Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T05:10:55.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Surge motion of an ice floe in waves: comparison of a theoretical and an experimental model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Michael H. Meylan
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Physical Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia E-mail: mike.meylan@newcastle.edu.au
Lucas J. Yiew
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Luke G. Bennetts
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Benjamin J. French
Affiliation:
National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Giles A. Thomas
Affiliation:
National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A theoretical model and an experimental model of surge motions of an ice floe due to regular waves are presented. The theoretical model is a modified version of Morrison’s equation, valid for small floating bodies. The experimental model is implemented in a wave basin at a scale 1:100, using a thin plastic disc to model the floe. The processed experimental data display a regime change in surge amplitude when the incident wavelength is approximately twice the floe diameter. It is shown that the theoretical model is accurate in the high-wavelength regime, but highly inaccurate in the low-wavelength regime.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2015
Figure 0

Table 1. Floe parameters

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Model floes. With edge barrier (foreground) and without edge barrier (background).

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Model floe during test. Scattered waves are evident.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Example decomposition of surge and drift motions. Full signal (solid curve), drift (dashed) and surge (dot-dash).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. An example of the steady-state window (solid curve). Circles mark peaks and troughs within the window.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Comparison of non-dimensional surge amplitude, as a function of non-dimensional wavelength, predicted by the Rumer model (curves) and experimental data (symbols). The Rumer model uses added mass Cm = 0.1, wave height H = 10 mm, and drag coefficient Cd = 0 (solid curve), 0.005 (dashed), 0.1 (dot-dash) and 0.5 (dotted). Experimental data are taken from tests with wave heights H = 10mm (o), 20mm (x), 30mm (+), 40mm (*), 50mm (⋄), 60 mm (∇), 70 mm (Δ) and 80 mm (◃).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Same as Figure 5, but for H = 40 mm.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Same as Figure 5, but for H = 40 mm and Cm = 0.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Same as Figure 5, but for H = 40 mm and Cm = 0.2.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Experimental data for heave motion. The results are labelled by approximate wave height, as in Figure 5.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Experimental data for pitch motion. The results are labelled by approximate wave height, as in Figure 5.