422 Arctic Offshore Structures

Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906
Arctic ofshore structures

Report No. 422
December 2010
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s
P
ublications
Global experience
Te International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical
knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many diferent
terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines
for good practice by individual members.
Consistent high quality database and guidelines
Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-
tice throughout the world.
Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-
ent databases and records in certain felds. Te OGPs members are encouraged to use the
guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and
regulations which may apply locally.
Internationally recognised source of industry information
Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and
safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government
organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.
Disclaimer
Whilst every efort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,
neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless
of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which
liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any use
by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. Te recipient is obliged to inform
any subsequent recipient of such terms.
Tis document may provide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothing
herein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart fom such requirements. In
the event of any confict or contradiction between the provisions of this document and local legislation,
applicable laws shall prevail.
Copyright notice
Te contents of these pages are Te International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission
is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii) the
source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permis-
sion of the OGP.
Tese Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-
land and Wales. Disputes arising here fom shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.
i
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
OGP
Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906
Report 422
December 2010
Acknowledgements
Tis report was compiled by the OGP Ofshore Structures Standards Committee with the assistance of experts from the
ISO committees mentioned in this report.
ii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
iii
OGP
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Calibration methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ice-structure interaction load distribution data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reliability targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Calibration results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Application to ISO 19906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Annex A Development of ice design loads & criteria for various Arctic regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Annex B Calibration analysis of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures . . . . . . . . . 75
Annex C Tails of probability distributions for structures with sloping and conical vs vertical sides . . . 155
iv
OGP
1
OGP
Tis report presents the results of work to calibrate the partial action factors for environmental
actions for ISO 19906:2010 Petroleum and natural gas industries Arctic ofshore structures, with
emphasis on ice actions. It also presents the calibration procedure for future reference. Te work
was commissioned by the OGP Ofshore Structures Committee at the instigation and under the
technical direction of Working Group 8 Arctic ofshore structures of ISO Technical Committee 67
Subcommittee 7 Ofshore structures.
WG8 was established by SC7 in 2002 and was given the responsibility to develop an International
Standard on arctic ofshore structures. Te work has been well supported by industry, therefore
OGP agreed to accept funding from its members for the calibration work specifed by WG8. OGP
placed contracts for two activities as follows:
1) Development of Ice Design Loads & Criteria for Various Arctic Regions by C-CORE and Ian
Jordaan and Associates, see Annex A;
2) Calibration Analysis of Action Factors for ISO 19906 Arctic Ofshore Structures by Aleatec
Advisory Services, see Annex B
With assistance from OGP and advised by its technical panels, WG8 applied the results of these two
activities to the fnal provisions of ISO 19906:2010. In so doing, anomalies were identifed in the
load distribution curves for Barents Sea frst-year ridges, and for actions on slope-sided structures
generally.
In response, C-CORE provided updated load distribution curves for Barents Sea frst-year ridges,
see Annex A Addendum A. Te impact of the updated curves on the results of the calibration analy-
sis is discussed in Annex B Appendix C.
For slope-sided structures, a brief report entitled Tails of Probability Distributions for Structures
with Sloping and Conical vs Vertical Sides was provided by C-CORE and Ian Jordaan and Associ-
ates. Tis is included as Annex C to this report, and provided the basis for these specifc results to
be reassessed by WG8.
With support from OGP, WG8 reviewed all the results of the calibration analysis and decided on
the factors to be specifed in ISO 19906.
ISO 19906 allows a user to perform a calibration of environmental action factors for use in place of
the action factors presented in ISO 19906. ISO 19906:2010 refers to this OGP report for informa-
tion on the methodology of a calibration. ISO 19906:2010 also refers to this OGP report for infor-
mation on the action factors calibrated for L3 structures. Consequently this OGP report is listed as
a bibliographic reference, A.7-2, in ISO 19906:2010.
Introduction
2
OGP
Te calibration procedure and methodology used for ISO 19906:2010 is described in Annex B
section 5. Te calibration accounts for weighted combinations of all action efects over all design
equations and load combinations, for diferent resistance models, for diferent levels of action efect
model uncertainties, for diferent levels of statistical uncertainty, and for diferent mean action
event occurrence rates. Te methodology involves a weighted optimization process with the objec-
tive function minimizing the deviation from L1, L2 and L3 targets, with checks that upper bound
failure probability constraints are not violated.
Calibration methodology
3
OGP
Ice-structure interaction scenarios for diferent arctic and sub-arctic regions were developed by
WG8 in consultation with the contractors.
All zones and structure types to be considered are summarised in Annex B section 7 and Table 5
Zones and structural systems. Tis table also shows where diferent regions were considered to have
statistical distributions of actions sufciently similar for one region to be analysed as representative
of the others, despite the actual values of actions possibly being diferent.
Te structure types identifed for each region were those considered more likely to be used, in order
to develop meaningful statistical weightings. Tis does not preclude any structure type actually
being used in any region. Te combinations of regions and structure types for which load distri-
butions were developed are shown in Annex A section 1 and Table 1.1 Geographic regions and
ice-structure interaction scenarios. Te relative weighting given to the structure types in each zone of
regions is shown in Annex B section 7 and Table 6 Relative weights of structural systems used in a
specifc region/ice environment.
Ice-structure interaction load distribution data
4
OGP
Te reliability targets to which the calibration analysis was performed are set out in ISO 19906:2010
Table A.7-1. Te reliability targets include consideration of both life-safety and environmental pro-
tection through the exposure levels L1, L2 and L3 as explained in ISO 19906:2010 subclause 7.1.4
and subclause A.7.2.4.
Reliability targets
5
OGP
Te results and verifcation for environmental action factors are described in Annex B section 8
for L1 structures and section 10 for L2 and L3 structures. Section 9 describes the derivation of the
default (to be used in the absence of a full probabilistic analysis) companion environmental action
factors.
Te calibration analysis for environmental actions for L1 structures was performed for two sets of
gravity action factors and action combinations; frstly a set based on ISO 19902 Fixed steel ofshore
structures and secondly a set based on the draf ISO/DIS 19906 issued in 2008.
Following review of results for slope-sided (conically-sided) structures, a briefng note was devel-
oped, see Annex C. Consequently, the high values for these partial factors as reported in Annex B
Table 12 were concluded to be spurious.
Te overall summary of results is presented in Annex B section 11 and Table 18 Calibrated design
check equations for exposure levels L1, L2 and L3.
Calibration results
6
OGP
Following consultation with its parent committee, SC7, WG8 decided to provide action factors and
combinations for permanent and variable actions based on those of ISO 19902.
WG8 also noted that the calibrated values of the environmental action factors were relatively insen-
sitive to the diferent values of the action factors for permanent and variable actions. Terefore ISO
19906 allows the use of the diferent factors for permanent and variable actions as presented in ISO
19903 Fixed concrete ofshore structures and ISO 19904-1 Floating ofshore structures respectively,
in order to provide for consistency between structures in ice and in non-ice environments. Many
such structures will be in an ice environment for part of the year only, therefore it is consistent to
consider ice actions as giving rise to additional action combinations rather than changing the factors
for permanent and variable actions in the "conventional" action combinations which continue to be
applicable.
For L1 structures, the calibrated environmental action factor for extreme-level actions other than
ice was calculated as 1.35. Afer resolving the anomalies of slope-sided structures, the calibrated
extreme-level ice action factors ranged from 1.15 to 1.35 while region-wide averages ranged from
1.20 to 1.35, see Annex B Table 12. Te "all regions, all structures" average for ice actions was cal-
culated as 1.30. WG8 concluded that an environmental action factor of 1.35 would encompass the
most unfavourable calculated ice action factor, while being consistent with the factor for other envi-
ronmental actions and therefore simplifying the specifcation of action combinations to be used in
the design process.
For L2 structures, the calibrated environmental action factor for extreme-level actions for all envi-
ronmental actions was calculated consistently as 1.10, see Annex B Table 16. Tis value was accepted
and adopted by WG8.
For L3 structures, WG8 decided not to present action factors in ISO 19906 but to refer the user to
this OGP report. Te intent is for the user to make a considered decision on whether an L3 designa-
tion is appropriate, on the basis that it is "non standard".
For abnormal-level action factors, the annual probability to achieve the reliability target for L1
structures was calculated at 10-3.8. WG8 considered that such precision was not necessary, and that
an annual probability of 10-4 could be slightly conservative but was also consistent with the value of
other abnormal and accidental events used in the design process. For L2 structures, WG8 accepted
and adopted the region-wide annual probability calibrated at 10-3.
WG8 accepted and adopted the companion environmental action factors as presented in Annex B,
for use in ISO 19906:2010 Table 7-3. Tese values are relatively insensitive to exposure level (L1, L2
or L3), and therefore apply for all.
Application to ISO 19906
7
OGP
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Petroleum and natural gas industries
Arctic ofshore structures, International Standard ISO 19906, ISO, 2010.
Bercha, F.G., Gudmestad, O.T., Foschi, R.O., Nevel, D., Nikitina, N., and Sliggers, F. Reli-
ability of Arctic Ofshore Installations. Proceedings, Icetech06, Banf, Canada, July, 2006.
CSA S471-04 General requirements, design criteria, the environment and loads for the Code
for the design, construction, and installation of ofshore structures, Canadian Standards Asso-
ciation, February 2004.
Jordaan, I.J. and Maes, M.A., 1991. Rationale for load specifcations and load factors in the new
CSA Code for Fixed Ofshore Structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, No.
3, pp. 404-464.
References
8
OGP
9
OGP
Annex A
Development of ice design loads & criteria
for various Arctic regions
Development of ice design loads & criteria for various Arctic regions
Final Report prepared for OGP JIP25 committee.
C-CORE Report R-09-27-654 v1, September 2010.
10
OGP
OGP

Development of Ice Design Loads &
Criteria for Various Arctic Regions
FINAL REPORT
R-09-027-654
Prepared for:
OGP JIP25 Committee
September, 2010
Captain Robert A. Bartlett Building
Morrissey Road
St. Johns, NL
Canada A1B 3X5

T: (709) 737-8354
F: (709) 737-4706

Info@c-cor
www.c-cor e.ca
OGP
This page is intentionally left blank
OGP
Development of Ice Design Loads &
Criteria for Various Arctic Regions
FINAL REPORT
Version 1
Captain Robert A. Bartlett Building
Morrissey Road
St. John's, NL
Canada A1B 3X5

T: (709) 737-8354
F: (709) 737-4706

Info@c-core.ca
www.c-cor e.ca
Prepared for:
OGP JIP25 Committee

Prepared by:
C-CORE and Ian Jor daan and Associates

C-CORE Report:
R-09-27-654

September, 2010

Notes:
Updated results for Grand Banks and Labrador
iceberg loads and B arents Sea fi rst-year ri dge
loads give n necessar y modifica tion of inputs
subsequent to fir st draft issue of this re port
are provided in Addendum A of this report.
A brie f re port enti tled Tails of Probability
Distributions for Structures with Sloping and
Conical vs Vertical Sides was pr ovided
subsequent to the first dra ft issue of thi s
report. The report included a discussion of the
model used for e stimating loads due to mu lti-
year ridges on c onical structures, and
limitations in the model that could resu lt in
probability tail s that are too fat and hence
result in overly pessimistic action factors.
OGP
The correct citation for this report is:
C-CORE. Development of Ice Design Loads & Criteria for Various Arctic Regions, C-CORE
Report R-09-27-654 v1, September, 2010.
Project Team
Mark Fuglem (Project Manager)
Freeman Ralph
Ian Jordaan
Paul Stuckey
Grant Parr
Daryl Burry
Jim Bruce
OGP
Development of Ice Design Loads & Criteria for Various Arctic Regions
OGP JIP25 Committee
Report number: R/P-09-027-654 V.1.0 September 23, 2010
REVISION HISTORY
VERSION SVN # NAME COMPANY DATE OF
CHANGES
COMMENTS
1.0 Mark Fuglem,
Freeman
Ralph, Ian
Jordaan and
Paul Stuckey
C-CORE Sep. 23, 2010
DISTRIBUTION LIST
COMPANY NAME NUMBER OF COPIES
OGP JIP25 committee and ISO Committee TP10 Graham Thomas 1 - electronic
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An important part of the development the new ISO Code for design of offshore structures is the
validation and development of calibration (action) factors for design ice loads in arctic and subarctic
regions. Good calibration requires that the slope of the tails of annual maximum load distributions
be well defined. For example, if the design load is the 100-year load multiplied by an action factor,
then to ensure reasonably consistent reliability levels, the probability of exceeding loads at different
percentages larger than the 100-year load must be reasonably well established. Given that ice
conditions vary significantly between different regions (as a result varied presence and
characteristics of first-year sea ice, multi-year sea ice and icebergs) and that ice loads vary
significantly depending on the ice type, environment, and platform characteristics, it was necessary
to evaluate and provide annual maximum load distributions for a significant number of regions and
platform types.
C-CORE and Ian Jordaan and Associates were invited to work with ISO in developing ice structure
interaction scenarios and corresponding load distributions for a number of platform types and arctic
and subarctic regions because of their experience in evaluating probabilistic design ice loads over a
broad range of scenarios. This report gives an overview of the scenarios run and the methods used.
Monte-Carlo simulation techniques were used in conjunction with site specific ice and
environmental data and appropriate ice structure interaction models to simulate appropriate numbers
of interactions per year and maximum ice loads for each interaction. For each scenario (region, ice
types and platform type), the annual maximum load distribution, parent load distribution (maximum
load per interaction event), and statistics on the number of load interactions and parent distribution
are provided.
Based on the initial results provided in February, 2009, it was found that several scenarios required
action factors higher than 1.35. On subsequent examination of the scenarios involved, it was
confirmed that for multi-year ridges interacting with conical structures, current models do result in
load distributions with relatively fat tails, requiring higher load factors. It is believed that the fatter
tail for conical structures occurs in part because the effect of scaling on flexural strength is not taken
into account, and that a higher load factor is not necessarily warranted. Additionally, after necessary
modifications to model inputs for the analysis of first-year ridge loads on different structures in the
Barents Sea region, the load probability tails were found to be more in line with load scenarios
requiring lower action factors.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
ii
A brief report entitled Tails of Probability Distributions for Structures with Sloping and Conical vs
Vertical Sides was provided (June 25, 2009) that included:
a) updated load curves for first-year ridge loads on Barents Sea structures incorporating
necessary modifications to inputs; and
b) a discussion of the model used for estimating loads due to multi-year ridges on conical
structures, and limitations in the model that could result in probability tails that are too fat
and hence result in overly pessimistic action factors.
An addendum (Addendum A) has been attached to this report with updated results for first-year
ridge loads on Barents Sea structures and an updated discussion of the limitations in available
models for estimating loads due to multi-year ridges on conical structures and a recommended
strategy for improvement will be provided in the near future. A second addendum (Addendum B)
has been added addressing TP10 comments on the ISO/DIS 19906 Calibration Draft Report that
relate to inputs provided by C-CORE in the initial report provided in February.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 APPROACH.................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3 BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS: MULTI-YEAR FLOES.................................................................................. 3
4 GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR SEA: ICEBERGS........................................................................................... 14
5 SAKHALIN ISLAND: FIRST-YEAR RIDGES......................................................................................................... 19
6 BARENTS SEA: ICEBERGS AND FIRST-YEAR RIDGES ................................................................................... 23
7 CASPIAN SEA: FIRST-YEAR LEVEL ICE ............................................................................................................. 29
8 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................. 33
ADDENDUM A REVISED PLOTS FOR GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR ICEBERG LOADS
AND BARENTS SEA FIRST-YEAR RIDGE LOADS .............................................................. A.1
ADDENDUM B RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ISO/DIS 19906 CALIBRATION DRAFT REPORT....... B.1
OGP JIP25 Committee
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Geographic regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios ............................................. 1
Table 3.1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ice conditions ......................................................................... 7
Table 4.1 Grand Banks ice conditions ............................................................................................ 15
Table 4.2 Labrador Sea ice conditions............................................................................................ 17
Table 5.1 Sakhalin Island ice conditions ........................................................................................ 20
Table 6.1 Barents Sea iceberg conditions ....................................................................................... 24
Table 6.2 Barents Sea first-year ridge conditions ........................................................................... 26
Table 7.1 Caspian Sea ice conditions.............................................................................................. 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Beaufort Sea lease area.. 5
Figure 3.2 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Chukchi Sea lease area .. 5
Figure 3.3 Multi-year ridge profile options.................................................................................... 6
Figure 3.4 Multi-year ridge approach angle................................................................................... 6
Figure 3.5 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 100 m diameter GBS and 0.5/10
ths
MY concentration ...... 8
Figure 3.6 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 50 m wide FPSO and 0.5/10
ths
MY concentration............. 8
Figure 3.7 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 20 m diameter column and 0.5/10
ths
MY concentration .... 9
Figure 3.8 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 100 m slope-faced GBS and 0.5/10
ths
MY concentration.. 9
Figure 3.9 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 100m diameter GBS and 1.5/10
ths
MY concentration ..... 10
ths
MY concentration........... 10
ths
MY concentration
11
ths
MY concentration 11
Figure 3.13 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 100m diameter GBS and 3/10
ths
MY concentration ........ 12
Figure 3.14 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 50 m wide FPSO and 3/10
ths
MY concentration.............. 12
Figure 3.15 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 20 m diameter column and 3/10
ths
MY concentration. 13
Figure 3.16 Beaufort & Chukchi Seas: 100 m slope-faced GBS and 3/10
ths
MY concentration13
Figure 4.1 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................................... 16
Figure 4.2 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO ......................................... 16
Figure 4.3 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................................... 18
Figure 4.4 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO......................................... 18
Figure 5.1 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................... 21
Figure 5.2 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO.......................... 21
Figure 5.3 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 20 m diameter column................. 22
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 APPROACH.................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3 BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS: MULTI-YEAR FLOES.................................................................................. 3
4 GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR SEA: ICEBERGS........................................................................................... 14
5 SAKHALIN ISLAND: FIRST-YEAR RIDGES......................................................................................................... 19
6 BARENTS SEA: ICEBERGS AND FIRST-YEAR RIDGES ................................................................................... 23
7 CASPIAN SEA: FIRST-YEAR LEVEL ICE ............................................................................................................. 29
8 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................. 33
ADDENDUM A REVISED PLOTS FOR GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR ICEBERG LOADS
AND BARENTS SEA FIRST-YEAR RIDGE LOADS .............................................................. A.1
ADDENDUM B RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ISO/DIS 19906 CALIBRATION DRAFT REPORT....... B.1
OGP JIP25 Committee
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Geographic regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios ............................................. 1
Table 3.1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ice conditions ......................................................................... 7
Table 4.1 Grand Banks ice conditions ............................................................................................ 15
Table 4.2 Labrador Sea ice conditions............................................................................................ 17
Table 5.1 Sakhalin Island ice conditions ........................................................................................ 20
Table 6.1 Barents Sea iceberg conditions ....................................................................................... 24
Table 6.2 Barents Sea first-year ridge conditions ........................................................................... 26
Table 7.1 Caspian Sea ice conditions.............................................................................................. 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Beaufort Sea lease area.. 5
Figure 3.2 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Chukchi Sea lease area .. 5
Figure 3.3 Multi-year ridge profile options.................................................................................... 6
Figure 3.4 Multi-year ridge approach angle................................................................................... 6
ths
MY concentration ...... 8
ths
MY concentration............. 8
ths
MY concentration .... 9
ths
MY concentration.. 9
ths
MY concentration ..... 10
ths
MY concentration........... 10
ths
MY concentration
11
ths
MY concentration 11
ths
MY concentration ........ 12
ths
MY concentration.............. 12
ths
MY concentration. 13
ths
MY concentration13
Figure 4.1 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................................... 16
Figure 4.2 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO ......................................... 16
Figure 4.3 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................................... 18
Figure 4.4 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO......................................... 18
Figure 5.1 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter GBS................... 21
Figure 5.2 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO.......................... 21
Figure 5.3 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 20 m diameter column................. 22
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
v
Figure 5.4 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter slope-faced GBS 22
Figure 6.1 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater ........ 25
Figure 6.2 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO ........................................... 25
Figure 6.3 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater
27
Figure 6.4 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO............................... 27
Figure 6.5 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter slope-faced floater... 28
Figure 7.1 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide vertically-faced GBS31
Figure 7.2 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 20 m diameter column................. 31
Figure 7.3 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide slope-faced GBS...... 32
OGP JIP25 Committee
1
1 INTRODUCTION
interaction scenarios and corresponding load distributions for offshore platforms in different arctic
and subarctic regions. The purpose of the work was to provide a basis for validating and calibrating
action factors to be included in the new ISO Code for design of offshore structures. The geographic
regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios considered are listed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Geographic regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios

Icebergs First-year
Level Ice
First-year
Ridges
Multi-year
Ridges
Beaufort &
Chukchi Seas

100 m vertically sided
GBS
50 m wide FPSO
20 m column
100 m conical GBS
results are provided for 0.5, 1.5
and 3.0 tenths MY concentration
Grand Banks 100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO

Labrador Sea 100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO

Sakhalin
Island

100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO
20 m column
100 m conical
GBS

Barents Sea 100 m vertically
sided floater
50 m wide FPSO

100 m vertically
sided floater
50 m wide FPSO
100 m conical
floater

Caspian Sea

100 m GBS
20 m column
100 m GBS with
upward slope
face

OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
1
1 INTRODUCTION
interaction scenarios and corresponding load distributions for offshore platforms in different arctic
and subarctic regions. The purpose of the work was to provide a basis for validating and calibrating
action factors to be included in the new ISO Code for design of offshore structures. The geographic
regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios considered are listed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Geographic regions and ice-structure interaction scenarios

Icebergs First-year
Level Ice
First-year
Ridges
Multi-year
Ridges
Beaufort &
Chukchi Seas

100 m vertically sided
GBS
50 m wide FPSO
20 m column
100 m conical GBS
results are provided for 0.5, 1.5
and 3.0 tenths MY concentration
Grand Banks 100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO

Labrador Sea 100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO

Sakhalin
Island

100 m GBS
50 m wide FPSO
20 m column
100 m conical
GBS

Barents Sea 100 m vertically
sided floater
50 m wide FPSO

100 m vertically
sided floater
50 m wide FPSO
100 m conical
floater

Caspian Sea

100 m GBS
20 m column
100 m GBS with
upward slope
face

OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
2
2 APPROACH
For each region and applicable ice structure interaction scenario noted in Table 1.1, a maximum
annual impact load probability distribution was required. Given the purpose of the overall study (to
determine appropriate loads factors rather than specific design loads), it is important that the slope of
the tails of the load distributions are appropriate. The specific load values and the shape of the
distributions over the lower ranges of values are not as critical. Annual maximum loads to an annual
probability of exceedence as low as 10
-4
were required. In addition, parent load distributions
representing the probability specified loads given a single impact (as opposed to the annual
maximum) along with associated mean and standard deviation values were required.
In determining the load distributions, the population of ice features (numbers, sizes and shapes of
features), the effect of the structure shape and size, the movements of ice features and environmental
forces, and the dynamics of the ice-structure interactions including the failure mechanisms of the ice
need to be considered. Seasonal operations and ice management (detection, towing and moving
floating systems off site to avoid ice interactions) were not considered.
For each geographic region and structure type, Monte-Carlo simulation techniques were applied to
determine the annual maximum load distribution. First the exposure, in terms of number of features
or duration of interaction is calculated based on site specific information regarding the length of the
ice season, the number of features and movement of ice. Given the number of features, or amount of
ice encountered in a given year, then ice-structure interaction models are used to simulate random
loads for each feature or appropriate length of ice encountered. First, the maximum load per
interaction is determined, and then the maximum load during all of the interactions in the year is
determined and stored. Once interactions over a sufficient number of years have been simulated, the
annual maximum load curve is output.
Only loads associated with the dominant types of ice features in each region (as shown in Table 1.1)
were considered. The ice failure models used were developed with the more severe types of events
in mind (for example, for multi-year ridges interactions, ice crushing across the contact face is
considered and the possibility of a floe splitting or failing in flexure is ignored). The resulting load
distributions are believed to be sufficiently accurate in the tail of the distribution.
OGP JIP25 Committee
3
3 BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS: MULTI-YEAR FLOES
In the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the dominant loads are associated with multi-year floes with
embedded ridges. Ice generally moves across the region from east to west and the variation in multi-
year ice concentration across the two seas is considerably larger from south to north than the
variation from east to west. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 illustrate the strong north-south variation in
multi-year concentration over the exploration leases in the two seas. Design loads were calculated
for three different ice concentration levels (0.5, 1.5 and 3 tenths), otherwise assuming the same ice
characteristics. While there is some reduction in concentration and change in ice characteristics
from east to west, this is less critical.
In modeling interactions between multi-year ice and vertically faced structures, the embedded multi-
year ridges are idealized as triangular in profile (Figure 3.3a) and impacting with ridge length
oriented normal to the direction of motion (Figure 3.4). Failure by crushing is assumed to occur
across the complete width of contact. The depth of contact at each penetration is defined by the
local thickness of the keel.
The failure strength of the multi-year ice was simulated using a pressure-averaging algorithm that
accounts for reductions in peak failure pressure with contact width observed for interactions
predominantly involving crushing of ice (Jordaan et al., 2005). The driving force acting on the back
of the multi-year floes as a result of ridging of surrounding ice was modeled using the method
recommended in ISO 19906; namely the unit driving force F
L
in MPa/m is given as
F
L
= R h
1.25
D
-0.54
where h is the level ice thickness of the surrounding ice, D is the diameter of the
multi-year floe and R equals 10 MPa / m. The thickness h of the surrounding ice was set equal to the
mean monthly average first-year thickness.
For the 100 m conical GBS, the model developed by Wang for infinitely long ridges and referenced
in the API RP 2N (API 1995, Wang, 1984, Nevel, 1991) was used to estimate the peak failure force
that will occur given sufficient impact momentum and driving force. The force is assumed to
increase linearly from one half to all of this maximum value over the width of the ridge. If there is
insufficient momentum and driving force, the maximum value will not be achieved. When using the
Wang model, the ridges are idealized as being truncated in profile (Figure 3.3b).
Data on multi-year ice features is limited, especially for the Chukchi Sea. For the Chukchi Sea, the
same parameters were assumed as for the Beaufort Sea; this is a reasonable approximation as the
prevailing currents tend to bring ice into the Chukchi Sea from the Beaufort Sea. From Figure 3.1
and Figure 3.2, it is seen that the water depth varies from 30 to 1000 m over the lease area in the
Beaufort Sea, but only from 30 to 50 m over the lease area in the Chukchi Sea. A sensitivity
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
2
2 APPROACH
For each region and applicable ice structure interaction scenario noted in Table 1.1, a maximum
annual impact load probability distribution was required. Given the purpose of the overall study (to
determine appropriate loads factors rather than specific design loads), it is important that the slope of
the tails of the load distributions are appropriate. The specific load values and the shape of the
distributions over the lower ranges of values are not as critical. Annual maximum loads to an annual
probability of exceedence as low as 10
-4
were required. In addition, parent load distributions
representing the probability specified loads given a single impact (as opposed to the annual
maximum) along with associated mean and standard deviation values were required.
In determining the load distributions, the population of ice features (numbers, sizes and shapes of
features), the effect of the structure shape and size, the movements of ice features and environmental
forces, and the dynamics of the ice-structure interactions including the failure mechanisms of the ice
need to be considered. Seasonal operations and ice management (detection, towing and moving
floating systems off site to avoid ice interactions) were not considered.
For each geographic region and structure type, Monte-Carlo simulation techniques were applied to
determine the annual maximum load distribution. First the exposure, in terms of number of features
or duration of interaction is calculated based on site specific information regarding the length of the
ice season, the number of features and movement of ice. Given the number of features, or amount of
ice encountered in a given year, then ice-structure interaction models are used to simulate random
loads for each feature or appropriate length of ice encountered. First, the maximum load per
interaction is determined, and then the maximum load during all of the interactions in the year is
determined and stored. Once interactions over a sufficient number of years have been simulated, the
annual maximum load curve is output.
Only loads associated with the dominant types of ice features in each region (as shown in Table 1.1)
were considered. The ice failure models used were developed with the more severe types of events
in mind (for example, for multi-year ridges interactions, ice crushing across the contact face is
considered and the possibility of a floe splitting or failing in flexure is ignored). The resulting load
distributions are believed to be sufficiently accurate in the tail of the distribution.
OGP JIP25 Committee
3
3 BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS: MULTI-YEAR FLOES
In the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the dominant loads are associated with multi-year floes with
embedded ridges. Ice generally moves across the region from east to west and the variation in multi-
year ice concentration across the two seas is considerably larger from south to north than the
variation from east to west. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 illustrate the strong north-south variation in
multi-year concentration over the exploration leases in the two seas. Design loads were calculated
for three different ice concentration levels (0.5, 1.5 and 3 tenths), otherwise assuming the same ice
characteristics. While there is some reduction in concentration and change in ice characteristics
from east to west, this is less critical.
In modeling interactions between multi-year ice and vertically faced structures, the embedded multi-
year ridges are idealized as triangular in profile (Figure 3.3a) and impacting with ridge length
oriented normal to the direction of motion (Figure 3.4). Failure by crushing is assumed to occur
across the complete width of contact. The depth of contact at each penetration is defined by the
local thickness of the keel.
The failure strength of the multi-year ice was simulated using a pressure-averaging algorithm that
accounts for reductions in peak failure pressure with contact width observed for interactions
predominantly involving crushing of ice (Jordaan et al., 2005). The driving force acting on the back
of the multi-year floes as a result of ridging of surrounding ice was modeled using the method
recommended in ISO 19906; namely the unit driving force F
L
in MPa/m is given as
F
L
= R h
1.25
D
-0.54
where h is the level ice thickness of the surrounding ice, D is the diameter of the
multi-year floe and R equals 10 MPa / m. The thickness h of the surrounding ice was set equal to the
mean monthly average first-year thickness.
For the 100 m conical GBS, the model developed by Wang for infinitely long ridges and referenced
in the API RP 2N (API 1995, Wang, 1984, Nevel, 1991) was used to estimate the peak failure force
that will occur given sufficient impact momentum and driving force. The force is assumed to
increase linearly from one half to all of this maximum value over the width of the ridge. If there is
insufficient momentum and driving force, the maximum value will not be achieved. When using the
Wang model, the ridges are idealized as being truncated in profile (Figure 3.3b).
Data on multi-year ice features is limited, especially for the Chukchi Sea. For the Chukchi Sea, the
same parameters were assumed as for the Beaufort Sea; this is a reasonable approximation as the
prevailing currents tend to bring ice into the Chukchi Sea from the Beaufort Sea. From Figure 3.1
and Figure 3.2, it is seen that the water depth varies from 30 to 1000 m over the lease area in the
Beaufort Sea, but only from 30 to 50 m over the lease area in the Chukchi Sea. A sensitivity
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
4
analysis was conducted to determine if variations in water depth over 30 m influences design loads.
As minimal effect was found, only a single set of runs (three sets corresponding to the different
multi-year ice concentrations) were conducted for the two regions.
The data inputs for the analysis are shown in Table 3.1 and the resulting load curves are shown in
Figure 3.5 through Figure 3.16.
OGP JIP25 Committee
5
Base map downloaded from Indian and Northern Affairs site
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nth/og/le/mp/bsmd/beau.pdf
Figure 3.1 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Beaufort Sea lease area
Base map from Proposed Final Program, Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012, April 2007, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service
Web site: http://www.mms.gov/5-year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-2012.pdf
Figure 3.2 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Chukchi Sea lease area
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
4
analysis was conducted to determine if variations in water depth over 30 m influences design loads.
As minimal effect was found, only a single set of runs (three sets corresponding to the different
multi-year ice concentrations) were conducted for the two regions.
OGP JIP25 Committee
5
Base map downloaded from Indian and Northern Affairs site
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nth/og/le/mp/bsmd/beau.pdf
Figure 3.1 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Beaufort Sea lease area
Base map from Proposed Final Program, Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012, April 2007, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service
Web site: http://www.mms.gov/5-year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-2012.pdf
Figure 3.2 Variation in multi-year concentration and water depth over Chukchi Sea lease area
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
6
Figure 3.3 Multi-year ridge profile options
Figure 3.4 Multi-year ridge approach angle
OGP JIP25 Committee
7
Table 3.1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ice conditions
Parameter Source Description
Level MY ice
thickness (m)
Sanderson (1988) Monthly mean values, used for driving force calculation.
MY concentration
(tenths)
Based on NIC ice
charts
0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 tenths representing different locations (see
maps that follow). Sensitivity analysis showed no influence of
water depth for water depths greater than 30 m.
MY floe diameter (m) Masterson (2008) Lognormal, = 223 m and = 246 m
MY level ice
thickness (m)
Masterson (2008)
Exponential, = 4.1 m, = 2.3 m,
shift = 1.8 m, upper limit 6 m
Proportion of time no
movement
Melling and Riedel
(2004)
Monthly values ranging from 40% of time in winter to 10% of
time in summer. Values for Canadian Beaufort Sea, no data
for Chukchi Sea.
Instantaneous drift
speed given
movement (m/s)
Melling and Riedel
(2004)
Montly values: gamma distributions with means varying from
approximate 0.10 to 0.25 m/s. Values for Canadian Beaufort
Sea, no data for Chukchi Sea.
MY ridge spacing
Estimate
Lognormal, = 223 m and = 246 m
(based on assumption of approximately one ridge per floe)
Wadhams & Davy 1986 give a value of 224 based on ULS
from submarines
MY keel draft (m) Masterson (2008) Exponential = 8.2 m and = 2.2 m, shift = 5 m.
Keel length (m) Assumed equal to width of floe.
Vertical structure - triangular ridge profile
Keel angle () ISO/TC 67 / SC 7 30
Keel width (m)
Determined from keel draft and angle based on assumption
of triangular ridge
Conical structure - truncated ridge profile
Keel width to depth
ratio
5 to 1
Keel top to bottom
width ratio
1.5 to 1
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
6
Figure 3.3 Multi-year ridge profile options
Figure 3.4 Multi-year ridge approach angle
OGP JIP25 Committee
7
Table 3.1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ice conditions
Level MY ice
thickness (m)
Sanderson (1988) Monthly mean values, used for driving force calculation.
MY concentration
(tenths)
Based on NIC ice
charts
0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 tenths representing different locations (see
maps that follow). Sensitivity analysis showed no influence of
water depth for water depths greater than 30 m.
MY floe diameter (m) Masterson (2008) Lognormal, = 223 m and = 246 m
MY level ice
thickness (m)
Masterson (2008)
Exponential, = 4.1 m, = 2.3 m,
shift = 1.8 m, upper limit 6 m
Proportion of time no
movement
Melling and Riedel
(2004)
Monthly values ranging from 40% of time in winter to 10% of
time in summer. Values for Canadian Beaufort Sea, no data
for Chukchi Sea.
Instantaneous drift
speed given
movement (m/s)
Melling and Riedel
(2004)
Montly values: gamma distributions with means varying from
approximate 0.10 to 0.25 m/s. Values for Canadian Beaufort
Sea, no data for Chukchi Sea.
MY ridge spacing
Estimate
Lognormal, = 223 m and = 246 m
(based on assumption of approximately one ridge per floe)
Wadhams & Davy 1986 give a value of 224 based on ULS
from submarines
MY keel draft (m) Masterson (2008) Exponential = 8.2 m and = 2.2 m, shift = 5 m.
Keel length (m) Assumed equal to width of floe.
Vertical structure - triangular ridge profile
Keel angle () ISO/TC 67 / SC 7 30
Keel width (m)
Determined from keel draft and angle based on assumption
of triangular ridge
Conical structure - truncated ridge profile
Keel width to depth
ratio
5 to 1
Keel top to bottom
width ratio
1.5 to 1
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
8
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
8
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP JIP25 Committee
9
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
10
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP JIP25 Committee
11
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
10
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP JIP25 Committee
11
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
12
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
12
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP JIP25 Committee
13
ths
MY concentration
ths
MY concentration
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
14
4 GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR SEA: ICEBERGS
On the Grand Banks and in the Labrador Sea, the dominant loads are associated with iceberg
impacts in open seas.
The iceberg loads are estimated using a kinetic energy based interaction model. The model takes into
account the iceberg shape (global as well as local shape at the point of contact) and the size, drift
velocity and wave-induced velocity of the iceberg. The drift and wave-induced velocity are
determined based on the sea state and the size of the iceberg. In determining the initial kinetic
energy of the iceberg, the hydrodynamic added mass of the iceberg is included. The initial kinetic
energy of the iceberg is dissipated through ice crushing and transformation into rotational energy due
to the eccentric impact of the iceberg. The force at the point of contact is calculated using a global
pressure-area model in conjunction with an area-penetration model. The global pressure-area model
is based on a random relationship, as outlined in equation A.8-18 of Section A.8.2.4.3 in ISO/TC 67
/ SC 7. The area-penetration model characterizes the contact area between the iceberg and a structure
as a function of penetration at the point of contact, with random coefficients for the relationship
determined based on an analysis of actual iceberg shapes.
There are several differences in inputs between the Labrador Sea and Grand Banks that affect the
calculated loads. For the Grand Banks, platforms located at 46.5N and 48.5W (water depth 95 m)
have been considered. For the Labrador Sea, platforms located on the Makkovik Bank (water depth
100 m) have been considered. The areal density of icebergs is significantly higher at the Labrador
Sea site (2.0 icebergs per 1000 km
2
versus 0.082 for the Grand Banks site). The same iceberg size
distribution was assumed for the Labrador Sea as on the Grand Banks (though the icebergs in the
Labrador Sea could be slightly larger, there is insufficient data to justify a different distribution
given the difference in size).
The data inputs for the Grand Banks analysis are shown in Table 4.1 and the resulting load curves
are shown in Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.2. The data inputs for the Labrador Sea analysis are shown
in Table 4.2 and the resulting load curves are shown in Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.4. It is seen that
the resulting loads are significantly higher for the Labrador Sea. For the Grand Banks site, there are
0.13 impacts per year on average, so the distribution of annual maximum load is scaled down from
the parent distribution of loads. For the Labrador site, there are 4.7 impacts per year on average, so
the distribution of annual maximum load is shifted to the right of the parent distribution of loads.
OGP JIP25 Committee
15
Table 4.1 Grand Banks ice conditions
Parameter Data Source Description
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
0.08
Waterline length (m) C-CORE (2006) Combination of two exponential distributions
Significant wave height (m) AES40 (2000) Site specific empirical distribution
Mass (tonnes) C-CORE (2006)
M = 1.05L
2.68
exp(e), where e = N(0,0.61)
Draft (m) C-CORE (2006)
D = 3.14L
0.68
Width (m) C-CORE (2006)
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
,with R
2
= 0.661
Drift speed (m/s) C-CORE (2006) Probabilistic model with drift speed as a function of
length and significant wave height. The mean drift
speed for all iceberg sizes and sea states is 0.33 m/s.
see addendum for corrected table
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
14
4 GRAND BANKS AND LABRADOR SEA: ICEBERGS
On the Grand Banks and in the Labrador Sea, the dominant loads are associated with iceberg
impacts in open seas.
The iceberg loads are estimated using a kinetic energy based interaction model. The model takes into
account the iceberg shape (global as well as local shape at the point of contact) and the size, drift
velocity and wave-induced velocity of the iceberg. The drift and wave-induced velocity are
determined based on the sea state and the size of the iceberg. In determining the initial kinetic
energy of the iceberg, the hydrodynamic added mass of the iceberg is included. The initial kinetic
energy of the iceberg is dissipated through ice crushing and transformation into rotational energy due
to the eccentric impact of the iceberg. The force at the point of contact is calculated using a global
pressure-area model in conjunction with an area-penetration model. The global pressure-area model
is based on a random relationship, as outlined in equation A.8-18 of Section A.8.2.4.3 in ISO/TC 67
/ SC 7. The area-penetration model characterizes the contact area between the iceberg and a structure
as a function of penetration at the point of contact, with random coefficients for the relationship
determined based on an analysis of actual iceberg shapes.
There are several differences in inputs between the Labrador Sea and Grand Banks that affect the
calculated loads. For the Grand Banks, platforms located at 46.5N and 48.5W (water depth 95 m)
have been considered. For the Labrador Sea, platforms located on the Makkovik Bank (water depth
100 m) have been considered. The areal density of icebergs is significantly higher at the Labrador
Sea site (2.0 icebergs per 1000 km
2
versus 0.082 for the Grand Banks site). The same iceberg size
distribution was assumed for the Labrador Sea as on the Grand Banks (though the icebergs in the
Labrador Sea could be slightly larger, there is insufficient data to justify a different distribution
given the difference in size).
The data inputs for the Grand Banks analysis are shown in Table 4.1 and the resulting load curves
are shown in Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.2. The data inputs for the Labrador Sea analysis are shown
in Table 4.2 and the resulting load curves are shown in Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.4. It is seen that
the resulting loads are significantly higher for the Labrador Sea. For the Grand Banks site, there are
0.13 impacts per year on average, so the distribution of annual maximum load is scaled down from
the parent distribution of loads. For the Labrador site, there are 4.7 impacts per year on average, so
the distribution of annual maximum load is shifted to the right of the parent distribution of loads.
OGP JIP25 Committee
15
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
0.08
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
,with R
2
= 0.661
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
16
see addendum for corrected plot
Figure 4.1 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS
Figure 4.2 Grand Banks: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP JIP25 Committee
17
Table 4.2 Labrador Sea ice conditions
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
2.0 (Makkovik Bank)
Significant wave height
(m)
MSC50 (2008),
Meteorological Service
of Canada
Site specific empirical distribution
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
, with R
2
=0.661
Drift speed (m/s) Labrador Strategic
Environmental
Assessment (2008)
Probabilistic model with drift speed as a function of
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
16
OGP JIP25 Committee
17
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
2.0 (Makkovik Bank)
Significant wave height
(m)
MSC50 (2008),
Meteorological Service
of Canada
Site specific empirical distribution
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
, with R
2
=0.661
Environmental
Assessment (2008)
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
18
Figure 4.3 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter GBS
Figure 4.4 Labrador Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP JIP25 Committee
19
5 SAKHALIN ISLAND: FIRST-YEAR RIDGES
First-year ridges are the dominant loading features off Sakhalin Island. Loads resulting from first-
year ridges have been modeled as the sum of the force required to fail the consolidated portion of the
ridge (near the surface), and the force required to fail the unconsolidated keel below the consolidated
layer.
For ridge interactions with structures having vertical faces, the consolidated layer is assumed to fail
by crushing. The failure strength of the consolidated keel was modeled based on the CSA code
(CSA, 2004), assuming Zone 2 ice conditions; this model gives consideration to the thickness of ice
and the width of the failure contact zone.
For ridge interactions with structures having sloped faces, the consolidated layer is assumed to fail
by flexure. The maximum load during an interaction is estimated as the sum of component forces to
push the ice sheet through rubble accumulating on the front of the cone; lift and shear ice rubble on
top of the sheet; break the consolidated layer by flexure; push the broken ice blocks up the slope
through rubble and turn the ice blocks at the top of the slope (assuming the ice impacts a vertical
wall or neck). The model is an adaptation of that described in Croasdale et al. (1994).
The loads associated with the unconsolidated layer for structures having either vertical or sloped
faces are estimated using the same model. The unconsolidated ice is treated as a Coulomb-Mohr
material. At any given penetration the unconsolidated keel may fail by either a local or global plug
failure mechanism depending on the local thickness of the unconsolidated layer and the horizontal
extent of intact unconsolidated ice still remaining. The pressure required to cause local plug failure
is estimated using the Dolgopolov (1975) model and the pressure required to cause global plug
failure is estimated using the Croasdale model (1980). The overall model that accounts for both
failure mechanisms is described in Brown et al. (1996). The strength of the unconsolidated keel was
based on a cohesion of 6000 Pa, an internal friction angle of 40 degrees, a porosity of 0.2, an elastic
modulus of 3 GPa and a Poisson ratio of 0.3.
The unit driving force F
L
(per m of ridge length) acting on the ridge by the surrounding ice was
modeled using the method recommended in ISO 19906; namely, F
L
= R h
1.25
L
-0.54
where R is
uniformly distributed between 2 and 10 MPa / m, h is the level ice thickness of the floe and L is the
ridge length.
The data inputs for the analysis are shown in Table 5.1. A water depth of 30 m was assumed. The
resulting load curves are shown in Figure 5.1 through Figure 5.4.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
18
OGP JIP25 Committee
19
5 SAKHALIN ISLAND: FIRST-YEAR RIDGES
First-year ridges are the dominant loading features off Sakhalin Island. Loads resulting from first-
year ridges have been modeled as the sum of the force required to fail the consolidated portion of the
ridge (near the surface), and the force required to fail the unconsolidated keel below the consolidated
layer.
For ridge interactions with structures having vertical faces, the consolidated layer is assumed to fail
by crushing. The failure strength of the consolidated keel was modeled based on the CSA code
(CSA, 2004), assuming Zone 2 ice conditions; this model gives consideration to the thickness of ice
and the width of the failure contact zone.
For ridge interactions with structures having sloped faces, the consolidated layer is assumed to fail
by flexure. The maximum load during an interaction is estimated as the sum of component forces to
push the ice sheet through rubble accumulating on the front of the cone; lift and shear ice rubble on
top of the sheet; break the consolidated layer by flexure; push the broken ice blocks up the slope
through rubble and turn the ice blocks at the top of the slope (assuming the ice impacts a vertical
wall or neck). The model is an adaptation of that described in Croasdale et al. (1994).
The loads associated with the unconsolidated layer for structures having either vertical or sloped
faces are estimated using the same model. The unconsolidated ice is treated as a Coulomb-Mohr
material. At any given penetration the unconsolidated keel may fail by either a local or global plug
failure mechanism depending on the local thickness of the unconsolidated layer and the horizontal
extent of intact unconsolidated ice still remaining. The pressure required to cause local plug failure
is estimated using the Dolgopolov (1975) model and the pressure required to cause global plug
failure is estimated using the Croasdale model (1980). The overall model that accounts for both
failure mechanisms is described in Brown et al. (1996). The strength of the unconsolidated keel was
based on a cohesion of 6000 Pa, an internal friction angle of 40 degrees, a porosity of 0.2, an elastic
modulus of 3 GPa and a Poisson ratio of 0.3.
The unit driving force F
L
(per m of ridge length) acting on the ridge by the surrounding ice was
modeled using the method recommended in ISO 19906; namely, F
L
= R h
1.25
L
-0.54
where R is
uniformly distributed between 2 and 10 MPa / m, h is the level ice thickness of the floe and L is the
ridge length.
The data inputs for the analysis are shown in Table 5.1. A water depth of 30 m was assumed. The
resulting load curves are shown in Figure 5.1 through Figure 5.4.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
20
Table 5.1 Sakhalin Island ice conditions
Season length (weeks) Truskov et al. (1999)
Early mid December to mid late May (~26
weeks)
Model using normal distribution with mean of 180
days and standard deviation of 13 days
Ice concentration Truskov et al. (1999)
During the ice season, there is 9/10ths converage,
with open water associated with coastal flaw leads
approximately 30 percent of the time. Model using
an average value of 0.63.
Level ice thickness (m) Truskov et al. (1999)
Truskov indicates level ice thickness up to 1.7 m
Model assumes uniform distribution from 0.4 to 1.7
m
Keel draft (m) Truskov et al. (1999)
Exponential distribution ( = 7 m, = 2 m, lower cut-
off of 5m)
Consolidated layer
thickness (m)
Judgment
Model as random factor times times level ice
thickness where factor is a triangular distribution
from a probability of 1 at 1 m to a probability of 0 at
1.9 m.
Keel angle () Wadhams (2000) Model as fixed value of 33
Keel length (m) Vershinnin et al. (2006)
Exponential distribution with mean of 205, standard
deviation of 65 and shift of 140 m.
Ridge frequency Truskov et al. (1999)
Frequency of 6 ridges per kilometer with keel draft
greater than 8.5 m. Modeled frequency determined
based on lower draft cut-off and draft distribution.
Instantaneous drift speed
(m/s) Bekker et al. (1999)
15% probability of zero velocity (i.e. calm
conditions).
Instantaneous velocity, when movement modeled as
gamma distribution with mean = 0.35 m/s and
standard deviation = 0.25 m/s
OGP JIP25 Committee
21
Figure 5.1 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter GBS
Figure 5.2 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
20
Table 5.1 Sakhalin Island ice conditions
Season length (weeks) Truskov et al. (1999)
Early mid December to mid late May (~26
weeks)
Model using normal distribution with mean of 180
days and standard deviation of 13 days
Ice concentration Truskov et al. (1999)
During the ice season, there is 9/10ths converage,
with open water associated with coastal flaw leads
approximately 30 percent of the time. Model using
an average value of 0.63.
Level ice thickness (m) Truskov et al. (1999)
Truskov indicates level ice thickness up to 1.7 m
Model assumes uniform distribution from 0.4 to 1.7
m
Keel draft (m) Truskov et al. (1999)
Exponential distribution ( = 7 m, = 2 m, lower cut-
off of 5m)
Consolidated layer
thickness (m)
Judgment
from a probability of 1 at 1 m to a probability of 0 at
1.9 m.
Keel angle () Wadhams (2000) Model as fixed value of 33
Keel length (m) Vershinnin et al. (2006)
Exponential distribution with mean of 205, standard
deviation of 65 and shift of 140 m.
Ridge frequency Truskov et al. (1999)
Frequency of 6 ridges per kilometer with keel draft
greater than 8.5 m. Modeled frequency determined
based on lower draft cut-off and draft distribution.
(m/s) Bekker et al. (1999)
15% probability of zero velocity (i.e. calm
conditions).
Instantaneous velocity, when movement modeled as
gamma distribution with mean = 0.35 m/s and
standard deviation = 0.25 m/s
OGP JIP25 Committee
21
Figure 5.1 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter GBS
Figure 5.2 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
22
Figure 5.3 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 20 m diameter column
Figure 5.4 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter slope-faced GBS
OGP JIP25 Committee
23
6 BARENTS SEA: ICEBERGS AND FIRST-YEAR RIDGES
Icebergs and first-year ridges are the dominant loading features in the Barents Sea. While icebergs
may potentially impart large loads, they occur relatively infrequently.
Iceberg load distributions were determined using the same models for iceberg loads on the Grand
Banks and in the Labrador Sea, but iceberg and environmental inputs appropriate for the Barents
Sea. For first-year level ice loads, the same models were used as for first-year ice loads off Sakhalin
Island, but with the number and shapes of ridges modeled, the consolidated layer thickness and the
surrounding ice thickness appropriate for Barents Sea conditions.
The data inputs for the Barents Sea iceberg analysis are shown in Table 6.1 and the resulting load
curves are shown in Figure 6.1 through Figure 6.2. The data inputs for the Barents Sea first-year
ridge analysis are shown in Table 6.2 and the resulting load curves are shown in Figure 6.3 through
Figure 6.5.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
22
Figure 5.3 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 20 m diameter column
Figure 5.4 Sakhalin Island: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter slope-faced GBS
OGP JIP25 Committee
23
6 BARENTS SEA: ICEBERGS AND FIRST-YEAR RIDGES
Icebergs and first-year ridges are the dominant loading features in the Barents Sea. While icebergs
may potentially impart large loads, they occur relatively infrequently.
Iceberg load distributions were determined using the same models for iceberg loads on the Grand
Banks and in the Labrador Sea, but iceberg and environmental inputs appropriate for the Barents
Sea. For first-year level ice loads, the same models were used as for first-year ice loads off Sakhalin
Island, but with the number and shapes of ridges modeled, the consolidated layer thickness and the
surrounding ice thickness appropriate for Barents Sea conditions.
The data inputs for the Barents Sea iceberg analysis are shown in Table 6.1 and the resulting load
curves are shown in Figure 6.1 through Figure 6.2. The data inputs for the Barents Sea first-year
ridge analysis are shown in Table 6.2 and the resulting load curves are shown in Figure 6.3 through
Figure 6.5.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
24
Table 6.1 Barents Sea iceberg conditions
Areal density (per 1000 km
2
)
Site specific data 0.05
Waterline length (m) Site specific data Combination of two distributions
Significant wave height (m) Site specific data Rayleigh, = 1.76 m and = 0.99 m
Mass (tonnes) Loset and Carstens (1996)
M = 1.49L
2.57
D = 3.14L
0.68
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
, with R
2
= 0.661
Drift speed (m/s) Site specific data Gamma, = 0.25 m/s and = 0.20 m/s
OGP JIP25 Committee
25
Figure 6.1 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater
Figure 6.2 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
24
Table 6.1 Barents Sea iceberg conditions
Areal density (per 1000 km
2
)
Site specific data 0.05
Waterline length (m) Site specific data Combination of two distributions
Significant wave height (m) Site specific data Rayleigh, = 1.76 m and = 0.99 m
Mass (tonnes) Loset and Carstens (1996)
M = 1.49L
2.57
D = 3.14L
0.68
D = 3.09L
0.490
W
0.215
, with R
2
= 0.661
Drift speed (m/s) Site specific data Gamma, = 0.25 m/s and = 0.20 m/s
OGP JIP25 Committee
25
Figure 6.1 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater
Figure 6.2 Barents Sea: iceberg interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
26
Table 6.2 Barents Sea first-year ridge conditions
Annual Pack Ice
Occurrence
NIC archived ice charts
Pack ice present approximately 3 out of every 10
years
Season length (weeks) NIC archived ice charts
Exponential distribution with a mean of 5.6 weeks
(39.2 days) corresponding to concentrations
greater than 8/10ths
Ice concentration NIC archived ice charts
9/10ths (corresponding to definition of season
length)
Level ice thickness (m)
Derived from NIC archived
ice charts
Exponential distribution with mean 0.56 m,
standard deviation 0.26 m, shift 0.3 and upper cut-
off 1.5 m.
Keel draft (m)
Derived from plot in
Naumov et al. (2007)
Gamma distribution with mean 4.8 and standard
deviation 2.3.
Consolidated layer
thickness (m)
-
from a probability of 1 at 1 m to a probability of 0
at 1.9 m.
Keel angle () Wadhams (2000) Fixed value of 33
Keel length (m)
Gamma distribution with mean 36.3 m and
standard deviation 19.2 m
Ridge frequency Zubakin et al. (2004) 5.1 per km
(m/s)
Zubakin et al. (2004) - 0.2 m/s (assumed same value as for icebergs)
OGP JIP25 Committee
27
Figure 6.4 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
26
Table 6.2 Barents Sea first-year ridge conditions
Annual Pack Ice
Occurrence
NIC archived ice charts
Pack ice present approximately 3 out of every 10
years
Season length (weeks) NIC archived ice charts
Exponential distribution with a mean of 5.6 weeks
(39.2 days) corresponding to concentrations
greater than 8/10ths
Ice concentration NIC archived ice charts
9/10ths (corresponding to definition of season
length)
Level ice thickness (m)
Derived from NIC archived
ice charts
Exponential distribution with mean 0.56 m,
standard deviation 0.26 m, shift 0.3 and upper cut-
off 1.5 m.
Keel draft (m)
Gamma distribution with mean 4.8 and standard
deviation 2.3.
Consolidated layer
thickness (m)
-
from a probability of 1 at 1 m to a probability of 0
at 1.9 m.
Keel angle () Wadhams (2000) Fixed value of 33
Keel length (m)
Gamma distribution with mean 36.3 m and
standard deviation 19.2 m
Ridge frequency Zubakin et al. (2004) 5.1 per km
(m/s)
Zubakin et al. (2004) - 0.2 m/s (assumed same value as for icebergs)
OGP JIP25 Committee
27
Figure 6.4 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
28
Figure 6.5 Barents Sea: first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter slope-faced floater
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
28
OGP JIP25 Committee
29
7 CASPIAN SEA: FIRST-YEAR LEVEL ICE
The north-east Caspian Sea is a subarctic region that experiences extensive first-year level ice
coverage with a significant degree of rafting. As a result of the shallow water levels (in the order of
5 m), the ice occasionally grounds out, creating stamuki. For vertically-faced structures, the largest
loads are associated with crushing of level ice and rafted ice. For sloped structures, the largest loads
result from level and rafted ice, either directly as a result of initial ride-up loads, or as a result of
transfer of crushing type loads transferred through grounded rubble that subsequently develops in
front of structure because of the shallow water depths. While rafted ice is probably significantly
weaker than level ice, insufficient strength data on rafted ice was available, so the rafted ice was
conservatively treated using the same models and ice strengths as the level ice.
For the analyses, the water depth was set to 5 m and the GBS structures were modeled as square in
plan. For the sloped structure, the slope was set to 45 degrees (upward).
Based on an analysis of historical conditions, the number of ice movement events per year was
simulated from a normal distribution with a mean of 15 and a standard deviation of 4. Based on
observed ice movements and wind duration events, the amount of ice passing a structure during an
ice movement was simulated from a lognormal distribution with a mean of 16 km and a standard
deviation of 22.5 km.
For the vertically sided structures, ice thickness and crushing pressures were varied during each ice
movement event and the peak force during the event determined. Ice thickness was simulated from
a distribution representing both level and rafted ice; with rafted ice comprising approximately 30%
of the ice passing a structure, based on observation. The ice crushing strength model was derived as
a function of level ice thickness using STRICE data collected in the Baltic Sea, for which the
crushing strength is believed to be similar. A pressure-averaging method that accounts for the
reduction in peak loads with structure width was developed using a similar approach to that
developed for multi-year ice crushing loads. The annual maximum force was taken as the maximum
of the peak event loads.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
30
Table 7.1 Caspian Sea ice conditions
Number of events per year Site specific data Normal distribution, = 15 and = 4
Event length (km) Site specific data Amount of ice moved past the structure during an
event: Lognormal distribution with = 16 km and
= 22.5 km
Ice thickness (m) Site specific data A single distribution representing both level and
rafted ice. Rafted ice makes up 30% of the total
ice moved past the structure annually.
Gamma, = 0.45 m and = 0.089 m
Ice crushing strength
(MPa)
Strice data: (Karna and
Yan, 2006)
Empirical relationship derived as a function of ice
thickness and contact width.
Flexural strength (MPa) Normal distribution, = 0.44 and = 0.13
Rubble porosity Uniform distribution from 0.1 to 0.3
Ice-structure coefficient of
friction
Uniform distribution from 0.05 to 0.15
Maximum rubble pile
height (m)
Mayne and Brown (2000) 7.59 h
0.64
where h is level ice thickness (m)
Rubble cohesion (Pa) 4000
Rubble internal angle of
friction (deg)
45
Rubble angle of repose Slope 10 degrees
Ice-ice coefficient of
friction
0.1
OGP JIP25 Committee
31
Figure 7.1 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide vertically-faced GBS
Figure 7.2 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 20 m diameter column
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
30
Table 7.1 Caspian Sea ice conditions
Number of events per year Site specific data Normal distribution, = 15 and = 4
Event length (km) Site specific data Amount of ice moved past the structure during an
event: Lognormal distribution with = 16 km and
= 22.5 km
Ice thickness (m) Site specific data A single distribution representing both level and
rafted ice. Rafted ice makes up 30% of the total
ice moved past the structure annually.
Gamma, = 0.45 m and = 0.089 m
Ice crushing strength
(MPa)
Strice data: (Karna and
Yan, 2006)
Empirical relationship derived as a function of ice
thickness and contact width.
Flexural strength (MPa) Normal distribution, = 0.44 and = 0.13
Rubble porosity Uniform distribution from 0.1 to 0.3
Ice-structure coefficient of
friction
Uniform distribution from 0.05 to 0.15
Maximum rubble pile
height (m)
Mayne and Brown (2000) 7.59 h
0.64
where h is level ice thickness (m)
Rubble cohesion (Pa) 4000
Rubble internal angle of
friction (deg)
45
Rubble angle of repose Slope 10 degrees
Ice-ice coefficient of
friction
0.1
OGP JIP25 Committee
31
Figure 7.1 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide vertically-faced GBS
Figure 7.2 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 20 m diameter column
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
32
Figure 7.3 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide slope-faced GBS
OGP JIP25 Committee
33
8 REFERENCES
API, 1995, API RP 2N Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Structures
and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions
Bekker, A.T., 1999, The Analysis of Ice Loads on "Molikpaq" for Sakhalin Offshore Conditions.
ISOPE '99. Brest. May 30-June4.
Brown, T.G., Croasdale, K. R. and Wright, B., 1996, Ice Loads on the Northumberland Strait Bridge
Piers An Approach. Proc. of 6th ISOPE Conference, Los Angeles.
C-CORE 2006 Iceberg Load Software: Theory Manual, C-CORE Report R-05-054-364 Version 3,
May 2006.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on Ice Forces
on Structures, a State-of-the-Art Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special Report No.80-26, pp
34-106
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 874-
875, Trondheim, Norway.
Croasdale, K. R., 1997. Ice Structure Interaction: Current State of Knowledge & Implications for
Future Developments. ROA Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA-S.471-04 standard "General
Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment, and Loads (part of the Code for the Design,
Construction, and Installation of Fixed Offshore Structures)
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. 469-478, Hanover, NH, U.S.A.
ISO/TC67/SC7 Offshore structures for petroleum and natural gas industries.
(ISO/TC67/SC7/WG8 Arctic offshore structures)
Karna and Yan (2006). Analysis of the size effect in ice crushing edition 2. Internal report,
Technical Research Centre for Finland, February 2006.
Loset S.; Carstens T., 1996, Sea ice and iceberg observations in the western Barents Sea in 1987,
Cold Regions Science and Technology, Volume 24, Number 4, Dec. 1996 , pp. 323-340(18)
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
Mayne, D. and Brown, T., 2000, Rubble Pile Observations, Proc. 10th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, USA, p 596-599.
Masterson, D., 2008, Personal Communication
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
32
Figure 7.3 Caspian Sea: first-year level ice interactions with 100 m wide slope-faced GBS
OGP JIP25 Committee
33
8 REFERENCES
API, 1995, API RP 2N Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Structures
and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions
Bekker, A.T., 1999, The Analysis of Ice Loads on "Molikpaq" for Sakhalin Offshore Conditions.
ISOPE '99. Brest. May 30-June4.
Brown, T.G., Croasdale, K. R. and Wright, B., 1996, Ice Loads on the Northumberland Strait Bridge
Piers An Approach. Proc. of 6th ISOPE Conference, Los Angeles.
C-CORE 2006 Iceberg Load Software: Theory Manual, C-CORE Report R-05-054-364 Version 3,
May 2006.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on Ice Forces
on Structures, a State-of-the-Art Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special Report No.80-26, pp
34-106
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 874-
875, Trondheim, Norway.
Croasdale, K. R., 1997. Ice Structure Interaction: Current State of Knowledge & Implications for
Future Developments. ROA Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA-S.471-04 standard "General
Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment, and Loads (part of the Code for the Design,
Construction, and Installation of Fixed Offshore Structures)
Hummocked Ice on Piers of Marine Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings IAHR Symposium on Ice,
pp. 469-478, Hanover, NH, U.S.A.
ISO/TC67/SC7 Offshore structures for petroleum and natural gas industries.
(ISO/TC67/SC7/WG8 Arctic offshore structures)
Karna and Yan (2006). Analysis of the size effect in ice crushing edition 2. Internal report,
Technical Research Centre for Finland, February 2006.
Loset S.; Carstens T., 1996, Sea ice and iceberg observations in the western Barents Sea in 1987,
Cold Regions Science and Technology, Volume 24, Number 4, Dec. 1996 , pp. 323-340(18)
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
Mayne, D. and Brown, T., 2000, Rubble Pile Observations, Proc. 10th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, USA, p 596-599.
Masterson, D., 2008, Personal Communication
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
34
Melling, H. and D.A. Riedel. 2004. Draft and Movement of Pack Ice in the Beaufort Sea: A Time-
Series Presentation April 1990 - August 1999. Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and
Ocean Sciences No. 238.Masterson (2008)
MMS , 2007, Proposed Final Program, Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas Leasing Program,
2007-2012, April 2007, MMS Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Map #4
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC, 1998), (http://nsidc.org/data/g01360.html)
Naumov, A., Gudoshnikov Y., Skutina, E. 2007, Determination of the design ice ridge based on data
of expedition studies in the northeastern Barents Sea. ISOPE
Nevel, D.E. 1991. Wangs Equation For Ice Forces From Pressure Ridges. Int Cold Regions Eng
Conf, pp666-672.
Sanderson, T.J.O. 1988. Ice Mechanics: Risks to Offshore Structures. Graham and Trotman Inc.,
Norwell, Massachusetts, 253p.
Truskov, P. A., 1999. Metocean, Ice and Seismic Conditions Offshore Northeastern Sakhalin
Island. OTC 10816. Houston, TX, May 3-6.
Vershinin, S., Truskov, P. Kuzmichev, K. 2006. Sakhalin Island Offshore Platform and Influence
of Ice. Institute Giprostroymost.
Wadhams, P. 2000. Ice in the ocean. Australia: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Wang, Y.S., 1984, Analysis and Model Tests of Pressure Ridges Failing Against Conical Structures,
IAHR Symposium, Hamburg
Zubakin, G., Naumov, A, Buzin, I. 2004, Estimates of ice and iceberg spreading in the Barents Sea.
ISOPE
Integrated Ice Management Initiative 2000
Addendum A:
Revised Plots for Grand Banks and Labrador Iceberg Loads
and Barents Sea First-Year Ridge Loads
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
34
Melling, H. and D.A. Riedel. 2004. Draft and Movement of Pack Ice in the Beaufort Sea: A Time-
Series Presentation April 1990 - August 1999. Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and
Ocean Sciences No. 238.Masterson (2008)
MMS , 2007, Proposed Final Program, Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas Leasing Program,
2007-2012, April 2007, MMS Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Map #4
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC, 1998), (http://nsidc.org/data/g01360.html)
Naumov, A., Gudoshnikov Y., Skutina, E. 2007, Determination of the design ice ridge based on data
of expedition studies in the northeastern Barents Sea. ISOPE
Nevel, D.E. 1991. Wangs Equation For Ice Forces From Pressure Ridges. Int Cold Regions Eng
Conf, pp666-672.
Sanderson, T.J.O. 1988. Ice Mechanics: Risks to Offshore Structures. Graham and Trotman Inc.,
Norwell, Massachusetts, 253p.
Truskov, P. A., 1999. Metocean, Ice and Seismic Conditions Offshore Northeastern Sakhalin
Island. OTC 10816. Houston, TX, May 3-6.
Vershinin, S., Truskov, P. Kuzmichev, K. 2006. Sakhalin Island Offshore Platform and Influence
of Ice. Institute Giprostroymost.
Wadhams, P. 2000. Ice in the ocean. Australia: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Wang, Y.S., 1984, Analysis and Model Tests of Pressure Ridges Failing Against Conical Structures,
IAHR Symposium, Hamburg
Zubakin, G., Naumov, A, Buzin, I. 2004, Estimates of ice and iceberg spreading in the Barents Sea.
ISOPE
Addendum A:
Revised Plots for Grand Banks and Labrador Iceberg Loads
and Barents Sea First-Year Ridge Loads
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-2
A.1 INTRODUCTION
Following the use of the data presented in the body of this report for the calibration analysis,
anomalies were found in the results for Grand Banks and Labrador Sea icebergs, and First Year
Ridge interactions for the Barents Sea. The data were revised and a new set of load distribution
curves were generated. These are presented in this Addendum.
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-3
A.2 REVISED LOAD DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
0.08
Waterline length, L (m) C-CORE (2006)
Exponential distribution f(x) = (1/) exp((x-/)
= 44 m
= 15 m
resample if value is greater than 400 m
Mass, M (tonnes) C-CORE (2006)
M = 1.05L
2.68
Draft, D (m) C-CORE (2006)
D = 3.14L
0.68
Width, W (m) C-CORE (2006)
W = 0.005 L
-2.28
D
4.65
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-2
A.1 INTRODUCTION
Following the use of the data presented in the body of this report for the calibration analysis,
anomalies were found in the results for Grand Banks and Labrador Sea icebergs, and First Year
Ridge interactions for the Barents Sea. The data were revised and a new set of load distribution
curves were generated. These are presented in this Addendum.
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-3
A.2 REVISED LOAD DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
0.08
= 44 m
= 15 m
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
W = 0.005 L
-2.28
D
4.65
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-4
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-5
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
2.0 (Makkovik Bank)
= 44 m
= 15 m
Significant wave height (m) MSC50 (2008) Site specific empirical distribution,
Meteorological Service of Canada
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
W = 0.005 L
-2.28
D
4.65
Environmental
Assessment (2008)
speed for all iceberg sizes and sea states is 0.25
m/s.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-4
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-5
Areal density
per 1000 km
2
Estimated from site
specific data
2.0 (Makkovik Bank)
= 44 m
= 15 m
Significant wave height (m) MSC50 (2008) Site specific empirical distribution,
Meteorological Service of Canada
M = 1.05L
2.68
D = 3.14L
0.68
W = 0.005 L
-2.28
D
4.65
Environmental
Assessment (2008)
speed for all iceberg sizes and sea states is 0.25
m/s.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-6
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figure 6.3 Barents Sea; first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater
Figure 6.4 Barents Sea; first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
A-7
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-6
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figure 6.3 Barents Sea; first-year ridge interactions with 100 m diameter vertically-sided floater
Figure 6.4 Barents Sea; first-year ridge interactions with 50 m wide FPSO
A-7
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-8
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
A-8
Addendum B: Response to Comments on ISO/DIS 19906 Calibration Draft Report
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-2
B.1 INTRODUCTION
Some of the comments by TP10 on the report ISO/DIS 19906 Calibration Draft Report May-June, 2009
related to inputs provided by C-CORE in an initial report provided in February. Specific answers to
those comments are given in this Addendum.
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-3
B.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Item 4 of Section Issues that need to be checked and or clarified in the report, perhaps by some re-
analysis
Table 9: the number of MY ice interactions per year for the Beaufort Sea for GV and GC are very different, is
there an error in the GC numbers?
As Marc Maes indicated: the number n in Table 9 is not an annual number of ice interactions these are in
Table 8 instead! The n in Table 8 is the sample size and it matches the electronic C-CORE data input sets.
Longer simulations were used for some runs to better define the tails of the some distributions where the
relationship between annual maximum load and negative log base 10 of the probability of exceedance
appeared to be non-linear.
Section 3 - Item 2 Key Assumptions that Should be Summarized.
The general shape of the load hazard curve will not substantially change from that reported by C-CORE if
different load methods or different input distributions are used.
Yes. A range of load scenarios (regions, ice types and structure types) were considered and current
approaches were used to estimate distributions for annual maximum loads. These resulted in action factors of
1.35 or less, with the exception of multi-year impacts with conical structures and first-year ridge loads in the
Barents Sea. For multi-year impacts with conical structures, it is believed that present methods are overly
conservative because scaling of flexural strength is not taken into consideration. In the case of first-year ridge
loads in the Barents Sea, following a number of necessary input modifications, the tails are significantly less
heavy. We cannot guarantee the general shapes of the load hazard curves will not change; but in our
judgment, given appropriate models and inputs, the shapes should not change significantly. Reconsideration
would be required if fundamentally different assumptions are applied, for example if a load distribution
accounting for reduced loads as a result of ice management is considered.
An FPSO was treated as a fixed structure. The flexibility and capacity of the mooring system was not
considered.
Yes.
Load on a multi-leg structure was based on simulating a single column. The leg factor was not specified.
Jamming between the legs and loading of the base were not considered.
Yes.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-2
B.1 INTRODUCTION
Some of the comments by TP10 on the report ISO/DIS 19906 Calibration Draft Report May-June, 2009
related to inputs provided by C-CORE in an initial report provided in February. Specific answers to
those comments are given in this Addendum.
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-3
B.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Item 4 of Section Issues that need to be checked and or clarified in the report, perhaps by some re-
analysis
Table 9: the number of MY ice interactions per year for the Beaufort Sea for GV and GC are very different, is
there an error in the GC numbers?
As Marc Maes indicated: the number n in Table 9 is not an annual number of ice interactions these are in
Table 8 instead! The n in Table 8 is the sample size and it matches the electronic C-CORE data input sets.
Longer simulations were used for some runs to better define the tails of the some distributions where the
relationship between annual maximum load and negative log base 10 of the probability of exceedance
appeared to be non-linear.
Section 3 - Item 2 Key Assumptions that Should be Summarized.
The general shape of the load hazard curve will not substantially change from that reported by C-CORE if
different load methods or different input distributions are used.
Yes. A range of load scenarios (regions, ice types and structure types) were considered and current
approaches were used to estimate distributions for annual maximum loads. These resulted in action factors of
1.35 or less, with the exception of multi-year impacts with conical structures and first-year ridge loads in the
Barents Sea. For multi-year impacts with conical structures, it is believed that present methods are overly
conservative because scaling of flexural strength is not taken into consideration. In the case of first-year ridge
loads in the Barents Sea, following a number of necessary input modifications, the tails are significantly less
heavy. We cannot guarantee the general shapes of the load hazard curves will not change; but in our
judgment, given appropriate models and inputs, the shapes should not change significantly. Reconsideration
would be required if fundamentally different assumptions are applied, for example if a load distribution
accounting for reduced loads as a result of ice management is considered.
An FPSO was treated as a fixed structure. The flexibility and capacity of the mooring system was not
considered.
Yes.
Load on a multi-leg structure was based on simulating a single column. The leg factor was not specified.
Jamming between the legs and loading of the base were not considered.
Yes.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
For the Barents Sea, icebergs and first-year ridges were considered separately. The method of combining the
two load hazard curves was not addressed.
Yes. A combined curve could easily be determined assuming iceberg and sea ice loads are essentially
independent.
Section 7
Items 3, 4 and 5
Results for Caspian Sea do not appear to reflect the physical limit on ice that is expected and this
needs to be addressed (and discussed with C-CORE as needed). For the Caspian, the design ice
feature, first year level ice (FYL), has a physical limit to its thickness due to the milder winter air
temperature. This limit is not reflected in the curve shown in Figure 5, where the curve increases
linearly. Realistically, the Caspian curve should look like the curve for Sakhalin, which clearly
shows a physical limit on ice action.
This same comment and question above also applies to Figure 6 that for the conical structure shows
a linearly increasing for the Caspian Sea and Sakhalin. As explained above these regions are where
there is a physical limit to the ice features.
Ditto for Figures 8 and 9.
B-4
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-5
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
For the Barents Sea, icebergs and first-year ridges were considered separately. The method of combining the
two load hazard curves was not addressed.
Yes. A combined curve could easily be determined assuming iceberg and sea ice loads are essentially
independent.
Section 7
Items 3, 4 and 5
Results for Caspian Sea do not appear to reflect the physical limit on ice that is expected and this
needs to be addressed (and discussed with C-CORE as needed). For the Caspian, the design ice
feature, first year level ice (FYL), has a physical limit to its thickness due to the milder winter air
temperature. This limit is not reflected in the curve shown in Figure 5, where the curve increases
linearly. Realistically, the Caspian curve should look like the curve for Sakhalin, which clearly
shows a physical limit on ice action.
This same comment and question above also applies to Figure 6 that for the conical structure shows
a linearly increasing for the Caspian Sea and Sakhalin. As explained above these regions are where
there is a physical limit to the ice features.
Ditto for Figures 8 and 9.
B-4
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-5
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figures 5, 6 and 8 compare loads at different sites for 100 m wide vertically-sided structures, 100 m wide
slope-sided structures and 20 m wide vertically-sided structures respectively. The slopes shown reflect the
analysis done by C-CORE. Figure 9 compares loads at different sites for multi-legged structures (C-CORE
did not explicitly conduct analyses for multi-legged structures).

The reviewer indicates that both the Caspian and offshore Sakhalin regions will be subject to limited ice
growth (and hence ice thickness) and should therefore see the tail of the distribution (negative log base 10
probability of exceedence versus annual maximum load) have an increasing downward slope as annual
maximum load increases. This is seen only for the 100 m wide vertically-sided structure off Sakhalin. For all
three structures in the Caspian and for the slope-faced 100 m wide structure off Sakhalin, the tail of the annual
maximum load distribution is linear. For the 20 m wide vertically-sided structure off Sakhalin, the downward
slope becomes smaller as annual maximum load increases.

There are several differences in the modeling assumptions and input parameters describing ice conditions
used for the Caspian and Sakhalin and the different structures that affect the load distributions:
a) The main loading feature considered for Sakhalin is first-year ridges while in the Caspian; it is first-year
level ice. Ice is known to be highly ridged off Sakhalin, whereas in the Caspian, the drafts of ridges are
limited by the shallow water depth. This has significant effects on the load curves as discussed below.
b) For the Sakhalin load case, first-year ice thickness was modeled by a rectangular distribution from 0.4 to
1.7 m. The thickness of the consolidated portions of ridges is taken as a multiple of the surrounding level
ice thickness; where the multiplier is drawn from a triangular distribution from 1 to 1.9 with the mode at
1. Rafted ice was not included in the distribution. For the Caspian, first-year ice thickness was modeled
by a gamma distribution with a mean of 0.45 m and a standard deviation of 0.089 m. The distribution
B-6
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-7
included rafted ice, giving the distribution a tail at the upper end. Rafted ice is more extensive in the
Caspian than off Sakhalin, where there is more ridging.
c) In the Caspian, level ice interacting with vertically-faced structures is assumed to fail through crushing.
The ice crushing model treats the strength as a random parameter that varies with penetration, reduces
with ice thickness, and has a reduction in peak strength with contact width. The same strength is assumed
(conservatively) for rafted ice as for non-rafted ice. For sloped structures, initial failure is assume to be
through ride-up. Once sufficient rubble develops that grounding occurs, subsequent loading is modeled
as crushing against the grounded rubble pile and transferred to the structure. The annual maximum loads
were found to be associated with the latter mode and the tails of the annual maximum load distributions
were linear for all three structures.
d) Sensitivity analyses have been applied for the Caspian 100 m vertically-sided structure. Figure B-1
shows the effect of applying different uniform thickness distributions. It is seen that the slope of the tail
of the annual maximum load exceedence curve falls off more quickly for the uniform distributions than
the default gamma distribution, but the tails still appear linear. Figure B-2 shows the effect of applying
different constant ice strength models. The slopes fall off much more quickly than when a random ice
strength model is used, but again the tails are linear. Figure B-3 shows the effect of applying both a
uniform thickness distribution and different constant ice strength models. The tails of the distributions
are vertical as associated with a constant contact area and constant crushing strength.
e) In modeling ridge interactions with vertically-faced structures offshore Sakhalin, the ridges are idealized
as a consolidated layer that fails through crushing and an unconsolidated layer that fails through local and
global plug failure. The consolidated layer thickness is modeled by a random factor times the
surrounding level ice thickness. The CSA ice crushing strength model is used for the consolidated
portion of ridges offshore Sakhalin; this model treats the ice strength as deterministic rather than random,
but accounts for lower strengths over large contact widths. The model is an upper bound solution and
hence is conservative. Accounting for the randomness in ice strength would tend to make the tail of the
annual maximum load linear.
f) For conical structures, the load associated with the consolidated ridge layer is largely influenced by the
height of the rubble pile formed. For the 100 m conical structure, this appears to dominate, such that the
annual load distribution tail is linear.
g) The failure model for the unconsolidated ridge layer considers the possibility of both local and global
plug failure at each penetration. The failure load associated with local plug failure depends largely on the
contact width and local ridge thicknesses. The failure load associated with global plug failure depends
more on the extent of remaining intact ridge in front of the structure (i.e. the width of the ridge). For
narrow structures, the failure load associated with the global plug failure mode of the unconsolidated
ridge layer therefore becomes relatively more important, and tends to make the downward slope of the
annual load distribution tail increase with annual maximum load.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figures 5, 6 and 8 compare loads at different sites for 100 m wide vertically-sided structures, 100 m wide
slope-sided structures and 20 m wide vertically-sided structures respectively. The slopes shown reflect the
analysis done by C-CORE. Figure 9 compares loads at different sites for multi-legged structures (C-CORE
did not explicitly conduct analyses for multi-legged structures).

The reviewer indicates that both the Caspian and offshore Sakhalin regions will be subject to limited ice
growth (and hence ice thickness) and should therefore see the tail of the distribution (negative log base 10
probability of exceedence versus annual maximum load) have an increasing downward slope as annual
maximum load increases. This is seen only for the 100 m wide vertically-sided structure off Sakhalin. For all
three structures in the Caspian and for the slope-faced 100 m wide structure off Sakhalin, the tail of the annual
maximum load distribution is linear. For the 20 m wide vertically-sided structure off Sakhalin, the downward
slope becomes smaller as annual maximum load increases.

There are several differences in the modeling assumptions and input parameters describing ice conditions
used for the Caspian and Sakhalin and the different structures that affect the load distributions:
a) The main loading feature considered for Sakhalin is first-year ridges while in the Caspian; it is first-year
level ice. Ice is known to be highly ridged off Sakhalin, whereas in the Caspian, the drafts of ridges are
limited by the shallow water depth. This has significant effects on the load curves as discussed below.
b) For the Sakhalin load case, first-year ice thickness was modeled by a rectangular distribution from 0.4 to
1.7 m. The thickness of the consolidated portions of ridges is taken as a multiple of the surrounding level
ice thickness; where the multiplier is drawn from a triangular distribution from 1 to 1.9 with the mode at
1. Rafted ice was not included in the distribution. For the Caspian, first-year ice thickness was modeled
by a gamma distribution with a mean of 0.45 m and a standard deviation of 0.089 m. The distribution
B-6
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-7
included rafted ice, giving the distribution a tail at the upper end. Rafted ice is more extensive in the
Caspian than off Sakhalin, where there is more ridging.
c) In the Caspian, level ice interacting with vertically-faced structures is assumed to fail through crushing.
The ice crushing model treats the strength as a random parameter that varies with penetration, reduces
with ice thickness, and has a reduction in peak strength with contact width. The same strength is assumed
(conservatively) for rafted ice as for non-rafted ice. For sloped structures, initial failure is assume to be
through ride-up. Once sufficient rubble develops that grounding occurs, subsequent loading is modeled
as crushing against the grounded rubble pile and transferred to the structure. The annual maximum loads
were found to be associated with the latter mode and the tails of the annual maximum load distributions
were linear for all three structures.
d) Sensitivity analyses have been applied for the Caspian 100 m vertically-sided structure. Figure B-1
shows the effect of applying different uniform thickness distributions. It is seen that the slope of the tail
of the annual maximum load exceedence curve falls off more quickly for the uniform distributions than
the default gamma distribution, but the tails still appear linear. Figure B-2 shows the effect of applying
different constant ice strength models. The slopes fall off much more quickly than when a random ice
strength model is used, but again the tails are linear. Figure B-3 shows the effect of applying both a
uniform thickness distribution and different constant ice strength models. The tails of the distributions
are vertical as associated with a constant contact area and constant crushing strength.
e) In modeling ridge interactions with vertically-faced structures offshore Sakhalin, the ridges are idealized
as a consolidated layer that fails through crushing and an unconsolidated layer that fails through local and
global plug failure. The consolidated layer thickness is modeled by a random factor times the
surrounding level ice thickness. The CSA ice crushing strength model is used for the consolidated
portion of ridges offshore Sakhalin; this model treats the ice strength as deterministic rather than random,
but accounts for lower strengths over large contact widths. The model is an upper bound solution and
hence is conservative. Accounting for the randomness in ice strength would tend to make the tail of the
annual maximum load linear.
f) For conical structures, the load associated with the consolidated ridge layer is largely influenced by the
height of the rubble pile formed. For the 100 m conical structure, this appears to dominate, such that the
annual load distribution tail is linear.
g) The failure model for the unconsolidated ridge layer considers the possibility of both local and global
plug failure at each penetration. The failure load associated with local plug failure depends largely on the
contact width and local ridge thicknesses. The failure load associated with global plug failure depends
more on the extent of remaining intact ridge in front of the structure (i.e. the width of the ridge). For
narrow structures, the failure load associated with the global plug failure mode of the unconsolidated
ridge layer therefore becomes relatively more important, and tends to make the downward slope of the
annual load distribution tail increase with annual maximum load.
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-8
h) A large average annual impact rate was modeled for Sakhalin. This had the result that the upper limit for
the rectangular distribution has a larger influence in causing the tail of the load distribution to drop off
than would be the case if there were fewer impacts. An argument could be made for reducing the number
of significant impacts for Sakhalin since many of the floes are quite small and much smaller loads will
result if the floes can move around the structure.
In conclusion, the behaviour of the different structures at the two locations appears to result in part because of
differences in ice conditions and in part because of differences in model assumptions. In the Caspian, the
dominant loads result from level ice, and increased thickness associated with rafting could be an issue if the
rafted ice is as strong as non-rafted ice. Because of the shallow water, the peak loads associated with sloped
structures will be dominated by crushing against grounded rubble formed in front of the structure (with a
portion of the load transmitted to the structure). Random variations in crushing pressure appear to have a
larger influence on the shape of the tail than variations in ice thickness.
Offshore Sakhalin, ridged ice is more prevalent. The unconsolidated layer of first-year ridges fails in a
different manner than the consolidated layer and may have a greater importance for narrow structures,
resulting in differences in the shapes of tails. For sloped structures, the height of rubble formed during ride-
up plays an important role. In modeling ice crushing of the consolidated layer for structures off Sakhalin,
random variations in ice strength were not considered. This appears to cause the tail of the annual maximum
load distribution to have an increasing downward slope as annual maximum load increases. Accounting for
random variations in ice strength may result in a more linear tails for the larger diameter structure, and would
likely influence the shape of the distribution tail for smaller diameter structures.
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figure B-1 Annual Maximum Load Distribution for 100 m Wide Vertically-Sided Structure in Caspian
with Different Thickness Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized Annual
Maximum Load)
B-9
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
B-8
h) A large average annual impact rate was modeled for Sakhalin. This had the result that the upper limit for
the rectangular distribution has a larger influence in causing the tail of the load distribution to drop off
than would be the case if there were fewer impacts. An argument could be made for reducing the number
of significant impacts for Sakhalin since many of the floes are quite small and much smaller loads will
result if the floes can move around the structure.
In conclusion, the behaviour of the different structures at the two locations appears to result in part because of
differences in ice conditions and in part because of differences in model assumptions. In the Caspian, the
dominant loads result from level ice, and increased thickness associated with rafting could be an issue if the
rafted ice is as strong as non-rafted ice. Because of the shallow water, the peak loads associated with sloped
structures will be dominated by crushing against grounded rubble formed in front of the structure (with a
portion of the load transmitted to the structure). Random variations in crushing pressure appear to have a
larger influence on the shape of the tail than variations in ice thickness.
Offshore Sakhalin, ridged ice is more prevalent. The unconsolidated layer of first-year ridges fails in a
different manner than the consolidated layer and may have a greater importance for narrow structures,
resulting in differences in the shapes of tails. For sloped structures, the height of rubble formed during ride-
up plays an important role. In modeling ice crushing of the consolidated layer for structures off Sakhalin,
random variations in ice strength were not considered. This appears to cause the tail of the annual maximum
load distribution to have an increasing downward slope as annual maximum load increases. Accounting for
random variations in ice strength may result in a more linear tails for the larger diameter structure, and would
likely influence the shape of the distribution tail for smaller diameter structures.
OGP JIP25 Committee
with Different Thickness Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized Annual
Maximum Load)
B-9
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
with Different Constant Strength Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized
Annual Maximum Load)
B-10
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figure B-3 Annual Maximum Load Distribution for 100 m Wide Vertically-Sided Structure in the
Caspian Sea with Ice Thickness Modeled with a Uniform Distribution from 10 to 75 cm and
Different Constant Strength Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized
B-11
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
with Different Constant Strength Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized
B-10
OGP JIP25 Committee
Figure B-3 Annual Maximum Load Distribution for 100 m Wide Vertically-Sided Structure in the
Caspian Sea with Ice Thickness Modeled with a Uniform Distribution from 10 to 75 cm and
Different Constant Strength Models (Top: Annual Maximum Load; Bottom: Normalized
B-11
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
LAST PAGE OF DOCUMENT
75
OGP
OGP JIP25 Committee
LAST PAGE OF DOCUMENT
Annex B
Calibration analysis of action factors for ISO 19906
Calibration analysis of action factors for ISO 19906 Arctic ofshore structures
Final Report submitted to the
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
by Marc A. Maes, Aleatec Advisory Services, October 2009
76
OGP

Calibration Analysis of Action
Factors for ISO 19906
Arctic Offshore Structures

Final Report
(Draft: April 13, 2009; revised: July 16, 2009;
second revision: October 2, 2009)

Marc A. Maes, PhD, PEng
Aleatec Advisory Services
501, 1731 9A Street SW
Calgary, Alberta.
T2T 3E7 Canada
mamaes@ucalgary.ca

Submitted to the:
International Association of
Oil and Gas Producers
Alf Reidar Johansen, OGP Standards Manager
Graham AN Thomas, BP, OGP Steering Committee Leader
OGP

Calibration Analysis of Action
Factors for ISO 19906
Arctic Offshore Structures

Final Report
(Draft: April 13, 2009; revised: July 16, 2009;
second revision: October 2, 2009)

Marc A. Maes, PhD, PEng
Aleatec Advisory Services
501, 1731 9A Street SW
Calgary, Alberta.
T2T 3E7 Canada
mamaes@ucalgary.ca

Submitted to the:
International Association of
Oil and Gas Producers
Alf Reidar Johansen, OGP Standards Manager
Graham AN Thomas, BP, OGP Steering Committee Leader
OGP

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

1. Background and Objectives 6

2. What is Code Calibration? 7

3. Mandate and Restrictions 9

4. Ultimate Limit States and Abnormal Limit States 11

5. Calibration Procedure 13

6. Probabilistic Models 18
6.1 Resistance R 18
6.2 Permanents Action G 19
6.3 Variable Actions Q 19
6.4 Ice Actions I 21
6.5 Other Environmental Actions E 21
6.6 Action Effect Ratios 23

7. Probabilistic Ice Action Models 24
7.1 Regionalization 24
7.2 (S, H) Tail Models 29
7.3 Ice Action Model Uncertainties 38

8. Action Factors (Environmental and Ice): Results and Verification 40

9. Companion Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):
Results and Verification 49

10. Exposure Levels L2 and L3 56

11. Summary of Calibrated Design Check Equations 59

References 60

Acknowledgement 61

Appendix A: Probabilistic Tail Models for Action Effects 62

Appendix B: Region- and Structure Specific Ice Action Effects:
Tail Distributions 69

Appendix C: Barents Sea Ice Loads based on Updated C-CORE
Data 77
OGP

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

1. Background and Objectives 6

2. What is Code Calibration? 7

3. Mandate and Restrictions 9

4. Ultimate Limit States and Abnormal Limit States 11

5. Calibration Procedure 13

6. Probabilistic Models 18
6.1 Resistance R 18
6.2 Permanents Action G 19
6.3 Variable Actions Q 19
6.4 Ice Actions I 21
6.5 Other Environmental Actions E 21
6.6 Action Effect Ratios 23

7. Probabilistic Ice Action Models 24
7.1 Regionalization 24
7.2 (S, H) Tail Models 29
7.3 Ice Action Model Uncertainties 38

8. Action Factors (Environmental and Ice): Results and Verification 40

9. Companion Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):
Results and Verification 49

10. Exposure Levels L2 and L3 56

11. Summary of Calibrated Design Check Equations 59

References 60

Acknowledgement 61

Appendix A: Probabilistic Tail Models for Action Effects 62

Appendix B: Region- and Structure Specific Ice Action Effects:
Tail Distributions 69

Appendix C: Barents Sea Ice Loads based on Updated C-CORE
Data 77

3

Executive Summary

This report describes the results of a calibration of partial action factors for
environmental actions in order to provide a basis for determining the action
combinations for ISO 19906 Arctic offshore structures. The report also provides
detailed guidance on a calibration method should the user of ISO 19906 wish to
perform a site-specific or structure-specific calibration using a fully probabilistic
approach. This objective is in itself quite important as ISO/DIS 19906:2009
permits such an approach when the potential economic benefits of performing a
site-specific calibration are likely to be considerable for large arctic offshore
installations (Section 1).

The calibration focuses on environmental action factors and various companion
action factors for exposure levels L1, L2 and L3. It does not include gravity
loads, variable actions, earthquakes or resistance (Section 3). There is
considerable emphasis on the modeling and the calibration of ice action
processes. The calibration also accounts for the distinction between ultimate limit
states (ULS) and abnormal limit states (ALS) as it affects action factors,
specified annual probabilities of exceedance, companion factors involving
extreme level actions, abnormal level actions, or both, and the inclusion of
system robustness/energy dissipation capacity for the abnormal limit states (see
Section 4).

Two basic sets of design check equations are considered: Set I based on
ISO 19902:2007 and Set II based on the current suggestions in ISO/DIS 19906
and CAN/CSA-S471-04 (see Table 1). The calibration involves both a weighted
optimization based on getting the logs of limit state failure probabilities to lie as
closely as possible to the stated L1, L2 and L3 targets, as well as checks that
upper bound failure probability constraints are not violated (see Figures 1a, 1b,
and 1c). The calibration accounts for weighted combinations of all action effects
in various proportions, for different resistance models, for different levels of
action effect model uncertainties, for different levels of statistical and aleatory
uncertainty, and for different mean action event occurrence rates. Weights were
validated by the ISO panel TP10 of world experts.

State-of-the-art probabilistic models (Section 6) are used for various types of
load processes, including variable-in-time action effects for variable actions of
long/short duration, and environmental actions. Resistance is conservatively
based on the use of minimum required design resistance and on a factored design
resistance not exceeding the 1%-ile of actual resistance for both ULS and ALS
(Section 6.1).

Ice actions are regionalized on the basis of uncertainty characterization of
extreme action effects (tails and extreme values). This is done with respect to
both geographical region and type of structure (Tables 5, 6 and 7). The
quantitative probabilistic analysis of ice action effects (Tables 9, 10 and 11) is
based on Q-distributions which are parameterized in terms of a slope factor S and
a tail heaviness factor H both of which have a direct bearing on ice action factors
(Section 7.2 and Appendix A). It is the characterization of the probabilistic ice
OGP

4
action models and not the actual values of ice actions that govern the partial
action factors. Therefore regions with different ice action magnitudes can be
considered together if their probabilistic description is similar.

Four calibration scenarios are used for ice actions:

calibration of separate principal ice action factors for each
combination of region and type of structure (Table 12).

calibration of region-wide ice action factors (Table 12 in red).

calibration of one overall principal ice action factor (Table 12 in
blue).

inclusion of ice actions in the larger group of all environmental
actions.

All four scenarios lead to reasonable action factors that are consistent with ice
type and structure type. While for conical structures the 100-year design action
effects are considerably less than for vertically sided structures, they increase at a
greater rate and therefore require larger principal action factors to meet the
reliability targets. Note that this effect disappears for L2 and L3 since the 100-
year design action effects are much closer to the minimum required resistance,
hence the effects of tail slope and heaviness tend to be less severe (Section 10).
The character of the input design action effects for sloping and conical structures
merits further investigation. If the results are accepted, then an exception must be
made for L1 structure types GC and FC (Table 1) if one is to follow the second
or the third calibration scenario above (Table 12).

When considering the second calibration scenario above, region-specific action
factors are highest for Beaufort-type zones (
I
= 1.30), lowest for Sakhalin-type
zones (
I
= 1.20) and in-between for Caspian-type zones (
I
= 1.25).

Under the third calibration scenario above, the all-ice action factor
I
would be
1.30 except that 1.55 should be used for conically sided structures. The
calibration of the prescribed annual exceedance probability for the abnormal
level ice action P
E
is very consistent over all regions (Barents, Grand Banks,
Labrador), having a value P
E
= 10
-3.8
, which corresponds approximately to a 6300
year unfactored design action effect.

Various verification and sensitivity studies are performed and shown in this
report. A typical two-by-two action effect combination diagram is shown in
Figure 24 for Beaufort Sea type ice actions in combination with permanent
actions. Minimum required action factors are shown for ULS in Figures 25-27
and for ALS in Figure 28. In all cases the calibrated action factors for both Set I
and Set II perform very well with Set I factors being more conservative in load
combinations involving small environmental/ice action proportions and Set II
failure probabilities more clustered around their ULS and ALS targets.

5
The multitude of environmental/ice companion factors (Table 13) is reduced to
just 4 companion action factors (Table 14) each of which is subsequently
calibrated for L1:

an ULS companion action factor
EI
for two independent or very weakly
correlated continuous environmental processes: 0.60 (calibrated and
verified).

ED
for two strongly dependent or
correlated continuous environmental processes, suggested to be 0.85 (as
discussed in Section 9 this companion factor depends strongly on the
specific characteristics of the dependency structure between the two
actions).

an ALS companion action factor
AD
involving a discrete principal
process and a continuous companion environmental process which can
be treated as independent: 0.35 (best estimate, verified).

AI
process and a continuous companion environmental process which are
assumed to be strongly dependent: 0.45 (best estimate, verified).

An overview of calibrated action factors and companion factors for L1 is
provided in Table 15.

A calibration of L2 and L3 factors results in the principal action factors shown in
Tables 16 and 17. Environmental and ice action factors decrease to as much as
1.10 (L2) and 0.85 (L3). It is observed that principal ice action factors and
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). For the same reason the difference in the ice
action factors for vertically sided and conically sided structures also disappears
with increasing level of exposure (increasing tolerable risk).

A summary of all calibrated design check equations and companion action
factors (ULS, ALS, L1, L2, L3) is given in Table 18 for both Set I and Set II.
OGP

4
action models and not the actual values of ice actions that govern the partial
action factors. Therefore regions with different ice action magnitudes can be
considered together if their probabilistic description is similar.

Four calibration scenarios are used for ice actions:

calibration of separate principal ice action factors for each
combination of region and type of structure (Table 12).

calibration of region-wide ice action factors (Table 12 in red).

calibration of one overall principal ice action factor (Table 12 in
blue).

inclusion of ice actions in the larger group of all environmental
actions.

All four scenarios lead to reasonable action factors that are consistent with ice
type and structure type. While for conical structures the 100-year design action
effects are considerably less than for vertically sided structures, they increase at a
greater rate and therefore require larger principal action factors to meet the
reliability targets. Note that this effect disappears for L2 and L3 since the 100-
year design action effects are much closer to the minimum required resistance,
hence the effects of tail slope and heaviness tend to be less severe (Section 10).
The character of the input design action effects for sloping and conical structures
merits further investigation. If the results are accepted, then an exception must be
made for L1 structure types GC and FC (Table 1) if one is to follow the second
or the third calibration scenario above (Table 12).

When considering the second calibration scenario above, region-specific action
factors are highest for Beaufort-type zones (
I
= 1.30), lowest for Sakhalin-type
zones (
I
= 1.20) and in-between for Caspian-type zones (
I
= 1.25).

Under the third calibration scenario above, the all-ice action factor
I
would be
1.30 except that 1.55 should be used for conically sided structures. The
calibration of the prescribed annual exceedance probability for the abnormal
level ice action P
E
is very consistent over all regions (Barents, Grand Banks,
Labrador), having a value P
E
= 10
-3.8
, which corresponds approximately to a 6300
year unfactored design action effect.

Various verification and sensitivity studies are performed and shown in this
report. A typical two-by-two action effect combination diagram is shown in
Figure 24 for Beaufort Sea type ice actions in combination with permanent
actions. Minimum required action factors are shown for ULS in Figures 25-27
and for ALS in Figure 28. In all cases the calibrated action factors for both Set I
and Set II perform very well with Set I factors being more conservative in load
combinations involving small environmental/ice action proportions and Set II
failure probabilities more clustered around their ULS and ALS targets.

5
The multitude of environmental/ice companion factors (Table 13) is reduced to
just 4 companion action factors (Table 14) each of which is subsequently
calibrated for L1:

EI
correlated continuous environmental processes: 0.60 (calibrated and
verified).

ED
correlated continuous environmental processes, suggested to be 0.85 (as
discussed in Section 9 this companion factor depends strongly on the
specific characteristics of the dependency structure between the two
actions).

AD
be treated as independent: 0.35 (best estimate, verified).

AI
assumed to be strongly dependent: 0.45 (best estimate, verified).

An overview of calibrated action factors and companion factors for L1 is
provided in Table 15.

A calibration of L2 and L3 factors results in the principal action factors shown in
Tables 16 and 17. Environmental and ice action factors decrease to as much as
1.10 (L2) and 0.85 (L3). It is observed that principal ice action factors and
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). For the same reason the difference in the ice
action factors for vertically sided and conically sided structures also disappears
with increasing level of exposure (increasing tolerable risk).

A summary of all calibrated design check equations and companion action
factors (ULS, ALS, L1, L2, L3) is given in Table 18 for both Set I and Set II.
OGP

6

Background and Objectives

In January 2009, the DIS version of ISO 19906 (2009) was issued. This new
standard focuses on action effects typical for arctic offshore structures. It contains
normative clauses with respect to reliability, risk and consequences, but it does
not provide definitive partial action factors for its limit states design approach.

The objective of the work described in this report is to perform a calibration of
the environmental action factors for exposure level L1 in order to ensure that the
specified target reliability of (1 10
-5
) for each ULS and ALS action combination
is achieved for circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. A secondary
objective is to also recommend calibrated environmental action factors for L2 and
L3.

In addition to these objectives, the report provides detailed guidance on a
recommended calibration method should the user of ISO 19906 wish to perform a
site-specific or structure-specific calibration using a fully probabilistic approach.
This objective is in itself quite important as ISO/DIS 19906:2009 permits such an
approach when the potential economic benefits of performing a site-specific
calibration are likely to be considerable for large arctic offshore installations.

Unique features of the current calibration procedure include:

the fundamental distinction between ultimate limit states (ULS) and the
abnormal limit state (ALS) and the resulting distinctive treatment of
extreme and abnormal design actions

the special emphasis on ice loading and its implication on specific spatial
and temporal modeling issues

the consideration of arctic offshore regions, of distinct types of ice, and
of selected arctic structural systems, and the resulting weighted non-
linear constrained optimization that underlies the basic calibration of
action factors

the use of a specified principal/companion action framework for deriving
characteristic values of design actions

The present study has been coordinated and supervised by Dr. Marc A. Maes of
Aleatec Advisory Services, Calgary, who previously coordinated the calibration
of the 1986 and 2003 versions of CSA-S471 (offshore structures), and was
involved in the development of ISO 2394, the development of the Joint
Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS) probabilistic model code, the calibration
and the codification of various LSD standards for tubing and casing design, as
well as several site-specific and/or structure-specific load and resistance factor
calibrations.

1

7

What is Code Calibration?

Code calibration is based on a standardized process which is outlined in various
documents such as ISO 2394 (1998) and several JCSS publications (JCSS, 2001).
All aspects of this process have been strictly adhered to. Probabilistic models for
load and resistance were based on the probabilistic model code (JCSS, 2007)
which is available at the international website of the JCSS in Zrich.

All modern design codes are based on design check equations on the basis of
which a notional reliability verification of a given design can conveniently be
performed, using a simple comparison of resistances and loads and/or load
effects. Code calibration can be performed by judgment, fitting, optimization or a
combination of these (Madsen et al., 1986; Thoft-Christensen and Baker, 1982).
Calibration based on professional judgment and proven practice has been the
main method until ten-twenty years ago. Fitting of partial safety factors in codes
is used when a new code format is introduced and the parameters are then
determined such that the same level of safety is obtained as in the old code. The
modern version of code calibration is the optimization of a set of design check
equations to match, as closely as possible, a specified target reliability level. It is
this kind of calibration that is performed here.

By means of structural reliability methods the design formats of the new or
existing standards, i.e. the design check equations, the characteristic values and
partial safety factors may be selected in such a way that the level of reliability of
all structures designed according to the standards is homogenous and
independent of the choice of material and the prevailing loading, operational and
environmental conditions. This process including the choice of the desired level
of reliability or target reliability is commonly understood as code calibration.
Reliability based code calibration has been formulated by several researchers,
such as Ravindra and Galambos (1978), Ellingwood et al. (1982), Sorensen et al.
(1998 and 2001), Maes et al. (2004) and it has therefore been implemented in
several new and recent standards.

The uncertainties that are to be considered in code calibration are: physical or
aleatory uncertainty, and statistical and model uncertainty, also referred to as
epistemic uncertainty. The physical uncertainties are typically uncertainties
associated with the loading environment, the geometry of the structure and the
material properties. The statistical uncertainties arise due to incomplete statistical
information e.g. due to a small number of material tests. Finally, the model
uncertainties (Section 6.6) must be considered to take into account the
uncertainty associated with the idealized descriptions used to approximate the
actual physical behaviour of the structure and the loading to which it is subjected.

The probabilistic modeling of uncertainties largely rests on a Bayesian statistical
interpretation of uncertainties implying that the uncertainty modeling utilizes and
facilitates both the incorporation of statistical evidence about uncertain
parameters and subjectively assessed uncertainties. Modern methods of reliability
and risk analysis allow for a very general representation of these uncertainties
ranging from non-stationary stochastic processes and fields to time-invariant
2
OGP

6

Background and Objectives

In January 2009, the DIS version of ISO 19906 (2009) was issued. This new
standard focuses on action effects typical for arctic offshore structures. It contains
normative clauses with respect to reliability, risk and consequences, but it does
not provide definitive partial action factors for its limit states design approach.

The objective of the work described in this report is to perform a calibration of
the environmental action factors for exposure level L1 in order to ensure that the
specified target reliability of (1 10
-5
) for each ULS and ALS action combination
is achieved for circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. A secondary
objective is to also recommend calibrated environmental action factors for L2 and
L3.

In addition to these objectives, the report provides detailed guidance on a
recommended calibration method should the user of ISO 19906 wish to perform a
site-specific or structure-specific calibration using a fully probabilistic approach.
This objective is in itself quite important as ISO/DIS 19906:2009 permits such an
approach when the potential economic benefits of performing a site-specific
calibration are likely to be considerable for large arctic offshore installations.

Unique features of the current calibration procedure include:

the fundamental distinction between ultimate limit states (ULS) and the
abnormal limit state (ALS) and the resulting distinctive treatment of
extreme and abnormal design actions

the special emphasis on ice loading and its implication on specific spatial
and temporal modeling issues

the consideration of arctic offshore regions, of distinct types of ice, and
of selected arctic structural systems, and the resulting weighted non-
linear constrained optimization that underlies the basic calibration of
action factors

the use of a specified principal/companion action framework for deriving
characteristic values of design actions

The present study has been coordinated and supervised by Dr. Marc A. Maes of
Aleatec Advisory Services, Calgary, who previously coordinated the calibration
of the 1986 and 2003 versions of CSA-S471 (offshore structures), and was
involved in the development of ISO 2394, the development of the Joint
Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS) probabilistic model code, the calibration
and the codification of various LSD standards for tubing and casing design, as
well as several site-specific and/or structure-specific load and resistance factor
calibrations.

1

7

What is Code Calibration?

Code calibration is based on a standardized process which is outlined in various
documents such as ISO 2394 (1998) and several JCSS publications (JCSS, 2001).
All aspects of this process have been strictly adhered to. Probabilistic models for
load and resistance were based on the probabilistic model code (JCSS, 2007)
which is available at the international website of the JCSS in Zrich.

All modern design codes are based on design check equations on the basis of
which a notional reliability verification of a given design can conveniently be
performed, using a simple comparison of resistances and loads and/or load
effects. Code calibration can be performed by judgment, fitting, optimization or a
combination of these (Madsen et al., 1986; Thoft-Christensen and Baker, 1982).
Calibration based on professional judgment and proven practice has been the
main method until ten-twenty years ago. Fitting of partial safety factors in codes
is used when a new code format is introduced and the parameters are then
determined such that the same level of safety is obtained as in the old code. The
modern version of code calibration is the optimization of a set of design check
equations to match, as closely as possible, a specified target reliability level. It is
this kind of calibration that is performed here.

By means of structural reliability methods the design formats of the new or
existing standards, i.e. the design check equations, the characteristic values and
partial safety factors may be selected in such a way that the level of reliability of
all structures designed according to the standards is homogenous and
independent of the choice of material and the prevailing loading, operational and
environmental conditions. This process including the choice of the desired level
of reliability or target reliability is commonly understood as code calibration.
Reliability based code calibration has been formulated by several researchers,
such as Ravindra and Galambos (1978), Ellingwood et al. (1982), Sorensen et al.
(1998 and 2001), Maes et al. (2004) and it has therefore been implemented in
several new and recent standards.

The uncertainties that are to be considered in code calibration are: physical or
aleatory uncertainty, and statistical and model uncertainty, also referred to as
epistemic uncertainty. The physical uncertainties are typically uncertainties
associated with the loading environment, the geometry of the structure and the
material properties. The statistical uncertainties arise due to incomplete statistical
information e.g. due to a small number of material tests. Finally, the model
uncertainties (Section 6.6) must be considered to take into account the
uncertainty associated with the idealized descriptions used to approximate the
actual physical behaviour of the structure and the loading to which it is subjected.

The probabilistic modeling of uncertainties largely rests on a Bayesian statistical
interpretation of uncertainties implying that the uncertainty modeling utilizes and
facilitates both the incorporation of statistical evidence about uncertain
parameters and subjectively assessed uncertainties. Modern methods of reliability
and risk analysis allow for a very general representation of these uncertainties
ranging from non-stationary stochastic processes and fields to time-invariant
2
OGP

8
random variables. In most cases it is sufficient to model the uncertain quantities
by random variables with given distribution functions and distribution parameters
estimated on basis of statistical and/or subjective information. In the probabilistic
model code by JCSS (2007) an almost complete set of probabilistic models are
given covering most situations encountered in practical engineering problems.
Ice action and action effect models however have not been explicitly addressed in
code calibration which explains why the present calibration effort focuses heavily
on probabilistic aspects of ice actions.

9

Mandate and Restrictions

The present action factor calibration is anchored on the DIS version of ISO
19906 (January 2009) and takes into account the design check equation formats
in ISO 19900 as well as the resistance standards ISO 19902, 19903, 19904-1,
noting that, in this work, no calibration of partial resistance factors is attempted.

Calibration includes environmental actions only: winds, waves and currents etc.
and ice. As ISO 19906 focuses on Arctic offshore structures, there is
considerable emphasis on the modeling and the calibration of ice actions.
Calibration does not include gravity loads, variable loads, nor earthquakes (ISO
19901-2 and 19902 are deemed to apply). The 19902 partial action factors are
used for the actions not being calibrated in this work (gravity loads, variable
loads, accidental loads, etc.) at the L1 exposure level. However, the sensitivity of
using the current 19906 DIS factors which largely mirror the factors contained in
CSA-S471 and which are lower for L1, and the use of lower/calibrated factors for
L2 and L3, are investigated.

The action factor calibration carefully addresses the regionalization of ice loads,
i.e. the spatial partition of design cases on the basis of extreme ice action effect
uncertainties (not absolute magnitudes) associated with types of ice (e.g. first-
year versus multi-year), geography, frequency of loading, and combinations with
other environmental processes (e.g. seismic, waves). In this calibration, 8
geographic ice regions are identified and 8 types of structural systems. The
weighting factors were provided by a consensus of the ISO experts, members of
TP10, in February 2009.

It is essential to realize that regionalization refers only to differences in
uncertainty modeling/characterization and not to geographical variations in the
absolute magnitude of ice actions. Input for this task has been obtained from
previously published probabilistic studies and from a substantial C-CORE ice
load distribution study (C-CORE, 2009).

While the preferred objective is to aim for one ice action factor value for all
geographic zones, the possibilities that (1) the ice action factors could be
different from the wind/wave/current action factor, and (2) that they could be
region-dependent, have been considered in this study. Since regionalization of ice
actions shows specific probabilistic features, it was decided that ice action factors
should be evaluated for each region and ice type separately so that we develop an
understanding of their sensitivities. However, the preferred outcome was agreed
to be one ice action factor value for all ice regions and types.

As mentioned in Section 1, the other objective of this work is to provide detailed
guidance about the calibration process: full documentation and audit trail data
or data sources, and detailed methods. Noting that ISO 19906 allows the user to
calibrate site-specific action factors for L1 exposure level and for L2 and L3
exposure levels, the report is to be sufficient to guide users to perform consistent
calibrations to the satisfaction of other stakeholders such as regulators. User-
3
OGP

8
random variables. In most cases it is sufficient to model the uncertain quantities
by random variables with given distribution functions and distribution parameters
estimated on basis of statistical and/or subjective information. In the probabilistic
model code by JCSS (2007) an almost complete set of probabilistic models are
given covering most situations encountered in practical engineering problems.
Ice action and action effect models however have not been explicitly addressed in
code calibration which explains why the present calibration effort focuses heavily
on probabilistic aspects of ice actions.

9

Mandate and Restrictions

The present action factor calibration is anchored on the DIS version of ISO
19906 (January 2009) and takes into account the design check equation formats
in ISO 19900 as well as the resistance standards ISO 19902, 19903, 19904-1,
noting that, in this work, no calibration of partial resistance factors is attempted.

Calibration includes environmental actions only: winds, waves and currents etc.
and ice. As ISO 19906 focuses on Arctic offshore structures, there is
considerable emphasis on the modeling and the calibration of ice actions.
Calibration does not include gravity loads, variable loads, nor earthquakes (ISO
19901-2 and 19902 are deemed to apply). The 19902 partial action factors are
used for the actions not being calibrated in this work (gravity loads, variable
loads, accidental loads, etc.) at the L1 exposure level. However, the sensitivity of
using the current 19906 DIS factors which largely mirror the factors contained in
CSA-S471 and which are lower for L1, and the use of lower/calibrated factors for
L2 and L3, are investigated.

The action factor calibration carefully addresses the regionalization of ice loads,
i.e. the spatial partition of design cases on the basis of extreme ice action effect
uncertainties (not absolute magnitudes) associated with types of ice (e.g. first-
year versus multi-year), geography, frequency of loading, and combinations with
other environmental processes (e.g. seismic, waves). In this calibration, 8
geographic ice regions are identified and 8 types of structural systems. The
weighting factors were provided by a consensus of the ISO experts, members of
TP10, in February 2009.

It is essential to realize that regionalization refers only to differences in
uncertainty modeling/characterization and not to geographical variations in the
absolute magnitude of ice actions. Input for this task has been obtained from
previously published probabilistic studies and from a substantial C-CORE ice
load distribution study (C-CORE, 2009).

While the preferred objective is to aim for one ice action factor value for all
geographic zones, the possibilities that (1) the ice action factors could be
different from the wind/wave/current action factor, and (2) that they could be
region-dependent, have been considered in this study. Since regionalization of ice
actions shows specific probabilistic features, it was decided that ice action factors
should be evaluated for each region and ice type separately so that we develop an
understanding of their sensitivities. However, the preferred outcome was agreed
to be one ice action factor value for all ice regions and types.

As mentioned in Section 1, the other objective of this work is to provide detailed
guidance about the calibration process: full documentation and audit trail data
or data sources, and detailed methods. Noting that ISO 19906 allows the user to
calibrate site-specific action factors for L1 exposure level and for L2 and L3
exposure levels, the report is to be sufficient to guide users to perform consistent
calibrations to the satisfaction of other stakeholders such as regulators. User-
3
OGP

10
calibration and the subsequent application of user-developed site-specific partial
action factors are suggested and permitted in the following clauses:

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.1.1]
Partial factors for action combinations associated with ULS and ALS shall be i n accordance with Table 7-4
or, if adequate data are available, may be specifically calibrated to achieve the reliability target (see 7.2.6)
for the structure or the component.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.1.6]
Alternative des ign methods may be us ed, pr ovided t hat c onformance with t he ULS and ALS l imit s tates
reliability targets set out in 7.2.6 is demonstrated.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.6]
The par tial action f actors specified in Table 7-4 have been der ived so t hat when applied t o ULS and ALS
design checks for exposure level L1 arctic offshore structures and their components within the scope of this
International Standard, the reliability targets given in Table 7-5 are deemed to be satisfied.

Alternatively, i f adequate data ar e available, par tial action f actors may be der ived by per forming r eliability
analyses taking account of the probabilistic descriptions of actions and resistances, specific to the relevant
action combinations and exposure l evels. Due account s hall be t aken of r elevant r esistance f actors. The
reliability targets gi ven i n Table 7-5 are provided to enable the calibration of action factors on a c onsistent
basis with those presented in Table 7-4. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum acceptable annual
failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO 19904-1. The targets in
Table 7-5 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.
OGP

10
calibration and the subsequent application of user-developed site-specific partial
action factors are suggested and permitted in the following clauses:

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.1.1]
Partial factors for action combinations associated with ULS and ALS shall be i n accordance with Table 7-4
or, if adequate data are available, may be specifically calibrated to achieve the reliability target (see 7.2.6)
for the structure or the component.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.1.6]
Alternative des ign methods may be us ed, pr ovided t hat c onformance with t he ULS and ALS l imit s tates
reliability targets set out in 7.2.6 is demonstrated.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.6]
The par tial action f actors specified in Table 7-4 have been der ived so t hat when applied t o ULS and ALS
design checks for exposure level L1 arctic offshore structures and their components within the scope of this
International Standard, the reliability targets given in Table 7-5 are deemed to be satisfied.

Alternatively, i f adequate data ar e available, par tial action f actors may be der ived by per forming r eliability
analyses taking account of the probabilistic descriptions of actions and resistances, specific to the relevant
action combinations and exposure l evels. Due account s hall be t aken of r elevant r esistance f actors. The
reliability targets gi ven i n Table 7-5 are provided to enable the calibration of action factors on a c onsistent
basis with those presented in Table 7-4. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum acceptable annual
failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO 19904-1. The targets in
Table 7-5 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.

11

Ultimate Limit States and Abnormal Limit States

ISO/DIS 19906:2009 identifies three distinct extreme design scenarios. Ultimate
limit states (ULS) refer to extreme hazards which any structural member or the
structural system as a whole must resist with a specified reliability (10
-5
for
exposure level L1). Abnormal limit states (ALS) refer to very rare and extremely
large natural hazards against which the structure must provide sufficient reserve
capacity, ductility and/or energy dissipation capability with the same specified
reliability. Essentially, the ALS acts as a guarantee that sufficient robustness is in
place to deal with infrequent hazards such as massive earthquakes and icebergs,
while tolerating non-critical damage. The third design scenario is a post-disaster
design check of a partially damaged structural system. Other than the removal of
damaged members, it is treated as a special load combination in the ULS
(action combination 5) and it therefore requires no separate consideration in this
calibration.

The distinction between ULS and ALS affects the present calibration in 3 ways:

it requires a separate calibration of EL and AL actions.

it requires companion factors to be developed for all combinations of EL
and AL (e.g. ice and wind, icebergs and waves) involving both discrete
and continuous stochastic load processes. See Section 9.

it requires the use of extended resistance models for ALS having larger
intrinsic uncertainty than the simpler ULS resistance models. This is
because mechanical models for e.g. large displacements, fully plastic
behaviour, model ductility, structural crushing and energy dissipation,
and nonlinear methods of analysis have, generally speaking, larger
coefficients of variation (COV). See Section 6.1.

The following clauses highlight the essential differences between ULS and ALS
discussed above:

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.1.1]
The s tructure s hall be designed f or t he ULS f or s trength and s tiffness, an d c hecked for ALS s o it ha s
adequate reserve capacity and energy dissipation capability, for FLS so it has adequate endurance under
dynamic action effects, and for SLS so it performs adequately under normal use.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.1.2]
The ULS r equirement ensures t hat no significant structural damage occurs f or actions with an acceptably
low probability of being exceeded during the design service l ife of the structure. The ULS design condition
for ice shall be the extreme-level ice event (ELIE). Both local and global actions shall be considered.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.1.5]
The A LS r equirement is i ntended t o ensure t hat t he structure and f oundation hav e sufficient r eserve
strength, displacement or energy dissipation capacity to sustain large actions and other action effects in the
inelastic region without complete loss of integrity. Some structural damage can be allowed for ALS. The ALS
design condition for i ce shall be the abnormal-level ice event (ALIE). Both local and global actions shall be
considered.

4
OGP

12
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.1]
For structures i n arctic and cold regions environments, design checks shall be carried out for both extreme
level (EL) and abnormal-level (AL) events, which include ice actions arising from ELIE and ALIE.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.3]
In the ULS design check, structural members and foundation components should not exceed the ULS
strength provisions of this International Standard and its referenced standards. The design procedures shall
be based pr imarily on l inear elastic methods of structural analysis. Some l ocalized i nelastic behaviour i s
acceptable, for example, as permitted in Clause 11 for steel structures.

The characteristic value for actions arising from the ELIE shall be determined based on an annual probability
of exceedance not greater than 10
-2
.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.4]
In the ALS design check, non-linear methods of analysis may be used. Structural components are allowed to
behave plastically, and foundation piles are allowed to reach axial capacity or develop plastic behaviour. The
design check depends on a combination of static reserve strength, ductility, and energy dissipation to resist
the ALIE conditions.

The representative value for actions arising from the ALIE shall be determined based on an annual
probability of exceedance not greater than 10
-4
or shall be derived from events with an annual probability of
occurrence not greater than 10
-4
.

Iceberg and i ce i sland i mpact events with an annual probability of occurrence bet ween 10
-4
and 10
-5
, and
with high consequences should be considered in the ALIE design checks to ensure that the reliability target
in Table 7-5 is satisfied.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.5]
For t he U LS, t he characteristic resistances s hall be d ivided by r esistance f actors to obtain t he design
resistances. Alternatively, the characteristic material properties shall be divided by material factors to obtain
the design material properties. The safety for each ultimate limit state shall be verified by ensuring that the
effect of factored actions does not exceed the factored resistance.

For the ALS, the resistances shall be derived such that failure or collapse does not occur, and therefore
structure and foundation resistance or safety factors may be reduced from their ULS values, or set to unity,
as per mitted by t his I nternational Standard and i ts r eferenced documents. However c omponents may be
allowed to behave i nelastically (i.e. design resistance may be exceeded) i f there is sufficient ductility and i f
the overall structural design is adequately robust and provides alternative load-paths to distribute and resist
the action effects and dissipate the energy.

13

Calibration Procedure

Code calibration consists of the following basic steps which are discussed in
some detail in the subsequent sections of this report:

A detailed discussion of each of these steps is given in the following section.

1. identification of design check equations and action combinations

2. identification of the probabilistic limit states

3. probabilistic (time-invariant) and stochastic (time-variant) modeling of
all the action effects, action combinations and resistances

4. regionalization of actions based on uncertainty ranges, if required

5. weighting of design check equations, material usage and structural
concept selection within each region and overall in consultation with
arctic offshore engineers

6. formulation of the objective functions (based on the specified target
reliabilities) and the calibration constraints

7. constrained optimization of action factors, companion factors and
specified exceedance probabilities

8. selection/recommendation of the optimal set of partial action factors and
companion factors with due account of exposure levels, and possible
regionalization

9. verification

Note that in the context of calibration we make the following important
distinction between limit state function (LSF) and design check equations
(DCE) which act as deterministic controls of the probabilistic LSF:

DCE are deterministic equations that provide relations between
(specified) representative values of actions and resistances, with the
controls consisting of action factors, resistance factors, combination
factors, and specified annual exceedance probabilities or return periods.
DCE are what the user sees in a standard without being exposed to
probabilistic modeling and safety demonstration.

LSF are functions of random variables/processes for actions and
resistances which denote the state (safe/failure) of a structural member.
By convention they are negatively valued in the failure zone F, so that
the failure probability corresponds to the probability of LSF being less
than zero.
5
OGP

12
[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.1]
For structures i n arctic and cold regions environments, design checks shall be carried out for both extreme
level (EL) and abnormal-level (AL) events, which include ice actions arising from ELIE and ALIE.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.3]
In the ULS design check, structural members and foundation components should not exceed the ULS
strength provisions of this International Standard and its referenced standards. The design procedures shall
be based pr imarily on l inear elastic methods of structural analysis. Some l ocalized i nelastic behaviour i s
acceptable, for example, as permitted in Clause 11 for steel structures.

The characteristic value for actions arising from the ELIE shall be determined based on an annual probability
of exceedance not greater than 10
-2
.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.2.4]
In the ALS design check, non-linear methods of analysis may be used. Structural components are allowed to
behave plastically, and foundation piles are allowed to reach axial capacity or develop plastic behaviour. The
design check depends on a combination of static reserve strength, ductility, and energy dissipation to resist
the ALIE conditions.

The representative value for actions arising from the ALIE shall be determined based on an annual
probability of exceedance not greater than 10
-4
or shall be derived from events with an annual probability of
occurrence not greater than 10
-4
.

Iceberg and i ce i sland i mpact events with an annual probability of occurrence bet ween 10
-4
and 10
-5
, and
with high consequences should be considered in the ALIE design checks to ensure that the reliability target
in Table 7-5 is satisfied.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.5]
For t he U LS, t he characteristic resistances s hall be d ivided by r esistance f actors to obtain t he design
resistances. Alternatively, the characteristic material properties shall be divided by material factors to obtain
the design material properties. The safety for each ultimate limit state shall be verified by ensuring that the
effect of factored actions does not exceed the factored resistance.

For the ALS, the resistances shall be derived such that failure or collapse does not occur, and therefore
structure and foundation resistance or safety factors may be reduced from their ULS values, or set to unity,
as per mitted by t his I nternational Standard and i ts r eferenced documents. However c omponents may be
allowed to behave i nelastically (i.e. design resistance may be exceeded) i f there is sufficient ductility and i f
the overall structural design is adequately robust and provides alternative load-paths to distribute and resist
the action effects and dissipate the energy.

13

Calibration Procedure

Code calibration consists of the following basic steps which are discussed in
some detail in the subsequent sections of this report:

A detailed discussion of each of these steps is given in the following section.

1. identification of design check equations and action combinations

2. identification of the probabilistic limit states

3. probabilistic (time-invariant) and stochastic (time-variant) modeling of
all the action effects, action combinations and resistances

4. regionalization of actions based on uncertainty ranges, if required

5. weighting of design check equations, material usage and structural
concept selection within each region and overall in consultation with
arctic offshore engineers

6. formulation of the objective functions (based on the specified target
reliabilities) and the calibration constraints

7. constrained optimization of action factors, companion factors and
specified exceedance probabilities

8. selection/recommendation of the optimal set of partial action factors and
companion factors with due account of exposure levels, and possible
regionalization

9. verification

Note that in the context of calibration we make the following important
distinction between limit state function (LSF) and design check equations
(DCE) which act as deterministic controls of the probabilistic LSF:

DCE are deterministic equations that provide relations between
(specified) representative values of actions and resistances, with the
controls consisting of action factors, resistance factors, combination
factors, and specified annual exceedance probabilities or return periods.
DCE are what the user sees in a standard without being exposed to
probabilistic modeling and safety demonstration.

LSF are functions of random variables/processes for actions and
resistances which denote the state (safe/failure) of a structural member.
By convention they are negatively valued in the failure zone F, so that
the failure probability corresponds to the probability of LSF being less
than zero.
5
OGP

14

The design-check equations (DCE) in ISO 19906 are established on the basis of
the following clause.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.4]
Action c ombinations that shall be considered in de sign ar e s pecified in T able 7 -4 F or eac h ac tion
combination, the representative value of an action shall be multiplied by the partial action factor specified in
Table 7-4. ISO 19900 provides further information on the classification of types of action.

For action combinations where an abnormal or accidental action is the principal action, (action combinations
4 and 6 in Table 7-4), the action effects shall be checked for the ALS only.

As an alternative to Table 7-4, for each limit state and for relevant exposure levels, the partial action factors
may be calibrated using a full probabilistic approach to achieve the limit state reliability targets (see 7.2.6).

The current DCE action factors in the DISs Table 7-4 largely mirror some of the
action factors in the current CAN/CSA-S471-04. However, the current
calibration first considers another set of factors based on ISO 19902:2007.
Hence, two sets of DCE are treated and, in both cases, only the action factors
for permanent and variable factors are considered fixed while environmental
action factors and companion values are subject to calibration:

Set I: Permanent and Variable action factors based on ISO 19902:2007

Set II: Permanent and Variable action factors based on current ISO/DIS
19906:2009 and CAN/CSA-S471-04.

The two sets of basic DCE are shown in Table 1.

In Table 1, the following control parameters are subject to calibration in the
base case of exposure level L1:

(1) the principal environmental action factor
E
in ULS-3; possibly also the
principal action factor(s)
I
for ice if ice (I) is felt to require separate
treatment(s).

(2) the companion environmental action factor
EC
in ULS-1 and ULS-2, to
be used in combination with permanent and variable actions; possibly
also the companion action factor
IC
for ice.

(3) [not shown in Table 1] the minimum required annual exceedance
probability P
E
at which the abnormal environmental/ice actions are
specified in ALS-4. Note that a fixed action factor of 1.0 is used for this
abnormal action effect.

(4) [not shown in Table 1] the companion action factors
ij
to be used in the
various combinations of principal environmental/ice processes (see
Section 9).

For a given exposure level, the calibration of all of the above control parameters
which we can denote by = {
E
,
I
, ,
EC
,
IC
, P
E
,
ij
,} rests on the following
constrained optimization (Madsen et al., 1984; Srensen et al., 1994; Maes et al.,
2004):
OGP

14

The design-check equations (DCE) in ISO 19906 are established on the basis of
the following clause.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.4]
Action c ombinations that shall be considered in de sign ar e s pecified in T able 7 -4 F or eac h ac tion
combination, the representative value of an action shall be multiplied by the partial action factor specified in
Table 7-4. ISO 19900 provides further information on the classification of types of action.

For action combinations where an abnormal or accidental action is the principal action, (action combinations
4 and 6 in Table 7-4), the action effects shall be checked for the ALS only.

As an alternative to Table 7-4, for each limit state and for relevant exposure levels, the partial action factors
may be calibrated using a full probabilistic approach to achieve the limit state reliability targets (see 7.2.6).

The current DCE action factors in the DISs Table 7-4 largely mirror some of the
action factors in the current CAN/CSA-S471-04. However, the current
calibration first considers another set of factors based on ISO 19902:2007.
Hence, two sets of DCE are treated and, in both cases, only the action factors
for permanent and variable factors are considered fixed while environmental
action factors and companion values are subject to calibration:

Set I: Permanent and Variable action factors based on ISO 19902:2007

Set II: Permanent and Variable action factors based on current ISO/DIS
19906:2009 and CAN/CSA-S471-04.

The two sets of basic DCE are shown in Table 1.

In Table 1, the following control parameters are subject to calibration in the
base case of exposure level L1:

(1) the principal environmental action factor
E
in ULS-3; possibly also the
principal action factor(s)
I
for ice if ice (I) is felt to require separate
treatment(s).

(2) the companion environmental action factor
EC
in ULS-1 and ULS-2, to
be used in combination with permanent and variable actions; possibly
also the companion action factor
IC
for ice.

(3) [not shown in Table 1] the minimum required annual exceedance
probability P
E
at which the abnormal environmental/ice actions are
specified in ALS-4. Note that a fixed action factor of 1.0 is used for this
abnormal action effect.

(4) [not shown in Table 1] the companion action factors
ij
to be used in the
various combinations of principal environmental/ice processes (see
Section 9).

For a given exposure level, the calibration of all of the above control parameters
which we can denote by = {
E
,
I
, ,
EC
,
IC
, P
E
,
ij
,} rests on the following
constrained optimization (Madsen et al., 1984; Srensen et al., 1994; Maes et al.,
2004):

15

: minimize
2 *
1
) log ) ( (log
F
L
j
F
P P w
j

=

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.

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 7-5 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 7-4. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum
acceptable annual failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO
19904-1. The targets in Table 7-5 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009: Table 7-5] 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
ULS-1 1.30(1.00)G + 1.50Q
1
+ 1.50Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-2 no distinction made

ULS-3 1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+
E
E
E

ALS-4
()
1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+ 1.00E
A

ULS-5
()
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 extreme-level environmental action having EL as its principal action.
EA: representative value of the abnormal-level 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/CSA-S471-04
ULS-1 1.25(0.90)G + 1.45Q
1
+ 1.20Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-2 1.25(0.90)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.70Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-3 1.05(0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+
E
E
E

ALS-4

1.05 (0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00E
A

ULS-5
()
1.05(0.95)G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E

()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check
action. Unknown environmental action factors are in red.

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 7-5 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 7-4. These reliability targets, expressed as maximum
acceptable annual failure probabilities, are consistent with the intent of ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO
19904-1. The targets in Table 7-5 are for single causes, i.e. for each action combination in isolation.

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009: Table 7-5] 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
ULS-1 1.30(1.00)G + 1.50Q
1
+ 1.50Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-2 no distinction made

ULS-3 1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+
E
E
E

ALS-4
()
1.10(0.90)G + 1.10(0.80)Q
1
+ 1.00E
A

ULS-5
()
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.
action.
Unknown environmental action factors are in red.
Set II: Permanent and variable action factors based on the current ISO/DIS
19906:2009 and CAN/CSA-S471-04
ULS-1 1.25(0.90)G + 1.45Q
1
+ 1.20Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-2 1.25(0.90)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.70Q
2
+
EC
E
E

ULS-3 1.05(0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+
E
E
E

ALS-4

1.05 (0.95)G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00E
A

ULS-5
()
1.05(0.95)G + 1.00Q
1
+
ED
E
E

()
represents a damaged state post ALS design check
action. Unknown environmental action factors are in red.

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 15-20% 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 two-parameter 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 k-factor 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 CSA-S471 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)

Land-based 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 so-called 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
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 15-20% 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 two-parameter 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 k-factor 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 CSA-S471 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)

Land-based 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 so-called 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
OGP

20
pulse or Ferry-Borges & 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 long-duration 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.

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)
long-term storage of materials and equipment (LD)

21
storage of liquids (SD or LD)
storage of high-temperature 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 one-year 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 one-year (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 Non-Ice Environmental Actions E

An overview of annual COV-values 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 world-wide offshore metocean
OGP

20
pulse or Ferry-Borges & 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 long-duration and short-
duration variable actions, Q
1
and Q
2
, respectively:

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.

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)
long-term storage of materials and equipment (LD)

21
storage of liquids (SD or LD)
storage of high-temperature 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 one-year 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 one-year (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 Non-Ice Environmental Actions E

An overview of annual COV-values 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 world-wide offshore metocean
OGP

22
conditions and we assume they also apply to the subset of Arctic and sub-Arctic
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,
process-to-action, process-to-action-effect).

In view of the definitions of the representative action E as the 99% percentile of
the one-year 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 inter-environmental 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

OGP

22
conditions and we assume they also apply to the subset of Arctic and sub-Arctic
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,
process-to-action, process-to-action-effect).

In view of the definitions of the representative action E as the 99% percentile of
the one-year 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 inter-environmental 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

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 C-CORE ice load
distribution study (C-CORE, 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 C-CORE,
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 ice-structure 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 multi-year ice: 0.5 tenths
FYR first-year ridges
FYL first-year 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 multi-legged structure
MI man-made 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

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 C-CORE ice load
distribution study (C-CORE, 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 C-CORE,
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 ice-structure 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
IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
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

OGP

26

Table 6 Relative weights of structural systems used in a specific region/ice environment
IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment

Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 60 15 5 5 15 100%
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
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
IB icebergs

Ice environment Relative weight (%)
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 20
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
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%

OGP

26

Table 6 Relative weights of structural systems used in a specific region/ice environment
IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment

Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 60 15 5 5 15 100%
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
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
IB icebergs

Ice environment Relative weight (%)
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 20
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
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%

OGP

28

Table 8 Mean number of ice loading events per year, their range, and the effect of ice management/

disconnection
IB icebergs
FP FPSO unit
PC vertical piled column
MI man-made 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.

OGP

28

Table 8 Mean number of ice loading events per year, their range, and the effect of ice management/

disconnection
IB icebergs
FP FPSO unit
MI man-made 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 Q-distributions. They can be applied to arbitrary actions in terms of a
non-dimensional 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution
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.

Q-distributions 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).

Q-distributions are mathematically convenient in the analysis of limit
state failure probabilities (see Section A.3).

Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution 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 C-CORE (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 C-CORE. 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 Q-distribution: the
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 iceberg-structure 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 12-16.

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
Q-distributions 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
*
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

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 iceberg-structure 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 12-16.

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
Q-distributions 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 Q-distribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
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 Q-distribution model)
n mean sd CoV x
0.1
x
0.01
x
0.0001
x
max
q S H
ref
*
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

OGP

32

Table 11 Extreme ice load probability distributions: tail slope and tail heaviness factors
IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environ-
ment
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 tail-equivalent generalized Pareto
distribution (Q-distrbution).
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.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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
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.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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
Sakhalin Island FYRGC
Caspian Sea FYL GC

structure: conically sided GBS.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: floating production storage offloading unit.

OGP

32

Table 11 Extreme ice load probability distributions: tail slope and tail heaviness factors
IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environ-
ment
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 tail-equivalent generalized Pareto
distribution (Q-distrbution).
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.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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 FYRGV
Caspian Sea FYL GV

structure: vertically sided GBS.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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 FYRGC
Caspian Sea FYL GC

structure: conically sided GBS.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: floating production storage offloading unit.

OGP

34
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: single vertical piled column.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: multi-legged structure.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: man-made island.

OGP

34
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: single vertical piled column.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: multi-legged structure.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

structure: man-made island.

35
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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: Iceberg-structure interaction loads (per impact) for all regions.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Beaufort Sea MYI 3.0.

OGP

36
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Sakhalin Island FYR.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Barents Sea FYR.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Caspian Sea FYL.

37
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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
Barents Sea FYR FP
Annual Environmental Action COV = 0.2

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.

OGP

36
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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 FP
Sakhalin Island FYR PC
Sakhalin Island FYR ML

and type of ice: Sakhalin Island FYR.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Barents Sea FYR.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

and type of ice: Caspian Sea FYL.

37
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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
Barents Sea FYR FP

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.

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 full-scale 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 designer-analyst 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 17-bis. It can be seen that the
individual loading events, while conditionally independent given model
uncertainty, are in fact correlated due to the shared upper-level model
uncertainty. Incorrectly including the top-level uncertainties in the lower-level
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 17-bis: 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 C-CORE 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 site-specific, metocean-specific, and structure-
specific conditions where the different uncertainties can be clearly identified,
resulting in better (optimized) custom-tailored action factors.

Ice action model uncertainty is included in the present study by adjusting the
(S, H) parameters in the Q-distributions as shown in Appendix A, section A.7.
The case of zero additional model uncertainty
= 0 corresponds to the base case

C-CORE ice action probability distributions in the previous sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Table 11-bis shows the different
values assumed in the analysis together with

their estimated weights. No bias was used, only COV.

Table 11-bis Relative weight associated with additional ice action model/epistemic

uncertainty
Ice action model uncertainty
COV (*)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Relative weight (%) 20 20 30 20 10
(*) additional to that contained in the input C-CORE ice action effect statistics.

MODEL (EPISTEMIC) UNCERTAINTIES
load or load-effect model uncertainties, model
assumptions, model simplifications, statistical uncertainties
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES 1
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES 2
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES n
interaction #1 interaction #2 interaction #n
model
load
interaction
events

OGP

39
shown schematically in the hierarchy of Figure 17-bis. It can be seen that the
individual loading events, while conditionally independent given model
uncertainty, are in fact correlated due to the shared upper-level model
uncertainty. Incorrectly including the top-level uncertainties in the lower-level
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 17-bis: 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 C-CORE 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 site-specific, metocean-specific, and structure-
specific conditions where the different uncertainties can be clearly identified,
resulting in better (optimized) custom-tailored action factors.

Ice action model uncertainty is included in the present study by adjusting the
(S, H) parameters in the Q-distributions as shown in Appendix A, section A.7.
The case of zero additional model uncertainty
= 0 corresponds to the base case

C-CORE ice action probability distributions in the previous sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Table 11-bis shows the different
values assumed in the analysis together with

their estimated weights. No bias was used, only COV.

Table 11-bis Relative weight associated with additional ice action model/epistemic

uncertainty
Ice action model uncertainty
COV (*)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Relative weight (%) 20 20 30 20 10
(*) additional to that contained in the input C-CORE ice action effect statistics.

MODEL (EPISTEMIC) UNCERTAINTIES
load or load-effect model uncertainties, model
assumptions, model simplifications, statistical uncertainties
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES 1
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES 2
ALEATORY
UNCERTAINTIES n
interaction #1 interaction #2 interaction #n
model
load
interaction
events

OGP

40

Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):
Results and Verification

The calibration process described in Section 5 is now used to optimize the
various factors and parameters in both sets of design check equations
(Section 5).

For environmental actions E other than ice, the L1 principal action factor
E

applicable to the 100-year action effect is optimized to be 1.35 for both Set I
(ISO 19902) and Set II (CSA-S471) factors. The environmental companion
factor
EC
in the permanent/variable action design check equations is found to be
0.70. The abnormal action needs to be specified at an annual exceedance
probability equal to 10
-4
.

In the following two sections we use action combination diagrams to illustrate
and verify some of the results of the calibration. It is felt that, in order to
appreciate and test the performance of the optimized calibration parameters, two-
by-two combinations of various action effects are most effective. Combinations
of three, four, or more loads are very hard to visualize; on the other hand, two-
by-two action combinations represent worst-case scenarios in the sense that if
all combinations check out to be satisfactory for all possible contributions of
either action effect, then the inclusion of additional action affects cannot decrease
the reliability associated with the two-by-two combination.

Recall also that all of the verification checks presented in this section are based
on the minimum required design resistance. This, again, is a worst-case
scenario from the point of view of structural safety. In reality, structural
components will have better limit state reliability values than those shown in
the two-by-two load combination diagrams.

In the following two-by-two action combination diagrams, the horizontal axis
denotes the ratio of one of the two load effects divided by the total load effect.
This ratio, called in the subsequent figures, varies from 0 to 100% and
therefore, the very left-hand and right-hand sides of the diagram represent each
load effect acting individually.

Consider for instance Figure 18 which is a combination diagram for permanent
load G and environmental load E. The right-hand side of Figure 18 shows the
need for the factor
E
= 1.35 for structural members dominated by environmental
loading. It shows that on the other side of the action combination scale a
companion factor of
EC
as low as 0.7 can be afforded, which is confirmed by the
overall calibration. Figure 19 shows the combined action of variable actions Q, of
long duration and E. It can be seen in both Figures 18 and 19 that the
environmental design check equations govern all design conditions marked by
about 15% or more environmental load effect, i.e. the curves to the right of the
noticeable discontinuity in slope. Note also that Set II action factors are overall
more conservative, particularly on the 0 side (pure G or pure Q
1
), while Set
I and Set II converge for high environmental action ratios since the same action
factor
E
is used.
8

41

Turning now to ice action effects we make a distinction between the following
calibration scenarios as discussed in Section 3:

(a) calibration of separate principal ice action factors
I
for each cell in
Table 5, i.e. for each combination of ice region and structure: the results
are shown in Table 12 in black bold font.

(b) calibration of region-specific principal ice action factors
I
: the results
are shown in Table 12 in red bold font.

(c) calibration of a principal ice action factor
I
for all regions and all
types: the result is shown in Table 12 in blue bold font.

(d) calibration of ice as part of all other environmental actions resulting in
an overall E and I factor
E
=
I
= 1.35 (as above) and P
E
= 10
-4
for
abnormal level actions.

It should be noted that action factors for conically sided structures (both GBS and
floaters) are always larger than for other structures. The reason for this is the
larger S (and H) values in the tails shown in the figures of Section 7.2. While the
100-year design action effects for conical structures are considerably less than for
vertically sided structures, they increase at a greater rate and therefore require
larger action factors to meet the reliability targets. This finding applies only if the
input design actions for conical/sloping structures are validated following further
investigation. Note that this effect disappears for L2 and L3 since the 100-year
design action effects are much closer to the minimum required resistance, hence
the effects of tail slope and heaviness tend to be less severe (see Section 10). As a
result an exception must be made for structure types GC and FC if one is to
follow calibration scenarios (b) and (c) above, as shown in Table 12. In principle,
the exception should also show up in (d) but the overall weight (importance) of
GC and FC when lumped together with all other types of environmental actions
becomes almost negligible.

When considering calibration scenario (b), region-specific action factors are
highest for Beaufort-type zones (
I
= 1.30), lowest for Sakhalin-type zones (
I
=
1.20) and in-between for Caspian-type zones (
I
= 1.25). Barents Sea FYR is a
bit of an anomaly because of heavier tails (see Figures in Section 7.2) and
perhaps this region should be called inconclusive for the time being; as it is now,
it requires
I
= 1.45.

Under calibration scenario (c), the all-ice
I
would be 1.30 except that 1.55
should be used for conically sided structures. The calibration of the prescribed
annual exceedance probability for the abnormal level ice action P
I
is very
consistent over all regions (Barents, Grand banks, Labrador). The value P
I
=
10
-3.8
emerges, which corresponds approximately to a 6300 year unfactored
design action effect. Note that abnormal ice features include icebergs as well as
other ice loading events that are rare (such as islands, large MYI floes). The EL
factor of 1.35 safely applies to iceberg actions that are frequent as in East
Baffin Bay as a high annual arrival rate considerably reduces the annual extreme
COV.
OGP

40

Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):

The calibration process described in Section 5 is now used to optimize the
various factors and parameters in both sets of design check equations
(Section 5).

For environmental actions E other than ice, the L1 principal action factor
E

applicable to the 100-year action effect is optimized to be 1.35 for both Set I
(ISO 19902) and Set II (CSA-S471) factors. The environmental companion
factor
EC
in the permanent/variable action design check equations is found to be
0.70. The abnormal action needs to be specified at an annual exceedance
probability equal to 10
-4
.

In the following two sections we use action combination diagrams to illustrate
and verify some of the results of the calibration. It is felt that, in order to
appreciate and test the performance of the optimized calibration parameters, two-
by-two combinations of various action effects are most effective. Combinations
of three, four, or more loads are very hard to visualize; on the other hand, two-
by-two action combinations represent worst-case scenarios in the sense that if
all combinations check out to be satisfactory for all possible contributions of
either action effect, then the inclusion of additional action affects cannot decrease
the reliability associated with the two-by-two combination.

Recall also that all of the verification checks presented in this section are based
on the minimum required design resistance. This, again, is a worst-case
scenario from the point of view of structural safety. In reality, structural
components will have better limit state reliability values than those shown in
the two-by-two load combination diagrams.

In the following two-by-two action combination diagrams, the horizontal axis
denotes the ratio of one of the two load effects divided by the total load effect.
This ratio, called in the subsequent figures, varies from 0 to 100% and
therefore, the very left-hand and right-hand sides of the diagram represent each
load effect acting individually.

Consider for instance Figure 18 which is a combination diagram for permanent
load G and environmental load E. The right-hand side of Figure 18 shows the
need for the factor
E
= 1.35 for structural members dominated by environmental
loading. It shows that on the other side of the action combination scale a
companion factor of
EC
as low as 0.7 can be afforded, which is confirmed by the
overall calibration. Figure 19 shows the combined action of variable actions Q, of
long duration and E. It can be seen in both Figures 18 and 19 that the
environmental design check equations govern all design conditions marked by
about 15% or more environmental load effect, i.e. the curves to the right of the
noticeable discontinuity in slope. Note also that Set II action factors are overall
more conservative, particularly on the 0 side (pure G or pure Q
1
), while Set
I and Set II converge for high environmental action ratios since the same action
factor
E
is used.
8

41

Turning now to ice action effects we make a distinction between the following
calibration scenarios as discussed in Section 3:

(a) calibration of separate principal ice action factors
I
for each cell in
Table 5, i.e. for each combination of ice region and structure: the results
are shown in Table 12 in black bold font.

(b) calibration of region-specific principal ice action factors
I
: the results
are shown in Table 12 in red bold font.

(c) calibration of a principal ice action factor
I
for all regions and all
types: the result is shown in Table 12 in blue bold font.

(d) calibration of ice as part of all other environmental actions resulting in
an overall E and I factor
E
=
I
= 1.35 (as above) and P
E
= 10
-4
for
abnormal level actions.

It should be noted that action factors for conically sided structures (both GBS and
floaters) are always larger than for other structures. The reason for this is the
larger S (and H) values in the tails shown in the figures of Section 7.2. While the
100-year design action effects for conical structures are considerably less than for
vertically sided structures, they increase at a greater rate and therefore require
larger action factors to meet the reliability targets. This finding applies only if the
input design actions for conical/sloping structures are validated following further
investigation. Note that this effect disappears for L2 and L3 since the 100-year
design action effects are much closer to the minimum required resistance, hence
the effects of tail slope and heaviness tend to be less severe (see Section 10). As a
result an exception must be made for structure types GC and FC if one is to
follow calibration scenarios (b) and (c) above, as shown in Table 12. In principle,
the exception should also show up in (d) but the overall weight (importance) of
GC and FC when lumped together with all other types of environmental actions
becomes almost negligible.

When considering calibration scenario (b), region-specific action factors are
highest for Beaufort-type zones (
I
= 1.30), lowest for Sakhalin-type zones (
I
=
1.20) and in-between for Caspian-type zones (
I
= 1.25). Barents Sea FYR is a
bit of an anomaly because of heavier tails (see Figures in Section 7.2) and
perhaps this region should be called inconclusive for the time being; as it is now,
it requires
I
= 1.45.

Under calibration scenario (c), the all-ice
I
would be 1.30 except that 1.55
should be used for conically sided structures. The calibration of the prescribed
annual exceedance probability for the abnormal level ice action P
I
is very
consistent over all regions (Barents, Grand banks, Labrador). The value P
I
=
10
-3.8
emerges, which corresponds approximately to a 6300 year unfactored
design action effect. Note that abnormal ice features include icebergs as well as
other ice loading events that are rare (such as islands, large MYI floes). The EL
factor of 1.35 safely applies to iceberg actions that are frequent as in East
Baffin Bay as a high annual arrival rate considerably reduces the annual extreme
COV.
OGP

42

As a verification, consider the two-by-two combination diagrams for permanent
actions G and ice actions I for Beaufort Sea multi-year ice conditions: Figures
20-24. These combination diagrams depend of course on the type of Set used: Set
I (ISO 19902) and Set II (CSA-S471) as explained in Section 5. This difference
shows up on the left-hand side (0) of the diagrams since the permanent action
factors are different for each set. It can be seen that, overall, Set I is more
conservative for action ratios < 0.3. Also the principal ice design check
equations govern designs marked by -factors exceeding 0.15 to 0.20. Note that
in Figures 20-23 the region/structure-specific ice action factors (scenario (a)
above) are used while Figure 24 uses region-specific (b) ice action factors.

Referring to Figure 1(c) and Section 5, we should recall that the reliability target
applies for the weighted results but there is also an absolute constraint one
order of magnitude greater, and this explains why the figures appear to show that
the 10
-5
target (for L1) is not met or cannot be met for certain low-probability
action combination effect ratios.

Consider now the following sensitivity analysis. Suppose a large set of design
combinations were considered for each cell in Table 12. Each design situation
would have a different resistance COV, or a different annual mean ice encounter
rate, or different ice action model uncertainty. Now determine, for each case
separately, the minimum required ice action factor to achieve target reliability
and not exceed the constraints. Each resulting action factor is shown by a dot
in the Figures 25, 26 and 27. Also shown are bold black, bold red, and bold
blue lines which correspond to the Table 12 calibrated values for (a) each
region/structure, (b) each region, and (c) ice-overall, respectively. It can be seen
that almost all dots fall well below their (a) (b) and (c) calibrated values,
suggesting the principle discussed in Section 5 that individual limit state failure
probabilities should not exceed their target by too much. Overall the suggested
values in Table 12 for all 4 calibration scenarios are well on the safe side.

The same result appears in Figure 28 which shows the sensitivity of P
I
for
abnormal level ice actions.
OGP

42

As a verification, consider the two-by-two combination diagrams for permanent
actions G and ice actions I for Beaufort Sea multi-year ice conditions: Figures
20-24. These combination diagrams depend of course on the type of Set used: Set
I (ISO 19902) and Set II (CSA-S471) as explained in Section 5. This difference
shows up on the left-hand side (0) of the diagrams since the permanent action
factors are different for each set. It can be seen that, overall, Set I is more
conservative for action ratios < 0.3. Also the principal ice design check
equations govern designs marked by -factors exceeding 0.15 to 0.20. Note that
in Figures 20-23 the region/structure-specific ice action factors (scenario (a)
above) are used while Figure 24 uses region-specific (b) ice action factors.

Referring to Figure 1(c) and Section 5, we should recall that the reliability target
applies for the weighted results but there is also an absolute constraint one
order of magnitude greater, and this explains why the figures appear to show that
the 10
-5
target (for L1) is not met or cannot be met for certain low-probability
action combination effect ratios.

Consider now the following sensitivity analysis. Suppose a large set of design
combinations were considered for each cell in Table 12. Each design situation
would have a different resistance COV, or a different annual mean ice encounter
rate, or different ice action model uncertainty. Now determine, for each case
separately, the minimum required ice action factor to achieve target reliability
and not exceed the constraints. Each resulting action factor is shown by a dot
in the Figures 25, 26 and 27. Also shown are bold black, bold red, and bold
blue lines which correspond to the Table 12 calibrated values for (a) each
region/structure, (b) each region, and (c) ice-overall, respectively. It can be seen
that almost all dots fall well below their (a) (b) and (c) calibrated values,
suggesting the principle discussed in Section 5 that individual limit state failure
probabilities should not exceed their target by too much. Overall the suggested
values in Table 12 for all 4 calibration scenarios are well on the safe side.

The same result appears in Figure 28 which shows the sensitivity of P
I
for
abnormal level ice actions.

43

Table 12 Calibrated principal extreme-level ice action factors and abnormal-level annual exceedance
probabilities (L1)

IB icebergs

FP FPSO unit
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 1.30 1.55 1.30 1.30 1.30
except for low MYI encounter rates: 1.35

Region-wide action factor: 1.30 (except for conically sided structures 1.55)
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 1.30 1.50
Sakhalin
Cook Inlet
Sea of Okhotsk
Kara Sea
FYR 1.20 1.45 1.15(?) 1.20 1.25(?)
(?) denotes inconclusive calibration
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
FYR 1.35 1.45 1.35(?)
Region-wide action factor: 1.45
Caspian Sea
Baltic Sea
Bohai Sea
FYL 1.25 1.30 1.25 1.25 1.25
Region-wide action factor: 1.25
Barents Sea
IB

10
-3.8

10
-3.8

Region-wide action factor: All IB types, all structures 10
-3.8
Grand Banks
IB

10
-3.7

10
-3.8

-3.8
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB

10
-3.7

10
-3.7

-3.8
All ice regions and types:
1.30 except for conically sided GBS and floaters 1.55; abnormal ice feature actions at 10
-3.8
All environmental actions including ice:
1.35 all
Note:
This table contains 4 sets of ice action factors:
the black bold-type value in each cell is the action factor for a given structural type in a given region
the red values are region-specific action factor
the blue value in the penultimate row applies to all regions
the green value in the last row is one global ice action factor for all environmental actions
OGP

44
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
Set I Action Factors (ISO 19902)
Set II Action Factors (CSA S471)
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

Figure 18: Combination of permanent actions (=0) and all types of
environmental actions (=1) using both set I and Set II action factors for
permanent actions, and E=1.35 and EC=0.70.

All environmental actions E
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
Set I Action Factors (ISO 19902)
Set II Action Factors (CSA S471)
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

Figure 19: Combination of long duration variable actions (=0) and all types of
environmental actions (=1) using both set I and Set II action factors for
permanent actions, and E=1.35 and EC=0.70.

Using Set I Action Factors (ISO 19902) for Permanent Actions
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
GV
GC
FP
PC
MI
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3
Using region- and structure-specific calibrated action factors

Figure 20: Combination of Permanent Action (=0) and Ice Action (=1) for
various Beaufort Sea MYI 0.5 structures. The ratio indicates the relative
magnitude of the ice action effect (Set I Factors).

45
Using Set II Action Factors (CSA S471) for Permanent Actions
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
GV
GC
FP
PC
MI
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

magnitude of the ice action effect (Set II Factors).

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
GV
GC
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3


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
GV
GC
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

OGP

45
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
GV
GC
FP
PC
MI
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3


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
GV
GC
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3


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
GV
GC
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

OGP

46
Region-wide Weighted Probability of Failure (All Structures)
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
Beauf ort Sea, MYI 0.5, Set II
Beauf ort Sea, MYI 0.5, Set I
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

Figure 24: Combination of Permanent Action (=0) and Ice Action (=1) for all
Beaufort Sea regions using both Set I and Set II action factors for permanent
action, and the calibrated region-wide ice action factors. The ratio indicates the
relative magnitude of the ice action effect.

1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
MYI 0.5
GV
MYI 0.5
FP
MYI 0.5
PC
MYI 0.5
MI
MYI 3.0
GV
MYI 3.0
GC
MYI 0.5
GC

Figure 25: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Beaufort Sea-
type regions (Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, Laptev Sea, NE
Greenland, Arctic Islands). Each dot represents a particular combination of mean
encounter rate, resistance COV, and level of action model uncertainty. The black, red and
blue lines denote the recommended calibrated action factors for each cell (region +
structural type), each region, and ice-overall, respectively.

47
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
SAK FYR
GV
SAK FYR
FP
SAK FYR
PC
SAK FYR
ML
BAR FYR
FV
BAR FYR
FC
SAK FYR
GC

Figure 26: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Sakhalin-type and
Barents Sea-type regions (Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, Kara Sea, Barents Sea,
Bering Sea). Each dot represents a particular combination of mean encounter rate,
resistance COV, and level of action model uncertainty. The black, red and blue lines
denote the recommended calibrated action factors for each cell (region + structural type),
each region, and ice-overall, respectively.

1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
CAS FYL
GV
CAS FYL
PC
CAS FYL
ML
CAS FYL
MI
CAS FYL
GC

Figure 27: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Caspian Sea-type
regions (Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, Bohai Sea). Each dot represents a particular
combination of mean encounter rate, resistance COV, and level of action model
uncertainty. The black, red and blue lines denote the recommended calibrated action
factors for each cell (region + structural type), each region, and ice-overall, respectively.
OGP

46
Region-wide Weighted Probability of Failure (All Structures)
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
10
-5
10
-6
10
-4
10
-7
10
-3

Figure 24: Combination of Permanent Action (=0) and Ice Action (=1) for all
Beaufort Sea regions using both Set I and Set II action factors for permanent
action, and the calibrated region-wide ice action factors. The ratio indicates the
relative magnitude of the ice action effect.

1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
MYI 0.5
GV
MYI 0.5
FP
MYI 0.5
PC
MYI 0.5
MI
MYI 3.0
GV
MYI 3.0
GC
MYI 0.5
GC

Figure 25: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Beaufort Sea-
type regions (Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Labrador, Laptev Sea, NE
Greenland, Arctic Islands). Each dot represents a particular combination of mean
encounter rate, resistance COV, and level of action model uncertainty. The black, red and
blue lines denote the recommended calibrated action factors for each cell (region +
structural type), each region, and ice-overall, respectively.

47
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
SAK FYR
GV
SAK FYR
FP
SAK FYR
PC
SAK FYR
ML
BAR FYR
FV
BAR FYR
FC
SAK FYR
GC

Figure 26: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Sakhalin-type and
Barents Sea-type regions (Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, Kara Sea, Barents Sea,
Bering Sea). Each dot represents a particular combination of mean encounter rate,
resistance COV, and level of action model uncertainty. The black, red and blue lines
denote the recommended calibrated action factors for each cell (region + structural type),
each region, and ice-overall, respectively.

1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
E
L

A
c
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
CAS FYL
GV
CAS FYL
PC
CAS FYL
ML
CAS FYL
MI
CAS FYL
GC

Figure 27: Minimum required principal extreme-level ice action factor for Caspian Sea-type
regions (Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, Bohai Sea). Each dot represents a particular
combination of mean encounter rate, resistance COV, and level of action model
uncertainty. The black, red and blue lines denote the recommended calibrated action
factors for each cell (region + structural type), each region, and ice-overall, respectively.
OGP

48

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

A
L

a
n
n
u
a
l

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Bar IB
FV
Bar IB
FP
GB IB
GV
GB IB
FP
Lab IB
GV
Lab IB
FP
-4.0
10
-3.4
10
-3.0
10
-3.8
10
-3.6
-3.2
10
10

Figure 28: Minimum required specified exceeded probability for the abnormal level ice
action loading in the Barents Sea, Grand Banks, Labrador, Baffin Bay, NE Greenland.
Each dot represents a particular combination of mean encounter rate, resistance COV,
and level of action model uncertainty. The black, red and blue lines denote the
recommended calibrated specified annual exceedance probability levels for each cell
(region + structural type), each region, and ice-overall, respectively.

49

Companion Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):

ISO 19906 calls for a design companion action format for combinations of
environmental actions. The following clauses are relevant:

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.3]
Representative values for environmental action combinations shall be determined as the combination of the
principal action and the factored companion actions.

Action c ombinations for e ach env ironmental a ction shall be derived by c onsidering each E L and A L
representative v alue of t he ac tion i n t urn a s a pr incipal a ction. T hese v alues s hall be ac companied by
companion environmental actions. I n ea ch case, t he r epresentative v alues of the E L ac tion, suitably
factored, should be considered as companion to the EL or AL principal action.

The principal and companion EL actions for ice are extreme-level ice events (ELIE). The principal AL action
for ice is the abnormal-level ice event (ALIE).

Where data are available, a p robabilistic t reatment of joint probabilities should be conducted t o det ermine
the magnitude of companion actions. In the absence of specific consideration of joint probabilities, the
combination factors provided for companion EL actions i n Table 7-3 shall be used. The values specified in
Table 7-3 ar e c onservative t o ac count for a w ide v ariety of pos sibilities. Consequently, site-specific dat a
should be used and joint probabilities calculated whenever possible.

It appears therefore that we need to focus on the design check equations in
Table 13 where it should be stressed that the resulting representative values are
unfactored (for ULS this is obviously quite relevant as the principal
environmental and the principal ice action factors
E
and
I
must be applied to E
E

or I
E
; for ALS a factor of 1.0 is applied to E
A
or I
A
). The number of companion
factors
ij
in Table 13 is quite staggering if each environmental process should be
considered in combination with a different one. Therefore, Table 14 reduces the
number of factors to just four:

(i) a ULS companion action factor
EI
correlated continuous environmental processes.

(ii) a ULS companion action factor
ED

(iii) a ALS companion action factor
AD
be treated as independent.

(iv) a ALS companion action factor
AI
assumed to be strongly dependent.

Consider first the case (i) of two independent or very weakly correlated
environmental/ice processes. This case can be calibrated using the variable
action FBC probability models described in Sections 6.6 and 6.4.

9
OGP

49

Companion Action Factors (Environmental and Ice):

ISO 19906 calls for a design companion action format for combinations of
environmental actions. The following clauses are relevant:

[ISO/DIS 19906:2009, clause 7.2.3]
Representative values for environmental action combinations shall be determined as the combination of the
principal action and the factored companion actions.

Action c ombinations for e ach env ironmental a ction shall be derived by c onsidering each E L and A L
representative v alue of t he ac tion i n t urn a s a pr incipal a ction. T hese v alues s hall be ac companied by
companion environmental actions. I n ea ch case, t he r epresentative v alues of the E L ac tion, suitably
factored, should be considered as companion to the EL or AL principal action.

The principal and companion EL actions for ice are extreme-level ice events (ELIE). The principal AL action
for ice is the abnormal-level ice event (ALIE).

Where data are available, a p robabilistic t reatment of joint probabilities should be conducted t o det ermine
the magnitude of companion actions. In the absence of specific consideration of joint probabilities, the
combination factors provided for companion EL actions i n Table 7-3 shall be used. The values specified in
Table 7-3 ar e c onservative t o ac count for a w ide v ariety of pos sibilities. Consequently, site-specific dat a
should be used and joint probabilities calculated whenever possible.

It appears therefore that we need to focus on the design check equations in
Table 13 where it should be stressed that the resulting representative values are
unfactored (for ULS this is obviously quite relevant as the principal
environmental and the principal ice action factors
E
and
I
must be applied to E
E

or I
E
; for ALS a factor of 1.0 is applied to E
A
or I
A
). The number of companion
factors
ij
in Table 13 is quite staggering if each environmental process should be
considered in combination with a different one. Therefore, Table 14 reduces the
number of factors to just four:

(i) a ULS companion action factor
EI

(ii) a ULS companion action factor
ED

(iii) a ALS companion action factor
AD
be treated as independent.

(iv) a ALS companion action factor
AI
assumed to be strongly dependent.

Consider first the case (i) of two independent or very weakly correlated
environmental/ice processes. This case can be calibrated using the variable
action FBC probability models described in Sections 6.6 and 6.4.

9
OGP

50
The optimal companion factor for this combination scenario is
EI
= 0.6. Note
that this result should also be directly applicable to L2 and L3, although this was
not explicitly verified.

Figures 29-31 show different values of the combination factor
E1
for two
stochastically independent environmental load processes. The presence and
renewal parameters in the FBC pulse action models were varied to verify
deviations from this diagram. In all cases differences of less than 5% were found
on the log P
F
scale.

Three cases are shown in Figures 29-31: E
1
+ E
2
, E + I
B
and E + I
C
where I
B
and
I
C
are Beaufort Sea-type ice and Caspian Sea-type ice, respectively (see footnotes
to these three figures). The latter has a presence of ice (modeled as n
p
in the FBC
probability model) which is much lower than I
B
. However, the combination
diagrams show little difference, since the factors
E
and
I
are different and so are
of course the design actions themselves.

Next consider the more difficult case (ii) of combining two strongly dependent
or correlated continuous environmental/ice processes E
1
and E
2
and the
required companion factor
ED
(see Table 14). Existing standards would tend to
suggest that the value of
ED
is equal to 1.0 for this case meaning that one adds
up the extreme action effects for both processes at their full individual 100-year
return level. This would obviously be correct if process E
2
(t) were to be equal to
kE
1
(t) for all points in time t where k is a constant, but this is a really farfetched
and extreme case of correlation. The problem with
ED
is that we can distinguish
so many types of dependence between two environmental processes such as
(Wen, 1990):

within-load dependencies (same correlation structures)

within-cluster dependence (e.g. action effects during weather bursts)

dependence in the intensities of E
1
and E
2

dependence in the occurrence rates of E
1
and E
2

dependence in the duration of coincidence of E
1
and E
2

various forms of spatial correlation

cross-correlation within short-term metocean states (e.g. wind and waves
in a given sea state

correlation between long-term metocean states

Accordingly, it is virtually impossible to optimize one single generic factor
ED

to reflect all of the above situations. Without doing the actual number-crunching
but merely based on site-specific experience, I would suggest
ED
= 0.85 with the
caveat to optimize such a factor once specific environmental conditions are
known for a given site and structure.

51
The third companion factor
AI
for case (iii) and Table 14 denotes which
fraction of a continuous extreme level environmental action should be used in
conjunction with the (principal value of the) abnormal level ice load, assuming
these two processes to be independent. As an example consider iceberg actions
and deepwater current actions.

The first thing to realize is that AL in Table 13 is an enormously large action
effect and one would expect the companion value of an independent
environmental action process to be quite small. In fact, the companion action
should be based on its point-in-time probability distribution and not its annual
extreme value distribution, since the former expresses what can be observed at an
arbitrary point in time, which is the time when the abnormal event occurs given
the assumption of independence.

In order to investigate this combination, the companion process is modeled using
the FBC rectangular pulse process technique described in Section 6.4 using
various realistic values of n
p
and n
R
. In all cases the annual extreme pdf is
determined together with the corresponding representative action EL at the 100-
year return value. Then, a relationship is established between EL and the q-
quantile of the point-in-time pdf. Their ratio is the resulting value of
AI
and,
depending on the arrival rate of extreme events (which determines q) and
depending on the presence and renewal parameters of the companion process, it
varies between 0.075 and 0.375. The value
AI
= 0.35 is recommended.

Finally, the case (iv) companion factor
AD
in Table 14 is considered. As for the
case of
ED
we face the question of what exactly is to be understood by
dependence; e.g. in combining an abnormal level principal iceberg action
effect I with a wind or wave action effect E, what are the exact characteristics of
the joint probabilistic behaviour of I and E? Following a Bayesian argument, the
companion value of E should be based on the following PDF:

= ) causing event abnormal | ( I E f
= = ) event the of intensity event abnormal an of occurrence | ( I E f (10)
) ( ) occurrence | AL ( ) | event abnormal an of occurrence Pr( E f E I f E =

where f(E) is the point-in-time pdf of the continuous companion event E. It
appears that two effects show up in (10): the iceberg impact probability can be a
function of E and, given an impact, there is also some correlation between the
intensity of the iceberg action effect I and the intensity of the environmental
action. Assuming both to be linear functions of E then the probabilistic
parameters of the pdf of E given I can be updated according to (10). Simulation
over a wide set of simple FBC processes using a procedure similar to the above
case of
AI
, yields
AD
values that are between 1.05 and 1.25 higher than
AI
.
Hence a value
AD

The environmental and ice action factors (Section 8) and companion action
factors (Section 9) are summarized in Table 15 below.
OGP

50
The optimal companion factor for this combination scenario is
EI
= 0.6. Note
that this result should also be directly applicable to L2 and L3, although this was
not explicitly verified.

Figures 29-31 show different values of the combination factor
E1
for two
stochastically independent environmental load processes. The presence and
renewal parameters in the FBC pulse action models were varied to verify
deviations from this diagram. In all cases differences of less than 5% were found
on the log P
F
scale.

Three cases are shown in Figures 29-31: E
1
+ E
2
, E + I
B
and E + I
C
where I
B
and
I
C
are Beaufort Sea-type ice and Caspian Sea-type ice, respectively (see footnotes
to these three figures). The latter has a presence of ice (modeled as n
p
in the FBC
probability model) which is much lower than I
B
. However, the combination
diagrams show little difference, since the factors
E
and
I
are different and so are
of course the design actions themselves.

Next consider the more difficult case (ii) of combining two strongly dependent
or correlated continuous environmental/ice processes E
1
and E
2
and the
required companion factor
ED
(see Table 14). Existing standards would tend to
suggest that the value of
ED
is equal to 1.0 for this case meaning that one adds
up the extreme action effects for both processes at their full individual 100-year
return level. This would obviously be correct if process E
2
(t) were to be equal to
kE
1
(t) for all points in time t where k is a constant, but this is a really farfetched
and extreme case of correlation. The problem with
ED
is that we can distinguish
so many types of dependence between two environmental processes such as
(Wen, 1990):

within-load dependencies (same correlation structures)

within-cluster dependence (e.g. action effects during weather bursts)

dependence in the intensities of E
1
and E
2

dependence in the occurrence rates of E
1
and E
2

dependence in the duration of coincidence of E
1
and E
2

various forms of spatial correlation

cross-correlation within short-term metocean states (e.g. wind and waves
in a given sea state

correlation between long-term metocean states

Accordingly, it is virtually impossible to optimize one single generic factor
ED

to reflect all of the above situations. Without doing the actual number-crunching
but merely based on site-specific experience, I would suggest
ED
= 0.85 with the
caveat to optimize such a factor once specific environmental conditions are
known for a given site and structure.

51
The third companion factor
AI
for case (iii) and Table 14 denotes which
fraction of a continuous extreme level environmental action should be used in
conjunction with the (principal value of the) abnormal level ice load, assuming
these two processes to be independent. As an example consider iceberg actions
and deepwater current actions.

The first thing to realize is that AL in Table 13 is an enormously large action
effect and one would expect the companion value of an independent
environmental action process to be quite small. In fact, the companion action
should be based on its point-in-time probability distribution and not its annual
extreme value distribution, since the former expresses what can be observed at an
arbitrary point in time, which is the time when the abnormal event occurs given
the assumption of independence.

In order to investigate this combination, the companion process is modeled using
the FBC rectangular pulse process technique described in Section 6.4 using
various realistic values of n
p
and n
R
. In all cases the annual extreme pdf is
determined together with the corresponding representative action EL at the 100-
year return value. Then, a relationship is established between EL and the q-
quantile of the point-in-time pdf. Their ratio is the resulting value of
AI
and,
depending on the arrival rate of extreme events (which determines q) and
depending on the presence and renewal parameters of the companion process, it
varies between 0.075 and 0.375. The value
AI

Finally, the case (iv) companion factor
AD
in Table 14 is considered. As for the
case of
ED
we face the question of what exactly is to be understood by
dependence; e.g. in combining an abnormal level principal iceberg action
effect I with a wind or wave action effect E, what are the exact characteristics of
the joint probabilistic behaviour of I and E? Following a Bayesian argument, the
companion value of E should be based on the following PDF:

= ) causing event abnormal | ( I E f
= = ) event the of intensity event abnormal an of occurrence | ( I E f (10)
) ( ) occurrence | AL ( ) | event abnormal an of occurrence Pr( E f E I f E =

where f(E) is the point-in-time pdf of the continuous companion event E. It
appears that two effects show up in (10): the iceberg impact probability can be a
function of E and, given an impact, there is also some correlation between the
intensity of the iceberg action effect I and the intensity of the environmental
action. Assuming both to be linear functions of E then the probabilistic
parameters of the pdf of E given I can be updated according to (10). Simulation
over a wide set of simple FBC processes using a procedure similar to the above
case of
AI
, yields
AD
values that are between 1.05 and 1.25 higher than
AI
.
Hence a value
AD

The environmental and ice action factors (Section 8) and companion action
factors (Section 9) are summarized in Table 15 below.
OGP

52

Table 13 Companion environmental actions
+ denotes a (symbolic) combination of action effects
ULS
E
E
representative value of the total extreme-level environmental action (before
applying the action factor)
EL
i
representative value of the extreme-level environmental action i
Eji
companion action factor when environmental action j acts as a companion to
the principal extreme-level action i
E
E
= EL
i
+
Eji
EL
j

ALS
E
A
representative value of the total abnormal-level environmental action
AL
i
representative value of the abnormal-level environmental action i
EL
j
representative value of the extreme-level environmental action j
Aji
the principal abnormal-level 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
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 (wind-driven)
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
environmental process which are assumed to be strongly dependent

OGP

52

Table 13 Companion environmental actions
+ denotes a (symbolic) combination of action effects
ULS
E
E
representative value of the total extreme-level environmental action (before
applying the action factor)
EL
i
representative value of the extreme-level environmental action i
Eji
the principal extreme-level action i
E
E
= EL
i
+
Eji
EL
j

ALS
E
A
representative value of the total abnormal-level environmental action
AL
i
representative value of the abnormal-level environmental action i
EL
j
representative value of the extreme-level environmental action j
Aji
the principal abnormal-level 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
action factor
Eji

in Table 7
ALS
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 (wind-driven)
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
environmental process which can be treated as independent
environmental process which are assumed to be strongly dependent

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

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
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
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
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.
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 so-called
Safety-Class II in CSA-S471. 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 structure-specific principal ice action factors for L2 and
L3 only for Beaufort Sea multi-year 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 region-specific 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

probabilities for exposure level L2 (Beaufort Sea and icebergs only)

IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.10

Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 1.10 1.20
Barents Sea
IB

10
-2.9

10
-2.9

-3.0
Grand Banks
IB

10
-2.8

10
-2.9

-3.0
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB

10
-2.8

10
-2.8

-3.0
-3.0

Note that these values are verified for all Beaufort Sea conditions but are deemed to be safe for all regions
(bullet #2, section 10)
1.10 all
Note:

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 so-called
Safety-Class II in CSA-S471. 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 structure-specific principal ice action factors for L2 and
L3 only for Beaufort Sea multi-year 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 region-specific 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


IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.10

Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 1.10 1.20
Barents Sea
IB

10
-2.9

10
-2.9

-3.0
Grand Banks
IB

10
-2.8

10
-2.9

-3.0
Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB

10
-2.8

10
-2.8

-3.0
-3.0

1.10 all
Note:

OGP

58


IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Region-wide action factor: 0.85 (all structures)
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 0.85 0.85
Barents Sea
IB

N/A

N/A

Region-wide action factor: All IB types, all structures N/A

Grand Banks
IB

N/A

N/A


Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB

N/A

N/A


0.85 all; abnormal ice feature actions are not considered for L3
0.85 all
Note:

59

Summary of Calibrated Design Check Equations

The calibration of the environmental/ice action factors, companion action factors
and the specified AL exceedance probabilities in ISO/DIS 19906:2009 results in
the design check equations shown in Table 18.

Table 18 Calibrated design check equations for exposure levels L1, L2 and L3
EXPOSURE LEVEL L1 using Set I action factors (ISO 19902)

ULS-1 (L1) 1.30G + 1.50Q
1
+1.50Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-3 (L1) 1.10G + 1.10Q
1
+ 1.35E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L1) 1.10G + 1.10Q
1
+
I
Ice
E
where I is given by Table 12
ALS-4 (L1) 1.00G + 1.00Q
1

+ 1.00E
A
(10
-4
)
ALS-4 Ice (L1)

1.00G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(P
E
)

where PE is given by Table 12
EXPOSURE LEVEL L1 using Set II action factors (ISO 19906)

ULS-1 (L1) 1.25G + 1.45Q
1
+1.20Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-2 (L1) 1.25G + 1.15Q
1
+1.70Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-3 (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.35E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+
I
Ice
E
ALS-4 (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1

+ 1.00E
A
(10
-4
)
ALS-4 Ice (L1)

1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(P
E
)

COMPANION ACTION FACTORS Both Set I and set II

companion factor
EI
:
companion factor
ED
:
companion factor
AI
:
companion factor
AD
:
use 0.60 in Table 13 and 14

ULS-3 (L2) 1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.10E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L2) 1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.10Ice
E

ALS-4 (L2)

1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
(10
-3
)

ALS-4 Ice (L2)

1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(10
-3
)

all companion factors ij are the same as for L1
except 1.20 for conically sided structures


ULS-3 (L3) 1.05G + 0.90Q
1
+ 0.85E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L3) 1.05G + 0.90Q
1
+ 0.85Ice
E


11
OGP

58


IB icebergs
MI man-made island

Structural system
Region
Ice
environment
Beaufort Sea
Baffin Bay
Labrador
Laptev Sea
MYI 0.5 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Beaufort Sea
NE Greenland
Arctic Islands
MYI 3.0 0.85 0.85
Barents Sea
IB

N/A

N/A


Grand Banks
IB

N/A

N/A


Labrador
Baffin Bay
NE Greenland
IB

N/A

N/A


0.85 all; abnormal ice feature actions are not considered for L3
0.85 all
Note:

59

Summary of Calibrated Design Check Equations

The calibration of the environmental/ice action factors, companion action factors
and the specified AL exceedance probabilities in ISO/DIS 19906:2009 results in
the design check equations shown in Table 18.

Table 18 Calibrated design check equations for exposure levels L1, L2 and L3
EXPOSURE LEVEL L1 using Set I action factors (ISO 19902)

ULS-1 (L1) 1.30G + 1.50Q
1
+1.50Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-3 (L1) 1.10G + 1.10Q
1
+ 1.35E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L1) 1.10G + 1.10Q
1
+
I
Ice
E
ALS-4 (L1) 1.00G + 1.00Q
1

+ 1.00E
A
(10
-4
)
ALS-4 Ice (L1)

1.00G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(P
E
)


ULS-1 (L1) 1.25G + 1.45Q
1
+1.20Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-2 (L1) 1.25G + 1.15Q
1
+1.70Q
2
+ 0.70E
E
ULS-3 (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.35E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+
I
Ice
E
ALS-4 (L1) 1.05G + 1.15Q
1

+ 1.00E
A
(10
-4
)
ALS-4 Ice (L1)

1.05G + 1.15Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(P
E
)

COMPANION ACTION FACTORS Both Set I and set II

companion factor
EI
:
companion factor
ED
:
companion factor
AI
:
companion factor
AD
:

ULS-3 (L2) 1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.10E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L2) 1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.10Ice
E

ALS-4 (L2)

1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00E
A
(10
-3
)

ALS-4 Ice (L2)

1.05G + 1.00Q
1
+ 1.00Ice
A
(10
-3
)

except 1.20 for conically sided structures


ULS-3 (L3) 1.05G + 0.90Q
1
+ 0.85E
E
ULS-3 Ice (L3) 1.05G + 0.90Q
1
+ 0.85Ice
E


11
OGP

60
References

Anzai T., Bryant, L.M. and F.B. Pedersen (1982) Comparison of a Limit State Design
Code with API RP 2A, Proc. OTC, 4191.
Boos, D.D. (1984) Using Extreme Value Theory to Estimate Large Percentiles,
Technometrics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 33-39.
API RP2N-2001 (2001) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions, American Petroleum
Institute, 2nd edition.
CAN/CSA-S471-04 (2004) General Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment,
and Loads (Offshore Structures).
C-CORE (2009) Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions, R08-654, report submitted to OGP February.
Ellingwood, B., J.G. MacGregor, T.V. Galambos and C.A. Cornell (1982) Probability
Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combinations, ASCE, Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 108, N0.ST5, 1982, pp. 978-997.
ISO (1998) ISO2394 General Principles on Reliability for Structures.
ISO/DIS 19906:2009 (2009) Arctic Offshore Structures
JCSS, the Joint Committee for Structural Safety (2007) Probabilistic model code,
available at http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/.
Jordaan, I.J. (2009) Informal notes on model uncertainty for ISO 19906, personal
communication.
Madsen, H.O., S. Krenk and N.C. Lind (1986) Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-
Hall.
Maes, M.A. (1986a) A Study of a Calibration of the New CSA Code for Fixed Offshore
Structures, Technical Report No. 9, Ottawa: Canada Oil and Gas Lands
Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, March, 1986.
Maes, M.A. (1986b) Calibration of Design Criteria in the New CSA Standard for Fixed
Offshore Structures, Technical Report No. 9, Ottawa: Canada Oil and Gas Lands
Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, October, 1986
Maes, M.A. (1990) The Influence of Uncertainties on the Selection of Extreme Values
of Environmental Loads and Events, Civil Engineering Systems, June, Vol. 7, No.2,
pp. 115-124.
Maes, M.A. and Breitung, K. (1993) Reliability-Based Tail Estimation, Proceedings,
IUTAM Symposium on Probabilistic Structural Mechanics (Advances in Structural
Reliability Methods), San Antonio, Texas, June, pp. 335-346.
Maes, M.A. (1995) Tail Heaviness in Structural Reliability, Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering Reliability and Risk Analysis, Eds. M. Lemaire et al., Paris, July 1995,
Vol. 2, pp. 997-1002.
Maes, M.A. (2003) Extrapolation into the Unknown: Modeling Tails, Extremes, and
Bounds, chapter in Reliability- Based Design and Optimization, RBO'03, editors S.
Jendo and K. Dolinski, Lecture Notes 16, Institute of Fundamental Technological
Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 177-210.
Maes, M.A., Abdelatif, S. and Frederking, R. (2004) Recalibration of partial load factors
in the Canadian offshore structures standard CAN/CSA-S471, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 684-694.
Masterson, D.M., Frederking, R.M.W. and Truskov, P.A. (2000) Ice Force and Pressure
Determination by Zone, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Ships
and Marine Structures in Cold Regions (ICETECH 2000), St. Petersburg, Russia,
September 12-14, 2000.
Nessim, M.A., Hong, H.P. and Jordaan, I.J. (1995) Environmental load uncertainties for
offshore structures, J. OMAE, November, 117, pp. 245-251.
Nishijima, K., Faber, M.H. and Maes, M.A. (2008) Probabilistic assessment of extreme
events subject to epistemic uncertainties, Proc. 27th OMAE Conference, Estoril,
Portugal, OMAE 2008-57172.
OGP

60
References

Anzai T., Bryant, L.M. and F.B. Pedersen (1982) Comparison of a Limit State Design
Code with API RP 2A, Proc. OTC, 4191.
Boos, D.D. (1984) Using Extreme Value Theory to Estimate Large Percentiles,
Technometrics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 33-39.
API RP2N-2001 (2001) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions, American Petroleum
Institute, 2nd edition.
CAN/CSA-S471-04 (2004) General Requirements, Design Criteria, the Environment,
and Loads (Offshore Structures).
C-CORE (2009) Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions, R08-654, report submitted to OGP February.
Ellingwood, B., J.G. MacGregor, T.V. Galambos and C.A. Cornell (1982) Probability
Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combinations, ASCE, Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 108, N0.ST5, 1982, pp. 978-997.
ISO (1998) ISO2394 General Principles on Reliability for Structures.
ISO/DIS 19906:2009 (2009) Arctic Offshore Structures
JCSS, the Joint Committee for Structural Safety (2007) Probabilistic model code,
available at http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/.
Jordaan, I.J. (2009) Informal notes on model uncertainty for ISO 19906, personal
communication.
Madsen, H.O., S. Krenk and N.C. Lind (1986) Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-
Hall.
Maes, M.A. (1986a) A Study of a Calibration of the New CSA Code for Fixed Offshore
Structures, Technical Report No. 9, Ottawa: Canada Oil and Gas Lands
Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, March, 1986.
Maes, M.A. (1986b) Calibration of Design Criteria in the New CSA Standard for Fixed
Offshore Structures, Technical Report No. 9, Ottawa: Canada Oil and Gas Lands
Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, October, 1986
Maes, M.A. (1990) The Influence of Uncertainties on the Selection of Extreme Values
of Environmental Loads and Events, Civil Engineering Systems, June, Vol. 7, No.2,
pp. 115-124.
Maes, M.A. and Breitung, K. (1993) Reliability-Based Tail Estimation, Proceedings,
IUTAM Symposium on Probabilistic Structural Mechanics (Advances in Structural
Reliability Methods), San Antonio, Texas, June, pp. 335-346.
Maes, M.A. (1995) Tail Heaviness in Structural Reliability, Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering Reliability and Risk Analysis, Eds. M. Lemaire et al., Paris, July 1995,
Vol. 2, pp. 997-1002.
Maes, M.A. (2003) Extrapolation into the Unknown: Modeling Tails, Extremes, and
Bounds, chapter in Reliability- Based Design and Optimization, RBO'03, editors S.
Jendo and K. Dolinski, Lecture Notes 16, Institute of Fundamental Technological
Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 177-210.
Maes, M.A., Abdelatif, S. and Frederking, R. (2004) Recalibration of partial load factors
in the Canadian offshore structures standard CAN/CSA-S471, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 684-694.
Masterson, D.M., Frederking, R.M.W. and Truskov, P.A. (2000) Ice Force and Pressure
Determination by Zone, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Ships
and Marine Structures in Cold Regions (ICETECH 2000), St. Petersburg, Russia,
September 12-14, 2000.
Nessim, M.A., Hong, H.P. and Jordaan, I.J. (1995) Environmental load uncertainties for
offshore structures, J. OMAE, November, 117, pp. 245-251.
Nishijima, K., Faber, M.H. and Maes, M.A. (2008) Probabilistic assessment of extreme
events subject to epistemic uncertainties, Proc. 27th OMAE Conference, Estoril,
Portugal, OMAE 2008-57172.

61
Ravindra, M.K. and T.V. Galambos (1978) Load and Resistance Factor Design for
Steel, ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 104, N0.ST9, 1978, pp. 1337-
1353.
SAKO (1999) Probabilistic Calibration of Partial Safety Factors in the Eurocodes.
Srensen, J.D., I.B. Kroon and M.H. Faber (1994) Optimal Reliability-Based Code
Calibration, Structural Safety, Vol.14, 1994, pp. 197-208.
Srensen, J.D., S.O. Hansen and T. Arnbjerg Nielsen (2001) Calibration of Partial
Safety Factors for Danish Structural Codes, Proc. IABSE Conf. Safety, Risk and
Reliability Trends in Engineering, Malta, 2001, IABSE, Zrich, pp. 179-184.
STRUREL (1998) Version 6.1, Theoretical, Technical and Users manual, RCP-GmbH,
Munich.
Stuckey, P.D., Ralph, F.E. and Jordaan, I.J. (2008) Iceberg Design Load Methodology,
ICETECH 2008, Proceedings of the International Conference and Exhibition on
Performance o Ships and Structures in Ice (ICETECH 2008), Banff, Canada, July
20-23, 2008.
Thoft Christensen, P., and M. Baker (1982) Structural Reliability Theory and its
Applications, Springer Verlag.
Wen Y.-K. (1990) Structural Load Modeling and Combination for Performance and
Safety Evaluation, Elsevier Publishers.

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to acknowledge the expert input of the TP10 committee members with
regards to ice loading. The assistance of Markus R. Dann, PhD student at the University
of Calgary, is greatly appreciated.

OGP

62

Appendix A:
Probabilistic Tail Models for Action Effects

A.1 The concept of tail equivalence and the Q-distribution

Risk analysis, reliability-based 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 low-probability 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 tail-equivalence exists between the two.

The most effective choice for a flexible set of tail models with distribution F(x) is
the so-called 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 Q-distribution
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 q-quantile 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 tail-model has been fitted.

Step two is to transform the anchored data set x into a non-dimensional 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 tail-equivalence between a data-
based empirical distribution function (shown by dots) and a Q-distribution
function.

OGP

62

Appendix A:
Probabilistic Tail Models for Action Effects

A.1 The concept of tail equivalence and the Q-distribution

Risk analysis, reliability-based 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 low-probability 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 tail-equivalence exists between the two.

The most effective choice for a flexible set of tail models with distribution F(x) is
the so-called 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 Q-distribution
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 q-quantile 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 tail-model has been fitted.

Step two is to transform the anchored data set x into a non-dimensional 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 tail-equivalence between a data-
based empirical distribution function (shown by dots) and a Q-distribution
function.

OGP

64
A.2 The two tail parameters S and H

The family of quantile anchored generalized Pareto distributions (Q-distributions)
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 (non-dimensional) 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution to the empirical L
*
(
i
) function associated with a
specific data set x, it suffices to minimize the following sum of tail-weighted
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 non-dimensional 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
OGP

64
A.2 The two tail parameters S and H

The family of quantile anchored generalized Pareto distributions (Q-distributions)
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 (non-dimensional) 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution to the empirical L
*
(
i
) function associated with a
specific data set x, it suffices to minimize the following sum of tail-weighted
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 non-dimensional 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
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 arctic-marine 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 Q-distribution model, a change from an annual rate to
A
has the
following effect:

1. the anchor changes from the q-quantile 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/q-year 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 non-dimensional 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 re-anchoring of the Q-distribution in case this is
more convenient for practical reasons, e.g. when the specified annual
representative action is changed from say the 100-year 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution 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 = 100-year action effect e
q

as the anchoring quantile for the corresponding Q-distribution 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
.

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 re-anchoring of the Q-distribution in case this is
more convenient for practical reasons, e.g. when the specified annual
representative action is changed from say the 100-year 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 Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution 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 = 100-year action effect e
q

as the anchoring quantile for the corresponding Q-distribution 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
.

OGP

68
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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 (non-ice) COV = 0.4

Figure A4: Comparison of tail models for 3 annual continuous environmental
action processes.

A.7 Accounting for model uncertainties

Another very convenient property of Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution pdf f
Q
(|q, S/, H)
where is a random variable with mean 1 and COV v
. The variable reflects

model uncertainty in the tail model, which may be due to statistical uncertainty
caused by insufficient or untrustworthy data or common model uncertainty (e.g.
for ice actions, uncertainty regarding the pressure-area relationship). The all-
inclusive tail distribution can now be found by integrating f
Q
over the pdf f() of
the model uncertainty variable , as sketched in Figure A5. It can be shown that
this updated tail distribution is itself a new Q-distribution tail model anchored on
its new q-quantile with distribution function F
Q
(|q, S
, H
) where the
relationship between the new S
, H
and the original S, H are as follows:

+ =
=

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.

OGP

68
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
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

Figure A4: Comparison of tail models for 3 annual continuous environmental
action processes.

A.7 Accounting for model uncertainties

Another very convenient property of Q-distribution 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 Q-distribution pdf f
Q
(|q, S/, H)
where is a random variable with mean 1 and COV v
. The variable reflects

model uncertainty in the tail model, which may be due to statistical uncertainty
caused by insufficient or untrustworthy data or common model uncertainty (e.g.
for ice actions, uncertainty regarding the pressure-area relationship). The all-
inclusive tail distribution can now be found by integrating f
Q
over the pdf f() of
the model uncertainty variable , as sketched in Figure A5. It can be shown that
this updated tail distribution is itself a new Q-distribution tail model anchored on
its new q-quantile with distribution function F
Q
(|q, S
, H
) where the
relationship between the new S
, H
and the original S, H are as follows:

+ =
=

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.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, vertically sided GBS.
The S and H values are shown in Table 9.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sea, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, conically sided GBS.

B
OGP

70
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sea, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sea, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, single vertical piled column.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Beaufort Sea, NE Greenland, Northern Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Islands,
multi-year ice, 3.0 tenths, vertically sided GBS.

OGP

70
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sea, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sea, multi-year ice 0.5 tenths, single vertical piled column.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

multi-year ice, 3.0 tenths, vertically sided GBS.

71
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

multi-year ice, 3.0 tenths, conically sided GBS.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Sakhalin, Cook Inlet, Sea of Okhotsk, and Kara Sea, first year level ice,
vertically sided GBS.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

conically sided GBS.

OGP

72
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

single vertical piled column.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, vertically sided floater.

73
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, conically sided floater.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, floating production storage
offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, vertically
sided GBS.

OGP

72
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

single vertical piled column.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, vertically sided floater.

73
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, conically sided floater.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea and Bering Sea, first year ridges, floating production storage
offloading unit.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, vertically
sided GBS.

OGP

74
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, conically
sided GBS.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, single vertical
piled column.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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.

75
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Grand Banks, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Grand Banks, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.

OGP

74
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, conically
sided GBS.

1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bohai Bay, first year level ice, single vertical
piled column.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea, icebergs, vertically sided floater.

75
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Barents Sea, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Grand Banks, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Grand Banks, icebergs, floating production storage offloading unit.

OGP

76
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Labrador, Baffin bay, and NE Greenland, icebergs, vertically sided GBS.

1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
-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

Labrador, Baffin bay, and NE Greenland, icebergs, floating production
storage offloading unit.
Empirical
Tail model

77

Appendix C:
Barents Sea Ice Loads Based on Updated C-CORE Data

This Appendix is dated October 2, 2009.

On August 17, 2009 C-CORE issued a memo to OGP-JIP25 (report number R/P-
09-027-654 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 C-CORE 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 region-wide 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 (near-Gumbel 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 C-CORE 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 region-specific 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 site-specific region
would have to be performed in order to pinpoint the optimal factor for Barents
Sea structures .

C
OGP

77

Appendix C:
Barents Sea Ice Loads Based on Updated C-CORE Data

This Appendix is dated October 2, 2009.

On August 17, 2009 C-CORE issued a memo to OGP-JIP25 (report number R/P-
09-027-654 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 C-CORE 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 region-wide 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 (near-Gumbel 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 C-CORE 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 region-specific 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 site-specific region
would have to be performed in order to pinpoint the optimal factor for Barents
Sea structures .

C
OGP
155
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
OGP
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
OGP


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, C-CORE
Ian Jordaan, Ian Jordaan and Associates
Ken Croasdale, K.R. Croasdale and Associates
Jonathon Bruce, C-CORE December 11, 2009
OGP


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, C-CORE
Ian Jordaan, Ian Jordaan and Associates
Ken Croasdale, K.R. Croasdale and Associates
Jonathon Bruce, C-CORE December 11, 2009
OGP

Summary
The report is concerned with the question of action factors for sloping and conical
structures, both fixed and floating. In the C-CORE (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 in-depth 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, ride-up and keel
interaction in the latter case).

The study has shown for multiyear ridges that the Wang and the beam-on-elastic-
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 weakest-link 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 multi-year 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).

OGP

Summary
The report is concerned with the question of action factors for sloping and conical
structures, both fixed and floating. In the C-CORE (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 in-depth 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, ride-up and keel
interaction in the latter case).

The study has shown for multiyear ridges that the Wang and the beam-on-elastic-
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 weakest-link 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.

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
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).

OGP
5
1 Background
In the calibration of ISO 19906 (C-CORE, 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
Parent B
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
Parent B

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 first-year 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 C-CORE inputs for probability distributions of extreme
loads. The models include:
1. Wang model for failure of large multi-year ridges against conical structures
(flexural failure only),
2. Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for failure of large multi-year ridges
against conical structures (flexural failure only), and
OGP
5
1 Background
In the calibration of ISO 19906 (C-CORE, 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
Parent B
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
Parent B
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
Parent B

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 first-year 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 C-CORE inputs for probability distributions of extreme
loads. The models include:
1. Wang model for failure of large multi-year ridges against conical structures
(flexural failure only),
2. Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for failure of large multi-year ridges
against conical structures (flexural failure only), and
6
3. Croasdale ride-up model for failure of first-year ridges interacting with sloped
structures for Sakhalin and Barents Sea.
The C-CORE 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-
on-elastic-foundation theory, essentially a formulation based on elasticity theory. This is
considered more appropriate than the plasticity-based theory, since ice is an extremely
brittle material, and will fail by fracture rather than the formation of plastic hinges.

In the Croasdale ride-up model, the load due to a first-year ridge on a sloped structure is
considered. There are two main parts to the model: in the first part, the ride-up 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 ride-up 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 Coulomb-Mohr 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 weakest-link 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
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 multi-year
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 flexure-crushing of multiyear features as compared to compressive failure.

The key conclusion of the above is the fact that fracture processes are scale-dependent.
The Wang plasticity and the Croasdale beam-on-elastic-foundation 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.
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 multi-year
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 flexure-crushing of multiyear features as compared to compressive failure.

The key conclusion of the above is the fact that fracture processes are scale-dependent.
The Wang plasticity and the Croasdale beam-on-elastic-foundation 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 Multi-year Ridge
Load Analysis
Load distributions were determined in the C-CORE 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 Monte-Carlo 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 Monte-Carlo analyses used for the C-CORE 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 C-CORE analysis for the ISO code; models 2
and 4 are also considered in this work for comparison.

1) The Wang model for interaction of multi-year ridges with conically shaped
structures, in which the ice is treated as an elastic-perfectly plastic material.
2) The Croasdale beam on elastic foundation model for multi-year ridges interacting
with conically shaped structures.
3) A pressure-averaging (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
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
Pressure-averaging slightly greater than 1
CSA 0.83

The above analyses confirm that estimates of loads for multi-year 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 First-year Ridge Loads
In reviewing the shapes of first-year 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 semi-log 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 First-year Ridge Loads
In the Monte-Carlo analyses used for the C-CORE ISO work, first-year 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 Coulomb-Mohr material. Three key
parameters are found to have a significant influence on first-year 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 ride-up 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 pressure-averaging (PA) model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of
first-year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
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
Pressure-averaging slightly greater than 1
CSA 0.83

The above analyses confirm that estimates of loads for multi-year 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 First-year Ridge Loads
In reviewing the shapes of first-year 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 semi-log 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 First-year Ridge Loads
In the Monte-Carlo analyses used for the C-CORE ISO work, first-year 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 Coulomb-Mohr material. Three key
parameters are found to have a significant influence on first-year 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 ride-up 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 pressure-averaging (PA) model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of
first-year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
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 first-year 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 C-CORE ISO analyses, structures with vertical sides were modeled using the
pressure-averaging 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 ride-up 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 ride-up 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 ride-up model also shows the proportions directly related to the rubble pile
height.

Table 2 Sensitivity of first-year 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 ride-up
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 ride-up model are shown in order of
decreasing magnitude as shown in Appendix B. The ride-up 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 ride-up 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 beam-on-elastic-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 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.

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.

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.

OGP
11
contact width.

and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA model was
included here for comparison. For the ride-up 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 ride-up model also shows the proportions directly related to the rubble pile
height.

Table 2 Sensitivity of first-year 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 ride-up
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 ride-up model are shown in order of
decreasing magnitude as shown in Appendix B. The ride-up 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 ride-up 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 beam-on-elastic-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 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.

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.

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.

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
C-CORE 2009. Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions. Report R-09-27-654, Prepared for OGP JIP25 Committee.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA-S.471-04 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 315-338.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on
Ice Forces on Structures, a State-of-the-Art Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special
Report No.80-26, pp 34-106
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 874-875, Trondheim, Norway.
Dieter, G.E. 1986. Mechanical Metallurgy. McGraw-Hill.
Hummocked Ice on Piers of Marine Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings IAHR
Symposium on Ice, pp. 469-478, 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 IPRT-3ME-77.
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
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
C-CORE 2009. Development of Ice Design Loads and Criteria for Various Arctic
Regions. Report R-09-27-654, Prepared for OGP JIP25 Committee.
CSA. 2004. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA-S.471-04 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 315-338.
Croasdale, K.R. 1980. Ice Forces on Fixed Rigid Structures.. IAHR Working Group on
Ice Forces on Structures, a State-of-the-Art Report, ed. T. Carstens. CRREL Special
Report No.80-26, pp 34-106
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 874-875, Trondheim, Norway.
Dieter, G.E. 1986. Mechanical Metallurgy. McGraw-Hill.
Hummocked Ice on Piers of Marine Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings IAHR
Symposium on Ice, pp. 469-478, 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 IPRT-3ME-77.
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
Kemi-I cone full scale ice force measurement data analysis, proceedings 13th IAHR
Int. Symp. On Ice, Vol. 1 pp 8-16.
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, pp666-672.
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

OGP
15
APPENDIX A EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
MULTI-YEAR LOADS

Wang Model for Multi-year Ridges Impacting Conical Structures

The Wang model, as defined by Nevel in API RP-2N, 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 ice-structure coefficient of friction, and
F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are non-dimensional parameters.

While F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are non-dimensional 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 Multi-year 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 Multi-year Ridges

OGP
15
APPENDIX A EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
MULTI-YEAR LOADS

Wang Model for Multi-year Ridges Impacting Conical Structures

The Wang model, as defined by Nevel in API RP-2N, 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 ice-structure coefficient of friction, and
F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are non-dimensional parameters.

While F
a
, F
b
, A, and B are non-dimensional 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 Multi-year 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 Multi-year Ridges

OGP
17
Elastic Beam on Elastic Foundation Model for Multi-year 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 cross-sectional 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 cross-section 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.

Pressure-Averaging Model for Multi-Year 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 pressure-averaging model used for the ISO Monte-Carlo 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 Multi-year 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 multi-year 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
.

OGP
17
Elastic Beam on Elastic Foundation Model for Multi-year 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 cross-sectional 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 cross-section 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.

Pressure-Averaging Model for Multi-Year 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 pressure-averaging model used for the ISO Monte-Carlo 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 Multi-year 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 multi-year 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
.

OGP
19
Comparisons
Load exceedance curves are presented for the above models in Figure 7. The loads were
determined using a first-order 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 probabilistic-averaging 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 multi-year 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
FIRST-YEAR LOADS
First-year Ridge Loads

Three key parameters may have a significant influence on first-year 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 pressure-averaging model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of first-
year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
contact width.
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.

and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA crushing
model has been added for comparison.

OGP
19
Comparisons
determined using a first-order 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 probabilistic-averaging 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 multi-year ridge loads using FORM:
-2
values

20
APPENDIX B EFFECT OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR
FIRST-YEAR LOADS
First-year Ridge Loads

Three key parameters may have a significant influence on first-year 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 pressure-averaging model for crushing failure of consolidated layer of first-
year ridges against a vertically sided structure. The crushing pressure is
contact width.
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.

and global plug failure models for failure the unconsolidated layer. The CSA crushing
model has been added for comparison.

OGP
21
Crushing models
The pressure-averaging and CSA models are the same as for multi-year ridges, except
that the ice thickness is reduced significantly and the ice crushing strength may be
smaller.

Croasdale ride-up model
The Croasdale ride-up 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
C
1.28
+ k
3
h
C
0.64

H
p
increases as h
R
2
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 ride-up 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
Ice movement
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement

Figure 9 Plug failure models

The force associated with local plug failure is given as
OGP
21
Crushing models
The pressure-averaging and CSA models are the same as for multi-year ridges, except
that the ice thickness is reduced significantly and the ice crushing strength may be
smaller.

Croasdale ride-up model
The Croasdale ride-up 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
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
C
1.28
+ k
3
h
C
0.64

H
p
increases as h
R
2
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 ride-up 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
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement
Ice movement
Global plug failure
Croasdate (1980)
Ice movement

Figure 9 Plug failure models

The force associated with local plug failure is given as
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 + +
4
, k
5
and k
6

Comparisons

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
ride-up 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 probabilistic-averaging 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, Ride-up shows the
contribution of the ride-up term, and so on. An additional case was run in which the force
was considered to consist of the forces required for ride-up 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
low-power terms to give a result that has a well-behaved tail.

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 + +

1
, k
2
and k
3

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 + +
4
, k
5
and k
6

Comparisons

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
ride-up 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 probabilistic-averaging 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, Ride-up shows the
contribution of the ride-up term, and so on. An additional case was run in which the force
was considered to consist of the forces required for ride-up 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
low-power terms to give a result that has a well-behaved tail.

OGP
25
Figure 10 Approximate analyses of first-year ridge loads using FORM:
-2
values
For further information and publications,
please visit our website at
www.ogp.org.uk
25
Figure 10 Approximate analyses of first-year ridge loads using FORM:
-2
values
209-215 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
B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159
Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk
e-mail: reception@ogp.org.uk

422 Arctic Offshore Structures

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

422 Arctic Offshore Structures

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Calibration of action factors for ISO 19906

Arctic ofshore structures

= 0 corresponds to the base case

values assumed in the analysis together with

= 0 corresponds to the base case

values assumed in the analysis together with

except for low MYI encounter rates: 1.35

except for low MYI encounter rates: 1.15

except for low MYI encounter rates: 1.15

except 1.20 for conically sided structures

except 1.20 for conically sided structures

. The variable reflects

and the original S, H are as follows:

. The variable reflects

and the original S, H are as follows:

S-ar putea să vă placă și