Research Papers: Polar and Arctic Engineering

A Modified Matlock–Duffing Model for Two-Dimensional Ice-Induced Vibrations of Offshore Structures With Geometric Nonlinearities

[+] Author and Article Information
Hugh McQueen

Department of Naval Architecture,
Ocean and Marine Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK

Narakorn Srinil

Department of Naval Architecture,
Ocean and Marine Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: School of Marine Science & Technology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 15, 2015; final manuscript received October 22, 2015; published online November 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Søren Ehlers.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 138(1), 011501 (Nov 19, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1046; doi: 10.1115/1.4031927 History: Received June 15, 2015; Revised October 22, 2015

Oil and gas exploration and production have been expanding in Arctic waters. However, numerical models for predicting the ice-induced vibrations (IIV) of offshore structures are still lacking in the literature. This study aims to develop a mathematical reduced-order model for predicting the two-dimensional IIV of offshore structures with geometric coupling and nonlinearities. A cylindrical structure subject to a moving uniform ice sheet is analyzed using the well-known Matlock model, which, in the present study, is extended and modified to account for a new empirical nonlinear stress–strain rate relationship determining the maximum compressive stress (MCS) of the ice. The model is further developed through the incorporation of ice temperature, brine content, air volume, grain size, ice thickness, and ice wedge angle effects on the ice compressive strength. These allow the effect of multiple ice properties on the ice–structure interaction to be investigated. A further advancement is the inclusion of an equation allowing the length of failed ice at a point of failure to vary with time. A mixture of existing equations and newly proposed empirical relationships is used. Structural geometric nonlinearities are incorporated into the numerical model through the use of Duffing oscillators, a technique previously proposed in vortex-induced vibration studies. The model is validated against results from the literature and provides new insights into IIV responses including the quasi-static, randomlike chaotic, and locked-in motions, depending on the ice velocity and system nonlinearities. This numerical Matlock–Duffing model shows a potential to be used in future IIV analysis of Arctic cylindrical structures, particularly fixed offshore structures, such as lighthouses, gravity bases, and wind turbine monopiles.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Topics: Ice , Stress
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Peyton, H. R. , 1966, “ Sea Ice Strength,” Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, Report No. UAG-182.
Matlock, H. , Dawkinds, W. P. , and Panak, J. J. , 1969, “ A Model for the Prediction of Ice-Structure Interaction,” Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, TX, Paper No. OTC-1066.
Maattanen, M. , 1978, “ On Conditions for the Rise of Self-Excited Ice-Induced Autonomous Oscillations in Slender Marine Pile Structures,” Winter Navigation Research Board, Helsinki, Finland, Research Report No. 25.
Eranti, E. , 1992, “ Dynamic Ice-Structure Interaction: Theory and Applications,” Ph.D. dissertation, VTT Publications No. 90, Helsinki University of Technology, Technical Research Center of Finland, Espoo, Finland.
Riska, K. , and Baarman, L. , 1993, “ A Model for Ice Induced Vibration of Slender Offshore Structures,” 12th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions (POAC), Hamburg, Germany, pp. 578–594.
Sodhi, D. S. , 1994, “ A Theoretical Model for Ice-Structure Interaction,” 12th IAHR Symposium on Ice, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 807–815.
Karna, T. , Kamesaki, K. , and Tsukuda, H. , 1999, “ A Numerical Model for Dynamic Ice-Structure Interaction,” Comput. Struct., 72(4–5), pp. 645–658. [CrossRef]
Withalm, M. , and Hoffman, N. P. , 2010, “ Simulation of Full-Scale Ice-Structure Interaction by an Extended Matlock Model,” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 60(2), pp. 130–136. [CrossRef]
Palmer, A. , Yue, Q. , and Guo, F. , 2010, “ Ice-Induced Vibration,” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 60(3), pp. 189–192. [CrossRef]
Guo, F. , 2012, “ Reanalysis of Ice Induced Steady State Vibration From an Engineering Perspective,” 21st IAHR Symposium on Ice, Dalian, China, pp. 1023–1034.
Srinil, N. , and Zanganeh, H. , 2012, “ Modeling of Coupled Cross-Flow/In-Line Vortex-Induced Vibrations Using Double Duffing and van der Pol Oscillators,” Ocean Eng., 53, pp. 83–97. [CrossRef]
Kim, H. , and Keune, J. , 2007, “ Compressive Strength of Ice at Impact Strain Rates,” J. Mater. Sci., 42(8), pp. 2802–2806. [CrossRef]
International Standards Organization, ISO 19906, 2010, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Arctic Offshore Structures, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Yue, Q. , Bi, X. , Zhang, X. , and Karna, T. , 2002, “ Dynamic Ice Forces Caused by Crushing Failure,” 16th IAHR Symposium on Ice, Dunedin, New Zealand, Dec. 2–6, pp. 134–141.
Tuhkuri, J. A. , Goldstein, R. V. , and Osipenko, N. M. , 1997, “ Modeling of the Fracture Surface of an Ice Block Failing Against a Structure,” 16th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 263–269.
Schulson, E. , 2001, “ Brittle Failure of Ice,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 68(17–18), pp. 1839–1887. [CrossRef]
Sanderson, T. , 1988, Ice Mechanics: Risks to Offshore Structures, Graham and Trotman, London.
Nakawo, M. , 1983, “ Measurements on Air Porosity of Sea Ice,” 2nd Symposium on Applied Glaciology, Hanover, NH, Aug. 23–27, pp. 204–208.
Cole, D. , 1985, “ Grain Size and the Compressive Strength of Ice,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 107(3), pp. 369–374. [CrossRef]
Timco, G. , and Jordaan, I. , 1987, “ Time-Series Variations in Ice Crushing,” 9th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions (POAC), Fairbanks, AK, pp. 13–20.
Whitney, J. , 2002, “ Cook Inlet, Alaska: Oceanographic and Ice Conditions and NOAA's 18-Year Oil Spill Response History 1984-2001,” National Ocean Services, Anchorage, AK, NOAA Hazmat Report No. 2003-01.
PND Engineering, 2006, “ Knik Arm Crossing Final Ice Condition Findings,” Technical Report, AKSAS Project No. 56047, Anchorage, AK.
Karna, T. , Andresen, H. , Gurtner, A. , Metrikine, A. , Sodhi, D. , Loo, M. , Kuiper, G. , Gibson, R. , Fenz, D. , Muggeridge, K. , Wallenburg, C. , Wu, J.-F. , and Jefferies, M. , 2013, “ Ice-Induced Vibrations of Offshore Structures–Looking Beyond ISO 19906,” 22nd International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions (POAC), Espoo, Finland, pp. 1673–1684.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A schematic model of IIV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of new stress–strain rate formulae (dashed line) versus (a) Withalm and Hoffman [8] relationship and (b) experimental results collated by Kim and Keune [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Compressive stress versus grain size for varying strain rates [19], (b) new compressive stress versus grain size formulae in Table 2 for varying strain rates, and (c) failed ice length histogram (U = 0.5 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Displacement time histories: (a) U = 0.127 m/s and (b)U = 1.27 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Maximum, RMS, and mean stress versus ice temperature, (b) maximum, RMS, and mean stress versus salinity, (c) maximum, RMS, and mean stress versus air volume, (d) compressive stress versus temperature [16], (e) compressive stress versus salinity [13], and (f) compressive stress versus air volume [13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Ice load time history comparison with field data (Molikpaq Event 5, Ref. [23])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) X–Y displacement trajectories for different asymmetric nonlinearities (U = 0.127 m/s and θ = 45 deg) and (b) X–Y displacement trajectories for θ = 30 deg, 45 deg, and 60 deg (U = 0.25 m/s, αx=αy  = 1.05, and βx=βy  = 0.35)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

X–Y displacement for θ = 45 deg: (a) U = 0.064 m/s, (b) U = 0.25 m/s, and (c) U = 0.635 m/s; X (bottom line), Y (middle line), and in-line (top line) displacement for (d) U = 0.064 m/s, (e) U = 0.25 m/s, and (f) U = 0.635 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

In-line force time histories for (a) U = 0.064 m/s, (b) U = 0.25 m/s, and (c) U = 0.635 m/s, phase-plane plots at U = 0.25 m/s for (d) X motion, (e) Y motion, and (f) zoomed-in view of Fig. 8(f) between 34 and 35 s



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In