H. S.

Kim
e-mail: hs-john.kim@samsung.com
M. K. Ha
Samsung Heavy Industries,
Koje-City, Korea
F. M. Williams
D. Molyneux
e-mail: David.Molyneux@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
NRC Institute for Ocean Technology,
St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
H. H. Chun
e-mail: chunahh@pusan.ac.kr
Pusan National University,
Pusan, Korea
Speed-Power Performance of
95,000DWT Arctic Tanker Design
When Arctic offshore development in the 1970s first led to consideration of ice capable
tankers, there was a high level of uncertainty over design requirements for both safety
and ship performance, and a lack of reliable methods to evaluate design proposals. Since
that time, improved understanding of the ice environment has raised the confidence of
design specifications. Parallel developments have resulted in a suite of engineering tools
for ship performance evaluation at the design stage. Recent development of offshore and
near shore oil and gas reserves in several countries, together with economic studies of
increased transportation through the Russian Arctic, led to renewed interest in ice ca-
pable tanker design. In response, Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) applied its experience
in tanker design and construction to the design of a specialized tanker with ice capability.
SHI produced two prototype hull designs for further study. The performance of both hulls
and of the propellers was evaluated at the Institute for Ocean Technology (IOT) in St.
John’s, Newfoundland. This paper discusses the development of the design, describes the
model experiments to determine performance and variations, and presents the results. It
shows how physical modeling can provide insight into design features, and points out the
areas where further research will have the greatest effect. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1894406兴

1 Introduction This, in turn, placed restrictions on the brake horsepower that

SHI undertook a study leading to the design of a tanker oper-
ating on a hypothetical route between Western Europe and the
Dikson area. SHI designed and built the Hibernia oil platform
shuttle tankers, which operate in occasional pack ice. Design re-
quirements for the proposed Dikson route, where there would be
continuous operation in heavy ice, were much more severe. Ice
along the voyage route is mainly first year level ice, with thick-
ness less than 2 m, and midwinter strength about 500 kPa.
A typical operating scenario for a target region of interest
would require the tanker to maintain a reasonable speed in 1 m of
medium first year ice, and to be assured of making progress in
2 m of first year ice. In practice, the tanker must also be able to
operate in snow-covered ice, and be capable of transiting certain
ridge and rubble configurations. Furthermore, the tanker must
have a verifiable turning ability in the specified ice conditions.
These requirements were considered in the overall performance
evaluation, but this paper concentrates on the level ice power
requirements.
2 Icebreaking Tanker Concept Design
2.1 General Requirements. SHI selected a 95 k DWT Afra-
max class tanker as the basis for the design. The displacement is
119 k tons, with beam, length and block coefficient constraints of
44 m, 270 m, and 0.749, respectively. Limited water depth on
portions of the route restricted tanker draft to 11.5 m. The ship is
required to break 2 m of 500 kPa level ice, and maintain speeds of
16 knots in open water and 4 knots in ice. The objective of the
concept design was good performance in both open water and ice.
The design study began with a review of information on the
performance of different icebreaking bow types. SHI selected the
Canadian R-Class bow, a classical icebreaking bow with relatively
low wave resistance and good sea-keeping characteristics, as the
basis for the bow design.
There is little information in the literature on stern design, and
yet it is a critical factor. The 11.5 m draft restriction and necessary
propeller tip clearance limited propeller diameter less than 7 m.
Contributed by the OMAE Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFF-
SHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
February 26, 2004; final revision, October 9, 2004. Review conducted by: S. Jones.
could be delivered. SHI selected a twin skeg design to meet the
requirements of the general arrangement and also to provide pro-
tection for propeller shafts in heavy ice. The angle, inclination,
and separation distance for the skegs were developed design pa-
rameters.
2.2 Speed-Power Prediction. At the concept stage, a variety
of methods may be used to estimate ship power requirements.
Normally the estimate combines a resistance calculation with pro-
pulsive efficiency.
The ice resistance Ri depends on ship velocity v, length L, draft
T, and beam B, as well as ice thickness h, ice strength ␴ f , water
and ice densities ␳w and ␳i, respectively, and the buoyant density
⌬␳ = ␳w − ␳i. Studies of full scale and model scale data 关1–3兴 re-
sulted in the equation
R/␳wgBh2 = C0 + C1␴ f /␳wgh + C2v/冑gh 共1兲
where the coefficients C0, C1, and C2 are given by empirical for-
mulas. Through dimensional analysis, Vance 关4兴 derived an equa-
tion similar to 共1兲 with the addition of buoyant density and ship
length. Theoretical determinations of resistance that are based on
detailed calculations for the ice breaking forces, such as Naegle
关5兴 and Milano 关6兴, take into account hull form factors but idealize
the ship-ice interaction. Lindqvist’s method 关7兴 gives consider-
ation to ice properties and is reasonably simple to apply. Figure 1
shows sample calculations of ice resistance at ship speed of
1.544 m / s 共3 knots兲 using the methods of Edwards et al. 关1兴 and
Lindqvist 关7兴.
The propulsive efficiency of a ship at icebreaking speeds is
generally much lower than the propulsive efficiency at its design
speed in open water. The very nature of screw propeller operation
means that the highest propulsive efficiencies 共typically between
0.65 and 0.7兲 are obtained at advance ratios much higher than are
practical for icebreaking speeds. As a result propulsive efficiency
at icebreaking speeds can be as low as 0.11. The propulsive effi-
ciency can be further reduced by the amount of ice flowing
through the propeller, which results in obstructed flow and me-
chanical impact with the blades 关8兴. The spread in resistance esti-
mates, combined with the difficulty in predicting the effect of ice
on propulsive efficiency makes theoretical power predictions un-

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2005, Vol. 127 / 135
Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Estimates of ice resistance, 3 knots.
satisfactory even at the concept design stage. Hence SHI relied on
the model tests of the initial designs for power estimates.
3 Hull Form Development
3.1 Initial Lines of Development. The lines shown in Fig.
2共a兲 was the first attempt at meeting the performance specifica-
tions within the constraints of draft and displacement discussed
above. Stem angle A, ice knife B, shoulder angle C, and flare
angle D were key design parameters. The ice knife aids in devel-
Fig. 2 „a… M493, Body Plan and Bow Profile; „b… M501, Body plan and bow profile
Fig. 3 The flow pattern of three skeg direction types; „a… inward skeg, „b… straight skeg, „c…
outward skeg
136 / Vol. 127, MAY 2005
Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
opment of the stem crack and prevents the ship from riding up too
far on the ice 关9兴. Small stem and shoulder angles reduce the
horizontal component of the icebreaking force 关10兴, while increas-
ing angles promote clearing of ice away from propellers. For the
tanker, the stem angle is 25 deg at the waterline and 35 deg near
the knife, and the shoulder angle is 30 deg. To meet the highest
ice classification requirements within the Russian Class Rules, a
flare angle of 8 deg was included in the mid-body to reduce the
likelihood of entrapment in heavy ice 关11兴.
At the stern, inward, outward, and vertical skegs were consid-
ered. The commercial code SHIPFLOW was used to analyze the
flow field. Figure 3 shows the hull form grid generation and
streamlines on a twin skeg stern. Jonk 关12兴 studied the effect of
vertical inclination of the skeg on the propulsive performance of
the ship. He concluded that the difference in propulsive perfor-
mance was caused by the pressure difference between the inside
and outside of the skeg and the cross flow induced by this
difference.
The results in Fig. 3 show that the outward inclination will
induce ice pieces to flow to the outside. A skeg with 3 deg out-
ward angles 共“K” of Fig. 2兲, which also has the benefit of in-
creased open water flow into the propeller, was adopted. The dis-
tance between the skegs of SHI’s tanker is 0.39B and the
inclination of the skeg bottom is 13 deg to 15 deg. The propeller
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Principal dimensions of M501
Items Values
LBP 共m兲 270
Breadth 共m兲 44
Depth 共m兲 20
Draft 共m兲 11.5
Cb 0.7499
Displacement 共cu. m兲 102,458
rotation direction is outward. Outward rotation deflects oncoming
ice flow away from the propeller but is unfavorable to the propul-
sion performance in the open sea.
3.2 Hull Lines Modification. The first set of model tests, in
ice and open water, were carried out at the ice basin of IOT,
NRC-CNRC, St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada. Hull M493 had
acceptable open water performance but the ice clearing resistance
component was higher than ice breaking resistance and the pro-
pulsive efficiency in ice was considerably lower than the equiva-
lent open water value. In level ice, large numbers of ice pieces
reached the propeller disk area. Ice pieces impacting the propeller
blades increased torque and reduced propulsive efficiency. The
main intention of the hull modification was to reduce the inflow of
ice pieces to the propeller disk area and to improve the ice clear-
ing performance.
The enhanced flow generated by the outward skeg also in-
creased the amount of ice directed towards the propeller. Hence
the skeg angle 共“K” of Fig. 2兲 was changed to inward to reduce
the flow between the skegs. To reduce the size of the ice pieces,
and also to reduce the distance ice pieces moved along the hull,
the bow angles 共“C” of Fig. 2兲 were increased. It was anticipated
that this change would reduce ice clearing and buoyancy forces
but increase breaking force because of the additional energy ab-
sorbed in breaking smaller pieces. Third, the buttock angle 共“M”
of Fig. 2兲 was reduced to improve ice clearing. Figure 2共b兲 shows
the modified hull form M501. Table 1 gives the principal dimen-
sions.
4 Physical Model Experiments
4.1 Description of Experiments. The ship models were con-
structed of High Density foam coated with fiberglass and finished
with epoxy paint. A scale of 1:31.938 was selected so that stock
propellers could be used for the initial tests. The models were
ballasted to specified draft, GM, and radii of gyration.
The EGADS 共CD兲 model ice in the ice tank at IMD provides
the kinematics and mechanical characteristics required to model
the ship-ice interaction correctly 关13,14兴. Model ice thicknesses
were selected to represent 1 m and 2 m thick ice at full scale. For
each ice sheet, ice thickness, density, flexural and shear strengths,
compressive failure stress, and ship-ice friction coefficient were
measured.
For resistance tests, the fully appended model was fitted with
dummy propeller hubs. The model was fixed to the tow carriage,
free in pitch, heave, and roll. For self-propulsion tests, M493 was
fitted with IMD stock propellers 66L and 66R, while M501 was
fitted with Samsung designed propellers. Thrust, torque and shaft
rotation speed were measured separately on each shaft. For the
self-propulsion experiments, the model was towed through the ice
at constant speed, and propeller revolution was varied to give
positive and negative values of the tow force. The model self-
propulsion point was interpolated from the data as the point at
which the tow force was zero. Maneuvering experiments were
carried out with both hulls, and a wake survey was completed for
Model 501, which was fitted with the Samsung propeller. This
paper concentrates on the resistance and self-propulsion results.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 4 Comparison of effective power in open water, full scale
4.2 Ship Open Water Performance. For the open water tests
with M493, the water temperature was 0.5 ° C and the kinematics
viscosity was 1.76⫻ 10−6 m2 / s. With M501, the water tempera-
ture was 3.2 ° C and the kinematics viscosity was 1.61
⫻ 10−6 m2 / s. Model values were converted to full scale for salt
water at 15 deg using form factors 共1 + K兲 of 1.23 and 1.30, re-
spectively. Figure 4 compares the effective powers, calculated
from resistance, over the open water speed range. The higher val-
ues for M501 are due to slight increases in wetted surface and
displacement.
4.3 Resistance in Ice. Provided that the wave making com-
ponent of the hydrodynamic resistance is small, resistance in ice
can be assumed to be the sum of hydrodynamic, ice breaking, ice
submergence, and ice clearing components 关15兴;
Rtot = Row + Rs + Rcl + Rbr 共2兲
The submergence, clearing, and breaking forces for any speed and
ice thickness may be expressed in dimensionless form by
Rs = Cs⌬␳gBhd 共3兲
冉 冊
c/2
gh
Rcl = Ccl␳iBhv2 共4兲
v2
Rbr = Cbr␳iBhv2 冉 冊␴fh
␳ iB v 2
b/2
共5兲
The component force equations are similar to those derived in
关15兴, verified with a large data set for the Canadian R-Class ice-
breaker. In the current study, the nondimensional coefficients c, b,
Cs, Ccl, and Cbr were determined for each hull form from the
model tests according to the procedure outlined below.
Model resistance was measured in open water, and in level ice
and presawn ice at two ice thicknesses. Hydrodynamic resistance
Row was determined as a second order function of velocity from
the open water results. The resistance in presawn ice was identi-
fied as Row + Rs + Rcl, from which Row was removed. When Rs
+ Rcl was plotted against v at constant h, the intercept was Rs. The
dimensionless Rcl was then plotted against the thickness Froude
number, gh / v2, for all v and h, to determine Ccl and c. Calculated
values of Row + Rs + Rcl, were subtracted from the total resistance
in level ice to give Rbr. Finally, the dimensionless Rbr was plotted
against the strength number, ␴ f h / ␳iBv2, for all v and h, to deter-
mine Cbr and b.
The coefficients for the two hull forms are given in Table 2.
From the nondimensional coefficients, the icebreaking resistance
in specified conditions at any scale may be determined. Figure 5
shows the model resistance forces for M501in 63 mm level ice.
The comparison of results showed that the largest difference
was in the breaking component. The total breaking force was
higher for M501, as anticipated in the design modification. Con-
trary to expectations, the submergence and clearing forces were
not reduced for M501. Over the range of velocities considered, the
MAY 2005, Vol. 127 / 137
 Table 2 Comparison of resistance coefficients
Cs Ccl
M493 1.10 1.86
M501 1.15 2.18
differences were small. Figure 6 compares breaking and clearing
resistance components over a range of model speeds for M493
and M501 in 63 mm level ice.
4.4 Power Requirements in Ice. The measured parameters in
the model self-propulsion tests in ice were expressed as quadratic
functions of propeller speed at each model speed in each set of ice
conditions. The self-propulsion point was determined as the pro-
peller speed at which the model tow force vanished. Total thrust
and total torque, expressed as quadratic functions of propeller
speed, were then evaluated at the self-propulsion point.
For analysis of the self-propulsion in ice, it is convenient to
refer to coefficients, such as hull factors and propulsive efficiency,
used in analysis of self-propulsion in open water. These param-
eters may be used to determine relative performance in ice and
open water. However, they do not correctly represent the dynam-
ics of a propeller in the presence of ice, since the changes in
propeller force due to ice impacts or blocked flow may be much
larger than the effects of hull and wake in normal operating con-
ditions. For example, wake fraction uses thrust or torque identity
between the propeller in open flow and the propeller behind the
ship to determine an equivalent mean flow velocity for the pro-
peller behind the ship. When ice is introduced the flow can no
longer be steady and the concept of a wake fraction, based on the
mean performance of the propeller behind the ship, no longer
applies. Relative rotative efficiency is also a link between a mean
steady flow in open water and behind the ship, and this concept is
Fig. 5 Model scale resistance components for M501, 63 mm
Fig. 6 Model scale resistance components for M493 and M501,
63 mm ice
138 / Vol. 127, MAY 2005
Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
c Cbr b
1.02 0.89 1.92
0.96 1.59 1.67
also no longer valid in ice.
Thrust measured in ice can be compared with the resistance in
ice, and a thrust deduction coefficient determined. The equivalent
coefficient can be determined from the open water overload ex-
periments. For the open water values, we have chosen to use a
flow identity method, which considers the open water overload
data at the same model speed and shaft rate of rotation as the
self-propulsion point in ice. In this case, the only hydrodynamic
difference is the broken ice interfering with the propeller.
Overall propulsive efficiency is another valid parameter, pro-
vided that the main factors affecting propulsive efficiency in ice
are correctly modeled in the ice tank. These are the size, strength,
density and velocity of ice pieces, and the flow of ice around the
stern. Hence the procedure for ship performance prediction as-
sumes that the net propulsive efficiency value obtained for the
model applies to the ship. Based on the results of model experi-
ments, the propulsive efficiency is primarily a function of ship
speed and ice thickness. So, when calculating delivered power for
ice strengths other than the ones used for testing, it is assumed
that the propulsive efficiency does not change.
For each model speed and ice condition, actual resistance was
calculated from the results of the experiments. Then the thrust
deduction coefficient t was determined from Eq. 共6兲 and an effec-
tive net propeller efficiency ␩D in ice was decided by Eq. 共7兲,
Rtot
t=1− 共6兲
T
Rtotv
␩D = 共7兲
2␲nQ
where, T, Q, and n are thrust, torque, and shaft speed, respec-
tively. For comparison, the same calculations were made with the
open water results at the overload conditions, that is at the same
model and propeller speeds:
Rtot + Fx
t=1− 共8兲
T
and
共Rtot + Fx兲v
␩D = 共9兲
2␲nQ
where, Fx is the tow force at the given shaft speed. The open
water efficiency is the optimum for the given overload condition.
Table 3 contains these results.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of the overall propulsive effi-
ciency for the two models in 63 mm and 30 mm of level ice,
respectively. The change in flow pattern near the stern due to the
change in skeg angle did not have a significant effect on propul-
sive efficiency. A small effect was observed at the highest speed.
Thrust deduction is a coefficient that can be applied to propul-
sive performance in ice, but its interpretation requires some care.
Ice impacts with the propeller are recorded as loss of thrust, but
typically the ice impacts are very short duration. If the ice impacts
are very large, they will influence the mean value of thrust. If the
model ship was self-propelled, it would slow down as a result of
the impacts. However, since the model is towed at constant speed,
the average thrust value can appear to be less than the value
needed to move the ship. Negative values of thrust deduction
factor in ice are an indication of the degree of propeller ice inter-
action, rather than the thrust needed to propel the ship. The nega-
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 3 Model propulsive efficiency in open water and in ice

t t ␩d ␩d t t ␩d ␩d
V m/s M493គice M493គow M493គice M493គow M501គice M501គow M501គice M501គow
h = 30 mm
0.18 0.20 0.07 0.12 0.16
0.27 −0.16 0.25 0.23 0.24
0.36 0.31 0.09 0.20 0.23 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.24
0.55 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.31 0.04 0.33 0.30 0.27
h = 63 mm
0.18 −0.15 0.06 0.12 0.11
0.27 −0.13 0.13 0.16 0.14
0.36 −0.05 0.08 0.17 0.18 −0.09 0.15 0.18 0.16
0.55 −0.06 0.09 0.23 0.25 −0.06 0.17 0.19 0.19

tive values of t共ice兲 for both hulls in 63 mm ice indicate frequent
propeller ice impacts, an observation that was corroborated by
video records of the experiments. In thin ice, M493 experienced
few impacts, hence t共ice兲 is high. For M501, ice from the side of
the hull would occasionally become trapped in the propeller
stream, and so the value of t共ice兲 are mixed.
Changes in thrust and torque can be used as a simple measure
of the degree of propeller-ice interaction. The ratio of Ti/ To in
Fig. 8 gives a measure of the effect of ice on the thrust and the
ratio of Qi/ Qo in Fig. 8 gives a measure of the effect of ice on the
torque. These ratios for M493 and M501 are compared in Fig. 8.
These figures show that both models have similar values of Ti/ To,
but M501 has a higher value of Qi/ Qo throughout the speed
range. The values obtained from M493 and M501 compare well
with other ships 关8兴.
Ship resistance in level ice at full scale is the sum of the com-
ponents in Eq. 共1兲. The open water resistance, Row, was deter-
mined from the model scale open water resistance by scaling the
wave making and frictional contributions separately, in the tradi-
tional manner. Table 3 shows these calculations. Skin friction was
determined from Reynolds Number using the ITTC 1957 line. A
form factor of 1.3 and a correlation allowance of 0 were applied.
The components of ice resistance may be calculated using the
relations in Eqs. 共2兲–共5兲, the coefficients in Table 2, and the full-
scale values of ship and ice parameters. Delivered power was
calculated from effective power using the propulsive efficiencies
in ice reported in Table 3.
Figure 9 shows a comparison between M493 and M501 in 2 m
of level ice with a flexural strength of 500 kPa. This shows that
M493 has a slightly lower effective power than M501, although in
absolute terms this difference is small. When the propulsion is
included, the difference becomes large at 6 knots.

Fig. 8 Propulsion ratios in ice, based on flow identity

Fig. 7 Propulsive efficiencies, 63 mm ice „top…, 30 mm ice

„bottom… Fig. 9 Comparison of power predictions in 2 m level ice

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2005, Vol. 127 / 139

Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 5 Discussion
Small differences in hull form parameters can be related to
specific differences in vessel performance in ice. Increased bow
angles resulted in an increase in the breaking component of resis-
tance, with larger differences at higher speed and thicker ice. The
reason for the slight increases in submergence and clearing com-
ponents was determined by examining video records of the model
experiments. Steeper waterline angles meant that some ice pieces
were pushed to the side rather than under the bow, and there was
occasional catching and jamming of those pieces at the shoulders.
This increase in the clearing force, occurring at all speeds, may
have shown up in the submergence component as well.
The change in flow pattern near the stern due to the change in
skeg angle did not have a significant effect on propulsive efficien-
cies. A small effect was observed at the highest speed, with the
efficiency of M501 being lower. The propulsion ratios in Fig. 8
suggest more propeller-ice interaction for M501. Ice caught be-
tween the hull and the side of the channel, and then swept into the
propeller, is the likely explanation.
The dominant feature of the stern design is the twin skeg. Un-
derwater video records show that ice pushed down under the bow
may travel along the bottom and then be guided between the skegs
towards the propeller disks. Careful analysis of the video does
suggest hull form modifications, which might alleviate this effect,
which, in turn, would improve propulsive efficiency. As Fig. 9
indicates, the greatest improvement in ship performance can be
achieved by increasing propulsive efficiency in ice.
This project pushed the conventional boundaries in tanker de-
sign and exemplified the trade-off between hull form constraints
and high performance demands imposed by the operating condi-
tions. Two hull forms were designed and tested. The physical
model tests showed clearly the effect of hull form parameters on
performance, and pointed the way to design improvements. Full
scale performance data for tankers operating in the design ice
conditions remains a vital requirement to complement design
studies such as this one 关16兴.
140 / Vol. 127, MAY 2005
Downloaded 22 May 2008 to 192.75.14.76. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Acknowledgments
This work was conducted in cooperation with Samsung Heavy
Industries Ltd. 共Korea兲, ASERC of Pusan National University
共Korea兲, MUN 共Canada兲, and NRC-CNRC IOT 共Canada兲.
References
关1兴 Edwards Jr., R. Y., Major, R. A., Kim, J. K., German, J. G., Lewis, J. W., and
Miller, D. R., 1976, “Influence of Major Characteristics of Icebreaker Hulls on
Their Powering Requirements and Maneuverability in Ice,” Transactions of
SNAME, 84, pp. 364–407.
关2兴 Lewis, J. W., DeBord, F. W., and Bulat, V. A., 1982, “Resistance and propul-
sion of ice-worthy ships,” SNAME Transactions, 90, pp. 249–276.
关3兴 Lewis, J. W., and Edwards, R. Y., 1970, “Methods for predicting icebreaking
and ice resistance characteristics of icebreakers,” SNAME Transactions, 78,
pp. 213–249.
关4兴 Vance, G. P., 1975, “A scaling system for vessels modelled in ice,” IceTech 75,
Montreal.
关5兴 Naegle, J. N., 1980, “Ice resistance prediction and motion simulation for ships
operating in the continuous mode of icebreaking,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
关6兴 Milano, V. R., 1980, “A reanalysis of ship resistance when in continuous
motion through solid ice,” Intermaritec Symposium, Hamburg, pp. 456–475.
关7兴 Lindqvist, G., 1989, “A straightforward method for calculation of ice resis-
tance of ships,” The 10th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engi-
neering under Arctic Conditions, Luleå, pp. 722–735.
关8兴 Molyneux, D., Simoes Re, A., Spencer, D., and Reynolds, A., 1990, “Recent
developments in model experiment techniques for large icebreakers,” IceT-
ech90, Calgary.
关9兴 White, R. M., 1970, “Prediction of icebreaker capability,” Transactions of
RINA, 112共2兲, pp. 225–251.
关10兴 Schwarz, J., 1986, “Some latest developments in icebreaker technology,” J.
Energy Resour. Technol., 108, pp. 161–167.
关11兴 Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, 1995, “Rules for the classification and
construction of sea-going ships,” Russian Maritime Register of Shipping.
关12兴 Jonk, A., 1985, “The use of Non-Viscous Flow Calculations in Hull Form
Optimization,” Workshop on Development in Hull Form Design 1, MARIN.
关13兴 Spencer, D. S., and Timco, G. W., 1990, “CD Model Ice: a process to produce
correct density 共CD兲 model ice,” IAHR Tenth International Symposium on Ice,
Espoo, Finland, 745–755.
关14兴 Timco, G. W., 1986, “EG/AD/S: A new type of model ice for refrigerated
towing tanks,” Cold Regions Sci. Technol., 12, pp. 175–195.
关15兴 Spencer, D., Williams, F. M., and Newbury, S., 1992, “Model scale/full scale
ice resistance correlation for the CCG R-Class icebreakers,” LM–1992–20,
Institute for Marine Dynamics.
关16兴 Spencer, D., 1992, “A standard method for the conduct and analysis of ice
resistance model tests,” in Proceedings of the 23rd American Towing Tank
Conference, New Orleans.
Transactions of the ASME