Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004

(1)

https://doi.org/10.4224/12340913

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la

première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=63393fa8-8d57-4546-8e89-9b9639caf942 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=63393fa8-8d57-4546-8e89-9b9639caf942 For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004

(2)

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes

Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004

G.W. Timco, A. Collins, I. Kubat, and M. Johnston

Technical Report CHC-TR-033

March 2005

(3)

(4)

TP 14097 E

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes

Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004

G.W. Timco, A. Collins, I. Kubat, & M. Johnston Canadian Hydraulics Centre

National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0R6

Canada

Prepared for: Transport Canada

Design, Equipment & Boating Safety Ottawa, Ontario

Canada

Technical Report CHC-TR-033

(5)

(6)

ABSTRACT

During the summers of 2002, 2003 and 2004, a data collection program was carried out onboard six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. Information was collected on the ice conditions (ice regimes) and the stage of melting (decay) of the ice. In total, 345 ice regimes were documented and photographed. Based on this information, the severity of the ice regimes were evaluated in terms of the Canadian Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System. This report provides a description of the data collection program for the full three years and an overview of the results.

RÉSUMÉ

Un programme de collecte de données sur le terrain à bord de six brise-glaces de la Garde côtière canadienne a été conçu et exécuté pendant l’été de 2002, 2003 et 2004. On a recueilli de l’information sur l’état des glaces (régimes de glaces) et le stade de fonte (décroissance). Au total, 345 régimes de glaces ont été documentés et photographiés. Basé sur l’information recueillie, l’état des régimes de glaces a été évaluée en terme du Système des régimes de glaces pour la navigation dans l'Arctique. Ce rapport présente une description du programme de collecte de données et une vue d’ensemble des résultats.

(7)

(8)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... 1 RÉSUMÉ ... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ... 4 LIST OF TABLES... 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION ... 9 2.0 FIELD BOOKS... 12 2.1 Data Analysis ... 14 3.0 CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT ... 17 4.0 CCGS TERRY FOX ... 25 5.0 CCGS HENRY LARSEN... 32 6.0 CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS... 39 7.0 CCGS PIERRE RADISSON ... 47

8.0 CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER... 56

9.0 GENERAL ANALYSIS ... 64

9.1 Calculating the Ice Numeral ... 64

9.2 Ice Numeral and Vessel Damage ... 66

9.3 CCG Comments on the Ice Numeral ... 66

9.4 Ice Numeral and Vessel Speed ... 67

9.5 Ground-Truthing of CIS Ice Charts ... 67

9.6 Ice Numerals from the CIS Charts... 70

10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ... 72

11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 74

12.0 REFERENCES ... 74 APPENDIX A – Summary of Observations

(9)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent ... 13 Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the icebreakers during the summer

collection program during 2002 to 2004... 14 Figure 3: Pie chart showing the number of events recorded by each of the six CCG

icebreakers. ... 15 Figure 4: Number of events for each of the six icebreakers for each year of the

observation program. ... 16 Figure 5: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent. ... 19 Figure 6: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Louis S. St-Laurent... 19 Figure 7: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent. The number

indicates the Damage Potential Number... 20 Figure 8: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent comparing the

results for each of the three years of observations... 20 Figure 9: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.-

Laurent. ... 21 Figure 10: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 4/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S.

St.-Laurent ... 21 Figure 11: Ice regime with 1/10 TFY and 8/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S.

St.-Laurent ... 22 Figure 12: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S.

St-Laurent. ... 22 Figure 13: Ice regime with 3/10 N and 6/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S.

St-Laurent. ... 23 Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the

Louis S. St-Laurent. ... 23 Figure 15: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the

Louis S. St-Laurent. ... 24 Figure 16: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 4/10 G, 4/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S.

St-Laurent. ... 24 Figure 17: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox... 26 Figure 18: Photograph of the ice regime (2/10 MFY, 3/10TFY & 3/10 ridged MY ice)

rated as having a high potential for damage for the Terry Fox. Note that the ponding makes identification of the ice types difficult... 26 Figure 19: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox. ... 28 Figure 20: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox. The numbers indicate

the Damage Potential Number. ... 28 Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox comparing the results

for each of the three years of observations. ... 29 Figure 22: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 4/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox. ... 29 Figure 23: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 2/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY, 3/10 SY ice observed from

the Terry Fox... 30 Figure 24: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 8/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox... 30

(10)

Figure 26: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox. ... 31 Figure 27: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen... 33 Figure 28: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen. ... 34 Figure 29: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen. The numbers

indicate the Damage Potential Number. ... 34 Figure 30 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen comparing the

results for each of the three years of observations... 35 Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen. ... 35 Figure 32: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen. .. 36 Figure 33: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry

Larsen... 36 Figure 34: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 2/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry

Larsen... 37 Figure 35: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen. .. 37 Figure 36: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry

Larsen... 38 Figure 37: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen. .. 38 Figure 38: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. 40 Figure 39: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers.42 Figure 40: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. The numbers

indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event... 42 Figure 41 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers comparing the

results for each of the three years of observations... 43 Figure 42: Ice regime with 10/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers... 43 Figure 43: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des

Groseilliers... 44 Figure 44: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.44 Figure 45: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers... 45 Figure 46: Ice regime with 9/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers... 45 Figure 47: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 6/10 SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

... 46 Figure 48: Ice regime with 7/10 MFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers. ... 46 Figure 49: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.. 48 Figure 50: Photograph of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice. This ice

regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -18... 48 Figure 51: Photograph of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second-year ice and 4/10 Multi-year

ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -16. ... 49 Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Pierre Radisson.. 50 Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. The numbers

(11)

Figure 54: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson comparing the results for each of the three years of observations. Note that this vessel was not in the Arctic in 2003... 51 Figure 55: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson. 52 Figure 56: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson. ... 52 Figure 57: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

... 53 Figure 58: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the

Pierre Radisson. ... 53 Figure 59: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY, 1/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice

observed from the Pierre Radisson. ... 54 Figure 60: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre

Radisson... 54 Figure 61: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 G, 3/10 GW, 1/10 SY and 1/10 MY ice

observed from the Pierre Radisson. ... 55 Figure 62: Ice regime with 7/10 N ice observed from the Pierre Radisson... 55 Figure 63: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

... 57 Figure 64: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

... 59 Figure 65: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The numbers

indicate the damage Potential Number for the events. ... 59 Figure 66: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier comparing the

results for each of the three years of observations... 60 Figure 67: Ice regime with 6/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid

Laurier... 60 Figure 68: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid

Laurier... 61 Figure 69: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 6/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

... 61 Figure 70: Ice regime with 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. ... 62 Figure 71: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 8/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid

Laurier... 62 Figure 72: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY, 5/10 MY ice observed from the Sir

Wilfrid Laurier. ... 63 Figure 73: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid

Laurier... 63 Figure 74: Pie charts showing the breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral for each of

the three years of the data collection program. Note the steady improvement each year... 65 Figure 75: Pie charts showing the number of positive and negative Ice Numerals... 66 Figure 76: Pie chart showing the break-down of the CCG evaluation of the adequacy of

the Ice Numeral to represent the severity of the ice regime. ... 67 Figure 77: Vessel speed versus the AIRSS Ice Numeral for all vessels during the data

(12)

CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions... 69 Figure 79: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Thick

First-year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions. ... 69 Figure 80: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Multi-year

ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions. Note that the Charts underpredict the amount of Multi-year ice. ... 70 Figure 81: Histogram showing the difference between the Ice Numerals estimated from

the CIS Ice Charts with those observed from the Bridge. Note that using the CIS Charts overestimated the Ice Numerals. ... 71

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers ... 10

Table 2: Definition of the Damage Potential Number ... 15

Table 3: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT ... 17

Table 4: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Louis S. St-Laurent. ... 18

Table 5: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX... 25

Table 6: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Terry Fox ... 27

Table 7: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN... 32

Table 8: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS ... 39

Table 9: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Des Groseilliers ... 41

Table 10: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON ... 47

Table 11: GGC Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the ... 50

Table 12: Information on the CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER... 56

Table 13: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier... 58

(14)

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes

Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR) regulate navigation in Canadian waters north of 60°N latitude. These regulations include the date Table in Schedule VIII and the Shipping Safety Control Zones Order, made under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Both of these are combined to form the “Zone/Date System” matrix that gives entry and exit dates for various ship types and classes. It is a rigid system with little room for exceptions. It is based on the premise that nature consistently follows a regular pattern year after year.

Transport Canada, in consultation with stakeholders, has made extensive revisions to the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR 1989; AIRSS 1996). The changes are designed to reduce the risk of structural damage in ships which could lead to the release of pollution into the environment, yet provide the necessary flexibility to shipowners by making use of actual ice conditions, as seen by the Master. In this new system, an "Ice Regime", which is a region of generally consistent ice conditions, is defined at the time the vessel enters that specific geographic region, or it is defined in advance for planning and design purposes. The Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) is based on a simple arithmetic calculation that produces an “Ice Numeral” that combines the ice regime and the vessel’s ability to navigate safely in that region. The Ice Numeral (IN) is based on the quantity of hazardous ice with respect to the ASPPR classification of the vessel (see Table 1). The Ice Numeral is calculated from

.... ] [ ] [ + + = C_a xIM_a C_b xIM_b IN (1) where IN = Ice Numeral

Ca = Concentration in tenths of ice type “a”

IMa = Ice Multiplier for ice type “a” (from Table 1)

The term on the right hand side of the equation (a, b, c, etc.) is repeated for as many ice types as may be present, including open water. The values of the Ice Multipliers are adjusted to take into account the decay or ridging of the ice by adding or subtracting a correction of 1 to the multiplier, respectively (see Table 1). The Ice Numeral is therefore unique to the particular ice regime and ship operating within its boundaries. At the present time, there is only partial application of the ice regime system, exclusively outside of the “zone-date” system.

(15)

Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers

Vessel Class

Type CAC

E D C B A 4 3

Old / Multi-Year Ice MY -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -1

Second-Year Ice SY -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -2 1

Thick First-Year Ice TFY -3 -3 -3 -2 -1 1 2 Medium First-Year Ice MFY -2 -2 -2 -1 1 2 2 Thin First-Year Ice - 2nd Stage -1 -1 -1 1 2 2 2 Thin First-Year Ice - 1st Stage -1 -1 1 1 2 2 2

Grey-White Ice GW -1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Grey Ice G 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Nilas, Ice Rind N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

New Ice N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Brash 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Open Water OW 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ice Decay : If MY, SY, TFY or MFY ice has Thaw Holes or is Rotten, add 1 to the IM for that ice type Ice Roughness : If the total ice concentration is 6/10s or greater and more than one-third

of an ice type is deformed, subtract 1 from the IM for the deformed ice type. FY

Ice Types

The ASPPR deals with vessels that are designed to operate in severe ice conditions for transit and icebreaking (CAC class) as well as vessels designed to operate in more moderate first-year ice conditions (Type vessels). The System determines whether a given vessel should proceed through that particular ice regime. If the Ice Numeral is negative, the ship is not allowed to proceed. However, if the Ice Numeral is zero or positive, the ship is allowed to proceed into the ice regime. Responsibility to plan the route, identify the ice, and carry out this numeric calculation rests with the Ice Navigator who could be the Master or Officer of the Watch. Due care and attention of the mariner, including avoidance of hazards, is vital to the successful application of the Ice Regime System. Authority by the Regulator (Pollution Prevention Officer) to direct ships in danger, or during an emergency, remains unchanged.

Credibility of the new system has wide implications, not only for ship safety and pollution prevention, but also in lowering ship insurance rates and predicting ship performance. Therefore, the Canadian Hydraulics Centre (CHC) of the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa has worked with Transport Canada to assist them in developing a methodology for establishing a scientific basis for AIRSS (see e.g. Timco and Kubat 2002; Timco et al. 2004a). As part of this work, the CHC worked with the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to collect information onboard the CCG Icebreakers during three summers from 2002 to 2004. The results of the collection in 2002 are discussed in Timco et al., (2003a, 2003b), and those of 2003 are discussed in Timco et al. (2004b). A third year of data collection was carried out during the summer of 2004, and the results are included in this report, along with a comparison with the first two years of data collection.

The objectives of the work were:

1. Collect detailed information on the range of ice regimes encountered in the Canadian Arctic;

(16)

Commanding Officer or Officer of the Watch;

3. Obtain field data to evaluate the decay bonus that is part of the Regulatory Standards for the Ice Regime System;

4. Assist the CCG in understanding and using the Ice Regime System.

This data collection program was carried out on-board the six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers that are in the Arctic in the summer months. This was arranged through Gary Sidock and Jean Ouellet at the CCG Central and Arctic Region Offices in Sarnia. The icebreakers that were involved with this data collection program were:

LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT TERRY FOX

HENRY LARSEN DES GROSEILLIERS PIERRE RADISSON SIR WILFRID LAURIER

Field Books were developed and given to the Ice Service Specialists (ISS) of the Canadian Ice Service. The ISS personnel were onboard six Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers throughout the summer navigation season in the Canadian Arctic. They used these Field Books and digital cameras to collect information on the ice regimes and the surface appearance of the ice. The information on the ice regimes was used in conjunction with input from the Commanding Officers of the icebreakers to assess the likelihood of damage to the vessels while in different ice conditions. In addition, the results from this program were used to validate a prototype product developed by the CIS to provide quantitative and qualitative information on the strength of first-year level ice in the Arctic (Gauthier et al., 2002; Langlois et al, 2003). This report discusses the procedure and results of this data collection program. Further, it compares the results of the field data programs for each of the three years.

(17)

2.0 FIELD BOOKS

Field books were developed to allow the collection of key information in a systematic format. Figure 1 shows a page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent. The books were subdivided as follows:

General Information – This section was used to collect general information on the

observation including: Observation Number, Date, Time, Latitude, Longitude, Geographic Location, Vessel Speed, Visibility, Ice Roughness, Floe Size.

Digital Photographs – The ISS were supplied with digital cameras and asked to

photograph the observed ice regimes.

Stage of Melt – The surface conditions were noted according to the following format: No

Snow Melt, Snow Melt, Ponding, Drainage, or Rotten/Decayed.

Ice Regime – Information on the ice regime was collected by noting the concentration of

each Ice Type based on the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) definitions. The ISS were asked to define the ice regime as “the ice that the vessel will likely encounter”.

Ice Numeral – The Ice Numeral was calculated based on the observed ice conditions and

the Ice Multipliers that were supplied in the Field Books.

Comments from the Officer of the Watch – A number of questions were asked of the

Officer of the Watch to correlate the ice conditions to the potential for damage by the ice to the ship. These questions were slightly altered from the first year since there was some confusion regarding the evaluation in 2002. In some cases, the evaluation was made for a vessel under escort, and not for the icebreaker. Therefore, this was clarified to emphasize that the evaluation was to be made on the CCG vessel’s potential to be damaged by the ice regime. The questions were as follows:

1. How would you rank the severity (damage potential) of this ice regime for your icebreaker?

high potential to damage the (icebreaker name)

potential to damage the (icebreaker name)

not likely to damage the (icebreaker name)

highly unlikely to damage the (icebreaker name)

2. Do you think that the Ice Numeral reflects the degree of severity of the ice conditions?

Yes No If no, why does it not reflect the severity of the ice regime?

3. Did you alter your mode of operation with this ice regime? Yes No If Yes, how was it changed?

General Comments – Space was left for any comments from either the ISS personnel or

(18)

noted that the CCG vessels are not assigned a Vessel Class by Transport Canada. Therefore, it was necessary to assign to them a nominal Vessel Class in order to calculate the Ice Numeral. The Vessel Classes that were used were suggested by Andrew Kendrick of BMT Fleet Technology Ltd. based upon preliminary analysis of the vessels. It is

important to understand that the Vessel Class used here is not necessarily the Vessel Class that would be assigned by Transport Canada for these types of vessels. This

assignment would require a more thorough analysis.

CO OOW ISS

How would you rank the severity (damage potential) of this ice regime for your icebreaker?

Does the Ice Numeral reflect the degree of severity of the ice conditions?

If no, why does it not reflect the severity of the ice regime?

Did you alter your mode of operation with this ice regime?

If yes, how was it changed?

use if the Stage

of Melt is or Decay Ice Multiplier

Drainage Rotten Observation # Location:

Date: Vessel Speed (knots): Time: Visibility (n.mi):

Latitude: Ice Roughness (please circle): Low Medium High

Longitude: Floe Size (m): Digital Photo File Name:

General Information

Snow Cover Snow melt Ponding Drainage Rotten

Stage of Melt (please circle) Ice Type Concentration Ice Type Contribution

C Normal Decay* Ridged** C x IM

MY x -1 0 -2 = SY x 1 2 0 = TFY x 2 3 1 = MFY x 2 3 1 = FY x 2 2 1 = GW x 2 2 1 = G x 2 2 1 = N x 2 2 1 = OW x 2 2 2 =

Sum = Ice Numeral =

*use Decay Ice Multiplier if the Stage of Melt is Drainage or Rotten **use Ridged Ice Multiplier if Ice Type is more than 30% ridged

Ice Regime

Ice Multiplier (IM) (please circle)

Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent

The vessels sailed in different parts of the Canadian Arctic. Figure 2 shows the vicinity in which data were collected by each of the six vessels.

In the following sections, the results for each vessel are described. For this data, the Ice Numeral was calculated using the decay bonus as described in the AIRSS Regulatory Standards. For this, a bonus of +1 is applied to the Ice Multipliers for Multi-year ice, Second-year ice, Thick First-year ice and Medium First-year ice if the ice has thaw holes (i.e. drainage) or if the ice is rotten/decayed.

(19)

Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the icebreakers during the summer collection program during 2002 to 2004.

2.1 Data Analysis

After the field program, the data books were collected by the CIS and sent to the CHC. Since there was a considerable amount of data to analyze, the CHC developed a database to organize the data. When a Field Book was received at the CHC, the data contained in the books were extracted and entered into the database.

In the analysis, the data were analyzed independently for each vessel. The following information was investigated:

1. The Ice Numeral was compared to the Damage Potential to see if there was a correlation. For these plots, a “Damage Potential Number” was defined to reflect the four conditions specified in the Field Book as given in Table 2.

2. The Damage Potential was plotted versus the speed of the vessel. It is realized that the speed listed for the vessel would not necessarily be the maximum speed that the vessel could transit in the particular ice regimes since it could be escorting another vessel or there could be other factors to reduce the speed (operational

(20)

vessel was travelling slower in lower Ice Numerals.

3. In a similar manner, the Ice Numeral was plotted versus the speed of the vessel.

Table 2: Definition of the Damage Potential Number

Damage Potential Number Description 1 high potential for damage

2 potential for damage

3 not likely to damage vessel 4 highly unlikely to damage vessel

Three hundred and forty-five observations were made on ice regimes during the three year program. Figure 3 shows the number of events reported for each of the six icebreakers. Figure 4 shows the break-down of observations for each vessel for each of the three years of collection.

48 59 112 16 78 32 DES GROSEILLIERS TERRY FOX HENRY LARSEN LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT PIERRE RADISSON

SIR WILFRID LAURIER

Figure 3: Pie chart showing the number of events recorded by each of the six CCG icebreakers.

(21)

57 7 54 43 13 27 3 8 6 29 5 18 1 52 16 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 DE S GRO S EI L L IE RS HE N RY L AR S E N LO U IS S. S T -LA U R E N T PI E R RE RA D IS S O N SI R W IL F RI D LA URI E R TE RR Y FOX Nu mb e r o f E v en ts 2002 2003 2004 0 0

Figure 4: Number of events for each of the six icebreakers for each year of the observation program.

(22)

The LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT is designated as a Heavy Gulf Icebreaker. It was built in 1969 in Montreal. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 3. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Louis S. St-Laurent was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains M. Marsden, S. Klebert and A. McNeill were the Commanding Officers. R. Provost, J.-Y. Rancourt, D. Crosbie, S. Leger, S. Payment and R. Morrow were the ISS personnel onboard. This vessel collected information across a wide area of Arctic including the northwest passage and the Arctic Ocean (see Figure 2). One hundred and twelve observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.

Table 3: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT

CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT

Official No: 328095

Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker Port of

Registry:

Ottawa Region: Maritimes Home Port: Dartmouth, N.S. Call Sign: CGBN

When Built: 1969

Builder: Canadian Vickers, Montreal, Qué. Modernized: 1988 - 1993 - Halifax Shipyard

Certificates Complement

Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 13

Ice Class: 100 A Crew: 33

MARPOL: Yes Total: 46

IMO: 6705937 Crewing Regime: Lay Day

Available Berths: 53

Figure 5 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Louis S. St-Laurent. For this vessel, three ice regimes were rated with a high potential for damage. These were (1) no ice but icebergs and heavy fog, ship speed of 14 knots, (2) 1/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 2/10 ridged Multi-year ice, ship speed 12 knots, and (3) 3/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 5/10 Multi-year ice (decayed), ship speed 14 knots. Even though these ice regimes had thick first-year and multi-year ice, they were in low concentration, so the Ice Numeral would be greater than zero for this vessel. However, at high speed the CCG indicated that this is a potentially dangerous ice regime. This situation is not covered properly with the Ice Regime System. Also, one ice regime

(23)

had an Ice Numeral of -10, yet the comments indicated that the regime had little potential to damage the vessel. Figure 6 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. The vessel speed for the negative Ice Numeral was discussed in the comments for the ice regime. Although the ice was multi-year ice, the ice thickness was only 1 to 1.5 m thick and the vessel could navigate with speeds up to 10 knots. Figure 7 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. The numbers on the graph indicate the damage severity number for the ice regime. The “x” indicates data where no Damage Potential Number was given. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the data collected during all three years from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

This vessel collected 112 observations and reported that in 8 cases the Ice Numeral did not accurately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime. Table 4 provides information on these events with the reasons indicated.

Table 4: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Louis S. St-Laurent. N G GW FY MF Y TF Y SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 - - - 0 -10 3

The ice is w eak and porous yet show s no visible sign of decay on the surface. This type of ice has been penetrated using 3 of 5 engines and only 50% pow er on the starboard shaft.

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 - - - Y 5 -4 3 Could manouver around floes

0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 - - - Y - - 0 10 3 Ridges controlling direction of the ship and slow ing her dow n to a stop.

0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 - - - 2 20 3

Restrictive to our progress

Example w here you can have 7/10 open w ater + 3/10 TFY and have the same IN value

0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 - - - 0 20 3

Restrictive to our progress

Example w here you can have 7/10 open w ater + 3/10 TFY and have the same IN value

3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 - - - 10 20 3 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 7.7 20 4

0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 Y - - - 14 29 4 Because open w ater has a higher potential (hazard)

DP

# Why Ice Num eral Not Representative Ice Concentration Decay Ridged

IN Sp e e d Kn o ts

Samples of ice regimes identified on the Louis S. St-Laurent are given in Figure 9 through Figure 16.

(24)

0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral D a m a ge P o te n tia l N u m b er 20022003 2004 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) Speed 12 kts 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) Speed 14 kts No ice. icebergs, fog Speed 14 kts

Figure 5: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent.

0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

Damage Potential Number

V es s e l sp ee d ( k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) Ice Numeral = 13 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) Ice Numeral = 13 No ice. icebergs, fog Ice Numeral = 20

(25)

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 X 4 4 4 3 4 3 X X 4 X 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 X 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 34 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V e s s el S p ee d (k n o ts ) LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT

Figure 7: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent. The number indicates the Damage Potential Number.

0 5 10 15 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V es s e l sp ee d ( k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) Damage Potential = 1 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) Damage Potential = 1 No ice. icebergs, fog Damage Potential = 1

Figure 8: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.

(26)

Figure 9: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent.

Figure 10: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 4/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.-Laurent

(27)

Figure 11: Ice regime with 1/10 TFY and 8/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.-Laurent

Figure 12: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

(28)

Figure 13: Ice regime with 3/10 N and 6/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

(29)

Figure 15: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Figure 16: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 4/10 G, 4/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

(30)

The TERRY FOX was built in 1983 and is designated as a Heavy Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 5. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Terry Fox was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains G. Barry, L. Meisner and M. Champagne were the Commanding Officers. G. Campbell, N. Kulbaski and R. Morrow were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the locations of the vessel during the data collection program. Data were collected over a wide area including Lancaster Sound and Hudson Bay. It should be noted that the Terry Fox did not travel to the Arctic during the summer of 2004, so there is only data from 2002 and 2003. Thirty-two observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.

Table 5: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX

CCGS TERRY FOX

Official No: 803579

Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker / Suppy Tug

Port of Registry:

Ottawa Region: Maritimes Home Port: Dartmouth, N.S. Call Sign: CGTF

When Built: 1983

Builder: Burrard Yarrows Corporation, Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:

Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 14

Figure 17 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Terry Fox. There is a significant difference between the data from 2002 and 2003. In the first year of data collection, virtually all of the ice regimes were assessed to have the potential to damage the vessel. There was one regime that was identified as having a high potential for damage. It contained 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY and 3/10 ridged MY ice. Figure 18 shows a photograph of the ice regime. Note that there was considerable ponding on the ice making the identification of the ice types difficult. The vessel speed in this ice regime was 5 knots. In the second year (2003), there were no ice regimes identified with a high potential for damaging the vessel. This discrepancy could reflect the changes that were

(31)

made in the data collection book between 2002 and 2003. The question regarding damage potential was intended to ask if the ice regime could damage the icebreaker (the Terry Fox in this case). However, the response indicates that the intent of the question was whether or not this ice had potential to damage any vessel. In the second and third year, this question was clarified to indicate that the question of damage potential related to the icebreaker. This could explain the difference between the responses in the two years.

0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral D a m a ge P o te n tia l N u m b er 2002₂₀₀₃ TERRY FOX

2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Speed 5 kts

Figure 17: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox.

Figure 18: Photograph of the ice regime (2/10 MFY, 3/10TFY & 3/10 ridged MY ice) rated as having a high potential for damage for the Terry Fox. Note that the ponding makes identification of the ice types difficult.

(32)

particular trend in the data. The results reflect the inconsistency in reporting the DP number for 2002 and 2003. Figure 20 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. Figure 21 shows a comparison of the data from 2002 and 2003. There were considerably more data points from the data collection program in 2002. There were no data events for 2004.

This vessel collected 32 observations and reported that in 12 cases the Ice Numeral did not accurately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime. Table 6 provides information on these events with the reasons indicated. This is a fairly high percentage of events. Part of the reason may reflect the confusion in the first year of data collection. However, several of the observations provide good insight – for example, the inconsistency of having a decay first-year ice with a higher Ice Multiplier than Open Water, and the lack of consideration for flow size in the Ice Numeral.

Figure 22 to Figure 26 show photographs of some of the ice regimes observed from the Terry Fox.

Table 6: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Terry Fox

N G GW FY MF

Y

TF

Y

SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY

0 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 - - - Y 8 12 2How can thick first year give a numerical value the same as open w ater?

0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 - - - 8 14 2Cargo ship in escort could not possibly break through on ow n. Giant floe (> 10 miles) to cross. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 - - - Y 6 16 2How can thick first year give the same numerical

value as open w ater?

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 - - - Y - - 14 17 2How can first year have the same numerical value as open w ater?

0 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 4 17 2 System too vague - conditions change too quick.

0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - - Y - - 10 17 2

Even though this numeral is higher than Observation #18 (IN = 11), the ice encountered w as harder because of thicker ridges and solid MY floes. Also, vast TFY floes w ere hard to break because of their inertia.

0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 Y - Y - - - 3 18 Would be more reflective if it considered ridging w hich slow ed progress a few times in this case. 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 - - - 13 20 2How can thick first year have the same numerical

value as open w ater?

0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 - - - 5 20 3 This high number (IN) does not make sense. 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 Y - Y - - - 4 23 2 Does not reflect ice conditions

0 0 0 1 2 4 3 0 Y Y - - - - 3 26 4

In comparison to last ops. ice condition value only increased by 1 but progress is considerably slow er. Might be better if ice numeral w ould differentiate betw een drainage and rotten. 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 0 Y - - - 7 27 4

Ice numeral does not consider floe size w hich in this instance is small making it easier to transit the ice. Sp e e d IN DP

# Why Ice Numeral Not Representative Ice Concentration Decay Ridged

(33)

0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

V e s s e l s pe e d (k no ts ) 2002 2003 TERRY FOX

2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Ice Numeral = 8

Figure 19: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox.

X 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 X 2 2 2 2 2 X 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V e s s el S p ee d (k n o ts ) TERRY FOX

Figure 20: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number.

(34)

0 5 10 15 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V es s e l sp ee d ( k n o ts ) 2002 2003 TERRY FOX

2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Damage Potential = 1

Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.

(35)

Figure 23: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 2/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY, 3/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

(36)

Figure 25: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

Figure 26: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

(37)

5.0 CCGS HENRY LARSEN

The HENRY LARSEN was built in 1987 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 7. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Henry Larsen was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains J. Broderick and J. Vanthiel were the Commanding Officers. S. Payment, C. Stock and L. Theriault were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the locations of the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Observations were made mostly along the east coast and near Resolute in geographic regions that include Frobisher Bay, North Bay (Hudson Strait), Foxe Basin, Cape Christian and Resolute. Sixteen observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.

Table 7: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN

CCGS HENRY LARSEN

Official No: 808731

Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker

Port of Registry:

Ottawa Region: Newfoundland Home Port: St. John's, Nfld. Call Sign: CGHL

When Built: 1987

Builder: Versatile Pacific Shipyards Inc., Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:

Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 20

Figure 27 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Henry Larsen. The data showed two different aspects, especially in 2002. Three of the observations from one crew indicated that the ice regimes identified were unlikely to cause damage to the vessel. The second set (recorded by a different crew) indicated that all four observations had potential to damage the vessel. In all cases, the ice regimes were quite light, typically 1/10 to 3/10 decayed Thick First-year ice. Similar to the observations on the Terry Fox, there could have been confusion regarding the damage question. In 2003, there were a number of ice regimes that were rated as having the potential to cause damage to the vessel. These ice regimes consisted of a mixture of thick

(38)

2004. Figure 28 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is no trend in the data, with speeds in the range of 5 to 10 knots. Figure 29 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. No negative Ice Numerals were calculated for this vessel. Figure 30 shows a comparison of the ice regimes events collected in all three years of the measurement program on the Henry Larsen.

The Henry Larsen did not list any events in which they felt that the Ice Numeral did not adequately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime.

Figure 31 to Figure 37 show some examples of the ice regimes observed from the Henry Larsen. 0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral D a m a g e P o te nt ia l N u m b e r 2002 2003 2004 HENRY LARSEN

Figure 27: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen.

(39)

0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

V e s s el sp ee d (k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 HENRY LARSEN

Figure 28: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen. 3 4 2 X 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V es s el S p ee d ( k n o ts ) HENRY LARSEN

Figure 29: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number.

(40)

0 5 10 15 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V e s s el sp ee d (k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 HENRY LARSEN

Figure 30 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.

Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.

(41)

Figure 33: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.

(42)

(43)

(44)

The DES GROSEILLIERS was built in 1982 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 8. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Des Groseilliers was assigned as a CAC4 vessel. Captains G. Tremblay, R. Dubois and S. Bertrand were the Commanding Officers. B. Simard, S. Leger, E. Vaillant and F. Guay were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the route for the vessel during the data collection program. This vessel collected data in the eastern Arctic including the High Arctic islands. Seventy-eight observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.

Table 8: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS

CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS

Official No: 802160

Port of Registry:

Ottawa Region: Laurentian Home Port: Québec, Qué. Call Sign: CGDX When Built: 1982

Builder: Port Weller Dockyard, St. Catherines, Ont. Modernized:

Ice Class: Crew: 26

MARPOL: Total: 38

IMO: Crewing Regime: Conventional

Figure 38 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Des Groseilliers. None of the ice regimes were identified to have a high potential to damage this vessel although nine events in 2002 and ten events in 2004 were identified to have a potential for damage (Damage Potential = 2). Two of these had a negative Ice Numeral whereas the other seven had a positive Ice Numeral. Further, there were a number of ice regimes that had a negative Ice Numeral yet were not deemed to be hazardous to the Des Groseilliers. A large number of these events occurred when the vessel traversed decayed Second-year ice, sometimes at speeds up to 15 knots. A

(45)

discussion with the Captain of the vessel during these observations provided additional insight. In this situation, the second-year ice was highly rotten and not very thick. This allowed the vessel to proceed at a high speed without a high damage probability. Although the decay of second-year ice is considered, its thickness is not considered. In this case, it made a significant difference to the ice regime and the safety of the vessel. Figure 39 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel for the Des Groseilliers. There is no clear trend in the data. Figure 40 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel with the Damage Number indicated. Figure 41 shows a comparison of the data collected in all three years of the data collection programs.

Seventy–eight observations were made on the Des Groseilliers and in twenty cases, the CCG thought that the Ice Numeral did not adequately reflect the ice regime. They point out that roughness of small floes does not pose a threat to navigation. Further, they note the pressure is not taken into account1. They also comment that a high Ice Numeral may give a false sense of security since the ice regime may still pose some threat to damage the vessel. Also, the presence of trace amounts of multi-year ice may pose a threat and this is not taken into account in AIRSS.

Figure 42 to Figure 48 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Des Groseilliers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral D a m a g e P o te nt ia l N u m b e r 2002 2003 2004 DES GROSEILLIERS

Figure 38: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers.

1

Pressure is not considered in AIRSS since it affects the operation of the vessel, but is not usually a threat to its safety.

(46)

Table 9: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Des Groseilliers N G GW FY MF Y TF Y SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - - - Y 3 -16 3

The height of the floes should be taken into account. Pressure should also be included in the calculations.

Ridges on the small f loes do not pose a problem to navigation, how ever they inf luence IN calculation.

0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 - - - 15 -15 3

0 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 - - - - Y - 4 -14 2

The smallest ice numeral is found here, yet the conditions are better that those of observation 10, because of the size of the floes.

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 - - - Y - - 6 -10 3 Too negative

0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 Y Y - - - - 10 -7 3 Average vessel speed of 10 knts. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 - Y - - - - 8 -7 3 Going full ahead.

1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 - - - 7 -7 2

Due to the TFY w hich transformes itself into SY on the first of October. The numeral thus changes f rom 0 to -9

0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 Y Y - - - - 6.5 -4 2 The vessel proceeded at 6 knots f ull ahead w ith 5 motors, w ithout any major problems.

0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 Y Y - - - - 9 -2 4 Advanced stage of melting - no pressure on vessel.

0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 Y - - - 2 0 3 Ice solider (less rotten) 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 14 2 4

0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 Y Y - - - - 8.5 2 3 Vessel w ent f ull ahead into floes, and reduced speed after entering them.

0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 10 2 3 Decayed ice - easy progress 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 7 9 3 IN is too low .

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Y Y - - - - 14 12 2 An ice numeral of 11 gives a - sense of security.

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - 10 14 2 The high IN w ould indicate that there is no risk of damage.

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 - - - 4 18 3 Should be higher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 12 20 4

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - 8 20 2 IN is too high, indicating that conditions are safer than is actually the case.

0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - 12 27 4 Because of traces of old ice around the FY and SY floes.

DP

# Why Ice Num eral Not Representative Ice Concentration Decay Ridged

IN

S

p

(47)

0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

V e s s el sp ee d (k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 DES GROSEILLIERS

Figure 39: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers. 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 X 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 X 3 4 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 4 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V es s el S p ee d ( k n o ts ) DES GROSEILLIERS

Figure 40: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event.

(48)

0 5 10 15 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V e s s el sp ee d (k n o ts ) 2002 2003 2004 DES GROSEILLIERS

Figure 41 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.

(49)

Figure 43: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

Figure 44: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

(50)

Figure 45: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

(51)

Figure 47: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 6/10 SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

(52)

The PIERRE RADISSON was built in 1978 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 10. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Pierre Radisson was assigned as a CAC4 vessel. Captains M. Bourdeau and S. Brûlé were the Commanding Officers. R. Boisvert, F. Guay, L. Theriault, R. Prevost and J.-Y. Rancourt were the ISS personnel onboard. This vessel collected data across a wide region of the Arctic (see Figure 2). Note, however, that no information on the ice regimes was submitted for this vessel for year 2003 since it was not in the Arctic that summer. Fifty-nine observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.

Table 10: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON

CCGS PIERRE RADISSON

Official No: 383326

Port of Registry:

Ottawa Region: Laurentian Home Port: Québec, Qué. Call Sign: CGSB When Built: 1978

Builder: Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd, North Vancouver, B.C. Modernized: 1995, 1996, & 1997

Ice Class: 100 A Crew: 26

IMO: 7510834 Crewing Regime: Conventional

Figure 49 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Pierre Radisson. In 2002, two ice regimes were identified to have a high potential for damage. The first ice regime consisted of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice (see Figure 50). The Ice Numeral for this regime was –18. The speed of the Radisson was 5 knots in this ice. The second ice regime consisted of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second-year ice and 4/10 Multi-Second-year ice (Figure 51). The Ice Numeral was –16. The speed of the Radisson in this ice regime was 4 knots. In 2004, no events were identified that had a potential to damage the vessel.

(53)

0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral D a m a ge P o te n tia l N u m b er 2002₂₀₀₄ PIERRE RADISSON 2GW, 4SY, 4MY Speed 4 kts 3TFY, 7MY Speed 5 kts

Figure 49: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 50: Photograph of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -18.

(54)

Figure 51: Photograph of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second-year ice and 4/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -16.

The Pierre Radisson reported the ice regime with the most negative Ice Numeral. The vessel was in heavily ridged ice with 3/10 MY, 4/10 SY and 3/10 TFY conditions. The AIRSS Ice Numeral for this regime is -24. The CCG commented that they felt that the Ice Numeral reflected the severity of the ice regime. This event is not plotted on the graphs since the Radisson was stopped (speed = 0) in these ice conditions. The ISS commented that they had never seen anything so ridged before.

Figure 52 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is a trend of decreasing speed as the perceived damage potential increased (i.e. the DP number gets smaller). This trend makes physical sense. Figure 53 and Figure 54 show the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel with the Damage Potential Number and year of the observations. Note that there were no data collected in 2003. The graphs show lower speeds for negative Ice Numerals.

Data from the Pierre Radisson were very consistent. The identification of the ice regimes and their damage potential were reflected in the vessel speed and the assessment of the ice regimes.

Fifty-nine observations were reported from the Pierre Radisson and in seven cases, the CCG commented that the Ice Numeral did not adequately describe the severity of the ice regime. Table 11 provides the details. The CCG noted that the shape of the floes (e.g.

(55)

strips) should be included in the determination of the Ice Numeral and that the same IN was determined for two conditions where one was a more severe condition. They also noted the situation similar to that reported by the Louis S. St-Laurent that low concentration of Old Ice can be hazardous.

Figure 55 to Figure 62 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Table 11: GGC Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Pierre Radisson

Speed N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots

0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 1 3

The code poorly reflects the ice conditions, according to the Navigation Officer. The ice code should be more detailed to allow different coding.

Y

0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 - - - 5 11 3 Y

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - Y - Y 13 12 4Very solid old ice - only 1/10. Y

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 - - - 5.6 16 3Since there are strips of 9/10 in wich the IN should be harsher Y

0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 10 20 4Same number as obs 008 but tougher condition Y

1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - 8 20 4 Y

2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Y - - - 8 20 3 Y

DP # Why Ice Numeral Not Representative

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged

IN 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

V es s e l sp ee d ( k n o ts ) 2002 2004 PIERRE RADISSON 2GW, 4SY, 4MY Ice Numeral = -16 3TFY, 7MY Ice Numeral = -18

Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Pierre Radisson.

(56)

2 4 4 3 2 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V e s s el S p ee d (k n o ts ) PIERRE RADISSON

Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event.

0 5 10 15 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral V es s e l sp ee d ( k n o ts ) 2002 2004 PIERRE RADISSON 2GW, 4SY, 4MY Damage Potential = 1 3TFY, 7MY Damage Potential = 1

Figure 54: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson

comparing the results for each of the three years of observations. Note that this vessel was not in the Arctic in 2003.

(57)

Figure 55: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

(58)

Figure 57: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 58: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

(59)

Figure 59: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY, 1/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 60: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

(60)

Figure 61: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 G, 3/10 GW, 1/10 SY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.