL
Table 10: Tail analysis of iceberg action effects (data and Qdistribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
*
Location Ice type Structure [  ] [MN] [MN] [  ] [MN] [MN] [MN] [MN] [  ] [  ] [  ] [1/year]
FV 500,000 11.0 29.8 2.721 26 122 891 2150 10
4
0.394 0.375 0.0067
FP 500,000 12.7 32.7 2.581 30 134 881 2565 10
4
0.370 0.349 0.0044
GV 250,000 15.2 30.8 2.029 35 136 756 1409 10
4
0.333 0.307 0.1263
FP 500,000 15.0 33.5 2.231 35 140 897 2187 10
4
0.368 0.348 0.0839
GV 5,000,000 9.5 23.8 2.511 23 101 606 2867 10
4
0.347 0.320 4.69
FP 5,000,000 9.7 25.5 2.637 23 105 675 3335 10
4
0.362 0.338 2.96
Labrador IB
Icebergs: Sample values (per impact) Tail analysis (per impact)
IB
Barents
Sea
* for annual extreme
Grand
Banks
IB
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
32
Table 11 Extreme ice load probability distributions: tail slope and tail heaviness factors
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environ
ment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi
Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI
0.5
0.087 0.157 0.090 0.090 0.100
0.030 0.141 0.047 0.030 0.030
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi
Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI
3.0
0.081 0.137
0.008 0.047
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 0.019 0.055 0.032 0.059 0.030
0.145 0.000 0.061 0.157 0.000
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 0.057 0.144 0.034
0.092 0.156 0.331
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 0.061 0.049 0.062 0.062 0.062
0.005 0.012 0.001 0.000 0.010
Barents Sea
IB 0.394 0.370
0.375 0.349
Grand Banks
IB 0.333 0.368
0.307 0.348
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 0.347 0.362
0.320 0.338
Note:
Tail slope (TS) factors and tail heaviness (TH) factors are based on a tailequivalent generalized Pareto
distribution (Qdistrbution).
In the above rows the first values in red is TS and the second value in blue is TH.
TS is an average measure of slope of the upper tail quantiles.
TH is a measure of tail heaviness:
TH > 0 signifies heavy tail behaviour
TH < 0 signifies light tail behaviour
TH 0 signifies Gumbel extreme value type behaviour
33
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 GV
Beauf ort Sea MYI 3.0 GV
Sakhalin Island FYRGV
Caspian Sea FYL GV
Figure 5: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: vertically sided GBS.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort MYI 0.5 GC
Beauf ort MYI 3.0 GC
Sakhalin Island FYRGC
Caspian Sea FYL GC
Figure 6: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: conically sided GBS.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort MYI 0.5 FP
Sakhalin Island FYRFP
Barents Sea FYRFP
Figure 7: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: floating production storage offloading unit.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
32
Table 11 Extreme ice load probability distributions: tail slope and tail heaviness factors
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environ
ment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi
Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI
0.5
0.087 0.157 0.090 0.090 0.100
0.030 0.141 0.047 0.030 0.030
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Northern Chukchi
Sea
Arctic Islands
MYI
3.0
0.081 0.137
0.008 0.047
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 0.019 0.055 0.032 0.059 0.030
0.145 0.000 0.061 0.157 0.000
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 0.057 0.144 0.034
0.092 0.156 0.331
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Bay
FYL 0.061 0.049 0.062 0.062 0.062
0.005 0.012 0.001 0.000 0.010
Barents Sea
IB 0.394 0.370
0.375 0.349
Grand Banks
IB 0.333 0.368
0.307 0.348
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB 0.347 0.362
0.320 0.338
Note:
Tail slope (TS) factors and tail heaviness (TH) factors are based on a tailequivalent generalized Pareto
distribution (Qdistrbution).
In the above rows the first values in red is TS and the second value in blue is TH.
TS is an average measure of slope of the upper tail quantiles.
TH is a measure of tail heaviness:
TH > 0 signifies heavy tail behaviour
TH < 0 signifies light tail behaviour
TH 0 signifies Gumbel extreme value type behaviour
33
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 GV
Beauf ort Sea MYI 3.0 GV
Sakhalin Island FYRGV
Caspian Sea FYL GV
Figure 5: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: vertically sided GBS.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort MYI 0.5 GC
Beauf ort MYI 3.0 GC
Sakhalin Island FYRGC
Caspian Sea FYL GC
Figure 6: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: conically sided GBS.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort MYI 0.5 FP
Sakhalin Island FYRFP
Barents Sea FYRFP
Figure 7: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: floating production storage offloading unit.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
34
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 PC
Sakhalin Island FYRPC
Caspian Sea FYL PC
Figure 8: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: single vertical piled column.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sakhalin Island FYRML
Caspian Sea FYL ML
Figure 9: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: multilegged structure.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 MI
Caspian Sea FYL MI
Figure 10: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: manmade island.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
34
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 PC
Sakhalin Island FYRPC
Caspian Sea FYL PC
Figure 8: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: single vertical piled column.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sakhalin Island FYRML
Caspian Sea FYL ML
Figure 9: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: multilegged structure.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beauf ort Sea MYI 0.5 MI
Caspian Sea FYL MI
Figure 10: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to type of
structure: manmade island.
35
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Barents Sea IB FV
Barents Sea IB FP
Grand Banks IB GV
Grand Banks IB FP
Labrador IB GV
Labrador IB FP
Figure 11: Icebergstructure interaction loads (per impact) for all regions.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beaufort MYI 0.5 GV
Beaufort MYI 0.5 GC
Beaufort MYI 0.5 FP
Beaufort MYI 0.5 PC
Beaufort MYI 0.5 MI
Figure 12: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Beaufort Sea MYI 0.5.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beaufort MYI 3.0 GV
Beaufort MYI 3.0 GC
Figure 13: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Beaufort Sea MYI 3.0.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
36
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sakhalin Island FYR GV
Sakhalin Island FYR GC
Sakhalin Island FYR FP
Sakhalin Island FYR PC
Sakhalin Island FYR ML
Figure 14: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Sakhalin Island FYR.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Barents Sea FYR FV
Barents Sea FYR FC
Barents Sea FYR FP
Figure 15: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Barents Sea FYR.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Caspian Sea FYL GV
Caspian Sea FYL GC
Caspian Sea FYL FP
Caspian Sea FYL ML
Caspian Sea FYL MI
Figure 16: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Caspian Sea FYL.
37
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beaufort Sea MYI 0.5 GC
Sakhalin Island FYR GC
Barents Sea FYR FP
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.2
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.3
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.4
Figure 17: Comparison of (, L*) tail plots: ice actions compared with other
continuous environmental processes such as waves, winds, currents. The COV
values in the legend refer to the annual extreme COV associated with
wave/winds/currents which is specific with regards to metocean conditions and
type of structure.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
36
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sakhalin Island FYR GV
Sakhalin Island FYR GC
Sakhalin Island FYR FP
Sakhalin Island FYR PC
Sakhalin Island FYR ML
Figure 14: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Sakhalin Island FYR.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Barents Sea FYR FV
Barents Sea FYR FC
Barents Sea FYR FP
Figure 15: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Barents Sea FYR.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.E+00
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Caspian Sea FYL GV
Caspian Sea FYL GC
Caspian Sea FYL FP
Caspian Sea FYL ML
Caspian Sea FYL MI
Figure 16: Annual extreme ice load tail plots: classification according to region
and type of ice: Caspian Sea FYL.
37
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Beaufort Sea MYI 0.5 GC
Sakhalin Island FYR GC
Barents Sea FYR FP
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.2
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.3
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.4
Figure 17: Comparison of (, L*) tail plots: ice actions compared with other
continuous environmental processes such as waves, winds, currents. The COV
values in the legend refer to the annual extreme COV associated with
wave/winds/currents which is specific with regards to metocean conditions and
type of structure.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
38
7.3 Ice Action Model Uncertainties
This section focuses on model and epistemic uncertainties associated with ice
action and ice action effects. Resistance model uncertainties are discussed in
Section 6.1 and are included in the probabilistic modeling of resistance. Wave,
wind and current action uncertainties are discussed in Section 6.5 and are
included in the probabilistic characterization of environmental action processes
discussed in that section.
The present section applies to ice actions. Clearly, the calibration must account
for ice action model uncertainties including:
statistical uncertainties such as caused by lack or absence of
environmental and ice data
statistical uncertainties due to choice of probability distributions
assumptions and simplifications related to the physical environment
ice action model unverified assumptions
ice action model simplifications
ice/structure/soil interaction uncertainties
ice action to ice action effect uncertainties
uncertainties related to global/local ice action spatial effects
uncertainties related to temporal effects (e.g. occurrence of peak load
during an interaction)
Many aspects of load modeling can be uncertain including basic assumptions,
incomplete or simplified mathematical/mechanical models, idealizations and the
use of insufficiently tested or calibrated variables. A typical example is the
assumption of an ice pressure versus area relationship for a specific structure at a
specific site an assumption which in principle can only be verified by a
dedicated series of fullscale ice load measurements. While it is generally agreed
that these uncertainties must be accounted for in the formulation of design
criteria and, by extension, in the calibration of action factors, good practice is for
the designeranalyst to adopt a cautious deterministic approach using
appropriately conservative assumption (Jordaan, 2009). In other words, we
should expect users to act responsibly and professionally in selecting load models
that have significant impact on the environmental design actions.
Another key aspect of action uncertainty analysis is that one must respect and
account for the proper hierarchy of uncertainties (Maes, 1991, Nessim et al.,
1995, Nishijima et al., 2008). While aleatory uncertainties may or may not vary
from load event to load event (depending on their spatial and temporal context)
the model uncertainties in the loading models supersedes these uncertainties as
39
shown schematically in the hierarchy of Figure 17bis. It can be seen that the
individual loading events, while conditionally independent given model
uncertainty, are in fact correlated due to the shared upperlevel model
uncertainty. Incorrectly including the toplevel uncertainties in the lowerlevel
uncertainties or vice versa, clearly affects extreme values and distribution tails,
characteristic values, return periods, design criteria, and any attempt at optimal
decision making as shown quantitatively in Maes, 1991, Nessim et al., 1995 and
Nishijima et al., 2008.
Figure 17bis: Hierarchy of load and load model uncertainties.
As it is impossible to deal specifically with the large variety of ice action effect
models, it is assumed that all aleatory uncertainties are properly accounted for in
the ice action probability distributions (specifically in this case, the CCORE ice
action samples). The model/epistemic uncertainties are added as per Figure 17
bis using the values given below.
It should be stressed that a considerable reduction in model/epistemic
uncertainties can be expected for sitespecific, metoceanspecific, and structure
specific conditions where the different uncertainties can be clearly identified,
resulting in better (optimized) customtailored action factors.
Ice action model uncertainty is included in the present study by adjusting the
(S, H) parameters in the Qdistributions as shown in Appendix A, section A.7.
The case of zero additional model uncertainty
Eji
companion action factor when environmental action j acts as a companion to
the principal extremelevel action i
E
E
= EL
i
+
Eji
EL
j
ALS
E
A
representative value of the total abnormallevel environmental action
AL
i
representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action i
EL
j
representative value of the extremelevel environmental action j
Aji
companion action factor when environmental action j acts as a companion to
the principal abnormallevel action i
E
A
= AL
i
+
Aji
EL
j
53
Table 14 Various types of companion action factors
EL
i
principal
action i
EL
j
individual
companion
actions j
ULS
applicable companion
action factor
Eji
in Table 7
ALS
applicable companion
action factor
Aji
in Table 7
WA WI, CW, IW
ED
AD
WA CO, IL, SW
EI
AI
SW WA, WI, CW, CO, IL
EI

WI WA, CW, IH, IL, IW
ED
AD
WI SW, CO
EI
AI
CO IL
ED

CO WA, SW, WI
EI

IH WI, CW, CO
ED
AD
IL WI, CW, CO
ED
AD
IL WA, SW
EI
AI
IW WI, WA, CW
ED

ID WI, CW, WA 
AD
ID CO, SW 
AI
WA
WI
CW
CO
SW
IH
IL
IW
ID
EI
ED
AD
AI
Actions:
wave actions
wind actions
current action (winddriven)
current action (other, such as tidal, deepwater)
swell
sea ice actions (high concentration 8/10)
sea ice actions (low concentration 8/10)
ice actions which increase as a result of increasing wave actions
large discrete ice feature actions, large iceberg actions
Companion action factors:
companion action factor for two independent or very weakly correlated continuous
environmental processes
companion action factor for two strongly dependent or correlated continuous environmental
processes
companion action factor involving a discrete principal process and a continuous companion
environmental process which can be treated as independent
companion action factor involving a discrete principal process and a continuous companion
environmental process which are assumed to be strongly dependent
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
52
Table 13 Companion environmental actions
+ denotes a (symbolic) combination of action effects
ULS
E
E
representative value of the total extremelevel environmental action (before
applying the action factor)
EL
i
representative value of the extremelevel environmental action i
Eji
companion action factor when environmental action j acts as a companion to
the principal extremelevel action i
E
E
= EL
i
+
Eji
EL
j
ALS
E
A
representative value of the total abnormallevel environmental action
AL
i
representative value of the abnormallevel environmental action i
EL
j
representative value of the extremelevel environmental action j
Aji
companion action factor when environmental action j acts as a companion to
the principal abnormallevel action i
E
A
= AL
i
+
Aji
EL
j
53
Table 14 Various types of companion action factors
EL
i
principal
action i
EL
j
individual
companion
actions j
ULS
applicable companion
action factor
Eji
in Table 7
ALS
applicable companion
action factor
Aji
in Table 7
WA WI, CW, IW
ED
AD
WA CO, IL, SW
EI
AI
SW WA, WI, CW, CO, IL
EI

WI WA, CW, IH, IL, IW
ED
AD
WI SW, CO
EI
AI
CO IL
ED

CO WA, SW, WI
EI

IH WI, CW, CO
ED
AD
IL WI, CW, CO
ED
AD
IL WA, SW
EI
AI
IW WI, WA, CW
ED

ID WI, CW, WA 
AD
ID CO, SW 
AI
WA
WI
CW
CO
SW
IH
IL
IW
ID
EI
ED
AD
AI
Actions:
wave actions
wind actions
current action (winddriven)
current action (other, such as tidal, deepwater)
swell
sea ice actions (high concentration 8/10)
sea ice actions (low concentration 8/10)
ice actions which increase as a result of increasing wave actions
large discrete ice feature actions, large iceberg actions
Companion action factors:
companion action factor for two independent or very weakly correlated continuous
environmental processes
companion action factor for two strongly dependent or correlated continuous environmental
processes
companion action factor involving a discrete principal process and a continuous companion
environmental process which can be treated as independent
companion action factor involving a discrete principal process and a continuous companion
environmental process which are assumed to be strongly dependent
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
54
Table 15 Overview of calibrated environmental/ice action factors and AL exceedance probabilities
for exposure level L1
(valid for both Set I and Set II)
principal environmental action factor
E
1.35
companion environmental action factor
EC
0.70
AL environmental annual exceedance probability P
E
10
4
principal ice action factor
I
(a) calibration per region and per structure type from 1.20 to 1.55, as per Table 12
(b) calibration per region from 1.20 to 1.55, as per Table 12
(c) all ice 1.30
exception conically sided structures 1.55
(d) ice is included in all environmental actions 1.35
AL ice annual exceedance probability 10
3.8
companion factor
EI
(Tables 13, 14) 0.60
companion factor
ED
(Tables 13, 14) 0.85
companion factor
AI
(Tables 13, 14) 0.35
companion factor
AD
(Tables 13, 14) 0.45
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
54
Table 15 Overview of calibrated environmental/ice action factors and AL exceedance probabilities
for exposure level L1
(valid for both Set I and Set II)
principal environmental action factor
E
1.35
companion environmental action factor
EC
0.70
AL environmental annual exceedance probability P
E
10
4
principal ice action factor
I
(a) calibration per region and per structure type from 1.20 to 1.55, as per Table 12
(b) calibration per region from 1.20 to 1.55, as per Table 12
(c) all ice 1.30
exception conically sided structures 1.55
(d) ice is included in all environmental actions 1.35
AL ice annual exceedance probability 10
3.8
companion factor
EI
(Tables 13, 14) 0.60
companion factor
ED
(Tables 13, 14) 0.85
companion factor
AI
(Tables 13, 14) 0.35
companion factor
AD
(Tables 13, 14) 0.45
55
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Action effect ratio
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
companion action f actor = 0.5
companion action f actor = 0.6
companion action f actor = 0.7
10
5
10
6
10
4
10
7
10
3
Figure 29: Combination of two independent environmental action processes
A and B (both np = 365 days, nR = 365/3), using max [E(EA+EB), E(EA+EB)]
where E = 1.35.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Action effect ratio
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
companion action f actor = 0.5
companion action f actor = 0.6
companion action f actor = 0.7
10
5
10
6
10
4
10
7
10
3
Figure 30: Combination of an environmental action process A (np = 365 days,
nR = 365/3) and an independent Beaufort Sea region ice action process B (np =
100 days, nR = 30), using max [E(EA+EB), I(EA+EB)] where E = 1.35 and I =
1.30. The action effect ratio =1 for pure A and =0 for pure B.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Action effect ratio
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
companion action f actor = 0.5
companion action f actor = 0.6
companion action f actor = 0.7
10
5
10
6
10
4
10
7
10
3
Figure 31: Combination of an environmental action process A (np = 365 days,
nR = 365/3) and an independent Caspian Sea region ice action process B (np =
30 days, nR = 30), using max [E(EA+EB), I(EA+EB)] where E = 1.35 and I =
1.25. The action effect ratio =1 for pure A and =0 for pure B.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
56
Exposure Levels L2 and L3
Exposure levels L2 and L3 are associated with different levels of target reliability
and different upper bound failure probabilities as discussed in section 5. This is
the only difference in the calibration process outlined in the preceding sections.
The representative values of all actions remain the same and it is only the
unknown set of control parameters defined in section 5 that will be different as
a result of a new optimization using the L2 and L3 risk targets.
As an example, we considered the action factors in Set II (only). This is because
their permanent and variable action factors are already available for the socalled
SafetyClass II in CSAS471. No such factors are available for Set I based on
ISO 19902. As a complete calibration against L2 and L3 targets was not included
in the scope of the present work, we examined and verified only the following
specific aspects of the calibration:
1. the principal environmental action factor (all loads) for L2 and L3
2. the region and structurespecific principal ice action factors for L2 and
L3 only for Beaufort Sea multiyear ice 0.5 and 3.0 tenths conditions
(these represent 40% of the total calibration weight and also they resulted
in the largest L1 action factors, so that the present analysis for L2 and L3
should be conservative)
3. an overall weighted regionspecific principal ice action factor for all
Beaufort Sea conditions (L2 and L3)
4. the specified exceedance probabilities for abnormal level ice loads for
class L2. (Note that L3 does not consider abnormal actions.)
The results are shown in Tables 16 and 17. We observe that the principal ice
action factors and the principal environmental action factors converge to the
same (decreased) values. This is due to the fact that most of the failure
probability now accumulates in an area that is much closer to the representative
value of the actions (which remains at the 1% annual exceedance level).
Therefore the effect of tail slope S weakens considerably with respect to L1 (see
also Section 7.2).
It can also be seen that the action factor for conically sided structures which for
L1 was considerably greater than for all other types of structures (1.55 versus
1.30) also tends to converge to the value for the other types of structures. Table
17 shows that it is 1.20 (versus 1.10) and Table 18 shows no further difference
between vertically and conically sided structures (1.10 for all). The reason for
this is exactly the same as in the preceding paragraph. The tail effect disappears
gradually. Note that environmental companion factors for L2 and L3 remain
approximately the same as for L1 (see Section 9).
10
57
Table 16 Calibrated principal extremelevel ice action factors and abnormallevel annual exceedance
probabilities for exposure level L2 (Beaufort Sea and icebergs only)
MYI 0.5 multiyear ice: 0.5 tenths
MYI 3.0 multiyear ice: 3.0 tenths
FYR firstyear ridges
FYL firstyear level ice
IB icebergs
GV vertically sided GBS
GC conically sided GBS
FV vertically sided floater
FC conically sided floater
FP floating production storage offloading unit
PC single vertical piled column
ML multilegged structure
MI manmade island
Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
GV GC FV FC FP PC ML MI
Beaufort Sea
Southern Chukchi Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.10
x F
x G
x
(A1)
This means that, asymptotically, the relative error of approximating the small
exceedance probability 1 F(x) by 1 G(x) approaches zero as x increases. The
idea is now to replace G(x) in (A1) by the empirical distribution function
associated with a data set and to fit it to a suitable family of tail distributions
F(x) such that tailequivalence exists between the two.
The most effective choice for a flexible set of tail models with distribution F(x) is
the socalled Quantile Anchored Generalized Pareto distribution or Q
distribution. Details of this tail model can e.g. be found in Maes (1995), Maes and
Breitung (1993), and Maes (2003). The essential steps of the Qdistribution
technique are reproduced here in order to allow investigation and analysis for
arbitrary extreme load data sets.
Consider an ordered data set x of n (load) values x
1
x
2
x
n
. Define the L
x
*
function of a random variable X as the logarithm of the exceedance probability:
)) ( 1 ln( ) (
*
x F x L
x x
= (A2)
where F
x
(x) is the cumulative distribution function. L
x
*
is therefore a negative
valued function that can only decrease. Its negative L = L
*
is commonly used
by statisticians and has the advantage that it is positive and increasing but
engineers are more familiar with and better served by an L
*
versus x plot.
A
63
Step one is the anchoring of the data: assign an equal weight of 1/(n+1) to each x
i
in the data set and select and compute the empirical qquantile x
q
of the tail of
interest, where q is a selected exceedance probability for this quantile. For
instance in a data set of 10,000 simulated load data for which we wish to
construct a right (upper) tail model we can consider q to be 10
2
and therefore x
q
will be the 9900
th
value in the ordered set x. If the data set is smaller, then q can
be 10
1
or any other value. Note that, if needed, the anchor can be changed
subsequently once the tailmodel has been fitted.
Step two is to transform the anchored data set x into a nondimensional data set
using the transformation:
q
q
x
x x
x
=
(A3)
so that = 0 has an exceedance probability of q. Subsequently, determine and
plot the empirical L
*
() function of the data set which results in n data points (
i
,
L
i
*
) where
)
1
1 ln( ) (
*
+
=
n
i
L
i i
(A4)
Now, as described in the above references, this (upper) L
*
 plot amplifies the
upper tail of the probability distribution in a way that is entirely consistent with
the principle of tail equivalence (A1) because vertical distances L
*
in the (, L
*
)
plot correspond to the required relative errors in the exceedance probability:
F
F
F
F
F L
= =
1
) 1 (
1
) 1 (ln(
*
(A5)
and these are precisely the errors involved in achieving tail equivalence between
two distributions based on (A1). This is shown in Figure A1.
0 0.1 +0.1
ln q
q
q
x
x x
=
H
S
L*
L*
Figure A1: Typical (, L
*
) tail plot showing tailequivalence between a data
based empirical distribution function (shown by dots) and a Qdistribution
function.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
62
Appendix A:
Probabilistic Tail Models for Action Effects
A.1 The concept of tail equivalence and the Qdistribution
Risk analysis, reliabilitybased design and code calibration share the fact that they
are critically dependent on the modeling of extreme events having very small
probabilities of occurrence. The quality of the analysis depends entirely on how
well and how careful we manage to model lowprobability events that are
unlikely to have been observed in the past. An essential tool in dealing with what
may otherwise appear to be a shaky extrapolation into the unknown, is the use of
probability distributions specifically dedicated to tails and extremes as opposed to
traditional models that are mostly focused on representing the central or normal
behaviour of a population.
A key concept in tail modeling is that of tail equivalence. It provides a criterion
for the quality of approximating a distribution function F by another distribution
G in its tail region. If we consider two distribution functions F(x) and G(x), these
distribution functions are called tail equivalent (at the right) if
1
) ( 1
) ( 1
lim =
x F
x G
x
(A1)
This means that, asymptotically, the relative error of approximating the small
exceedance probability 1 F(x) by 1 G(x) approaches zero as x increases. The
idea is now to replace G(x) in (A1) by the empirical distribution function
associated with a data set and to fit it to a suitable family of tail distributions
F(x) such that tailequivalence exists between the two.
The most effective choice for a flexible set of tail models with distribution F(x) is
the socalled Quantile Anchored Generalized Pareto distribution or Q
distribution. Details of this tail model can e.g. be found in Maes (1995), Maes and
Breitung (1993), and Maes (2003). The essential steps of the Qdistribution
technique are reproduced here in order to allow investigation and analysis for
arbitrary extreme load data sets.
Consider an ordered data set x of n (load) values x
1
x
2
x
n
. Define the L
x
*
function of a random variable X as the logarithm of the exceedance probability:
)) ( 1 ln( ) (
*
x F x L
x x
= (A2)
where F
x
(x) is the cumulative distribution function. L
x
*
is therefore a negative
valued function that can only decrease. Its negative L = L
*
is commonly used
by statisticians and has the advantage that it is positive and increasing but
engineers are more familiar with and better served by an L
*
versus x plot.
A
63
Step one is the anchoring of the data: assign an equal weight of 1/(n+1) to each x
i
in the data set and select and compute the empirical qquantile x
q
of the tail of
interest, where q is a selected exceedance probability for this quantile. For
instance in a data set of 10,000 simulated load data for which we wish to
construct a right (upper) tail model we can consider q to be 10
2
and therefore x
q
will be the 9900
th
value in the ordered set x. If the data set is smaller, then q can
be 10
1
or any other value. Note that, if needed, the anchor can be changed
subsequently once the tailmodel has been fitted.
Step two is to transform the anchored data set x into a nondimensional data set
using the transformation:
q
q
x
x x
x
=
(A3)
so that = 0 has an exceedance probability of q. Subsequently, determine and
plot the empirical L
*
() function of the data set which results in n data points (
i
,
L
i
*
) where
)
1
1 ln( ) (
*
+
=
n
i
L
i i
(A4)
Now, as described in the above references, this (upper) L
*
 plot amplifies the
upper tail of the probability distribution in a way that is entirely consistent with
the principle of tail equivalence (A1) because vertical distances L
*
in the (, L
*
)
plot correspond to the required relative errors in the exceedance probability:
F
F
F
F
F L
= =
1
) 1 (
1
) 1 (ln(
*
(A5)
and these are precisely the errors involved in achieving tail equivalence between
two distributions based on (A1). This is shown in Figure A1.
0 0.1 +0.1
ln q
q
q
x
x x
=
H
S
L*
L*
Figure A1: Typical (, L
*
) tail plot showing tailequivalence between a data
based empirical distribution function (shown by dots) and a Qdistribution
function.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
64
A.2 The two tail parameters S and H
The family of quantile anchored generalized Pareto distributions (Qdistributions)
has the following cumulative distribution function F
Q
() for the transformed
variable :
= 
.

\


.

\

+
=
) 0 ( exp 1
) 0 ( 1 1
) , ,  (
/ 1
Q
H
S
q
H
S
H
q
H S q F
H
(A6)
having the following L
*
function (A2):
=

.

\

+
=
) 0 ( ln
) 0 ( 1 ln
1
ln
) , ,  ( Q
*
H
S
q
H
S
H
H
q
H S q L
(A7)
where q is the selected anchor point and S and H are two fundamental non
dimensional tail parameters which play a role similar to the first two central
moments (the mean and the variance) when the central part of a data set is
modeled. S is the (nondimensional) tail slope at the anchor q, defined as
0
*
) / (
1
=
d dL
S
(A8)
which is the negative of the tangent of the angle shown in Figure A1. H is the so
called tail heaviness (Boos, 1984; Maes, 1995) and is a direct measure of the
curvature of the L
*
function:
2 2 *
2 * 2
1 ' ) 1 (
) / (
/
f
f F
d dL
d L d
H
= =
(A9)
where f and f denote the PDF and its first derivative.
It can now be checked that the Qdistribution has a constant tail heaviness H for
any value of . In fact it is the only type of distribution to possess this property.
It can also be seen from (A7) that a zero tail heaviness (H=0) corresponds to a
straight line with slope 1/S in the (, L
*
) plot. Small positive or negative H
values will cause this function to become slightly concave (heavy tail) or convex
(light tails suggestive of upper bounds), respectively. As shown in Figure A2, the
parameters S and H fully characterize the critical behaviour of tails and extremes.
In order to fit a Qdistribution to the empirical L
*
(
i
) function associated with a
specific data set x, it suffices to minimize the following sum of tailweighted
square errors SSE with respect to H and S:
65
( )
=
=
n
i
i i i
H S q L L S H
1
2
*
Q
*
) , ,  ( ) ( ) , ( SSE (A10)
where L
i
*
is given by (A4) and
*
Q
L by (A7). Parameter uncertainty on S and H
can be taken into account by standard likelihood methods as described in Maes
and Breitung (1993).
S
3
< S
2
< S
1
L*
S
3
S
2
S
1
L*
H
1
>0
H
3
<0
H
2
=0
(a) same H, different S (b) same S, different H
0 0
q q
Figure A2: Illustration of the effect of the two tail model parameters S and H.
A.3 How S and H are related to action factor calibration
The values of H and S are also very important when it comes to calibration. When
partial action factors are applied to actions having a specified exceedance
probability equal to q, the failure probability is in fact governed by the behaviour
of the (, L
*
) plot just to the right of the anchor point. Therefore, in order to
achieve the same target failure probability;
(a) for given H: the smaller the slope factor S, the smaller the minimum
required action factor
min
. In Figure A2(a) for instance, since S
3
< S
2
< S
1
the corresponding action factors will be ranked as follows:
3
<
2
<
1
.
(b) For given S: the lighter the tail, the smaller the minimum required action
factor
min
. In Figure A2(b) the values H
1
> H
2
=0 > H
3
will result in
1
>
2
>
3
.
The nondimensional representation of probability distribution tails in an (, L
*
)
plot has the benefit that different loads or types of loads may be compared with
respect to differences in their tail behaviour. This is amply illustrated in this
report as far as ice loads are concerned.
A.4 Role of the mean action event occurrence rate
A fair comparison of tails associated with different action effect processes must
be based on a common time reference period. This is usually considered to be one
year so that the load X represents the annual (maximum) load or load effect. For a
discrete stochastic process such as ice loading, the load X arises as the maximum
of an uncertain number N of discrete ice load events. Assuming N to be Poisson
distributed with an average number of load events per year, then the annual
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
64
A.2 The two tail parameters S and H
The family of quantile anchored generalized Pareto distributions (Qdistributions)
has the following cumulative distribution function F
Q
() for the transformed
variable :
= 
.

\


.

\

+
=
) 0 ( exp 1
) 0 ( 1 1
) , ,  (
/ 1
Q
H
S
q
H
S
H
q
H S q F
H
(A6)
having the following L
*
function (A2):
=

.

\

+
=
) 0 ( ln
) 0 ( 1 ln
1
ln
) , ,  ( Q
*
H
S
q
H
S
H
H
q
H S q L
(A7)
where q is the selected anchor point and S and H are two fundamental non
dimensional tail parameters which play a role similar to the first two central
moments (the mean and the variance) when the central part of a data set is
modeled. S is the (nondimensional) tail slope at the anchor q, defined as
0
*
) / (
1
=
d dL
S
(A8)
which is the negative of the tangent of the angle shown in Figure A1. H is the so
called tail heaviness (Boos, 1984; Maes, 1995) and is a direct measure of the
curvature of the L
*
function:
2 2 *
2 * 2
1 ' ) 1 (
) / (
/
f
f F
d dL
d L d
H
= =
(A9)
where f and f denote the PDF and its first derivative.
It can now be checked that the Qdistribution has a constant tail heaviness H for
any value of . In fact it is the only type of distribution to possess this property.
It can also be seen from (A7) that a zero tail heaviness (H=0) corresponds to a
straight line with slope 1/S in the (, L
*
) plot. Small positive or negative H
values will cause this function to become slightly concave (heavy tail) or convex
(light tails suggestive of upper bounds), respectively. As shown in Figure A2, the
parameters S and H fully characterize the critical behaviour of tails and extremes.
In order to fit a Qdistribution to the empirical L
*
(
i
) function associated with a
specific data set x, it suffices to minimize the following sum of tailweighted
square errors SSE with respect to H and S:
65
( )
=
=
n
i
i i i
H S q L L S H
1
2
*
Q
*
) , ,  ( ) ( ) , ( SSE (A10)
where L
i
*
is given by (A4) and
*
Q
L by (A7). Parameter uncertainty on S and H
can be taken into account by standard likelihood methods as described in Maes
and Breitung (1993).
S
3
< S
2
< S
1
L*
S
3
S
2
S
1
L*
H
1
>0
H
3
<0
H
2
=0
(a) same H, different S (b) same S, different H
0 0
q q
Figure A2: Illustration of the effect of the two tail model parameters S and H.
A.3 How S and H are related to action factor calibration
The values of H and S are also very important when it comes to calibration. When
partial action factors are applied to actions having a specified exceedance
probability equal to q, the failure probability is in fact governed by the behaviour
of the (, L
*
) plot just to the right of the anchor point. Therefore, in order to
achieve the same target failure probability;
(a) for given H: the smaller the slope factor S, the smaller the minimum
required action factor
min
. In Figure A2(a) for instance, since S
3
< S
2
< S
1
the corresponding action factors will be ranked as follows:
3
<
2
<
1
.
(b) For given S: the lighter the tail, the smaller the minimum required action
factor
min
. In Figure A2(b) the values H
1
> H
2
=0 > H
3
will result in
1
>
2
>
3
.
The nondimensional representation of probability distribution tails in an (, L
*
)
plot has the benefit that different loads or types of loads may be compared with
respect to differences in their tail behaviour. This is amply illustrated in this
report as far as ice loads are concerned.
A.4 Role of the mean action event occurrence rate
A fair comparison of tails associated with different action effect processes must
be based on a common time reference period. This is usually considered to be one
year so that the load X represents the annual (maximum) load or load effect. For a
discrete stochastic process such as ice loading, the load X arises as the maximum
of an uncertain number N of discrete ice load events. Assuming N to be Poisson
distributed with an average number of load events per year, then the annual
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
66
extreme load distribution F
x
(x) and its L
*
function L
*
(x) are clearly a function of
this mean arrival rate . Now it can easily be verified that changing the value of
to an alternative value
A
a case that could for instance arise from a change in
site or a change of arcticmarine variables would result in the new L
A
*
function
to be shifted parallel upwards by an amount ln( /
A
), the well known logarithmic
shift of extreme values. This is shown in Figure A3.
L*
x
ln(
A
/)
x
q
ln q
x
qA
Figure A3: Shift in the annual extreme L
*
function as a result of changing the
average annual number of encounters from to A.
In the above Qdistribution model, a change from an annual rate to
A
has the
following effect:
1. the anchor changes from the qquantile x
q
to x
qA
, where
= 
.

\

+ =


.

\

(
(

.

\

+ =
) 0 ( ln 1
) 0 ( 1 1
H S x
H
H
S
x
x
A
q
H
A
q
qA
(A11)
because the 1/qyear load is changed;
2. the slope factor S decreases from S to S
A
, where:
=
+
=


.

\

(
(

.

\

+

.

\

=
) 0 (
ln 1
1
) 0 (
1 1
H
S
S
H
H
S
S
S
A
H
A
H
A
A
(A12)
3. the tail heaviness remains unchanged: H
A
=H
4. the resulting updated annual extreme load X
A
continues to have a Q
distribution tail model for the nondimensional load
A
= (x
A
x
qA
)/x
qA
given by F(
A
 q, S
A
, H).
67
A.5 Other quantiles
The exceedance probability of any other extreme action value x
q
where x
q
is the
anchoring quantile and is an action factor greater than 1, can easily be
determined from the distribution function (A6):
= 
.

\


.

\

+
= > = >
) 0 (
) 1 (
exp
) 0 ( ) 1 ( 1
) 1 Pr( ) Pr(
1
H
S
q
H
S
H
q
x X
H
q
(A13)
The above result also allows reanchoring of the Qdistribution in case this is
more convenient for practical reasons, e.g. when the specified annual
representative action is changed from say the 100year action to the 10,000 year
action. It also comes in handy in manipulating expressions for simple limit state
failure probabilities such as P
F
= Pr(X R) =
Pr( > 1  )f()d where =
R/r
d
with R equal to the resistance random variable, r
d
the factored design
resistance and the action factor in the design check equation x
q
r
d
.
A.6 Using the Qdistribution for other environmental action
processes
Not just ice actions but all other types of environmental action effects can be
represented and/or fitted using a Qdistribution tail model. A typical and common
example concerns an environmental action from a continuous stochastic process
such as waves or winds, that has an annual maximum action effect E with a
Gumbel or a double exponential distribution with a coefficient of variation equal
to v
E
. It is then convenient to use the representative 1/q = 100year action effect e
q
as the anchoring quantile for the corresponding Qdistribution formulation
F
Q
(
E
q, S
E
, H
E
) where:
0
ln 577 . 0
6
1
=


.

\

=
E
E
E
q
q
E
H
q
v
S
e
e E
(A14)
This is illustrated in the (, L
*
) plot Figure A4 for q = 0.01 and typical values of
the COV v
E
.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
67
A.5 Other quantiles
The exceedance probability of any other extreme action value x
q
where x
q
is the
anchoring quantile and is an action factor greater than 1, can easily be
determined from the distribution function (A6):
= 
.

\


.

\

+
= > = >
) 0 (
) 1 (
exp
) 0 ( ) 1 ( 1
) 1 Pr( ) Pr(
1
H
S
q
H
S
H
q
x X
H
q
(A13)
The above result also allows reanchoring of the Qdistribution in case this is
more convenient for practical reasons, e.g. when the specified annual
representative action is changed from say the 100year action to the 10,000 year
action. It also comes in handy in manipulating expressions for simple limit state
failure probabilities such as P
F
= Pr(X R) =
Pr( > 1  )f()d where =
R/r
d
with R equal to the resistance random variable, r
d
the factored design
resistance and the action factor in the design check equation x
q
r
d
.
A.6 Using the Qdistribution for other environmental action
processes
Not just ice actions but all other types of environmental action effects can be
represented and/or fitted using a Qdistribution tail model. A typical and common
example concerns an environmental action from a continuous stochastic process
such as waves or winds, that has an annual maximum action effect E with a
Gumbel or a double exponential distribution with a coefficient of variation equal
to v
E
. It is then convenient to use the representative 1/q = 100year action effect e
q
as the anchoring quantile for the corresponding Qdistribution formulation
F
Q
(
E
q, S
E
, H
E
) where:
0
ln 577 . 0
6
1
=


.

\

=
E
E
E
q
q
E
H
q
v
S
e
e E
(A14)
This is illustrated in the (, L
*
) plot Figure A4 for q = 0.01 and typical values of
the COV v
E
.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
68
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
Environmental Action Factor
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.4
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.3
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.2
Figure A4: Comparison of tail models for 3 annual continuous environmental
action processes.
A.7 Accounting for model uncertainties
Another very convenient property of Qdistribution tail models is that they can
easily be adjusted to account for model tail uncertainty. As can be expected the
consideration of additional uncertainty in the slope factor S as shown in Figure
A5 results in an overall heavier tail. To demonstrate this fact, consider the
additional variable in the expression of the Qdistribution pdf f
Q
(q, S/, H)
where is a random variable with mean 1 and COV v
, H
) where the
relationship between the new S
, H
+ =
=
2
2
v H H
Sq S
v
(A15)
This shows that the additional weight on the tail is in fact proportional to the
square of the model uncertainty COV v
2
.
model
uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
model
uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
tail (S,H) before model
uncertainty
tail (S*,H*) including
model uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Figure A5: Illustration of the increase in tail heaviness due to model uncertainty.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
68
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
Environmental Action Factor
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.4
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.3
Annual Environmental Action (nonice) COV = 0.2
Figure A4: Comparison of tail models for 3 annual continuous environmental
action processes.
A.7 Accounting for model uncertainties
Another very convenient property of Qdistribution tail models is that they can
easily be adjusted to account for model tail uncertainty. As can be expected the
consideration of additional uncertainty in the slope factor S as shown in Figure
A5 results in an overall heavier tail. To demonstrate this fact, consider the
additional variable in the expression of the Qdistribution pdf f
Q
(q, S/, H)
where is a random variable with mean 1 and COV v
, H
) where the
relationship between the new S
, H
+ =
=
2
2
v H H
Sq S
v
(A15)
This shows that the additional weight on the tail is in fact proportional to the
square of the model uncertainty COV v
2
.
model
uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
model
uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
tail (S,H) before model
uncertainty
tail (S*,H*) including
model uncertainty
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Load effect
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Figure A5: Illustration of the increase in tail heaviness due to model uncertainty.
69
Appendix B:
Region and Structure Specific Ice Action Effects:
Tail Distributions
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B1: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B2: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, conically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
B
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
70
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B3: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B4: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, single vertical piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B5: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, NE Greenland, Northern Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Islands,
multiyear ice, 3.0 tenths, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
70
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B3: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B4: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, Southern Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, and Laptev
Sea, multiyear ice 0.5 tenths, single vertical piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B5: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, NE Greenland, Northern Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Islands,
multiyear ice, 3.0 tenths, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
71
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B6: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Beaufort Sea, NE Greenland, Northern Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Islands,
multiyear ice, 3.0 tenths, conically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B7: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B8: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
conically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
72
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B9: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B10: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
single vertical piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q =0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B11: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, vertically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
73
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
based on q =0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B12: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, conically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B13: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, floating production storage
offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B14: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, vertically
sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
72
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B9: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B10: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
single vertical piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
based on q =0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B11: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, vertically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
73
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
based on q =0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B12: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, conically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B13: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, floating production storage
offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B14: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, vertically
sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
74
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B15: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, conically
sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B16: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, single vertical
piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B17: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Barents Sea, icebergs, vertically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
75
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B18: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Barents Sea, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B19: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Grand Banks, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B20: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Grand Banks, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
74
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B15: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, conically
sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
based on q=0.01
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B16: (, L*) tail plot of the annual extreme ice action effect for:
Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, single vertical
piled column.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B17: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Barents Sea, icebergs, vertically sided floater.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
75
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B18: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Barents Sea, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B19: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Grand Banks, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B20: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Grand Banks, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
76
1.E07
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
based on q=0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Empirical
Tail model
Figure B21: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Labrador, Baffin bay, and NE Greenland, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
1.E07
1.E06
1.E05
1.E04
1.E03
1.E02
1.E01
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
based on q =0.0001
E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Figure B22: (, L*) tail plot of iceberg ice actions (given impact) for:
Labrador, Baffin bay, and NE Greenland, icebergs, floating production
storage offloading unit.
The S and H values are shown in Table 10.
Empirical
Tail model
77
Appendix C:
Barents Sea Ice Loads Based on Updated CCORE Data
This Appendix is dated October 2, 2009.
On August 17, 2009 CCORE issued a memo to OGPJIP25 (report number R/P
09027654 v. 1.0) which contains 3 new/updated ice load exceedance probability
plots for Barents Sea: FV, FC and FP.
In the calibration based on the original CCORE Barents Sea data, the tails of all
three ice load zones/types were irregular and slightly heavy (more so for FC and
FP). This resulted in a regionwide action factor of 1.45 (see Table 12) for the
Barents/Bering seas.
The new data show a more regular tail behavior having nearly zero tail heaviness
factors (nearGumbel like behavior) which suggests that the region is now close
to Beaufort or even Caspian behavior with respect to extreme ice load
probabilistic behavior.
The new CCORE information does not justify a new overall calibration as (1)
the weight contribution of Barents FV, FC, FP is only 5% of the total weight (see
Table 7), and (2) the decrease in tail heaviness of the Barents types has a positive
effect on the overall calibration. If anything, the recommended overall 1.35 action
factor would show an insignificant decrease, but I would expect that the overall
picture (Table 12) remains largely unaffected. The regionspecific action factors
for Barents Sea FV, FC and FP on the other hand, would decrease to new values
in the range 1.30, 1.25 or 1.20 but a new calibration of this sitespecific region
would have to be performed in order to pinpoint the optimal factor for Barents
Sea structures .
C
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
77
Appendix C:
Barents Sea Ice Loads Based on Updated CCORE Data
This Appendix is dated October 2, 2009.
On August 17, 2009 CCORE issued a memo to OGPJIP25 (report number R/P
09027654 v. 1.0) which contains 3 new/updated ice load exceedance probability
plots for Barents Sea: FV, FC and FP.
In the calibration based on the original CCORE Barents Sea data, the tails of all
three ice load zones/types were irregular and slightly heavy (more so for FC and
FP). This resulted in a regionwide action factor of 1.45 (see Table 12) for the
Barents/Bering seas.
The new data show a more regular tail behavior having nearly zero tail heaviness
factors (nearGumbel like behavior) which suggests that the region is now close
to Beaufort or even Caspian behavior with respect to extreme ice load
probabilistic behavior.
The new CCORE information does not justify a new overall calibration as (1)
the weight contribution of Barents FV, FC, FP is only 5% of the total weight (see
Table 7), and (2) the decrease in tail heaviness of the Barents types has a positive
effect on the overall calibration. If anything, the recommended overall 1.35 action
factor would show an insignificant decrease, but I would expect that the overall
picture (Table 12) remains largely unaffected. The regionspecific action factors
for Barents Sea FV, FC and FP on the other hand, would decrease to new values
in the range 1.30, 1.25 or 1.20 but a new calibration of this sitespecific region
would have to be performed in order to pinpoint the optimal factor for Barents
Sea structures .
C
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
155
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
Annex C
Tails of probability distributions for structures with
sloping and conical vs vertical sides
Tails of probability distributions for structures with sloping and conical vs vertical sides
Report submitted to Technical Panel TP10 by Ian Jordaan and Associates Inc, December 2009
156
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
Tails of Probability
Distributions for Structures
with Sloping and Conical vs.
Vertical Sides
REPORT
Submitted to:
Technical Panel TP10
ISO 19906
By:
Ian Jordaan and Associates Inc.
7 East Middle Battery Road
St. Johns, NL
Canada A1A 1A3
December 11, 2009
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
This page is intentionally left blank
Tails of Probability Distributions for Structures with Sloping
and Conical vs. Vertical Sides
Report
Submitted to:
Technical Panel TP 10
ISO 19906
Submitted by:
Ian Jordaan & Associates
Mark Fuglem, CCORE
Ian Jordaan, Ian Jordaan and Associates
Ken Croasdale, K.R. Croasdale and Associates
Jonathon Bruce, CCORE December 11, 2009
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
This page is intentionally left blank
Tails of Probability Distributions for Structures with Sloping
and Conical vs. Vertical Sides
Report
Submitted to:
Technical Panel TP 10
ISO 19906
Submitted by:
Ian Jordaan & Associates
Mark Fuglem, CCORE
Ian Jordaan, Ian Jordaan and Associates
Ken Croasdale, K.R. Croasdale and Associates
Jonathon Bruce, CCORE December 11, 2009
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Summary
The report is concerned with the question of action factors for sloping and conical
structures, both fixed and floating. In the CCORE (2009) report in which probability
distributions for design loads were simulated, it was found that the probability content of
the tails of the extremal distributions for these kinds of structures was high. This resulted
initially in recommendations of higher action factors for these types of structures for the
ELIE condition (e.g. up to 1.55 for a conical GBS in the Beaufort Sea), as against the
value of 1.35 for other structures.
An indepth investigation has been performed of the simulations and associated data
analyses leading to the tail distributions noted above. This included consideration of
failure models for multiyear ridges, and for failure of first year ice against cones and
sloping structures (including consideration of rubble formation, rideup and keel
interaction in the latter case).
The study has shown for multiyear ridges that the Wang and the beamonelastic
foundation models do result in tails in the extremal probability distribution with high
probability content (fat tails). This has been found to be related to the nature of the
models; it has been found that the loads are proportional to the keel depth to a power of 2
to 2.5. This is to be contrasted with the models for vertical structures, in which the
exponent is of the order of unity. The models are based on plasticity (conservative) or
elasticity assumptions, with no scale effect. In reality, the failure of a large multiyear ice
feature against a cone would result in extensive crushing, which shows a scale effect, as
well as scale effects related to flexural failure.
The effect of size (scale effect) on the flexural strength, associated with brittle failure, has
been reviewed. This is the observed tendency for failure to occur at lower stress
depending on the size of the specimen. Weibull weakestlink theories provide excellent
descriptions of the behaviour and are briefly reviewed. Experimental results have
generally indicated a scale effect. These have been obtained in tests on carefully prepared
beam specimens cut from ice obtained in the field or manufactured in the laboratory.
Specimens made in this way will not reflect the effect of randomness of the morphology
of multiyear ridges in nature. Scale effects for actual field conditions are consequently
expected to be even more significant. The conclusion is that a scale effect related to
fracture processes and flexural failure would be of the order of (dimension)
1
or greater.
It is recognized that almost no full scale data on failure of multiyear ice against sloping
structures are available. Data from level first year ice in the field suggest an exponent
closer to unity of the scale relation, that is, the strength scales according to (thickness)
1
.
The inclusion of a scale effect of this order results in a reduction of the exponent from the
range 2 2.5 noted above, to between 1 and 1.5. This would in effect bring the tail of the
distribution into agreement with the results for vertical structures.
4
The model for first year ice has been checked thoroughly and improvements and
corrections have been made in the investigation reported here. As a result it is found that
the distribution in the tail has a similar form to those for vertical structures.
Based on the present investigation, it is recommended that the load factor of 1.35 be
applied for all structures. This recommendation is made in recognition of the fact that the
input to the calibration for sloping structures should include the scale effect for flexural
failure (fracture).
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
Summary
The report is concerned with the question of action factors for sloping and conical
structures, both fixed and floating. In the CCORE (2009) report in which probability
distributions for design loads were simulated, it was found that the probability content of
the tails of the extremal distributions for these kinds of structures was high. This resulted
initially in recommendations of higher action factors for these types of structures for the
ELIE condition (e.g. up to 1.55 for a conical GBS in the Beaufort Sea), as against the
value of 1.35 for other structures.
An indepth investigation has been performed of the simulations and associated data
analyses leading to the tail distributions noted above. This included consideration of
failure models for multiyear ridges, and for failure of first year ice against cones and
sloping structures (including consideration of rubble formation, rideup and keel
interaction in the latter case).
The study has shown for multiyear ridges that the Wang and the beamonelastic
foundation models do result in tails in the extremal probability distribution with high
probability content (fat tails). This has been found to be related to the nature of the
models; it has been found that the loads are proportional to the keel depth to a power of 2
to 2.5. This is to be contrasted with the models for vertical structures, in which the
exponent is of the order of unity. The models are based on plasticity (conservative) or
elasticity assumptions, with no scale effect. In reality, the failure of a large multiyear ice
feature against a cone would result in extensive crushing, which shows a scale effect, as
well as scale effects related to flexural failure.
The effect of size (scale effect) on the flexural strength, associated with brittle failure, has
been reviewed. This is the observed tendency for failure to occur at lower stress
depending on the size of the specimen. Weibull weakestlink theories provide excellent
descriptions of the behaviour and are briefly reviewed. Experimental results have
generally indicated a scale effect. These have been obtained in tests on carefully prepared
beam specimens cut from ice obtained in the field or manufactured in the laboratory.
Specimens made in this way will not reflect the effect of randomness of the morphology
of multiyear ridges in nature. Scale effects for actual field conditions are consequently
expected to be even more significant. The conclusion is that a scale effect related to
fracture processes and flexural failure would be of the order of (dimension)
1
or greater.
It is recognized that almost no full scale data on failure of multiyear ice against sloping
structures are available. Data from level first year ice in the field suggest an exponent
closer to unity of the scale relation, that is, the strength scales according to (thickness)
1
.
The inclusion of a scale effect of this order results in a reduction of the exponent from the
range 2 2.5 noted above, to between 1 and 1.5. This would in effect bring the tail of the
distribution into agreement with the results for vertical structures.
4
The model for first year ice has been checked thoroughly and improvements and
corrections have been made in the investigation reported here. As a result it is found that
the distribution in the tail has a similar form to those for vertical structures.
Based on the present investigation, it is recommended that the load factor of 1.35 be
applied for all structures. This recommendation is made in recognition of the fact that the
input to the calibration for sloping structures should include the scale effect for flexural
failure (fracture).
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
5
1 Background
In the calibration of ISO 19906 (CCORE, 2009; Maes, 2009), the probability content of
the tails of the extremal distributions for conical and sloping structures was found to be
relatively large (situation B in Figure 1); as compared to the tails for other types of
structures (situation A in Figure 1). This resulted in initial recommendations of higher
action factors for the conical and sloping types of structures for the ELIE condition (e.g.
up to 1.55 for a conical GBS in the Beaufort Sea), as against the value of 1.35 for other
structures. It is noted that Maes (2009) found that action factors less than 1.35 in some
cases.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of different tail behaviour in the extreme
Ice failure is a complex process and in practice it is best to rely on measured data as far as
is possible. The results for vertical sided structures are based on probabilistic analysis of
measured data generally for ice crushing. We are confident that these results capture the
main features of the process.
In the case of multiyear ice acting on structures with sloping and conical faces, there is no
full scale data base. There is very good data for the case of firstyear ice from the
Confederation Bridge and the Kemi 1 lighthouse. These have been used for various
inputs into the modelling but need to be developed further into comprehensive
probabilistic models. To date, we have adopted models accepted in the literature and
these were used in deriving the CCORE inputs for probability distributions of extreme
loads. The models include:
1. Wang model for failure of large multiyear ridges against conical structures
(flexural failure only),
2. Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for failure of large multiyear ridges
against conical structures (flexural failure only), and
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
5
1 Background
In the calibration of ISO 19906 (CCORE, 2009; Maes, 2009), the probability content of
the tails of the extremal distributions for conical and sloping structures was found to be
relatively large (situation B in Figure 1); as compared to the tails for other types of
structures (situation A in Figure 1). This resulted in initial recommendations of higher
action factors for the conical and sloping types of structures for the ELIE condition (e.g.
up to 1.55 for a conical GBS in the Beaufort Sea), as against the value of 1.35 for other
structures. It is noted that Maes (2009) found that action factors less than 1.35 in some
cases.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Maximum Load (MN)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Parent A
Annual maximum A Small tail content
Parent B
Annual maximum B Large tail content
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of different tail behaviour in the extreme
Ice failure is a complex process and in practice it is best to rely on measured data as far as
is possible. The results for vertical sided structures are based on probabilistic analysis of
measured data generally for ice crushing. We are confident that these results capture the
main features of the process.
In the case of multiyear ice acting on structures with sloping and conical faces, there is no
full scale data base. There is very good data for the case of firstyear ice from the
Confederation Bridge and the Kemi 1 lighthouse. These have been used for various
inputs into the modelling but need to be developed further into comprehensive
probabilistic models. To date, we have adopted models accepted in the literature and
these were used in deriving the CCORE inputs for probability distributions of extreme
loads. The models include:
1. Wang model for failure of large multiyear ridges against conical structures
(flexural failure only),
2. Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for failure of large multiyear ridges
against conical structures (flexural failure only), and
6
3. Croasdale rideup model for failure of firstyear ridges interacting with sloped
structures for Sakhalin and Barents Sea.
The CCORE results indicated different tail behaviours in the case of the conical and
sloped structures as compared to vertically sided structures.
Comments on the assumptions involved in these models with regard to multiyear ridge
failure are as follows. The Wang model is based on plasticity theory, with the formation
of three plastic hinges to form a mechanism. Croasdale proposed models based on beam
onelasticfoundation theory, essentially a formulation based on elasticity theory. This is
considered more appropriate than the plasticitybased theory, since ice is an extremely
brittle material, and will fail by fracture rather than the formation of plastic hinges.
In the Croasdale rideup model, the load due to a firstyear ridge on a sloped structure is
considered. There are two main parts to the model: in the first part, the rideup forces
associated with the consolidated portion of the ridge are calculated and in the second part,
local and global plug failure of the unconsolidated keel portion of the ridge are
calculated. The rideup model deals with the force components associated with flexure
failure of the consolidated layer, pushing the layer forward through accumulated rubble,
lifting and shearing rubble, pushing the broken pieces of ice up the slope and turning
blocks of ice at the top of the slope. The plug models deal with shear failure of the
unconsolidated keel, treated as a CoulombMohr material.
2 Review of Scale Effect of Fracture Processes and
Flexural Strength
The present analysis is concentrated on structures placed in the field, since this is the
endpoint under consideration. The use of laboratory data does not cover what is intended.
The key point is that naturally occurring materials contain flaws such as cracks and
inhomogeneities such as grain boundaries. The analysis of data is complicated by the fact
that usually an investigator in the field will choose ice that looks competent; it is rare to
find a series of tests on specimens chosen at random spatially. In particular, laboratory
specimens will generally be manufactured so as to minimize the variations in structure,
and achieve a uniform grain size
Dieter (1986) well outlines the physical situation associated with the scale effect. The
analysis of brittle materials such as glass, ceramics or ice shows variability of results
requiring statistical analysis. As a result, probabilistic modeling is required. Early
manifestations of the scale effect were found in testing different diameters of glass rods.
The strength was found to decrease with diameter; further, if the tested piece was broken
into fragments and the fragments tested, these would in turn yield increased strengths.
A key to the problem is the approach by Weibull and related studies. In this the idea of
the weakestlink is introduced. Elements containing flaws of different size are included
in the analysis and failure follows when the weakest element fails. The results show
statistical variation, and the scale effect results from the fact that larger volumes of
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
7
material have a larger probability of containing a critical flaw (see Jordaan, 2005, for a
summary of the theory). The basic relationship can be written as
,
1
V
Equation 1
where V is the stressed volume and the scaling constant. Length can be considered by
inserting V =
3
in Equation 1 with a revised exponent 3/. If = 3, scaling of
1
results,
or an inverse length scaling.
Experimental results have generally indicated a scale effect. These have been obtained in
tests on carefully prepared beam specimens cut from ice obtained in the field or
manufactured in the laboratory. Specimens made in this way will not reflect the effect of
randomness of the morphology of multiyear ridges in nature. As noted above, carefully
made laboratory specimens will not show a scale effect similar to that found in naturally
formed ice.
For elastic materials, flexural strength would be expected to scale in a similar way to
tensile strength. Sanderson (1988) references small scale tensile tests on ice where tensile
strength scaled inversely with the volume to a power between 1 and 2 (Jellinek, 1958).
A variety of other results, some with higher values of , others with values similar to
those just quoted are found in the literature (Sanderson, 1988).
The importance of the scale effect on tensile strength was recognized by Croasdale and
results of field work by Croasdale and coworkers (personal communication, 2003; see
also Gladwell, 1977) are shown in Figure 2. It is noteworthy that the arctic sea ice was
first year ice of low salinity in the Mackenzie Delta. These results show a significant
scale effect. Bruce (2009) shows based on loads during ship rams with heavy multiyear
ice that flexural strength is significantly less than would be implied by small scale tests.
In reality, failure of a large multiyear ridge on a conical structure will involve significant
crushing to obtain the forces required for flexural failure, and these crushing processes
will also be subject to a scale effect in addition to that of flexural failure.
Mttanen and Hoikkanen, (1996) found that for first year level ice, a scaling of bending
strength proportional to (thickness)
1
rather than (thickness)
2
was suggested by the data.
This suggests again a scaling proportional to (thickness)
1
. Sanderson (1988) suggests a
scale effect, based on Weibull theory, of the order of (dimension)
1
. His work was
focussed on compressive failure but it would be expected that a greater scale effect would
exist in flexurecrushing of multiyear features as compared to compressive failure.
The key conclusion of the above is the fact that fracture processes are scaledependent.
The Wang plasticity and the Croasdale beamonelasticfoundation models are continuum
models without such an effect, but can be modified to account for scale. The larger the
ice feature, the smaller the stress at failure as a result of the greater chance of
encountering a larger flaw. A scaling proportional to (thickness)
1
will be considered in
the following.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
7
material have a larger probability of containing a critical flaw (see Jordaan, 2005, for a
summary of the theory). The basic relationship can be written as
,
1
V
Equation 1
where V is the stressed volume and the scaling constant. Length can be considered by
inserting V =
3
in Equation 1 with a revised exponent 3/. If = 3, scaling of
1
results,
or an inverse length scaling.
Experimental results have generally indicated a scale effect. These have been obtained in
tests on carefully prepared beam specimens cut from ice obtained in the field or
manufactured in the laboratory. Specimens made in this way will not reflect the effect of
randomness of the morphology of multiyear ridges in nature. As noted above, carefully
made laboratory specimens will not show a scale effect similar to that found in naturally
formed ice.
For elastic materials, flexural strength would be expected to scale in a similar way to
tensile strength. Sanderson (1988) references small scale tensile tests on ice where tensile
strength scaled inversely with the volume to a power between 1 and 2 (Jellinek, 1958).
A variety of other results, some with higher values of , others with values similar to
those just quoted are found in the literature (Sanderson, 1988).
The importance of the scale effect on tensile strength was recognized by Croasdale and
results of field work by Croasdale and coworkers (personal communication, 2003; see
also Gladwell, 1977) are shown in Figure 2. It is noteworthy that the arctic sea ice was
first year ice of low salinity in the Mackenzie Delta. These results show a significant
scale effect. Bruce (2009) shows based on loads during ship rams with heavy multiyear
ice that flexural strength is significantly less than would be implied by small scale tests.
In reality, failure of a large multiyear ridge on a conical structure will involve significant
crushing to obtain the forces required for flexural failure, and these crushing processes
will also be subject to a scale effect in addition to that of flexural failure.
Mttanen and Hoikkanen, (1996) found that for first year level ice, a scaling of bending
strength proportional to (thickness)
1
rather than (thickness)
2
was suggested by the data.
This suggests again a scaling proportional to (thickness)
1
. Sanderson (1988) suggests a
scale effect, based on Weibull theory, of the order of (dimension)
1
. His work was
focussed on compressive failure but it would be expected that a greater scale effect would
exist in flexurecrushing of multiyear features as compared to compressive failure.
The key conclusion of the above is the fact that fracture processes are scaledependent.
The Wang plasticity and the Croasdale beamonelasticfoundation models are continuum
models without such an effect, but can be modified to account for scale. The larger the
ice feature, the smaller the stress at failure as a result of the greater chance of
encountering a larger flaw. A scaling proportional to (thickness)
1
will be considered in
the following.
8
0.1 1 10 100
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Area
0.5
(inches)
F
l
e
x
u
r
a
l
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(
p
s
i
)
Arctic First Year Ice
Arctic Multi Year Ice
Figure 2 Field results of Croasdale showing size effect on flexural strength. Lines through the
points indicate trends
3 Effect of Key Model Parameters in Multiyear Ridge
Load Analysis
Load distributions were determined in the CCORE analysis for ISO by running the load
models within a probabilistic (Monte Carlo) framework in which key parameters were
treated probabilistically in terms of appropriate probability distributions. While the
variance in all of the parameters considered will have some influence on the shape of the
load distribution, and the MonteCarlo models included limits on the loads associated
with available driving forces, it is instructive to further consider the effect of key
parameters on the loads.
In the MonteCarlo analyses used for the CCORE ISO analysis, a probability
distribution was defined for keel draft, and fixed ratios between the ridge top and bottom
widths were assumed. The models used for the ridge loads assume infinitely long ridges
(though length distributions were defined when considering available driving forces).
The keel dimension, denoted x, was found to have the largest influence on loads, and its
influence on estimated loads is investigated further here. Four models are considered as
follows. Models 1 and 3 were used in the CCORE analysis for the ISO code; models 2
and 4 are also considered in this work for comparison.
1) The Wang model for interaction of multiyear ridges with conically shaped
structures, in which the ice is treated as an elasticperfectly plastic material.
2) The Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for multiyear ridges interacting
with conically shaped structures.
3) A pressureaveraging (PA) model for crushing failure of a multiyear ridge
against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is considered to vary
randomly with penetration, with independent random values at each meter of
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
9
penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each feature and
the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with contact width.
4) The CSA model for crushing failure of a multiyear ridge against a vertically sided
structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a given contact
area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
The influence of ridge dimension on loads is summarized as follows. Details on the
evaluation of key parameters for the different models are given in Appendix A. The
power on ridge dimension represents an estimate of the power Q in the approximate
relationship
H = Kx
Q
Equation 2
between the maximum horizontal force H and ridge dimension x for typical large ridges.
The ridge keel depth would be the dimension of most interest. Table 1 shows the main
results for the Wang and Croasdale models.
Table 1 Results for power Q (Equation 2)
Model Power on Ridge Dimension
Wang 2.5
Croasdale beam on elastic foundation 2.25
Pressureaveraging slightly greater than 1
CSA 0.83
The above analyses confirm that estimates of loads for multiyear ridges impacting cones
as determined using the Wang model will have a significantly greater probability content
in the tail as compared to the models for loads on vertical structures. To check if this was
an artifact of the Wang model, the model for an elastic beam on an elastic foundation, as
developed by Hetenyi and applied to ice by Croasdale, was also considered. The Hetenyi
model results in a similar increase in probability content in the tail, although the loads
overall are substantially lower than those estimated using the Wang model.
As noted above, a key issue is that in both the Wang and Croasdale beam on elastic
foundation models, the effect of scale on fracture and flexural strength is not considered.
Data noted above suggest that the scale effect is of the order of (length)
1
. Consequently,
the power for sloped and conical structures will be much closer to that for the models for
vertically sided structures. Analysis of the model for first year loads is given in the
following and for first year and multiyear models in the Appendices.
5 Firstyear Ridge Loads
In reviewing the shapes of firstyear load distributions, we found a discrepancy in the
previous Barents Sea load trace and have obtained new results for the 100 m sloped
structure, that we believe resulted from a previous input error. The updated load
distribution for the Barents Sea 100 m diameter conical structures is shown in Figure 3.
The semilog relationship between load and probability of exceedance is now more linear
10
whereas it previously curved toward higher loads at low probabilities (previously closer
to Type B in Figure 1).
Figure 3 Load distributions for the Barents Sea 100 m diameter conical structure. Blue curve
is the annual maximum extremal distribution
Discussion of Analysis of Firstyear Ridge Loads
In the MonteCarlo analyses used for the CCORE ISO work, firstyear ridges were
idealized in terms of a consolidated layer that breaks in crushing or flexure depending on
whether the structure has a vertical or sloping face, and an unconsolidated keel below the
consolidated layer that fails in shear like a CoulombMohr material. Three key
parameters are found to have a significant influence on firstyear ridge loads: the
thickness of the ridge consolidated layer, the thickness of the unconsolidated and, in the
case of sloped structures, the height of the rubble pile that develops due to ice riding up
the slope.
The influence of these parameters has been considered for the following model
components:
1) Croasdale rideup model for failure of the consolidated layer against sloped
structures. The model accounts for a number of different load components
associated with bending failure, pushing ice through rubble, pushing ice up slope
through rubble and overturning ice blocks at top of slope.
2) Local (Dolgopolov) plug failure model for failure of the unconsolidated portion of
the keel impacting vertical and sloped structures.
3) Global plug failure model for the unconsolidated portion of keels impacting
vertical and sloped structures.
4) A pressureaveraging (PA) model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of
firstyear ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
9
penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each feature and
the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with contact width.
4) The CSA model for crushing failure of a multiyear ridge against a vertically sided
structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a given contact
area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
The influence of ridge dimension on loads is summarized as follows. Details on the
evaluation of key parameters for the different models are given in Appendix A. The
power on ridge dimension represents an estimate of the power Q in the approximate
relationship
H = Kx
Q
Equation 2
between the maximum horizontal force H and ridge dimension x for typical large ridges.
The ridge keel depth would be the dimension of most interest. Table 1 shows the main
results for the Wang and Croasdale models.
Table 1 Results for power Q (Equation 2)
Model Power on Ridge Dimension
Wang 2.5
Croasdale beam on elastic foundation 2.25
Pressureaveraging slightly greater than 1
CSA 0.83
The above analyses confirm that estimates of loads for multiyear ridges impacting cones
as determined using the Wang model will have a significantly greater probability content
in the tail as compared to the models for loads on vertical structures. To check if this was
an artifact of the Wang model, the model for an elastic beam on an elastic foundation, as
developed by Hetenyi and applied to ice by Croasdale, was also considered. The Hetenyi
model results in a similar increase in probability content in the tail, although the loads
overall are substantially lower than those estimated using the Wang model.
As noted above, a key issue is that in both the Wang and Croasdale beam on elastic
foundation models, the effect of scale on fracture and flexural strength is not considered.
Data noted above suggest that the scale effect is of the order of (length)
1
. Consequently,
the power for sloped and conical structures will be much closer to that for the models for
vertically sided structures. Analysis of the model for first year loads is given in the
following and for first year and multiyear models in the Appendices.
5 Firstyear Ridge Loads
In reviewing the shapes of firstyear load distributions, we found a discrepancy in the
previous Barents Sea load trace and have obtained new results for the 100 m sloped
structure, that we believe resulted from a previous input error. The updated load
distribution for the Barents Sea 100 m diameter conical structures is shown in Figure 3.
The semilog relationship between load and probability of exceedance is now more linear
10
whereas it previously curved toward higher loads at low probabilities (previously closer
to Type B in Figure 1).
Figure 3 Load distributions for the Barents Sea 100 m diameter conical structure. Blue curve
is the annual maximum extremal distribution
Discussion of Analysis of Firstyear Ridge Loads
In the MonteCarlo analyses used for the CCORE ISO work, firstyear ridges were
idealized in terms of a consolidated layer that breaks in crushing or flexure depending on
whether the structure has a vertical or sloping face, and an unconsolidated keel below the
consolidated layer that fails in shear like a CoulombMohr material. Three key
parameters are found to have a significant influence on firstyear ridge loads: the
thickness of the ridge consolidated layer, the thickness of the unconsolidated and, in the
case of sloped structures, the height of the rubble pile that develops due to ice riding up
the slope.
The influence of these parameters has been considered for the following model
components:
1) Croasdale rideup model for failure of the consolidated layer against sloped
structures. The model accounts for a number of different load components
associated with bending failure, pushing ice through rubble, pushing ice up slope
through rubble and overturning ice blocks at top of slope.
2) Local (Dolgopolov) plug failure model for failure of the unconsolidated portion of
the keel impacting vertical and sloped structures.
3) Global plug failure model for the unconsolidated portion of keels impacting
vertical and sloped structures.
4) A pressureaveraging (PA) model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of
firstyear ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
11
considered to vary randomly with penetration, with independent random values at
each meter of penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each
feature and the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with
contact width.
5) CSA model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of firstyear ridges against a
vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a
given contact area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
For the CCORE ISO analyses, structures with vertical sides were modeled using the
pressureaveraging crushing model for the consolidated layer, and the local and global
plug failure models for the unconsolidated layer. Structures with sloped sides were
modeled using the Croasdale model for rideup of the consolidated layer, and the local
and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA model was
included here for comparison. For the rideup model, the rubble pile is assumed to grow
in height in proportion to the consolidated layer thickness to the power 0.64 (see
Appendix B).
The influence of the key parameters on loads is given in Table 2. This summarizes the
effect of various terms in the models on loads. Details of the various terms and the
evaluation of key parameters for the different models are given in Appendix B. The table
shows the power on the different additive terms contributing to the load, and for the
Croasdale rideup model also shows the proportions directly related to the rubble pile
height.
Table 2 Sensitivity of firstyear ridge model components in terms of the power Q (Equation 2)
Model component
Powers on
Consolidated
Layer Thickness
for Additive Terms
Proportion
Related to
Rubble Pile
Height
Powers on
Unconsolidated
Layer
Thickness for
Additive Terms
Croasdale rideup
model
H
r
Ride up 1.64, 1.28 100%, 50%
H
l
Lift rubble 1.28, 0.64, 1.0
100%, 100%,
100%
H
b
Break ice 2.0, 1.25 0%, 0%
H
t
Turn blocks 2.0 0%
H
p
Push through
rubble
1.28
100%
Local plug failure 1, 2, 3
Global plug failure 1, 2, 3
PA crushing
slightly greater than
1
CSA crushing 0.83
The different load components for the Croasdale rideup model are shown in order of
decreasing magnitude as shown in Appendix B. The rideup load is predominantly a
result of the terms H
R
and H
L
which are largely dependent on the height of the rubble
12
pile. There is currently considerable uncertainty regarding rubble heights for different
structures and ice thicknesses.
The plug models include components related to unconsolidated keel thickness to the first,
second and third powers. Based on the analyses, for typical large ridges the lower power
terms dominate. As shown in Appendix B, for sloped structures the local and global plug
load components are dominated by the rideup component at lower exceedance
probabilities.
The consolidated layer thickness is closely related to level ice thickness, and both of
these depend on the number of cumulative freezing degree days and have a steep drop in
probability of occurrence above certain limits defined by the regional climate. This has a
significant effect on the shapes of the tails.
The conclusion is that the terms with lower powers dominate in the determination of
extreme loads.
6 Recommendation
The study has shown that the Wang and the beamonelasticfoundation models do result
in tails in the extremal probability distribution with high probability content (fat tails).
This has been found to be related to the nature of models; it has been found that the loads
are proportional to the keel depth to a power of 2 to 2.5. This is to be contrasted with the
models for vertical structures, in which the exponent is of the order of unity. The models
are based on plasticity (conservative) or elasticity assumptions, with no scale effect.
It is recognized that almost no full scale data on failure of multiyear ice against sloping
structures are available. Data from level ice suggest scale effect proportional to strength
scales according to (thickness)
1
. This value is supported by other analyses given in
section 2 above, considering fracture and flexural failure. This results in a reduction of
the exponent of keel depth to between 1 and 1.5, from the range 2 to 2.5 given in the
preceding pararaph. This would in effect bring the tail of the distribution into agreement
with the results for vertical structures.
The model for first year ice has been checked thoroughly and improvements and
corrections have been made in the investigation reported here.. As a result it is found that
the distribution in the tail has a similar form to those for vertical structures. This does not
include a scale effect on flexural strength.
It is recommended that the load factor of 1.35 be applied for all structures. This
recommendation is made in recognition of the fact that the input to the calibration for
sloping structures should include the scale effect for fracture processes and flexural
failure.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
11
considered to vary randomly with penetration, with independent random values at
each meter of penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each
feature and the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with
contact width.
5) CSA model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of firstyear ridges against a
vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a
given contact area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
For the CCORE ISO analyses, structures with vertical sides were modeled using the
pressureaveraging crushing model for the consolidated layer, and the local and global
plug failure models for the unconsolidated layer. Structures with sloped sides were
modeled using the Croasdale model for rideup of the consolidated layer, and the local
and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA model was
included here for comparison. For the rideup model, the rubble pile is assumed to grow
in height in proportion to the consolidated layer thickness to the power 0.64 (see
Appendix B).
The influence of the key parameters on loads is given in Table 2. This summarizes the
effect of various terms in the models on loads. Details of the various terms and the
evaluation of key parameters for the different models are given in Appendix B. The table
shows the power on the different additive terms contributing to the load, and for the
Croasdale rideup model also shows the proportions directly related to the rubble pile
height.
Table 2 Sensitivity of firstyear ridge model components in terms of the power Q (Equation 2)
Model component
Powers on
Consolidated
Layer Thickness
for Additive Terms
Proportion
Related to
Rubble Pile
Height
Powers on
Unconsolidated
Layer
Thickness for
Additive Terms
Croasdale rideup
model
H
r
Ride up 1.64, 1.28 100%, 50%
H
l
Lift rubble 1.28, 0.64, 1.0
100%, 100%,
100%
H
b
Break ice 2.0, 1.25 0%, 0%
H
t
Turn blocks 2.0 0%
H
p
Push through
rubble
1.28
100%
Local plug failure 1, 2, 3
Global plug failure 1, 2, 3
PA crushing
slightly greater than
1
CSA crushing 0.83
The different load components for the Croasdale rideup model are shown in order of
decreasing magnitude as shown in Appendix B. The rideup load is predominantly a
result of the terms H
R
and H
L
which are largely dependent on the height of the rubble
12
pile. There is currently considerable uncertainty regarding rubble heights for different
structures and ice thicknesses.
The plug models include components related to unconsolidated keel thickness to the first,
second and third powers. Based on the analyses, for typical large ridges the lower power
terms dominate. As shown in Appendix B, for sloped structures the local and global plug
load components are dominated by the rideup component at lower exceedance
probabilities.
The consolidated layer thickness is closely related to level ice thickness, and both of
these depend on the number of cumulative freezing degree days and have a steep drop in
probability of occurrence above certain limits defined by the regional climate. This has a
significant effect on the shapes of the tails.
The conclusion is that the terms with lower powers dominate in the determination of
extreme loads.
6 Recommendation
The study has shown that the Wang and the beamonelasticfoundation models do result
in tails in the extremal probability distribution with high probability content (fat tails).
This has been found to be related to the nature of models; it has been found that the loads
are proportional to the keel depth to a power of 2 to 2.5. This is to be contrasted with the
models for vertical structures, in which the exponent is of the order of unity. The models
are based on plasticity (conservative) or elasticity assumptions, with no scale effect.
It is recognized that almost no full scale data on failure of multiyear ice against sloping
structures are available. Data from level ice suggest scale effect proportional to strength
scales according to (thickness)
1
. This value is supported by other analyses given in
section 2 above, considering fracture and flexural failure. This results in a reduction of
the exponent of keel depth to between 1 and 1.5, from the range 2 to 2.5 given in the
preceding pararaph. This would in effect bring the tail of the distribution into agreement
with the results for vertical structures.
The model for first year ice has been checked thoroughly and improvements and
corrections have been made in the investigation reported here.. As a result it is found that
the distribution in the tail has a similar form to those for vertical structures. This does not
include a scale effect on flexural strength.
It is recommended that the load factor of 1.35 be applied for all structures. This
recommendation is made in recognition of the fact that the input to the calibration for
sloping structures should include the scale effect for fracture processes and flexural
failure.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
13
References
API 1995. API RP 2N Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions
Bruce, J. 2009. Level Ice Interaction with Conical and Sloping Offshore Structures,
M.Eng. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland
CCORE 2009. Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions. Report R0927654, Prepared for OGP JIP25 Committee.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSAS.47104 Standard,
General Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment, and Loads (part of the Code
for the Design, Construction, and Installation of Fixed Offshore Structures)
Croasdale, K.R. 1975. Ice Forces on Marine Structures. Proceedings IAHR Ice
Symposium., Pt. 1, pp 315338.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on
Ice Forces on Structures, a StateoftheArt Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special
Report No.8026, pp 34106
Croasdale, K.R. 2003. Personal Communication.
Croasdale, K.R. and R. W. Marcellus. 1981. Ice Forces On Large Marine Structures
IAHR Symposium, Quebec City, pp. 755 770
Croasdale, K.R., Cammaert, A.B. and Metge, M. 1994. A Method for the Calculation of
Sheet Ice Loads on Sloping Structures. Proceedings of the IAHR'94 Symposium on
Ice, Vol. 2, pp 874875, Trondheim, Norway.
Dieter, G.E. 1986. Mechanical Metallurgy. McGrawHill.
Dolgopolov, Y.V., Afanasev, V.A., Korenkov, V.A. and Panfilov, D.F. (1975). Effect of
Hummocked Ice on Piers of Marine Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings IAHR
Symposium on Ice, pp. 469478, Hanover, NH, U.S.A..
Gladwell, R.W. 1977. Field Studies of the Strength and Physical Properties of a Multi
year Ice Pressure Ridge in the Southern Beaufort Sea. APOA Project 91, Imperial Oil
Ltd., Report Number IPRT3ME77.
Hetenyi, M., Beams on elastic foundation. 1946. Scientific series, 1946.The University of
Michigan Press, University of Michigan Studies, Ann Arbor.
Jellinek,
Jordaan, I.J. 2005. Decisions under Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.
Jordaan, I.J., C. Li, T. Mackey, A. Nobahar, and J. Bruce. 2005. Design Ice Pressure
Area Relationships; Molikpaq Data, Report prepared for Canadian Hydraulics Centre,
National Research Council of Canada, Version 2.1
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
13
References
API 1995. API RP 2N Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions
Bruce, J. 2009. Level Ice Interaction with Conical and Sloping Offshore Structures,
M.Eng. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland
CCORE 2009. Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions. Report R0927654, Prepared for OGP JIP25 Committee.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSAS.47104 Standard,
General Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment, and Loads (part of the Code
for the Design, Construction, and Installation of Fixed Offshore Structures)
Croasdale, K.R. 1975. Ice Forces on Marine Structures. Proceedings IAHR Ice
Symposium., Pt. 1, pp 315338.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on
Ice Forces on Structures, a StateoftheArt Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special
Report No.8026, pp 34106
Croasdale, K.R. 2003. Personal Communication.
Croasdale, K.R. and R. W. Marcellus. 1981. Ice Forces On Large Marine Structures
IAHR Symposium, Quebec City, pp. 755 770
Croasdale, K.R., Cammaert, A.B. and Metge, M. 1994. A Method for the Calculation of
Sheet Ice Loads on Sloping Structures. Proceedings of the IAHR'94 Symposium on
Ice, Vol. 2, pp 874875, Trondheim, Norway.
Dieter, G.E. 1986. Mechanical Metallurgy. McGrawHill.
Dolgopolov, Y.V., Afanasev, V.A., Korenkov, V.A. and Panfilov, D.F. (1975). Effect of
Hummocked Ice on Piers of Marine Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings IAHR
Symposium on Ice, pp. 469478, Hanover, NH, U.S.A..
Gladwell, R.W. 1977. Field Studies of the Strength and Physical Properties of a Multi
year Ice Pressure Ridge in the Southern Beaufort Sea. APOA Project 91, Imperial Oil
Ltd., Report Number IPRT3ME77.
Hetenyi, M., Beams on elastic foundation. 1946. Scientific series, 1946.The University of
Michigan Press, University of Michigan Studies, Ann Arbor.
Jellinek,
Jordaan, I.J. 2005. Decisions under Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.
Jordaan, I.J., C. Li, T. Mackey, A. Nobahar, and J. Bruce. 2005. Design Ice Pressure
Area Relationships; Molikpaq Data, Report prepared for Canadian Hydraulics Centre,
National Research Council of Canada, Version 2.1
14
Mttanen, M and Hoikkanen, J. 1996. Ice failure and ice loads on a conical structure
KemiI cone full scale ice force measurement data analysis, proceedings 13th IAHR
Int. Symp. On Ice, Vol. 1 pp 816.
Maes, M.A. 2009. Calibration of Action Factors in ISO DIS 19906: 2009 prepared for
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.
Nevel, D.E. 1991. Wangs Equation For Ice Forces From Pressure Ridges. Int Cold
Regions Eng Conf, pp666672.
Sanderson, T.J.O. 1988. Ice Mechanics: Risks to Offshore Structures. Graham and
Trotman Inc., Norwell, Massachusetts, 253p.
Wang, Y.S., 1984, Analysis and Model Tests of Pressure Ridges Failing Against Conical
Structures, IAHR Symposium, Hamburg
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
15
APPENDIX A EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
MULTIYEAR LOADS
Wang Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Conical Structures
The Wang model, as defined by Nevel in API RP2N, calculates the maximum horizontal
force H as
)) arctan( tan(
3
) (
2
=
b a
BF AF h
H
where
h is the ridge draft,
is the ridge flexural strength,
is the structure slope,
is the icestructure coefficient of friction, and
F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are nondimensional parameters.
While F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are nondimensional parameters, they do vary in different ways
with the ridge dimensions. As B is zero for the large ridges considered, consideration is
given to F
a
and A. F
a
is the sum of two terms, the first (F
a1
) varies in proportion to B
t
2
/
h, where B
t
is the width of the ridge, and the second (F
a1
) is independent of the ridge
dimensions. The term A is proportional to one over the square root of F
a
.
Figure 4 shows how the terms vary with keel draft given a typical values for other
parameters. The term F
a1
is much larger than F
a2
, so F
a
will, to close approximation,
increase in proportion to the ridge dimension x and the force H predicted using the Wang
model, to close approximation, will be proportional to x
5/2
. Figure 4
shows how the force
varies with keel depth, given a typical set of ridge parameters.
16
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
10
20
30
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
1
5 10 15 20 25 30
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
2
5 10 15 20 25 30
5
10
15
20
25
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Keel Draft (m)
A
5 10 15 20 25 30
4
6
8
10
Keel Draft (m)
A
F
a
Figure 4 Magnitude of Wang Components as a Function of Keel Draft for a Representative
Beaufort Multiyear Ridge
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Keel Depth (m)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
F
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Figure 5 Horizontal Force Determined using Wang model as a Function of Keel Depth for
Representative Beaufort Multiyear Ridges
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
15
APPENDIX A EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
MULTIYEAR LOADS
Wang Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Conical Structures
The Wang model, as defined by Nevel in API RP2N, calculates the maximum horizontal
force H as
)) arctan( tan(
3
) (
2
=
b a
BF AF h
H
where
h is the ridge draft,
is the ridge flexural strength,
is the structure slope,
is the icestructure coefficient of friction, and
F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are nondimensional parameters.
While F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are nondimensional parameters, they do vary in different ways
with the ridge dimensions. As B is zero for the large ridges considered, consideration is
given to F
a
and A. F
a
is the sum of two terms, the first (F
a1
) varies in proportion to B
t
2
/
h, where B
t
is the width of the ridge, and the second (F
a1
) is independent of the ridge
dimensions. The term A is proportional to one over the square root of F
a
.
Figure 4 shows how the terms vary with keel draft given a typical values for other
parameters. The term F
a1
is much larger than F
a2
, so F
a
will, to close approximation,
increase in proportion to the ridge dimension x and the force H predicted using the Wang
model, to close approximation, will be proportional to x
5/2
. Figure 4
shows how the force
varies with keel depth, given a typical set of ridge parameters.
16
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
10
20
30
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
1
5 10 15 20 25 30
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
1.5417
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
2
5 10 15 20 25 30
5
10
15
20
25
Keel Draft (m)
F
a
5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Keel Draft (m)
A
5 10 15 20 25 30
4
6
8
10
Keel Draft (m)
A
F
a
Figure 4 Magnitude of Wang Components as a Function of Keel Draft for a Representative
Beaufort Multiyear Ridge
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Keel Depth (m)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
F
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Figure 5 Horizontal Force Determined using Wang model as a Function of Keel Depth for
Representative Beaufort Multiyear Ridges
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
17
Elastic Beam on Elastic Foundation Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Conical
Structures
Because the Wang model is based on plasticity theory and for the most part for the
conditions considered ice fails as a brittle material, an alternative model applied by
Croasdale (1975) based on Hetenyi (1946) has been considered here for comparison with
the Wang model.
For an infinitely long beam, Hetenyis solution predicts that a centerline crack will form
first, then two hinge cracks, one on each side of the centerline crack. The horizontal load
H associated with the formation of the two hinge cracks (assumed to form
simultaneously) is
sin cos
cos sin
17 . 6
+
=
l y
I
H
f
where
I is the crosssectional moment of inertia,
f
is the flexural strength,
y is the distance from the neutral axis to the top or bottom of the ice, and
l is the ridge characteristic length, given as
25 . 0
4
=
gb
EI
l
w
, and
is the coefficient of friction.
If, for example, a rectangular crosssection is assumed, then 12 /
3
bd l = and y = d/2 where
d is the depth of the rectangle. Assuming b and d both increase proportionally to ridge
dimension x, then it is seen that H increases as x
9/4
. The power 9/4 is reasonably close to
power 5/2 determined for the Wang model.
PressureAveraging Model for MultiYear Ridges Impacting a Vertically Faced
Structure
For vertical structures, the ice is assumed to fail in crushing over the nominal contact
area. For a given crushing strength, the load will be proportional to the ridge depth times
the contact width. Assuming extreme events fail across the whole with of the structure,
the load will be increase in proportion with ridge depth.
In the pressureaveraging model used for the ISO MonteCarlo analyses, nominal ice
crushing strength is assumed to vary randomly with penetration. For a given floe, a
constant mean strength, drawn from a distribution based on full scale data, is assumed.
The crushing strength at each meter of penetration is chosen independently from a normal
distribution that has a variance that decreases with contact width (reference). For an
impact with a ridge that is wider than the structure and has a truncated shape, the contact
area will be constant for a significant portion of the impact, and the maximum load to
close approximation will equal the maximum of the random loads at each meter of
18
penetration over this distance. The characteristic extreme value of a quantity defined by
an extreme value distribution is N standard deviations above the mean, where (Jordaan,
2005, page 491)
( )
2 / 1
2 / 1
) ln 2 ( 2
4 ln ln ln
) ln 2 (
n
n
n N
+
=
Given an independent random pressure chosen at each meter of penetration, then n is
roughly equal to the ridge width. Figure 6 shows the relationship for a typical set of
parameters; the pressure varies as the feature width to a low power. The horizontal force
F = PA, assuming that the contact width limited by the width of the structure, will
therefore increase at a rate slightly greater than x
1
.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
Feature Width (m)
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 6 Approximate Relationship Between Characteristic Extreme Pressure and Ridge
Width
CSA Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Vertical Structures.
The CSA model for ice crushing has been considered for comparison with the pressure
averaging model. The crushing pressure is treated as constant for a given contact area,
with pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio. For thick multiyear ridges, the
aspect ratio will typically be low (<10), but the equations provided for low aspect ratios
have only been validated for contact areas up to 50 m
2
. The equation for aspect ratios
from 10 to 80 has been applied; namely:
P = 1.5 C
P
h
0.174
.
The horizontal force is then F = PA. Considering large ridges such that the contact width
is determined by the width of the structure, the load will be proportional to x
0.83
.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
17
Elastic Beam on Elastic Foundation Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Conical
Structures
Because the Wang model is based on plasticity theory and for the most part for the
conditions considered ice fails as a brittle material, an alternative model applied by
Croasdale (1975) based on Hetenyi (1946) has been considered here for comparison with
the Wang model.
For an infinitely long beam, Hetenyis solution predicts that a centerline crack will form
first, then two hinge cracks, one on each side of the centerline crack. The horizontal load
H associated with the formation of the two hinge cracks (assumed to form
simultaneously) is
sin cos
cos sin
17 . 6
+
=
l y
I
H
f
where
I is the crosssectional moment of inertia,
f
is the flexural strength,
y is the distance from the neutral axis to the top or bottom of the ice, and
l is the ridge characteristic length, given as
25 . 0
4
=
gb
EI
l
w
, and
is the coefficient of friction.
If, for example, a rectangular crosssection is assumed, then 12 /
3
bd l = and y = d/2 where
d is the depth of the rectangle. Assuming b and d both increase proportionally to ridge
dimension x, then it is seen that H increases as x
9/4
. The power 9/4 is reasonably close to
power 5/2 determined for the Wang model.
PressureAveraging Model for MultiYear Ridges Impacting a Vertically Faced
Structure
For vertical structures, the ice is assumed to fail in crushing over the nominal contact
area. For a given crushing strength, the load will be proportional to the ridge depth times
the contact width. Assuming extreme events fail across the whole with of the structure,
the load will be increase in proportion with ridge depth.
In the pressureaveraging model used for the ISO MonteCarlo analyses, nominal ice
crushing strength is assumed to vary randomly with penetration. For a given floe, a
constant mean strength, drawn from a distribution based on full scale data, is assumed.
The crushing strength at each meter of penetration is chosen independently from a normal
distribution that has a variance that decreases with contact width (reference). For an
impact with a ridge that is wider than the structure and has a truncated shape, the contact
area will be constant for a significant portion of the impact, and the maximum load to
close approximation will equal the maximum of the random loads at each meter of
18
penetration over this distance. The characteristic extreme value of a quantity defined by
an extreme value distribution is N standard deviations above the mean, where (Jordaan,
2005, page 491)
( )
2 / 1
2 / 1
) ln 2 ( 2
4 ln ln ln
) ln 2 (
n
n
n N
+
=
Given an independent random pressure chosen at each meter of penetration, then n is
roughly equal to the ridge width. Figure 6 shows the relationship for a typical set of
parameters; the pressure varies as the feature width to a low power. The horizontal force
F = PA, assuming that the contact width limited by the width of the structure, will
therefore increase at a rate slightly greater than x
1
.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
Feature Width (m)
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 6 Approximate Relationship Between Characteristic Extreme Pressure and Ridge
Width
CSA Model for Multiyear Ridges Impacting Vertical Structures.
The CSA model for ice crushing has been considered for comparison with the pressure
averaging model. The crushing pressure is treated as constant for a given contact area,
with pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio. For thick multiyear ridges, the
aspect ratio will typically be low (<10), but the equations provided for low aspect ratios
have only been validated for contact areas up to 50 m
2
. The equation for aspect ratios
from 10 to 80 has been applied; namely:
P = 1.5 C
P
h
0.174
.
The horizontal force is then F = PA. Considering large ridges such that the contact width
is determined by the width of the structure, the load will be proportional to x
0.83
.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
19
Comparisons
Load exceedance curves are presented for the above models in Figure 7. The loads were
determined using a firstorder reliability method (FORM). Only key parameters were
treated probabilistically and limits on the loads were not included. The keel depth was
treated probabilistically in all cases, and for the probabilisticaveraging method,
additional parameters defining the mean ridge crushing strength and extreme value were
treated probabilistically.
The exponential increase in load with logarithm of probability of exceedance in the Wang
and Croasdale models in Figure 7 demonstrate the cause of the high action factors. This is
not considered a realistic extrapolation without accounting for a size effect on flexural
failure.
Figure 7 Approximate analyses of multiyear ridge loads using FORM:
(top) Exceedance probability of load given an impact
(bottom) Curves normalized to 10
2
values
20
APPENDIX B EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
FIRSTYEAR LOADS
Firstyear Ridge Loads
Three key parameters may have a significant influence on firstyear ridge loads: the
thickness h
C
of the ridge consolidated layer, the unconsolidated layer thickness h
U
, and, in
the case of sloped structures, the height h
R
of the rubble pile that forms on the structure.
The ridge consolidated layer thickness and unconsolidated layer thickness have been
assumed independent. The height of the rubble pile has been modelled as the following
function of the consolidated layer thickness, based on data from the Confederation
Bridge:
h
R
= K
R
x 7.59 x h
C
0.64
, where K
R
is a random quantity.
The following model components have been considered:
1) A pressureaveraging model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of first
year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
considered to vary randomly with penetration, with independent random values at
each meter of penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each
feature and the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with
contact width.
2) CSA model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of firstyear ridges against a
vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a
given contact area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
3) Croasdale model for failure of consolidated layer against sloped structures. The
model accounts for load components associated with bending failure, pushing ice
through rubble, pushing ice up slope through rubble and overturning ice blocks at
top of slope.
4) Local plug failure (Dolgopolov) model for unconsolidated keel impacting vertical
or sloped structure.
5) Global plug failure model for unconsolidated keel impacting vertical or sloped
structure.
For the CCORE ISO analyses, structures with vertical sides were modeled using the
pressureaveraging crushing model for the consolidated layer, and the local and global
plug failure models for the unconsolidated layer. Structures with sloped sides were
modeled using the Croasdale model for rideup of the consolidated layer, and the local
and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA crushing
model has been added for comparison.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
19
Comparisons
Load exceedance curves are presented for the above models in Figure 7. The loads were
determined using a firstorder reliability method (FORM). Only key parameters were
treated probabilistically and limits on the loads were not included. The keel depth was
treated probabilistically in all cases, and for the probabilisticaveraging method,
additional parameters defining the mean ridge crushing strength and extreme value were
treated probabilistically.
The exponential increase in load with logarithm of probability of exceedance in the Wang
and Croasdale models in Figure 7 demonstrate the cause of the high action factors. This is
not considered a realistic extrapolation without accounting for a size effect on flexural
failure.
Figure 7 Approximate analyses of multiyear ridge loads using FORM:
(top) Exceedance probability of load given an impact
(bottom) Curves normalized to 10
2
values
20
APPENDIX B EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
FIRSTYEAR LOADS
Firstyear Ridge Loads
Three key parameters may have a significant influence on firstyear ridge loads: the
thickness h
C
of the ridge consolidated layer, the unconsolidated layer thickness h
U
, and, in
the case of sloped structures, the height h
R
of the rubble pile that forms on the structure.
The ridge consolidated layer thickness and unconsolidated layer thickness have been
assumed independent. The height of the rubble pile has been modelled as the following
function of the consolidated layer thickness, based on data from the Confederation
Bridge:
h
R
= K
R
x 7.59 x h
C
0.64
, where K
R
is a random quantity.
The following model components have been considered:
1) A pressureaveraging model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of first
year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
considered to vary randomly with penetration, with independent random values at
each meter of penetration. Different mean crushing strengths are chosen for each
feature and the variance in crushing pressure is considered to be reduced with
contact width.
2) CSA model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of firstyear ridges against a
vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is considered to be constant for a
given contact area, with the pressure based on contact area and aspect ratio.
3) Croasdale model for failure of consolidated layer against sloped structures. The
model accounts for load components associated with bending failure, pushing ice
through rubble, pushing ice up slope through rubble and overturning ice blocks at
top of slope.
4) Local plug failure (Dolgopolov) model for unconsolidated keel impacting vertical
or sloped structure.
5) Global plug failure model for unconsolidated keel impacting vertical or sloped
structure.
For the CCORE ISO analyses, structures with vertical sides were modeled using the
pressureaveraging crushing model for the consolidated layer, and the local and global
plug failure models for the unconsolidated layer. Structures with sloped sides were
modeled using the Croasdale model for rideup of the consolidated layer, and the local
and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA crushing
model has been added for comparison.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
21
Crushing models
The pressureaveraging and CSA models are the same as for multiyear ridges, except
that the ice thickness is reduced significantly and the ice crushing strength may be
smaller.
Croasdale rideup model
The Croasdale rideup model determines the horizontal force H as the sum of the
following five components:
H = H
b
+H
r
+H
t
+H
l
+H
p
where:
H
p
is the force to push the consolidated layer through the rubble to the slope
H
l
is the force to lift and shear the rubble on top of the consolidated layer,
H
b
is the force to break the ice,
H
r
is the force to push the broken blocks of ice up the slope through the
rubble,
H
t
is the force turn ice blocks at top of slope,
To first approximation, the components vary as follows as a function of the consolidated
layer thickness h
C
and the height of the rubble pile h
R
as follows:
H
b
increases as h
C
1.25
+ k
1
h
C
2
H
r
increases as h
R
2
+ k
2
h
R
h
C
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
+ k
2
h
C
1.64
H
t
increases as h
C
2
H
l
increases as h
R
2
+ k
3
h
R
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
+ k
3
h
C
0.64
H
p
increases as h
R
2
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
The different terms and total force are plotted as a function of the consolidated layer
thickness in Figure 8. It is seen that the most significant component is the force to push
the ice up the slope through the rubble.
22
Figure 8 Variation in rideup force with consolidated layer thickness
Local and global plug failure models
As a ridge advances, the unconsolidated keel is assumed to fail locally until the
remaining unconsolidated ice that has not failed is reduced in extent to the point that
global plug failure occurs (Figure 9).
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Local passive failure
Dolgopolov et al. (1975)
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Local passive failure
Dolgopolov et al. (1975)
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Figure 9 Plug failure models
The force associated with local plug failure is given as
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
21
Crushing models
The pressureaveraging and CSA models are the same as for multiyear ridges, except
that the ice thickness is reduced significantly and the ice crushing strength may be
smaller.
Croasdale rideup model
The Croasdale rideup model determines the horizontal force H as the sum of the
following five components:
H = H
b
+H
r
+H
t
+H
l
+H
p
where:
H
p
is the force to push the consolidated layer through the rubble to the slope
H
l
is the force to lift and shear the rubble on top of the consolidated layer,
H
b
is the force to break the ice,
H
r
is the force to push the broken blocks of ice up the slope through the
rubble,
H
t
is the force turn ice blocks at top of slope,
To first approximation, the components vary as follows as a function of the consolidated
layer thickness h
C
and the height of the rubble pile h
R
as follows:
H
b
increases as h
C
1.25
+ k
1
h
C
2
H
r
increases as h
R
2
+ k
2
h
R
h
C
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
+ k
2
h
C
1.64
H
t
increases as h
C
2
H
l
increases as h
R
2
+ k
3
h
R
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
+ k
3
h
C
0.64
H
p
increases as h
R
2
, or equivalently, h
C
1.28
The different terms and total force are plotted as a function of the consolidated layer
thickness in Figure 8. It is seen that the most significant component is the force to push
the ice up the slope through the rubble.
22
Figure 8 Variation in rideup force with consolidated layer thickness
Local and global plug failure models
As a ridge advances, the unconsolidated keel is assumed to fail locally until the
remaining unconsolidated ice that has not failed is reduced in extent to the point that
global plug failure occurs (Figure 9).
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Local passive failure
Dolgopolov et al. (1975)
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Local passive failure
Dolgopolov et al. (1975)
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement
Failure volume shown in red
Figure 9 Plug failure models
The force associated with local plug failure is given as
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
23
+ =
p e
p eff e
e
e
e LP
K ch
K h
D
h
D H 2
2 6
1
2
where
D
e
is the contact width,
h
e
is the effective maximum unconsolidated keel draft, defined as
e c k e
D S h H h + = ,
H
k
is the local ridge thickness (consolidated layer plus unconsolidated keel),
hc is the thickness of the consolidated layer,
S is a user defined surcharge factor that quantifies the effect of additional
buoyancy due to ice accumulated below the keel as a result of the
interaction (see comments below),
eff
is the buoyant density of the unconsolidated keel accounting for keel
porosity,
K
p
is the passive pressure coefficient of the unconsolidated keel,
) sin( 1
) sin( 1
+
=
p
K ,
is the internal friction angle of the unconsolidated keel and
c is the cohesion of the unconsolidated keel.
Assuming that the ridge always advances to the point that the maximum unconsolidated
thickness h
u
is reached (this may not be the case), then
3
3
2
2 1 u u u LP
h k h k h k H + +
The term that dominates will depend on the values of k
1
, k
2
and k
3
for typical large ridges.
Global plug failure will occur once the local plug failure force is greater than the force to
shear a global plug along vertical planes from the sides of the structure through the
remaining unconsolidated ridge and a horizontal plane extending between the two
vertical planes, between the consolidated and unconsolidated layers. The shear strength
along each increment dA of area on the shear planes is modeled as the sum of cohesive
and frictional components. The cohesive component equals the cohesive strength times
the area, where cohesion may be considered either constant or a function of depth, and in
the ISO analyses, was modeled as constant. For large ridges wider than the structure, the
force to overcome cohesion on the top plane then increases as the width of the ridge. The
force to overcome cohesion on the side planes increases as the width of the ridge times
the depth of the ridge.
The frictional component over a small increment dA of area equals the tangent of the
friction angle times the buoyant pressure resulting from the ice underneath, times the
passive pressure coefficient. On the top shear plane, the buoyant pressure is proportional
to the depth of the unconsolidated layer below, so the required force to shear the plane is
proportional to the ridge width times the unconsolidated layer thickness. On the side
24
shear planes, the buoyant pressure at a given height is proportional to the distance to the
bottom of the keel, so the required force to shear the plane is proportional to the ridge
width times the square of the unconsolidated layer thickness.
The force H
GP
associated with global plug failure is therefore proportional to
3
6
2
5 4 u u u GP
h k h k h k H + +
The term that dominates will depend on the values of k
4
, k
5
and k
6
for typical large ridges.
Comparisons
Load exceedance curves are presented for the above models in Figure 10. The loads were
determined using FORM. The figure shows the distribution of loads given an impact.
Only key parameters were treated probabilistically. The thickness of the unconsolidated
layer was treated probabilistically for global and local plug failure. For crushing and
rideup of the consolidated layer, the thickness of the consolidated layer was modeled as
the thickness of the surrounding ice (treated as a random quantity) times the ratio
between consolidated and level ice thickness (also treated as a random quantity). When
modeling crushing using the probabilisticaveraging method, the mean ridge crushing
strength, width of the ridge (assumed proportional to the thickness of the unconsolidated
layer) and the extreme value parameter were treated probabilistically.
The graph shows the contribution of the individual components to the total load. For
instance Global plug indicates the load associated with this term, Rideup shows the
contribution of the rideup term, and so on. An additional case was run in which the force
was considered to consist of the forces required for rideup and failure of the
unconsolidated keel according to global plug failure model.
The global and local plug loads are dominated by lower power terms. The final curves in
Figure 3 above are a combination of the inputs shown below, and blend the high and
lowpower terms to give a result that has a wellbehaved tail.
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
23
+ =
p e
p eff e
e
e
e LP
K ch
K h
D
h
D H 2
2 6
1
2
where
D
e
is the contact width,
h
e
is the effective maximum unconsolidated keel draft, defined as
e c k e
D S h H h + = ,
H
k
is the local ridge thickness (consolidated layer plus unconsolidated keel),
hc is the thickness of the consolidated layer,
S is a user defined surcharge factor that quantifies the effect of additional
buoyancy due to ice accumulated below the keel as a result of the
interaction (see comments below),
eff
is the buoyant density of the unconsolidated keel accounting for keel
porosity,
K
p
is the passive pressure coefficient of the unconsolidated keel,
) sin( 1
) sin( 1
+
=
p
K ,
is the internal friction angle of the unconsolidated keel and
c is the cohesion of the unconsolidated keel.
Assuming that the ridge always advances to the point that the maximum unconsolidated
thickness h
u
is reached (this may not be the case), then
3
3
2
2 1 u u u LP
h k h k h k H + +
The term that dominates will depend on the values of k
1
, k
2
and k
3
for typical large ridges.
Global plug failure will occur once the local plug failure force is greater than the force to
shear a global plug along vertical planes from the sides of the structure through the
remaining unconsolidated ridge and a horizontal plane extending between the two
vertical planes, between the consolidated and unconsolidated layers. The shear strength
along each increment dA of area on the shear planes is modeled as the sum of cohesive
and frictional components. The cohesive component equals the cohesive strength times
the area, where cohesion may be considered either constant or a function of depth, and in
the ISO analyses, was modeled as constant. For large ridges wider than the structure, the
force to overcome cohesion on the top plane then increases as the width of the ridge. The
force to overcome cohesion on the side planes increases as the width of the ridge times
the depth of the ridge.
The frictional component over a small increment dA of area equals the tangent of the
friction angle times the buoyant pressure resulting from the ice underneath, times the
passive pressure coefficient. On the top shear plane, the buoyant pressure is proportional
to the depth of the unconsolidated layer below, so the required force to shear the plane is
proportional to the ridge width times the unconsolidated layer thickness. On the side
24
shear planes, the buoyant pressure at a given height is proportional to the distance to the
bottom of the keel, so the required force to shear the plane is proportional to the ridge
width times the square of the unconsolidated layer thickness.
The force H
GP
associated with global plug failure is therefore proportional to
3
6
2
5 4 u u u GP
h k h k h k H + +
The term that dominates will depend on the values of k
4
, k
5
and k
6
for typical large ridges.
Comparisons
Load exceedance curves are presented for the above models in Figure 10. The loads were
determined using FORM. The figure shows the distribution of loads given an impact.
Only key parameters were treated probabilistically. The thickness of the unconsolidated
layer was treated probabilistically for global and local plug failure. For crushing and
rideup of the consolidated layer, the thickness of the consolidated layer was modeled as
the thickness of the surrounding ice (treated as a random quantity) times the ratio
between consolidated and level ice thickness (also treated as a random quantity). When
modeling crushing using the probabilisticaveraging method, the mean ridge crushing
strength, width of the ridge (assumed proportional to the thickness of the unconsolidated
layer) and the extreme value parameter were treated probabilistically.
The graph shows the contribution of the individual components to the total load. For
instance Global plug indicates the load associated with this term, Rideup shows the
contribution of the rideup term, and so on. An additional case was run in which the force
was considered to consist of the forces required for rideup and failure of the
unconsolidated keel according to global plug failure model.
The global and local plug loads are dominated by lower power terms. The final curves in
Figure 3 above are a combination of the inputs shown below, and blend the high and
lowpower terms to give a result that has a wellbehaved tail.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
25
Figure 10 Approximate analyses of firstyear ridge loads using FORM:
(top) Exceedance probability of load given an impact
(bottom) Curves normalized to 10
2
values
For further information and publications,
please visit our website at
www.ogp.org.uk
25
Figure 10 Approximate analyses of firstyear ridge loads using FORM:
(top) Exceedance probability of load given an impact
(bottom) Curves normalized to 10
2
values
209215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350
165 Bd du Souverain
4th Floor
B1160 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159
Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk
email: reception@ogp.org.uk