Finite Ice Floe Geometry Cases for Modeling Ice Crushing Forces of a Ship-Ice Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Popov–Daley method calculates the ice crushing force of a ship-ice impact event using energy methods, where the calculated available kinetic energy of the impact is dissipated into ice crushing energy. One important factor of the model is the local geometries of the ship and the ice at the point of impact, as they define the contact area growth over the course of the collision. Several geometry cases exist, though one of the original uses of the Popov–Daley method was as part of the design ice load model of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships (Polar URs), where in one scenario, the bow of the ship impacts with an ice wedge in a glancing blow resulting in an assumed triangular contact geometry. The Polar URs impact scenarios do not directly consider the limited thickness or size of the impacted ice when determining the nominal contact geometry and rely on flexural failure limit models to prevent unrealistic contact patch growth. More recently however, the Popov–Daley ice crushing model has seen use in an expanded range of impact scenarios, and as such, geometry cases considering the limited ice thickness have been developed, including a thickness-limited ice wedge impact case. As a continuation of this work, the present study derives additional collision geometries that consider finite floes for other commonly used ice impact scenarios. Two thickness-limited area-indentation relationships are thus derived for stem impact cases, and one is derived for floes of finite size where the edge impacts are nearly parallel to the ship hull.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".