A comparative analysis of rubble field data collection techniques

• Main Authors: Flynn, M., Barker, A.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Lulea University of Technology 2011
• Subjects: Arctic; Beaufort Sea
• Online Access: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=316ae393-5b37-49c8-b65b-12362be094f1; https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=316ae393-5b37-49c8-b65b-12362be094f1

The physical characteristics of a grounded rubble field can be difficult to evaluate. This may appear to be of little consequence at first; however these characteristics play a key role in determining the stability and loading absorbed by the rubble field. In the past, one of the most effective methods of collecting physical data from a rubble field was to perform a survey on the ice and use physical observations to determine the characteristics of a given field. However, with the advent of more sophisticated technology and observation equipment, manually surveying these formations may no longer be as frequently required. Data were obtained during the spring of 2010, at the rubble field that formed at the Minuk I-53 remnant exploration drill site in the western Canadian Beaufort Sea. This paper compares the quantitative results obtained from three methods: An on-ice survey, video and laser altimeter data collected from a helicopter and a digital elevation model (DEM) created from stereo satellite imagery of the rubble field. The paper examines their respective advantages and disadvantages with respect to obtaining roughness characteristics of a rubble field. The on-ice survey produces the most reliable results, however it is time-consuming and costly. The video and laser altimeter system provided a high volume of data, which correlated well with the on-ice survey, however its accuracy needs refinements for use with extensively ridged and rubbled regions of ice. The DEM did not correlate particularly well with the on-ice survey, but this too could be improved upon with further detailed examinations of its control points and matching features with what was observed in the field. Peer reviewed: Yes NRC publication: Yes