Analysis reveals critical sea ice characteristics in Southern Bohai Sea, indicating a need for updated engineering parameters.
The current standard for sea ice engineering in the Bohai Sea implements a 1/4° grid method, which cannot satisfy the safety of oil and gas activities in the southern Bohai Sea, and therefore more detailed information on ice conditions and a more refined ice zone division are necessary. In the present study, up to 1/12° resolution sea ice characteristic data (period, thickness, concentration, and strength) were obtained based on the NEMO-LIM2 ice–ocean coupling model. On this basis, the design sea ice strength parameters were derived with different return periods from 1 to 100 years. Among the total of 53 grids, the mean ice periods in the southern Bohai Sea from 1951 to 2022 were 2–35 days, the mean ice concentration values were 8.3–64.6%, and the mean ice thicknesses were 2–15 cm. The design uniaxial compressive strengths and shear strengths at almost all grids exceeded 2.00 MPa and 1.00 MPa for return periods over 20 years, respectively. The design flexural strengths for the 100-year return period ranged from 463 to 594 kPa. For the 100-year return period scenario, all grids exhibited design tensile strengths exceeding 200 kPa. Across the southern Bohai Sea, the most severe ice conditions occur in nearshore zones, and the ice conditions display a distinct spatial gradient with Bohai Bay > offshore deep-water areas > Laizhou Bay. The mean ice thickness, concentration, design flexural and tensile strengths derived in this study were lower compared to the ice parameters suggested in the current standard, and design uniaxial compressive and shear strengths derived here were comparable to those suggested in the current standard. The refined grid used here captures more detailed spatial variations in the design strength values of sea ice engineering parameters in the southern Bohai Sea, providing more accurate data support for the anti-ice design of marine structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: