Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers - 2002 Timco, G

NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC

Data collection program on ice regimes onboard the CCG icebreakers - 2002 Timco, G. W.; Johnston, M.; Sudom, D.; Kubat, I.; Collins, A.

For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur: https://doi.org/10.4224/12340993 Technical Report, 2003-03

NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=bdd2cba9-e849-46f1-997e-2983337550df https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=bdd2cba9-e849-46f1-997e-2983337550df

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at [email protected]. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

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 [email protected].

TP 14097 E

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers - 2002

G.W. Timco, M. Johnston, D. Sudom, I. Kubat & A. Collins Canadian Hydraulics Centre National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0R6 Canada

Technical Report CHC-TR-012

March 2003

CHC-TR-012 Page 1

ABSTRACT

A field program was designed and carried out onboard six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers during the summer of 2002. Information was collected on the ice conditions (ice regimes) and the stage of melting (decay) of the ice. In total, 201 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 and an overview of the results. The program was highly successful in all aspects.

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. On a recueilli de l’information sur l’état des glaces (régimes de glaces) et le stade de fonte (décroissance). Au total, 201 régimes de glaces ont été documentés et photographiés. D’après l’information recueillie, la rigueur des régimes de glaces a été évaluée en termes 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. Le programme s’est avéré très réussi à tous les égards.

CHC-TR-012 Page 2

CHC-TR-012 Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... 1 RÉSUMÉ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 3 LIST OF FIGURES...... 4 LIST OF TABLES...... 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 7 2.0 FIELD BOOKS ...... 10 2.1 Data Analysis ...... 13 3.0 CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT...... 14 4.0 CCGS TERRY FOX ...... 20 5.0 CCGS HENRY LARSEN...... 27 6.0 CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS...... 31 7.0 CCGS PIERRE RADISSON...... 37 8.0 CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER ...... 45 9.0 GENERAL ANALYSIS...... 50 9.1 Calculating the Ice Numeral...... 50 9.2 Ice Numeral and Vessel Damage ...... 51 9.3 CCG Comments on the Ice Numeral...... 51 9.4 Ice Numeral and Vessel Speed...... 53 9.5 Surface Properties and Ice Decay ...... 53 9.6 Ground-Truthing of CIS Ice Charts...... 55 9.7 Ice Numerals from the CIS Charts...... 57 10.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 58 11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 59 12.0 REFERENCES...... 59

CHC-TR-012 Page 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS TERRY FOX ...... 11 Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the six icebreakers...... 12 Figure 3: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent ...... 16 Figure 4: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 16 Figure 5: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 17 Figure 6: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 18 Figure 7: Ice regime with 1/10 G and 9/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent...... 18 Figure 8: Ice regime with 3/10 N, 5/10 GW and 2/10 FY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 19 Figure 9: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 7/10 G and 2/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 19 Figure 10: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox...... 22 Figure 11: 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...... 22 Figure 12: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox...... 23 Figure 13: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox...... 23 Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 1/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY & 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 24 Figure 15: Ice regime with 5/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY & 1/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 24 Figure 16: Ice regime with ridged and decayed 2/10 MFY & 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 25 Figure 17: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY & 1/10 ridged and decayed MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 25 Figure 18: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY and 1/10 ridged MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 26 Figure 19: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 ridged MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 26 Figure 20: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen. .... 28 Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen. ... 29 Figure 22: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen...... 29 Figure 23: Ice regime with 9/10 TFY observed from the Henry Larsen...... 30 Figure 24: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY observed from the Henry Larsen...... 30 Figure 25: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. 33 Figure 26: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers.34 Figure 27: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers...... 34 Figure 28: Photograph of 2/10 decayed TFY and 8/10 decayed SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers in Norwegian Bay...... 35 Figure 29: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 35

CHC-TR-012 Page 5

Figure 30: Ice regime with 6/10 N and 2 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers. . 36 Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 MFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 36 Figure 32: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.. 39 Figure 33: 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...... 39 Figure 34: 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...... 40 Figure 35: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number fro the Pierre Radisson. 41 Figure 36: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. Note the lower speeds with the negative Ice Numerals...... 41 Figure 37: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson. 42 Figure 38: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 42 Figure 39: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 43 Figure 40: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY& 1/10 TFY, & 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 43 Figure 41: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 44 Figure 42: 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...... 44 Figure 43: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 47 Figure 44: Photograph of 9/10 ridged Thick First-year ice as observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Ice Numeral for this ice is –16 for a Type A vessel...... 47 Figure 45: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 48 Figure 46: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 48 Figure 47: Ice regime with decayed 1/10 FY, 6/10 MFY & 1/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 49 Figure 48: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 FY, 4/10 MFY & 1/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 49 Figure 49: Pie chart showing the breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral...... 50 Figure 50: Pie charts showing the number of positive and negative Ice Numerals using the (a) AIRSS definition (including decay) and (b) the Ice Numeral with the Summer Bonus...... 51 Figure 51: Pie chart showing the assessment of the Officer of the Watch on the ability of the Ice Numeral to reflect the damage potential of the ice regime...... 52 Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the AIRSS Ice Numeral for all vessels...... 53 Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral calculated using the Summer Bonus... 54 Figure 54: Histogram of the average ice strength versus the Stage of Melt of the surface ice during the summer months in the Arctic. The condition of Snow Cover would have significantly higher strengths if winter conditions were also considered...... 54

CHC-TR-012 Page 6

Figure 55: Histogram showing the difference between the total ice concentration from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions...... 55 Figure 56: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Thick First- year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions...... 56 Figure 57: 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...... 56 Figure 58: 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...... 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers ...... 8 Table 2: Information on the CCG Vessels ...... 11 Table 3: Definition of the Damage Potential Number...... 13 Table 4: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT...... 14 Table 5: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Louis S. St-Laurent ...... 15 Table 6: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX ...... 20 Table 7: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Terry Fox ...... 21 Table 8: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN...... 27 Table 9: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Henry Larsen ...... 28 Table 10: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS ...... 31 Table 11: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Des Groseilliers...... 32 Table 12: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON...... 37 Table 13: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Pierre Radisson...... 38 Table 14: Information on the CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER ...... 45 Table 15: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 46 Table 16: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral...... 52

CHC-TR-012 Page 7

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers - 2002

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR) regulates 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

= + + IN [Ca x IMa ] [Cb x IMb ] .... (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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 8

Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers Vessel Class Ice Types Type CAC E DCBA 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 FY 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.

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). 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 the summer of 2002. The objectives of the work were: 1. Collect detailed information on the range of ice regimes encountered in the Canadian Arctic; 2. Obtain an evaluation of the potential damage severity of the ice regimes from the 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 9

This data collection program was carried out onboard the six icebreakers that were in the Arctic in the summer of 2002. 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 paper discusses the procedure and results of this data collection program.

CHC-TR-012 Page 10

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 TERRY FOX.

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 as follows:

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

high potential of damage potential for damage not likely to damage vessel highly unlikely to damage vessel

2. Do you think that the Ice Numeral reflects the degree of severity of the ice conditions? Yes No If no, why not?

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

General Comments – Space was left for any comments from either the ISS personnel or Officer of the Watch.

These Field Books were deployed on six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. It should be noted that the CCG vessels are not assigned a Vessel Class. Therefore, it was necessary to assign to them a 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. General information pertaining to the vessels, their Commanding Officers and the ISS personnel onboard for this study is given in Table 2.

CHC-TR-012 Page 11

Table 2: Information on the CCG Vessels

Data Collection Commanding Ice Service Number of Number of Assigned Vessel Name Officers Specialists Observations Photographs Vessel Class Start End R. Provost S. Klebert LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 9-Aug-02 25-Oct-02 J.Y. Rancourt 54 31 CAC3 M. Marsden D. Crosbie M. Champagne G. Campbell TERRY FOX 6-Jul-02 25-Sep-02 G. Barry E. Vaillant 27 48 CAC3 L. Meisner N. Kulbaski S. Payment J. Vanthiel HENRY LARSEN 14-Jul-02 9-Sep-02 K. Carlson 7 7 CAC3 J. Broderick S. Payment B. Simard G. Tremblay DES GROSEILLIERS 12-Jul-02 19-Sep-02 S. Leger 57 104 CAC4 R. Dubois E. Vaillant

M. Bourdeau R. Boisvert PIERRE RADISSON 29-Jun-02 17-Oct-02 43 55 CAC4 S. Brûlé F. Guay

S. Thompson M. Taylor SIR WILFRID LAURIER 19-Jul-02 25-Aug-02 C. Stock 13 26 Type A N. Thomas C. Daigle

General Information Observation # Location: Date: Vessel Speed (knots): How would you rank the severity (damage potential) of this ice regime? Time: Visibility (n.mi):

Latitude: Ice Roughness (please circle): Low Medium High Longitude: Floe Size (m): Do you think that the Ice Numeral reflects the degree of severity of the ice conditions? If no, why not? Digital Photo File Name:

Stage of Melt (please circle) Did you alter your mode of operation with this ice regime? Rotten/ No melt Snow melt Ponding Drainage - if so, how? decayed CIS Ice Strength Index

Ice Regime

Daily Ice Analysis Chart (date) Visual Ice Ice Ice Multiplier Ice Type Type Conc. (IM) Contribution (please circle) C Normal Dec ay* Ridg ed** C X IM MY x -1 -1 -2 = SY x 1 1 0 = TFY x 2 3 1 = MFY x 2 3 1 = FY x 2 3 1 = GW x 2 3 1 = G x 2 3 1 = N x 2 3 1 = OW x 2 2 2 = Sum = 10 Ice Numeral = *use Decay Ice Multiplier if the Stage of Melt is Drainage or Rotten/Decayed **use Ridged Ice Multiplier if Ice Type is more than 30% ridged

CO OOW ISS Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS TERRY FOX

CHC-TR-012 Page 12

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.

Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the six icebreakers.

In the following sections, the results for each vessel are described. It should be mentioned that in the data analysis, a number of different approaches were used to investigate the influence of the ice decay. In this report, the results are analyzed and presented in two different formats: 1. The Ice Numeral was calculated using the decay bonus as described in the AIRSS Regulatory Standards. For this, a bonus of +1 was applied to the Ice Multipliers for Multi-year ice, Second-year ice, Thick First-year ice and Medium First-year ice if the ice had thaw holes (i.e. drainage) or if the ice was rotten/decayed. 2. Following the recent work of Timco and Johnston (2003) on the decay of sea ice, the decay bonus was structured as follows: § For first-year ice, a decay bonus of +1 was given to the Ice Multipliers for all first-year ice if the ice strength (as given on the CIS Ice Strength Chart) was 10% or less of the mid-winter strength. § For second-year ice, a bonus of +1 was given to the Ice Multiplier if the second-year ice had thaw holes or was rotten. § For multi-year ice, no bonus was given for decay. The Ice Numeral calculated in this way was designated as the “Ice Numeral with Summer Bonus”.

CHC-TR-012 Page 13

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 3.

Table 3: 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

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 requirements, poor visibility, etc.). Nevertheless, this plot should illustrate that the vessel was travelling slower in lower Ice Numerals. 3. In a similar manner, the Ice Numeral was plotted versus the speed of the vessel.

CHC-TR-012 Page 14

3.0 CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT

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 4. Capts. S. Klebert and M. Marsden were the Commanding Officers. R. Provost, J.Y. Rancourt and D. Crosbie were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from August 9 to October 25. Figure 2 shows the location of the vessel during the data collection timeframe. This vessel collected information across a wide area of Arctic. Observations were made in the Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean, Prince Regent Sound, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Wellington Channel, Allan Bay, Strathcona Sound and Eclipse Sound. Fifty-four ice regime observations were reported and they are summarized in Table 5.

Table 4: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT

CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT Official No: 328095 Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: 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

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 9-Aug 29-Aug M. Marsden R. Provost 22 0 2 14-Sep 9-Oct S. Klebert J.Y. Rancourt 13 13 3 11-Oct 25-Oct M. Marsden D. Crosbie 19 18

CHC-TR-012 Page 15

Table 5: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Louis S. St-Laurent

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP# CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 30 1 Navigating in fog with icebergs around. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 17 22 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y - - - 12 25 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Y - Y - - - 26 27 3 VisibilityAgree with <0.5 Ice nm Code. in fog. Heavy Throughout going in watch places maintained requiring extracourse power. line in 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Y - - - - - 13 29 30 3 ice. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 - - Y - - - 12 6 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 Y - Y - - - 14 13 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 14 20 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Y - - - - Y 12 13 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 Y - - - - Y 8 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 Y - Y - - - 9 20 24 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 Y - Y - - - 20 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 22 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Y - Y - - - 22 27 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 Y - Y - - - 12 21 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Y - Y - - - 9 19 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 19 24 3 FollowingIce distributed leads in - stripsvarious and courses patches maintaining of 9/10. base course for 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 Y - Y - - - 6 20 21 3 program. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 Y - Y - - - 9 21 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 Y - Y - - - 21 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 21 24 3 Good visibility. Slowed down for MY ice pieces, following open water. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 15 20 27 3 Staying to open water leads, good visibility. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 - - - Y - Y 7 4 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 7 19 29 4 Slow speed for escorting sail boats. 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 5 13 22 4 Slow speed for sail boat escort 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 6 14 23 Slow speed for escort of 2 sailboats. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 - - - Y - Y 6 14 23 4 Ice in strips of 7/10. Slow speed for escort of 2 sail boats. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 19 29 4 Waiting for escort. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 15 19 29 4 Escort of ship. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - Y - Y 15 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 8 14 23 3 Escorting Federal Franklin. 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - Y - - 8 10 10 4 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------20 20 3 Stopped to wait for weather conditions to improve. Blizzard conditions. 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 20 4 Reduced speed but not because of ice severity. 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 ------7 20 20 3 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------20 20 4 Stopped in ice. Standing by for shipping. 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 ------2 20 20 3 Proceeding slow to new position. 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------8 20 20 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ------20 20 4 Stopped in ice in Barrow Strait. Stand-by for shipping. 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 20 3 Proceeding slow, visibility optimal. 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------7 20 20 3 Proceeding slowly as per instructions, visibility optimal. 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 20 3 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------20 20 3 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------20 20 3 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 ------5 20 20 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 20 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 20 4 Visibility 7 nm, and lookout on bridge. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 20 4 Good visibility. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 20 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 20 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 20 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------16 20 20 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 20 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 20 4 Exited the ice into bergy water. Ship heading for 60 N Dartmouth.

Figure 3 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.

Figure 4 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. It illustrates the anomaly of the vessel travelling at a relatively high speed even in ice regimes that were rated as a high potential for damage.

CHC-TR-012 Page 16

5 Louis S. St-Laurent

Damage Potential Number 1 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) Speed 14 kts No ice. 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) icebergs, fog Speed 12 kts Speed 14 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 3: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent

20 Louis S. St-Laurent

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 4: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Louis S. St-Laurent.

CHC-TR-012 Page 17

Figure 5 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. There were no ice regimes that gave a negative Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent.

20 Louis S. St-Laurent

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 5: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Data from the Louis S. St-Laurent were generally consistent and provided a considerable amount of useful information on the ice regimes that the vessel encountered during the Arctic voyage of 2002. The vessel is a heavy icebreaker and, with the assigned CAC3 designation, it did not encounter any negative Ice Numerals during its voyage. It did report three ice regimes that had a high potential for damaging the vessel. In one case, there was no sea ice but there were icebergs and heavy fog. The Ice Numeral was +20. The second case was an ice regime with 1/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 2/10 ridged Multi-year ice, giving an Ice Numeral of +13. The ship speed was reported as 12 knots. In the third case, the ice regime consisted of 3/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 5/10 Multi-year ice (decayed), giving an Ice Numeral of +13. The ship speed was 14 knots. There were no photos supplied for these three ice regimes. It is not clear if the high damage potential for these events was primarily due to the relatively high speed of the vessel. This suggests that future data collection programs of this type should place more emphasis on obtaining the reasons for these high damage potential ratings.

Samples of ice regimes identified on the Louis S. St-Laurent are given in Figure 6 to Figure 9.

CHC-TR-012 Page 18

Figure 6: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Figure 7: Ice regime with 1/10 G and 9/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent.

CHC-TR-012 Page 19

Figure 8: Ice regime with 3/10 N, 5/10 GW and 2/10 FY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

Figure 9: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 7/10 G and 2/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.

CHC-TR-012 Page 20

4.0 CCGS TERRY FOX

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 6. Capts. M. Champagne, G. Barry and L. Meisner were the Commanding Officers. G. Campbell, E. Vaillant and N. Kulbaski were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from July 6 to September 25. Figure 2 shows the location of the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Most data were collected in Lancaster Sound, Resolute Bay, Hudson Strait and Strathcona Sound. Twenty-seven ice regime observations were reported. Table 7 provides a summary of the events.

Table 6: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX

CCGS TERRY FOX Official No: 803579 Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker / Suppy Tug Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Maritimes

Home Port: Dartmouth, N.S. Call Sign: CGTF When Built: 1983 Builder: Burrard Yarrows Corporation, Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:

Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 10 Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 14 MARPOL: Yes Total: 24 IMO: 8127799 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 10

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 6-Jul 23-Aug M. Champagne G. Campbell 21 41 2 - - G. Barry E. Vaillant no data received by CHC 3 7-Sep 25-Sep L. Meisner N. Kulbaski 6 6

CHC-TR-012 Page 21

Table 7: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Terry Fox

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP # CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 11 21 30 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 Y - Y - - - 10 19 24 2 This area was of higher concentration of ice and MY ice. 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 Y ----- 4 21 22 2 Trace icebergs also encountered. 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 Y - - Y - - 10 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 20 27 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 - - - - - Y 5 8 15 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 4 17 21 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 Y - Y - - - 4 23 24 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 - - - Y - - 6 14 2 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 ------5 20 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 ------8 14 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 ------5 17 26 2 Good conditions 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 Y - - - - - 0.5 26 26 2 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 Y - - - - - 10 26 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 22 30 2 Good conditions; visibility poor in fog at times. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 - - - Y - - 6 17 27 2 Good conditions. Visibility restricted at times in fog, 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 --- Y - Y 10 13 22 2 increasing damage potential. 4 - 5 vast foes of MY ice on Radarsay image. 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 --- Y - Y 13 11 20 2 Could easily go around them. Some vast floes of TFY ice with ridges and puddles, 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y -- Y -- 10 17 19 2 but hard to break for a cargo ship. There is a higher potential for damage with the presence of 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 --- Y -- 10 16 26 2 multi-year floes in the vicinity (at the left on the picture). 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 Y - - Y - - 8 17 19 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 - - - - - Y 8 12 20 2 Puddles frozen 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 - - - - - Y 6 16 25 2 Puddles frozen. 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ------13 20 30 2 Puddles frozen. 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 - - - - - Y 12 16 25 2 Puddles frozen. 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 - - - Y - - 14 17 27 2 Puddles frozen. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 30

Figure 10 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Terry Fox. In virtually all of the events reported by the Terry Fox, 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 – 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY and 3/10 ridged MY ice. Figure 11 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.

Figure 12 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is no particular trend in the data.

Figure 13 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. Similar to the Louis S. St-Laurent, there were no negative Ice Numerals for the Terry Fox.

The data from the Terry Fox are puzzling. The fact that most ice regimes were identified as having the potential to cause damage suggests to the authors that there was some confusion on this point. There were a number of comments in the Field Books that suggested that the rating was done for vessels being escorted by the Fox, and not for the Fox itself. The question of damage pertained to the Terry Fox, not the escorted vessel. This question should be phrased more clearly in future data collection programs.

Figure 14 to Figure 19 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Terry Fox.

CHC-TR-012 Page 22

5 Terry Fox

Damage Potential Number 1

2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Speed 5 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 10: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox.

Figure 11: 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 23

20 Terry Fox

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 12: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox.

20 Terry Fox

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 13: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox.

CHC-TR-012 Page 24

Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 1/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY & 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

Figure 15: Ice regime with 5/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY & 1/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

CHC-TR-012 Page 25

Figure 16: Ice regime with ridged and decayed 2/10 MFY & 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

Figure 17: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY & 1/10 ridged and decayed MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

CHC-TR-012 Page 26

Figure 18: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY and 1/10 ridged MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

Figure 19: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 ridged MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.

CHC-TR-012 Page 27

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 8. Capts. J. Vanthiel and J. Broderick were the Commanding Officers. S. Payment and K. Carlson were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from July 14 to September 9. Figure 2 shows the location of the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Observations were made in Foxe Basin, Gabriel Strait and the entrance to Frobisher Bay. Seven ice regime observations were reported as summarized in Table 9.

Table 8: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN

CCGS HENRY LARSEN Official No: 808731 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Newfoundland Home Port: St. John's, Nfld. Call Sign: CGHL When Built: 1987 Builder: Versatile Pacific Shipyards Inc., Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:

Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 11 Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 20 MARPOL: Yes Total: 31 IMO: 8409329 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 40

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 14-Jul 19-Jul J. Vanthiel S. Payment 3 3 2 19-Aug 9-Sep J. Broderick K. Carlson 4 4 3 - - J. Vanthiel S. Payment 0 0 Open water - no data

CHC-TR-012 Page 28

Table 9: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Henry Larsen

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP # CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 22 30 4 Lots of rubble and ridge remnants. Rubble field with lots of ridge remnants. Some drainage on 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Y ----- 29 30 4 some of the larger small floes, but generally the floes are too small to have extensive drainage. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------6 20 30 4 Rubble field with lots of ridge remnants. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 21 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 21 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 21 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 23 30 2

Figure 20 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Henry Larsen. The data showed two different aspects. 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.

Figure 21 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is no trend in the data. All of the speeds recorded were less than 10 knots. Figure 22 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. No negative Ice Numerals were calculated for this vessel.

Figure 23 and Figure 24 show some examples of the ice regimes observed from the Henry Larsen.

5 Henry Larsen

Damage Potential Number 1

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 20: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen.

CHC-TR-012 Page 29

20 Henry Larsen

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen.

20 Henry Larsen

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 22: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen.

CHC-TR-012 Page 30

Figure 23: Ice regime with 9/10 TFY observed from the Henry Larsen.

Figure 24: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY observed from the Henry Larsen.

CHC-TR-012 Page 31

6.0 CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS

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 10. For these trials, Capts. G. Tremblay and R. Dubois were the Commanding Officers. B. Simard, S. Leger and E. Vaillant were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from July 12 to September 19. Figure 2 shows the route for the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Fifty-seven ice regime observations were reported, most of which were made in Pelly Bay, Strathcona Sound, Norwegian Bay, Eureka Sound and Prince Regent Sound. They are summarized in Table 11.

Table 10: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS

CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS Official No: 802160 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Laurentian

Home Port: Québec, Qué. Call Sign: CGDX When Built: 1982 Builder: Port Weller Dockyard, St. Catherines, Ont. Modernized:

Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 12 Ice Class: Crew: 26 MARPOL: Total: 38 IMO: Crewing Regime: Conventional Available Berths: 26

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 12-Jul 4-Aug G. Tremblay B. Simard 30 64 2 15-Aug 19-Sep R. Dubois S. Leger 27 40 3 - - G. Tremblay E. Vaillant 0 0 Open water - no data

CHC-TR-012 Page 32

Table 11: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Des Groseilliers.

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP # CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer

0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 ------1 19 29 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 ------3 18 28 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 11 23 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 1 20 27 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 0.5 17 19 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 ------8 20 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------4 18 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------11 19 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 6 20 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 3 18 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------6 19 29 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 ------3 13 23 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ------4 17 27 Multi-year floe. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------10 19 29 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 Y - - - - - 10 16 21 2 The vessel in the photo is the Lady Franklin, waiting to be escorted. 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 Y - - - - Y 8 10 14 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 - - - Y - - 6 -10 -5 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - - - - - Y 3 -16 -12 3 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 - - - Y - - 1 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------8 19 29 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 ------10 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 16 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 20 25 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 4 17 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7 16 23 3 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 17 19 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 9 17 24 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7 17 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------12 19 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 30 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 27 30 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 21 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 12 16 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 Y Y - - - - 6 14 14 4 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 27 30 3 - 4 motors / 6 motors in line 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 YY ---- 10 -7 -7 3 - Ice was mostly melted, causing little resistance to the vessel. - The most important ice pieces (iceberg fragments) were easily detectable (good visibility) 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 14 2 3 4 Proceed with 4 motors, full ahead 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 ------15 -12 -9 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 ------15 -15 -13 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 Y Y - - - - 6.5 -4 -4 2 Proceed full ahead with 5 motors. 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 YY ---- 8.5 2 4 3 Average speed of 9.5 knts for first 2 hours of watch. The vessel proceeds with 5 of 6 engines. Had to make 2 tries and go backwards because 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 - Y ---- 8 -7 -6 3 the vessel was immobilised due to the ice. Average speed of 6 knots in last 2 hours of watch. 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 10 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 Y Y - - - - 9 -2 -1 4 CAC 4 for R class is too low. We should have the same as for the Henry Larsen (CAC 3). The previous night the vessel travelled in decayed SY ice with an IN of -13. The vessel proceeded 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 YY ---- 14 12 19 2 without problem and the more severe ice was easy to detect. This morning there were ice pieces of different stages of decay. For a vessel of this class, normal or decayed nilas ice doesn't make a difference 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Y ----- 10 15 20 4 in the movement of the vessel. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Y - - - - - 9 10 16 3 Full ahead at 13 knots, with 4 of 6 motors. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - - - - - 6 15 22 3 Full ahead with 4 motors. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - - 12 11 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 7 9 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - Y - - 11 16 24 4 Maneuver easily around large ice pieces. Very little speed reduction necessary 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 ------11 8 16 4 Easy progress, no speed reduction necessary. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------10 14 23 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 Y - - - - - 6 15 18 4 Average speed between 16:00 and 17:00 was 11.5 knts. Proceeding with 4 motors. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 - - - Y - Y 6 -8 0 Some drainage. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 20 26 2

Figure 25 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Des Groseilliers. No ice regimes were identified to have a high potential for damage for this vessel although nine events were identified to have a potential for damage. 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 33

Figure 26 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel for the Des Groseilliers. There is no clear trend evident in the plot. There was a wide range of speeds regardless of the identified potential for damage.

Figure 27 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. There is not a strong correlation between the vessel speed and the Ice Numeral. In a few cases, the vessel was travelling at speeds up to 15 knots in ice regimes with high concentrations of decayed Second-year ice (see Figure 28). There is an interesting comparison for this ice regarding damage potential. In one event, the ice regime consisted of 8/10 decayed Second-year ice and 2/10 decayed Thick First-year ice. In this case, the ice regime was noted to have a Potential for Damage. Another ice regime consisted of 1/10 Multi-year ice, 7/10 Second- year ice and 2/10 First-year ice. This ice regime, although it was more severe than the previous ice regime, was said unlikely to damage the vessel. Two different Officers of the Watch rated these ice regimes.

Figure 28 to Figure 31 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Des Groseilliers.

5 Des Groseilliers

Damage Potential Number 1

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 25: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers.

CHC-TR-012 Page 34

20 Des Groseilliers

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 26: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers.

20 Des Groseilliers

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 27: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers.

CHC-TR-012 Page 35

Figure 28: Photograph of 2/10 decayed TFY and 8/10 decayed SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers in Norwegian Bay.

Figure 29: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

CHC-TR-012 Page 36

Figure 30: Ice regime with 6/10 N and 2 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 MFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.

CHC-TR-012 Page 37

7.0 CCGS PIERRE RADISSON

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 12. Capts. M. Bourdeau and S. Brûlé were the Commanding Officers. R. Boisvert and F. Guay were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from June 29 to October 17. Figure 2 shows the route for the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Most of the observations were made in Hudson Strait, Ungava Bay, Labrador Sea and Frobisher Bay. Forty-three ice regime observations were reported. Table 13 summarizes the ice regimes encountered by the Pierre Radisson.

Table 12: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON

CCGS PIERRE RADISSON Official No: 383326 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: 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

Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 12 Ice Class: 100 A Crew: 26 MARPOL: Yes Total: 38 IMO: 7510834 Crewing Regime: Conventional Available Berths: 26

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 29-Jun 9-Jul M. Bourdeau R. Boisvert 18 15 2 14-Aug 11-Sep S. Brûlé F. Guay 14 29 3 19-Sep 17-Oct M. Bourdeau R. Boisvert 11 11

CHC-TR-012 Page 38

Table 13: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Pierre Radisson.

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP # CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 20 4 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 ------5 11 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 ------6 16 26 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 15 29 30 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 29 30 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 29 30 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 29 30 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 ------8 16 26 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 ------4 9 18 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 ------5 8 17 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 3 18 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------2.5 10 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------5 16 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 ------3 7 16 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Y - Y - - - 8 20 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 ------5 11 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 ------1 3 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7.8 16 18 4 Some melting and drainage. Very few ridges. 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 22 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Y - Y Y - Y 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 Y - - - - - 23 24 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 21 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 20 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 20 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 2 3 Some decayed ice. 50% of the FY ice is decayed. TFY: 3 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 YYYYYY 2 3 4 2 pieces with size 3 to 3.5 km (radar). TFY and MFY ice have some ridges, and are decayed about 75%. Although a bit far, the photos show a vast floe (2.6 x 2.5 nm by radar) of a "dangerous" looking piece of ice. Never saw 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 --- YYY -24 -21 2 anything so ridged before. Photo IMG_1031 shows the end of a long ridge line, approx. 15 feet height. Photos IMG_0481 to 0484 show a panoramic view of a 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 --- Y - Y 10 5 14 2 multiyear floe (size 5). 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Y - - - - - 5 18 23 4 MFY and TFY ice are rotten/decayed. No melt. Water temperature: -1.3 deg C. Air temperature: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 --- Y - Y 13 12 21 4 -4.0 deg C. 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 - - - Y - Y 4.5 -7 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 ------5 -8 -3 2 Ice is reforming and ponds are freezing back 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 ------5 -18 -15 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 ------5 -18 -15 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 20 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------9 20 20 3 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 ------6 18 18 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 ------8 11 11 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 20 4 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 20 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 ------4 -16 -16 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 ------8 16 16 3

Figure 32 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Pierre Radisson. 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 33). 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-year ice (Figure 34). The Ice Numeral was –16. The speed of the Radisson in this ice regime was 4 knots.

CHC-TR-012 Page 39

5 Pierre Radisson

Damage Potential Number 1

2GW,4SY,4MY 3TFY,7MY Speed 4 kts Speed 5 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 32: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 33: 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 40

Figure 34: 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.

Figure 35 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 36 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. The graph shows 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.

Figure 37 to Figure 42 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Pierre Radisson.

CHC-TR-012 Page 41

20 Pierre Radisson

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 35: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number fro the Pierre Radisson.

20 Pierre Radisson

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 36: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. Note the lower speeds with the negative Ice Numerals.

CHC-TR-012 Page 42

Figure 37: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 38: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

CHC-TR-012 Page 43

Figure 39: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 40: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY& 1/10 TFY, & 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

CHC-TR-012 Page 44

Figure 41: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.

Figure 42: 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 45

8.0 CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER

The SIR WILFRID LAURIER was built in 1986 and is designated as a Light Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 14. Capts. M. Taylor and N. Thomas were the Commanding Officers. S. Thompson, C. Stock and C. Daigle were the ISS personnel onboard. Data were collected from July 19 to August 25. Figure 2 shows the location for the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Observations were made off Barrow, Smith Bay, Cape Parry, Victoria Strait and Larsen Sound. Thirteen ice regime observations were reported and these are summarized in Table 15.

Table 14: Information on the CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER

CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER Official No: 807038 Type: Light Icebreaker - Major Navaids Tender Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Pacific

Home Port: Victoria, B.C. Call Sign: CGJK When Built: 1986 Builder: Canadian Shipbuilding, Collingwood, Ont. Modernized:

Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 10 Ice Class: Arctic Class 2 Crew: 16 MARPOL: Yes Total: 26 IMO: 8320456 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 25

Field Start End Commanding ISS # of # of Comments Book Date Date Officer Personnel Events Photos 1 19-Jul 3-Aug M. Taylor S. Thompson 9 0 2 16-Aug 25-Aug N. Thomas C. Stock 4 26 3 - - M. Taylor C. Daigle 0 0 Open water - no data

CHC-TR-012 Page 46

Table 15: Summary of the Ice Regimes for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed Ice Numeral DP # CCG Comments N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots AIRSS Summer

0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 ------5 15 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 ------7 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 5.2 12 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y ----- 12 18 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 14 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 9 12 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y ----- 7 10 15 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 9 14 - Northbound through Victoria Strait, enroute Peel Sound for rendez-vous with cruise ship 'Hanseatic' 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 Y ----- 6 19 21 4 - Predominantly medium and thin FY ice showing significant degradation and melt - Thick FY in concentrations from trace amounts to 1/10 - Northern reaches of Victoria Strait 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 Y ----- 4.6 21 23 3 - Trace amts of SY ice and ridges - Significant melt and rot - Escort of M/V Hanseatic southwards through Larsen Sd and Victoria Strait 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 Y ----- 7 17 19 4 - Level, decayed MFY ice - No pressure, coming through ice edge. - Ship escorting M/V Hanseatic westwards towards Herschel Island (visibility reduced in fog throughout day). 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 --- Y -- 2 -16 -6 1 - Predominantly thick FY ice showing normal summer melt. Ridge remnants of old ice in small floes. - This was a significant ice field, and extr

Figure 43 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. A number of the observed ice regimes were not evaluated in terms of their damage potential, but those that were evaluated were quite consistent. There was one ice regime that was identified as having a high potential for damage for this vessel. That ice regime consisted of 9/10 ridged First-year ice with ponding (see Figure 44). The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a Type A vessel is –16. The speed of the vessel was 2 knots.

Figure 45 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is a trend of lower speeds in ice regimes that are identified as having a high damage potential.

Figure 46 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. The ice regime with a negative Ice Numeral had a low speed of 2 knots.

In general, the data from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier were quite consistent. Unfortunately, not all of the ice regimes identified were rated in terms of their damage potential. In addition, although there were photographs of the ice regimes, the photo names were not always indicated in the Field Book. This made it difficult to correlate the photos to the ice regimes.

Figure 47 and Figure 48 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

CHC-TR-012 Page 47

5 Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Damage Potential Number 1

9TFY(R) Speed 2 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 43: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Figure 44: Photograph of 9/10 ridged Thick First-year ice as observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Ice Numeral for this ice is –16 for a Type A vessel.

CHC-TR-012 Page 48

20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Damage Potential Number

Figure 45: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Vessel speed (knots) 5 9TFY(R) Speed 2 kts

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral

Figure 46: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

CHC-TR-012 Page 49

Figure 47: Ice regime with decayed 1/10 FY, 6/10 MFY & 1/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Figure 48: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 FY, 4/10 MFY & 1/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

CHC-TR-012 Page 50

9.0 GENERAL ANALYSIS

The data obtained from this study can be used to investigate several aspects of the Ice Regime System. An analysis of the data is provided in the following sections.

9.1 Calculating the Ice Numeral

The data collection project showed that defining ice regimes and calculating the Ice Numeral was not a problem. Figure 49 shows the overall breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral for the 201 events. In 72% of the cases, the Ice Numeral was calculated correctly based upon the observed ice regime. However, three different types of mistakes were made: § The Open Water was not included in the ice regime in 16% of the cases. Since the Open Water Ice Multiplier is +2 for all vessels, this led to an overly negative Ice Numeral for those ice regimes. This was done consistently by a few of the ISS personnel, and this skews the data towards a larger number of incorrect Ice Numerals. § The wrong Ice Multiplier was used in 9% of the cases. For example, the ice regime was identified as having decayed ice, but the decay bonus of +1 was not applied to the Ice Multiplier. § In 3% of the cases, mistakes were made summing the contributions from each ice type when determining the Ice Numeral (i.e. arithmetic errors).

These results are encouraging despite the errors in determining the Ice Numeral in about one-quarter of the observations. The program shows that determining the Ice Numeral is relatively straightforward once the ice regime has been defined. The mistakes of neglecting the Open Water and incorrect summing can be corrected by taking a more careful approach. The mistake of choosing the incorrect Ice Multiplier would be remedied with more experience with the Ice Regime System.

Incorrect Ice Decay not Multiplier used taken into 1% account 8% Arithmetic error 2%

Open Water not taken into account 16%

Incorrect Ice Concentration Ice Numeral 1% calculated correctly 72%

Figure 49: Pie chart showing the breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral.

CHC-TR-012 Page 51

9.2 Ice Numeral and Vessel Damage

The Ice Regime System has been developed such that it should minimize the amount of vessel damage due to severe ice regimes (i.e. IN < 0) whilst allowing transit in ice regimes that should not cause vessel damage (IN ≥ 0). In this program, there was no damage to any of the CCG vessels, so all of the Ice Numerals should be zero or positive. Figure 50a shows a pie chart of the Ice Numerals showing that in 92% of the reported observations, the Ice Numeral was zero or positive. Figure 50b shows the corresponding pie chart when the Ice Numeral was determined using the Summer Bonus (as discussed in Section 2.0). In this case, there is a slight improvement, with 93% of the Ice Numerals positive. (a) (b)

Positive Positive Ice Numeral Ice Numeral 92% 93%

Negative Negative Ice Numeral Ice Numeral 8% 7% AIRSS Definition AIRSS Definition with AIRSS decay with Summer Bonus Figure 50: Pie charts showing the number of positive and negative Ice Numerals using the (a) AIRSS definition (including decay) and (b) the Ice Numeral with the Summer Bonus.

9.3 CCG Comments on the Ice Numeral

The CCG Officer of the Watch (OOW) was asked to comment on the ability of the Ice Numeral to reflect the damage potential of the ice regime. Omitting those observations where the IN was incorrectly determined, there were 129 observations with data. In 83% of the cases, the OOW indicated that, in their opinion, the Ice Numeral accurately reflected the damage potential of the ice. In the remaining 17% of the cases, the OOW indicated that the Ice Numeral did not reflect the damage potential of the ice regime (Figure 51).

Table 16 lists the conditions and the reasons given why the OOW felt that the Ice Numeral was not representative of the damage severity. In some cases, the fact that floe size and trace amounts of Old Ice are not considered were identified as the reason. Also, some ice regimes that had a low ice concentration (1 to 3-tenths of TFY or MY ice) gave

CHC-TR-012 Page 52

a high positive Ice Numeral, yet that type of regime can still be dangerous. One astute person noted that for their vessel, which had a CAC3 designation, the Ice Numeral was higher for decayed Thick First-year ice than it was for Open Water. This aspect has been considered in the suggestions for changing the method in which the decay is applied to the System (Timco and Johnston, 2003).

Ice Numeral Ice Numeral not representative of the representative of the severity of the severity of the Ice Regime Ice Regime 83% 17%

Figure 51: Pie chart showing the assessment of the Officer of the Watch on the ability of the Ice Numeral to reflect the damage potential of the ice regime.

Table 16: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral

Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed IN DP # Why Ice Numeral Not Representative N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots

0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 27 4 Because of traces of old ice around the FY and SY floes. 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 YY ---- 10 -7 3 Average vessel speed of 10 knts. The vessel proceeded at 6 knots full ahead with 5 motors, 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 YY ---- 6.5 -4 2 without any major problems. Vessel went full ahead into floes, and reduced speed after 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 YY ---- 8.5 2 3 entering them. 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 YY ---- 10 2 3 Decayed ice - easy progress 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 YY ---- 9 -2 4 Advanced stage of melting - no pressure on vessel. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 YY ---- 14 12 2 An ice numeral of 12 gives a sense of security. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------10 14 2 The high IN would indicate that there is no risk of damage. The code poorly reflects the ice conditions, according to the 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 YYYYYY 1 3 Navigation Officer. The ice code should be more detailed to allow different coding. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 --- Y - Y 13 12 4 Very solid old ice - only 1/10. 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 4 Same number as obs 008 but tougher condition 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 2 5 0 2 Y - Y --- 4 23 2 Does not reflect ice conditions Cargo ship in escort could not possibly break through on own. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 ------8 14 2 Giant floe (> 10 miles) to cross. Even though this numeral is higher than Observation #18 (IN = 11), the ice encountered was harder because of thicker 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y -- Y -- 10 17 2 ridges and solid MY floes. Also, vast TFY floes were hard to break because of their inertia. How can thick first year give a numerical value the same as 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 ----- Y 8 12 2 open water? How can thick first year give the same numerical value as 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 ----- Y 6 16 2 open water? How can thick first year have the same numerical value as 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ------13 20 2 open water? How can first year have the same numerical value as open 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 --- Y -- 14 17 2 water?

CHC-TR-012 Page 53

9.4 Ice Numeral and Vessel Speed

Figure 52 shows a plot of vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for all vessels. There is no evident trend. This, however, is not surprising since the vessel speed is not necessarily the highest speed that the vessel could travel in the ice regime. In many cases, the CCG vessels were engaged in activities that would limit their speed (e.g. escorting another vessel). It is interesting to note that for the Des Groseilliers, there are a few observations of high speeds in ice regimes that gave a highly negative Ice Numeral.

Figure 53 shows a similar plot to Figure 52, except that the Ice Numeral was calculated using the Summer Bonus.

20 Louis S. St-Laurent Terry Fox Henry Larsen Des Groseilliers Pierre Radisson Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 AIRSS Ice Numeral

Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the AIRSS Ice Numeral for all vessels.

9.5 Surface Properties and Ice Decay

Information was also collected to try to relate the surface conditions of the ice (i.e. the Stage of Melt) and ice strength. If a proven correlation could be found, the Stage of Melt could be used to infer the strength of the bulk ice sheet. To collect information on this, the ISS were asked to characterize the surface properties as: Snow Cover, Snow Melt, Ponding, Drainage, or Rotten/Decayed. These surface properties were correlated to the ice strength that was obtained from the weekly Ice Strength Chart issued by the CIS. Figure 54 shows a histogram plot of the average ice strength for each of the five surface

CHC-TR-012 Page 54

conditions. There is a weak trend of decreasing ice strength with the increasing state of surface decay. However, the range of the data is not large and the trend is not monotonic. This indicates that the surface conditions in the summer cannot be reliably used to indicate the strength of the ice sheet.

20 Louis S. St-Laurent Terry Fox Henry Larsen Des Groseilliers Pierre Radisson Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Vessel speed (knots) 5

0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral with Summer Bonus

Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral calculated using the Summer Bonus.

4 Ice Strength (%) 2

0 Snow Cover Snow Melt Ponding Drainage Rotten/Decay Stage of Melt

Figure 54: Histogram of the average ice strength versus the Stage of Melt of the surface ice during the summer months in the Arctic. The condition of Snow Cover would have significantly higher strengths if winter conditions were also considered.

CHC-TR-012 Page 55

9.6 Ground-Truthing of CIS Ice Charts

The data collected can be used as ground-truth measurements of ice conditions forecasted by the CIS on the Daily Ice Charts. Since the date and location of the vessels are recorded in the Field Books, it is possible to compare the ice conditions observed onboard the vessel to those indicated in the most recent CIS Ice Chart for that location.

Figure 55 shows a histogram of the difference between the total ice concentration indicated on the CIS Ice Chart, compared to that observed onboard the CCG vessels. Each data point corresponds to a particular latitude/longitude position and the concentration is compared to the last available Ice Chart for that location. The comparison shows that for total ice concentration, the CIS Charts agree with the actual observations to within ±1/10 in 60% of the cases. This agreement is quite remarkable considering the resolution of the Ice Charts. In this case, a point observation is compared to an Ice Chart that has a scale of 1:2-million. Overall, there was a slight tendency for the CIS ice charts to under-predict the actual total ice concentration.

40 CIS-Charts - Observed 60% within +/- 1/10 of predicted concentration 30

20 Frequency (%) 10

0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Underpredicted Difference in Total Concentration Overpredicted

Figure 55: Histogram showing the difference between the total ice concentration from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions.

Figure 56 shows a histogram of the difference between the CIS charts and the observed ice concentrations for Thick First-year ice. The concentrations agree for 38% of the 148 observations that involved Thick First-year ice. In 63% of the cases, the actual and CIS chart conditions agree to within ±1/10th concentration. Overall, there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to over-predict the actual Thick First-year ice concentration.

Figure 57 shows a histogram of the difference between the CIS charts and the observed ice concentrations for Multi-year ice. The concentrations agree for 51% of the 92 observations that have Multi-year ice present. In 81% of the cases, the actual and

CHC-TR-012 Page 56

predicted conditions agree to within ±1/10th concentration. Overall, there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to underpredict the actual Multi-year ice concentration.

40 63% within +/- 1/10 of CIS Charts - Observed 35 predicted 30 No thick FY ice 25

15 Frequency (%) 10

0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Underpredicted Difference in Thick FY Ice Concentration Overpredicted

Figure 56: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Thick First-year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions.

60 CIS Charts - Observed 50 81% within +/- 1/10 of predicted

30 No MY ice

Frequency (%) 20

0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Underpredicted Difference in MY ice concentration Overpredicted

Figure 57: 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 57

9.7 Ice Numerals from the CIS Charts

In the Ice Regime System, the Ice Numeral must be based on the ice regime seen from the Bridge of the vessel. Prior to transiting ice-covered waters, the CIS Ice Charts can be used to generate Ice Numerals for planning purposes and route selection. Since the Ice Charts were available to the Coast Guard, it was possible to compare the Ice Numerals calculated from the bridge observations with those estimated from the CIS Ice Charts. Figure 58 shows the results for the 172 events in which Ice Chart information was available. The analysis indicates that the Ice Numeral estimated using the CIS Ice Charts was in agreement with the bridge observations in about 27% of the events. On average, the Ice Charts overestimated the Ice Numeral. This is a direct result of the finding from this study that the CIS Charts often underpredict the amount of Multi-year ice, especially for smaller Multi-year floes.

30 CIS Charts - Observed 25

Frequency (%) 10

0 -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Underpredicted Difference in Ice Numeral Overpredicted

Figure 58: 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.

CHC-TR-012 Page 58

10.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This data collection program was highly successful and provided a great deal of extremely useful information. The data have been used to evaluate the ease of application of the Ice Regime System, to investigate any correlation between the ice surface properties and the ice strength, to ground truth the CIS Ice Charts, to investigate the use of the CIS Ice Charts in providing guidance for the Ice Regime System, and to apply the experience of the CCG Commanding Officers to the Ice Regime System.

Based on this analysis, there are a number of recommendations to implement in a future data collection program of this type.

• More information should be collected on the ice regimes that are deemed to have a high potential for damage. Questions should ask - Why is the ice regime dangerous? Would speed reduction help? If so, what would be a safe speed in the ice regime?

• In some cases, there seemed to be confusion on the question of the potential for damage of the ice regime. Some answers appeared to indicate that the OOW was judging the danger of the ice regime for all vessels. It should be emphasized in the Field Book that the question of damage potential pertains only to their particular vessel.

• There appeared to be some inconsistency amongst the evaluation of the ice regimes. It would be useful to have the Commanding Officers review the hazard assessment for each ice regime.

• Several problems were encountered in the calculation of the Ice Numeral in the Field Books. The two most common errors were the omission of the Open Water portion of the regime, and the use of incorrect Ice Multipliers. These problems may indicate that a better explanation of the Ice Numeral calculation should be provided.

With the success of this data collection program, a similar program will be undertaken during the summer of 2003.

CHC-TR-012 Page 59

11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The CHC would like to acknowledge the financial support of Transport Canada. They would also like to thank the Commanding Officers of the Coast Guard icebreakers, Marie-France Gauthier, Bob Zacharuk and Darlene Langlois and the Ice Service Specialists of the CIS, Gary Sidock and Jean Ouellet of the CCG, Dugald Wells of D. Wells Marine for his input into the program, and Victor Santos-Pedro of Transport Canada for his support of this work.

12.0 REFERENCES

AIRSS, 1996. Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) Standards, Transport Canada, June 1996, TP 12259E, Ottawa. Ont., Canada.

ASPPR, 1989. Proposals for the Revision of the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations. Transport Canada Report TP 9981, Ottawa. Ont., Canada.

Gauthier, M-F., De Abreu, R., Timco, G.W. and Johnston, M.E. 2002. Ice Strength Information in The Canadian Arctic: From Science To Operations. Proceedings of the 16th IAHR International Symposium on Ice, pp 203-210, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Langlois, D., De Abreu, R., Gauthier, M-F., Timco, G.W. and Johnston, M.E. 2003. Early Results of the Canadian Ice Service Ice Strength Chart. Proceedings POAC’03 (this volume), Trondheim, Norway.

Timco, G.W. and Kubat, I. 2002. Scientific Basis for Ice Regime System: Discussion Paper. NRC Report CHC-TR-002, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Timco, G.W. and Johnston, M. 2003. Ice Decay Boundaries for the Ice Regime System: Recommendations from a Scientific Analysis. NRC Report CHC-TR-009, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Transport Transports Canada Canada PUBLICATION DATA FORM - FORMULE DE DONNÉES SUR LA PUBLICATION

1. Transport Canada Publication No. 2. Project No. - No de l’étude 3. Recipients Catalogue No. No de la publication de Transports Canada No de catalogue du destinataire

TP 14097 E 4. Title and Subtitle - Titre et sous-titre 5. Publication Date - Date de la publication

Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers – 2002 March 2003

Programme de collecte de données sur les régimes de glaces à bord des brise-glaces de la GCC – 2002 6. Performing Organization Document No. No du document de l’organisme

CHC-TR-012 7. Author(s) - Auteur(s) 8. Transport Canada File No. No de dossier de Transports Canada G.W. Timco, M. Johnston, D. Sudom, I. Kubat and A. Collins

9. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address - Nom et adresse de l’organisme exécutant 10. DSS File No. - No de dossier - ASC

Canadian Hydraulics Centre National Research Council 11. DSS or Transport Canada Contract No. Ottawa, Ont., K1A 0R6 Canada No de contrat - ASC ou Transports Canada

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address - Nom et adresse de l’organisme parrain 13. Type of Publication and Period Covered Genre de publication et période visée Transport Canada Marine Safety Technical Report 330 Sparks St. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code -Code de l’roganisme parrain Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0N8

15. Supplementary Notes - Remarques additionelles 16. Project Officer - Agent de projet

V.M. Santos-Pedro 17. Abstract – Résumé

A field program was designed and carried out on board six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers during the summer of 2002. Information was collected on the ice conditions (ice regimes) and the stage of melting (decay) of the ice. In total, 201 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 and an overview of the results. The program was highly successful in all aspects.

18. Keywords - Mots-clés 19. Distribution Statement - Diffusion

AIRSS, CCG. Ice Numerals, Regulations, Icebreakers

20. Security Classification (of this publication) 21. Security Classification (of this page) 22. Declassification (date) 23. No. of Pages 24. Price-Prix Classification de sécurité Classification de sécurité (de cette Déclassification (date) Nombre de pages (de cette publication) page) 61 Unclassified Unclassified