OTC-29141-MS

The Challenges of Arctic for Oil and Gas Pipeline Design

Aiman Al-Showaiter, Chengye Fan, Basel Abdalla, and Colin McKinnon, Wood

Copyright 2018, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Arctic Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 5-7 November 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an ATC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
It has been discussed that about a quarter of the world untapped oil and gas reserves are located in the Arctic.
Development of such prospects has faced challenges, both operational and design-related. Operational
challenges include geographic location and associated working conditions, such as remoteness, prolonged
darkness, communications and equipment reliability; climate conditions, such as low temperatures and
ice coverage; unique characteristics of arctic development, such as high reliability requirements and
extremely long tie-backs; and environmental conditions and regulations due to the extremely sensitive
Arctic ecosystem. The design related challenges include design conditions, loadings and material issues
that are unique to the area and environment and that arise from unique arctic operational and environmental
conditions.
Due to those challenges, the design of pipelines in the Arctic area requires the consideration of design
conditions that do not apply elsewhere, such as ice gouging, frost heave and permafrost. Advanced numerical
analysis is apt to play an important role in addressing these challenges and to bridge the technology gaps
that still exist in order to enable optimized developments to proceed.
This paper opens with a review of the main arctic challenges for pipeline design followed by the benefits
of using advanced numerical techniques to address problems relevant to the design of pipeline in the arctic
environment.
KEY WORDS: ice gouging, frost heave, permafrost, numerical modelling, arctic pipeline design

INTRODUCTION
Despite some experience with Arctic oil and gas exploration and production during the last four decades,
technology gaps still exist and will have to be bridged in order to enable optimized developments to
proceed. In this paper, some of the technical design challenges and issues particular to arctic pipelines are
presented; these include ice gouging, frost heave and permafrost. An emphasis is then placed on advanced
finite element techniques that can be used to address these challenges, with examples of such techniques
illustrating their ability to model highly complex and nonlinear phenomena.
Geographically, the Arctic may be defined as the area north of the 10° isotherm, which covers onshore
and offshore areas as well as ice-covered and ice-free areas. For oil and gas exploration, the Arctic may
2 OTC-29141-MS

be viewed as a region with extremely low winter temperatures, areas of permafrost and/or covered with
different types of ice, an ocean with significant depth, and, as importantly, an extremely sensitive ecosystem.
The onshore Arctic includes environments as diverse as the northern parts of Canada and Alaska of the US,
Scandinavia and Siberia of Russia. Offshore Arctic also comprises similar diversity, including the Beaufort
Sea, the Canadian Arctic Islands, the Barents Sea, and the Russian Arctic. Exploration of these different
areas involves different challenges, mostly related to their respective unique climatic and environmental
conditions, with a common theme of a harsher yet sensitive environment. Challenges that meet the industry
in the Arctic can broadly be divided into operational and design-related. Figure 1 illustrates some of the
key arctic challenges.
Operation challenges may broadly be divided into issues related to the geographic location and the
environment. The former includes the impact of being confined to a limited construction season; human
safety and emergency response; and remoteness of the location, which entails strict communication, logistics
and scheduling, power generation and distribution, and equipment reliability requirements. The latter
includes carrying out activities and assuring hydrocarbon flow in extremely low winter temperatures; field
seabed possibly scoured by icebergs, ice ridges and water strudels; foundation instability due to permafrost
thawing and frost heave as a result of hydrocarbon exploration and transportation activities; and ice loading
and/or requirement of floating ice management. It also includes issues related to the extremely sensitive
ecosystem of the Arctic and stringent environmental standards and regulations (e.g., zero discharge/emission
requirements) to ensure reservation of those ecosystems.
Designing for arctic oil and gas projects frequently requires considering conditions that are not typically
relevant to other areas. These conditions unique to arctic and semi-arctic fields include ice loading on marine
and subsea structures and vessels; interaction between buried structures or pipelines and the permafrost
(e.g., permafrost thawing and frost heave); ice-gouging (or scour); and strudel scour. A new challenge that
emerged in the last few years is the uncertainty in the arctic environmental loads due to global warming and
melting of the Arctic; for example, wave loading may start to be of more importance.

Figure 1—Key Arctic Challenges

OTC-29141-MS 3

In the following sections, a detailed discussion is provided on some of the pipeline design challenges in
an arctic environment and state-of-the-art analytical tools that are used to address them.

ICE GOUGING
The phenomenon of ice gouging, or ice scour, occurs when environmental forces drive ice features (icebergs
or ice-ridges) with keels that extend further than the water depth through the seabed soil, resulting in deep
cuts (gouges) into the seabed.
Ice gouging poses a significant threat to offshore pipelines in the Arctic. Originally, it was thought that
sufficient pipeline protection would be achieved by avoiding direct contact between the ice mass and the
pipeline. That is to bury the pipeline below the maximum expected gouge depth. However, studies have
shown that horizontal soil deformations ‘dubbed subgouge deformations’ extend two or more gouge depths
below the gouge base as schematically shown in Figure 2. For safe pipeline design, the soil displacement
induced at the pipeline depth, and the resulting pipe strains, must be assessed and checked against design
limits.

Figure 2—Sea floor gouging schematic

In some regions where seabed conditions present challenges to pipeline burial, pipelines are exposed to
the risk of direct contact with the ice masses. In such scenarios, the pipeline is considered sacrificial and the
design objective is to limit damage propagation to the facilities at either ends of the pipeline. This is often
achieved by incorporating breakaway connections, ‘weak-links’ into the pipeline system that will sever at
a pre-determined load.
Ice-gouging involves a number of complex interactions; namely between the aero- and hydro-dynamic
forces (e.g., wind, wave and current) and the ice mass; between the ice and the seabed; and between the
deformed soil of the seabed and existing subsea pipelines/structures. Further complexity is induced by the
extreme deformation experienced by the seabed soil; the unknown characteristics of the ice mass as to
geometry and strength; and the characteristics of the interaction between the ice and seabed (e.g., frictional
behavior between the two materials).
Wood utilizes the Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) Finite Element (FE) method, available in the
commercial finite element software ABAQUS/Explicit, to model the ice gouge process and has carried
out extensive validation work to ensure the models behave accurately. The major advantage realized by
4 OTC-29141-MS

this modeling technique is that it overcomes mesh distortion and convergence issues experienced by other
FE methods. In the CEL FE formulation, the seabed soil is modeled using an Eulerian material that is
allowed to freely flow throughout a fixed mesh. Because the mesh does not distort, very large deformations
experienced during the ice gouge process can be realistically simulated. The model captures some of the
important aspects of the ice gouging process, such as the subgouge deformation, the ice-soil interaction,
and ice-soil-pipe interaction. Figure 3 shows a typical CEL FE model of ice-soil-pipeline simulation.

Figure 3—Typical CEL FE model of ice-soil-pipeline simulation

The use of such desktop finite element analysis (FEA) tools can allow for investigation of the governing
failure mechanisms and optimization of the trench depth, hence making significant financial savings in
the trenching and burial of the pipeline. In the case of surface laid pipeline, the tool can allow for better
understanding of the ice-soil-pipe interaction and prediction of the loads propagation to the subsea end
termination equipment.
Wood was involved in the DNV ICE PIPE JIP [1], which aimed at evaluating and presenting design
methods and recommendations specifically related to the installation, operation and maintenance of offshore
pipelines in areas of extreme cold and ice. As part of its involvement, Wood used its ice gouge CEL FE
tool to contribute to a major study on numerical ice-soil-pipe interaction. The study conducted a series
of ice-gouging simulations where the impacts of ice keel movement on the soil and on the pipeline were
studied for a range of pre-specified governing parameters. The simulations were preceded by a soil model
calibration subtask, and two selected reduced-scales physical tests validation subtask, one in clay and one in
sand. Figure 4 shows an example output of the model predictions for subgouge deformations and pipeline
movement when the ice keel front bottom edge is at four diameters (4D) away from the pipe.
OTC-29141-MS 5

Figure 4—Subgouge deformation and pipe movement (magnified five times in the gouging direction) [1]

However, it must be noted that the application of numerical modeling to simulate ice gouging has been
mostly based on partial calibration over a narrow range of parameters. More effort is required to carry out
a more comprehensive and systematic approach to calibrate and validate numerical models. This effort will
need to include physical testing and advanced numerical simulations, to achieve better understanding of
each underlying and constituent processes.

FROST HEAVE
Frost heave is the phenomenon that soil freezing-thawing cycle causes water migration against gravity. The
physics behind frost heave is the action of capillary suction that absorbs water from the unfrozen region
below. Chilled pipelines buried in frost heave-susceptible soil require special design considerations as the
frost heave may cause differential heave and possibly lead to overstress or upheaval buckling of the pipeline.
Frost heave is detrimental to pipeline as the non-uniform vertical displacement along a pipeline may
result in excessive bending. Strain prediction for the design of arctic pipelines subject to frost heave involves
modeling of thermal, geotechnical and mechanical behaviors of both the pipeline and soil. Ref. [2] developed
a 3-step process for strain calculation in pipelines subjected to frost heave differential loading. The first
step is using FE model for frost heave prediction in different soils, e.g. sand and clay. Then the interactions
between the soil and the buried pipe are modelled by equivalent vertical and lateral soil springs. The last
step is strain calculation using FE model in Figure 5 with the outputs from step 1 and 2.

Figure 5—Spring model of pipeline under differential frost heave

There are several models available to predict the frost heave from theoretical, constitutive,
phenomenological, and empirical point of view. However, due to the complex nature of frost heave
phenomenon, all of the aforementioned models needed improvements to better predict frost heave in field
conditions. Whatever model is adopted, reasonable assumptions and simplifications have to be made to
achieve a method that is robust and practical for engineering purposes. Among these models, the rigid ice
model [4][5], the segregation potential (SP) model [6], and the porosity rate function (PRF) model [7][8]
[9] are the most notable.
The porosity rate function model has advantages over the other two models in its consistent formulation
with continuum mechanics so that it can be implemented in commercially available finite element software
and handle complex geometry for coupled thermal displacement problems. Wood has adopted the porosity
6 OTC-29141-MS

rate function model in the study of frost heave impact on chilled pipelines [2][3]. Recently, the "Extended
Porosity Rate Function" was developed by introducing the concept of water draining to the PRF and thus
removes the limitation of temperature range and time derivative of temperature in the soil-pipe system.
The formulation of this approach is consistent with continuum mechanics making it possible to generalize
the model to arbitrary three-dimensional processes and use the standard numerical techniques in solving
frost heave problems under cyclic temperature. The model validation is carried out by comparisons with
published experimental data. The FEA prediction shows a similar frost heave growth trend and comparable
frost heave magnitude, as shown in Figure 6. The model predicts the soil behavior, as well as, the behavior
of the buried chilled pipeline. One case study of frost heave growth using Extended Porosity Rate Function
is presented in Figure 7 where the temperature contours, porosity contours, and ground displacements in
the 1st and 5th summers are compared [10].

Figure 6—Frost Heave History and Comparison with Field Test Data [12]

Figure 7—Comparison model predictions between 1st summer and 5th summer [10]
OTC-29141-MS 7

A typical strain calculation simulation is shown in Figure 8, with different frost heave applied in sand and
clay, and the resulting pipeline deformation. The frost heave of soil, and hence, the pipe strain in the vertical
plane is the main concern; the strain in the lateral direction is minor and not included in this analysis. The
longitudinal strains along the pipe length are plotted in right, showing that high strain is concentrated in the
vicinity of the interface between frost susceptible and non-susceptible soils.

Figure 8—Longitudinal strain along the pipe – 0.8m burial depth [2].

Thermosyphons can be used as mitigation method to reduce frost heave growth [11]. A thermosyphon is
a passive heat exchange device that transfers heat based on natural convection, which circulates a substance
(liquid, or gas) without a mechanical pump. A thermosyphon has asymmetric thermal conductance, called
the thermal diode effect. It has low (ideally zero) resistance to heat flux in one direction, and high (ideally
infinite) resistance in the other direction. An example of thermosyphon working mechanism and the finite
element modelling of a thermosyphon is presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Figure 9—Diagram for Thermosyphon Mitigation [11]

8 OTC-29141-MS

Figure 10—Frost Heave Reduction by Thermosyphons [11]

There are other frost heave mitigation methods such as thermal insulation, deep burial, and the use of non-
frost susceptible backfill material. Ref [12] evaluated these mitigation methods through FEA. Efficiency of
each mitigation method are evaluated by comparing with the base case frost heave analysis.

PERMAFROST
By definition, permafrost is the ground that remains at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years.
Ice-bonded permafrost typically exists in shallow waters, shore crossings, and onshore. The existence of
permafrost presents another significant challenge to the design, construction and operation of pipelines on
Arctic terrain. Pipelines transporting warm hydrocarbons can transfer heat to the surrounding soil, causing
the ground to thaw over years of operation. The underlying soil will then settles vertically and consolidates,
creating a void under the pipeline. Settlement could be large for permafrost composed of unconsolidated
soils with relatively high content of ice. Consequently pipeline will deflect into the void created by the settled
soil. Uniform settlement along the pipeline length will not induce pipeline bending. However, differential
ground settlement is likely to occur, overstressing pipelines and inducing bending strains. The worst scenario
is that thaw-stable regions are adjacent to thaw-unstable region. The large differential settlement over a
short pipeline section could result in large bending strain in the pipe wall that may result in overstress or
damage to the pipeline
Wood has developed finite element models for investigating the effects of permafrost on arctic pipelines.
The model predicts unsteady-state heat transfer, thaw settlement, and global deformation processes of a
pipeline buried in permafrost soil. The thaw settlement of the pipeline is assessed based on the actual
growing size of the thaw bulb. Two finite element modeling approaches are developed, namely sequentially
coupled approach and 3D fully coupled approach.
The models help to accurately predict pipe stresses through using state-of-the-art finite element
modelling, rather than currently available tools that use simple approximations to predict the response of
the thawed ground. Besides being less accurate, currently available prediction tools generally are over-
conservative as they usually predict settlements that are likely to occur long after the pipeline useful life had
finished. Conversely, Wood's models predict the ground settlement at any time during the service life of the
pipeline, which results in a more economic design of the pipeline. The model is versatile and can be used in
the initial design of pipelines as well as in the assessment of existing pipelines embedded in the permafrost.
Wood initially developed a sequentially coupled approach [13] in which the interaction between the
buried pipeline and the permafrost soil is modeled in two steps. First, the heat transfer process is simulated
for a period of time (e.g. 25 years of operation); then the soil settlement and pipeline deflection are calculated
based on the temperature distribution from the heat transfer step. The heat transfer and the thaw settlement
simulations are decoupled; the influence of the soil settlement on the heat transfer process is considered a
second order effect. In this approach, the heat transfer model is two-dimensional (2D) and soil consolidation/
soil-pipe interaction model is three-dimensional (3D), as shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12.
OTC-29141-MS 9

Figure 11—2D thermal model [13]

Figure 12—3D pipe-soil interaction model [13]

As stated above the sequentially coupled finite element model does not consider the soil consolidation
due to thaw bulb variation as a function of variables such as pipe heating time and seasonal ambient
temperature changes. In addition, the sequentially coupled model can be conservative and over-estimates
the total amount of consolidation since the final thaw bulb is used to determine soil consolidation. To
address the aforementioned shortcomings, a 3D fully coupled model is also developed [14]. The setup of
the fully coupled FE model is similar to that presented in Figure 12 except that there is no need to partition
the 3D domain into frozen and thawed sections. The fully coupled model can solve all field equations
simultaneously, including the displacement (stress), pore pressure, and temperature. Therefore, the analysis
procedure can be streamlined to simulate the heat transfer and soil consolidation in a single step.
Comparison of the two model results for temperature profile, pipe deformation and pore pressure are
presented in Figure 13. It is noted that the calculated temperature results are similar using the two different
modelling approaches. The difference in the sequentially coupled model is that the heat transfer step is
simulated using a 2D FE model with a much finer elements mesh. Therefore, the isothermal lines are
smoother as shown in Figure 13a. The thaw bulb depth is, however, comparable in both models.
Figure 13b is exaggerated by the same scale factor and it is seen that the maximum pipe mid-point
deformation is significantly larger in the sequential model. The conservative assumption in the sequentially
coupled model can be exemplified in Figure 13c, where the partition can be seen clearly between frozen
and thawed soil domain. The thawed portion of the soil is in the upper partition, which is taken as the final
thaw bulb in the heat transfer step. As explained previously, the sequentially coupled model uses this final
thaw bulb to analyze the steady state soil consolidation. Instead, the fully coupled model considers transient
thaw bulb variation during the entire simulation period. Therefore, the sequentially coupled approach over-
estimates the soil settlement and resulting pipe deformation.
10 OTC-29141-MS

Figure 13—Comparison of (a) temperature profile, (b) pipe deformation profile, and (c) pore pressure profile [14]

Field measurements from the Normans Well project [15][16] are used to validate the FE models. The
FEA predictions showed good agreement with experimental test data [14]. With the same input data as that
used in the Field Measurement Validation, the temperature results are shown in Figure 14. It is observed
that the temperature profile is similar using the sequentially coupled model and the fully coupled model.
Note that the maximum size of thaw bulb is compared herein. The change of pipe elevation in summer 1995
is presented in Figure 15. As expected, the sequentially coupled model predicts higher pipe settlement than
the coupled model.

Figure 14—Comparison of temperature results of (a) sequentially coupled model (b) fully coupled model [14]
OTC-29141-MS 11

Figure 15—Comparison of pipe elevation chang e[14]

A 3D fully coupled FEM is also developed to study the effect of thermosyphons on thaw settlement.
Inputs, including material properties and burial depth, are the same as that used in [13]. However, only
clay is considered in this study, as the focus is on comparative results of pipe settlement with or without
thermosyphons. Figure 16a illustrates the method of thermosyphon mitigation, and Figure 16b presents the
FE model.

Figure 16—(a) Illustration of thermosyphon mitigation, (b) FE model for thermosyphon analysis

Figure 17 plots the contours of thaw bulbs after 6 months of operation for cases with and without
thermosyphons. Results show that thaw bulb is narrower and shallower with the presence of thermosyphons,
which consequently reduces the pipe settlement. The analysis results have shown that thermosyphons can
reduce the pipe settlement by over 40% in some cases.

Figure 17—Thaw bulb after 6 months of operation: (a) no mitigation (b) thermosyphone mitigation
12 OTC-29141-MS

CONCLUSIONS
Development of arctic oil and gas fields requires taking into account unique operational and design-related
aspects. Design of pipelines would likely require consideration of one or more of the following loads and/
or conditions unique to arctic fields: ice gouging, frost heave, and permafrost thawing.
Wood has developed and validated advanced numerical tools to simulate the processes of ice gouge,
frost heave, and permafrost thawing. The numerical models have shown good agreement with physical
experiment results. However, it must be noted that the application of numerical modeling has been mostly
based on partial calibration over a narrow range of parameters. More effort is required to carry out a more
comprehensive and systematic approach to calibrate and validate these numerical models.

REFERENCES
1. Banneyake, R, Hossain, M, Eltaher, A, Nguyen, T, Jukes, P, "Ice-Soil-Pipeline Interactions Using
Coupled Euler-Lagrange (CEL) Ice Gouge Simulations — Results from DNV Ice Pipe JIP,"
2. Jianfeng Xu, Basel Abdalla, Colin McKinnon, Annie Audibert-Hayat, Edmond Coche, and
Vincent Gaffard, "Arctic Pipelines Strain Demand Prediction", OMAE, Nantes, France, June
9-14, 2013
3. Basel Abdalla, Jianfeng Xu, and Vincent Gaffard, "Numerical Simulation of Frost Heave in
Arctic Pipelines", Anchorage, Alaska, June 30 – July 5, 2013
4. Miller, R.D., Frost heaving in non-colloidal soils, 3rd International Conference on Permafrost,
Edmonton, Alberta. July 1978
5. Noon, C., Secondary frost heave in freezing soils, PhD Thesis, University of Oxford, 1996
6. Konrad, J. and Morgenstern, N., The segregation potential of a freezing soil, Can. Geotech.
Journal, Vol. 18, 1981
7. Michalowski, R. and Zhu, M., Frost heave modeling using porosity rate function, International
journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, Vol. 30, 2006
8. Michalowski, R. and Zhu, M., Modeling of freezing in frost-susceptible soils, Computer assisted
mechanics and engineering sciences, Vol. 13, 2006
9. Michalowski, R., A constitutive model of saturated soils for frost heave simulations, Cold regions
science and technology, Vol. 22, 1993
10. Basel Abdalla, Chengye Fan, Colin McKinnon, Edmond Coche and Vincent Gaffard, "Extended
Porosity Rate Function for Frost Heave", San Francisco, California, June 8 – 13, 2014.
11. Basel Abdalla, Chengye Fan, Colin McKinnon and Vincent Gaffard, "Numerical Study of
Thermosyphon Protection for Frost Heave", OMAE2015-42326
12. Basel Abdalla, Chengye Fan, Colin McKinnon and Vincent Gaffard, "Numerical Evaluation of
Cyclic Frost Heave Growth in Arctic Pipelines and Mitigation Strategies", OTC – 25523
13. Abdalla, B., Xu, J., Eltaher, A., and Jukes, P., "Three dimensional finite element model for
permafrost-pipe interaction", Proceeding of the 20th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions, June 9-12, 2009.
14. Abdalla, B., Mei, H., Mckinnon, C., and Gaffard, V., "Numerical Evaluation of Permafrost
Thawing in Arctic Pipelines and Mitigation Strategies OTC 27371, Arctic Technology
Conference, 2016.
15. Geological survey of Canada, Open File 3773, "Monograph on Norman Wells Pipeline
Geotechnical Design and Performance", AGRA Earth & Environmental Limited and Nixon
Geotech Limited, 1999.
OTC-29141-MS 13

16. Burgess, M., Nixon, J., and Lawrence, E., "Seasonal Pipe Movement in Permafrost Terrain, KP2
Study Site, Normal Wells Pipeline", Permafrost-Seventh International Conference (Proceedings),
Yellowknife (Canada), Collection Nordicana No 55, 1998.
14 OTC-29141-MS

1. PAPER PERTAMA

 Judul:

English:
The Challenges of Arctic for Oil and Gas Pipeline Design.

Indonesia:
Tantangan Arktik untuk Desain Pipa Minyak dan Gas.

 Penulis:
Aiman Al-Showaiter, Chengye Fan, Basel Abdalla, and Colin McKinnon, Wood

 Penerbit:
Offshore Technology Conference

 Tahun:
5-7 November 2018

 Problem:
Telah dibahas bahwa sekitar seperempat dari cadangan minyak dan gas bumi yang belum
dimanfaatkan terletak di Kutub Utara. Pengembangan prospek semacam itu telah menghadapi tantangan, baik
terkait operasional maupun desain. Tantangan operasional meliputi lokasi geografis dan kondisi kerja, seperti
keterpencilan, kegelapan berkepanjangan, komunikasi dan keandalan peralatan; kondisi iklim, seperti suhu rendah
dan lapisan es; karakteristik unik dari pengembangan arktik, dan peraturan lingkungan karena ekosistem Arktik
yang sangat sensitif.

 Metode:
Model Numerik

 Hasil:
Pengembangan ladang minyak dan gas Arktik harus mempertimbangkan aspek operasional dan
desain yang unik. Desain saluran pipa kemungkinan akan membutuhkan pertimbangan satu atau lebih dari
muatan dan / atau kondisi berikut yang unik untuk bidang Arktik: ice gouge, frost heave, dan permafrost thawing.

Wood telah mengembangkan dan memvalidasi alat numerik canggih untuk mensimulasikan proses
ice gouge, frost heave, dan permafrost thawing. Model numerik telah menunjukkan hasil eksperimen yang lebih
baik. Namun, harus dicatat bahwa penerapan pemodelan numerik sebagian besar didasarkan pada kalibrasi parsial
atas rentang parameter yang sempit. Diperlukan lebih banyak upaya untuk melakukan pendekatan yang lebih
komprehensif dan sistematis untuk mengkalibrasi dan memvalidasi model numerik ini.

 Kelebihan:
 (Kesesuain Metode) Dimana penerapan metode untuk studi lapangan menghasilkan hasil yang sebanding
dengan yang diperoleh dengan penerapan metode model numerik.

 Isi dari Paper dijelaskan dengan jelas dan ringkas, serta kelengkapan data dari metode numerik yang dapat
membuat perkembangan secara mendalam terhadap berbagai masalah yang terdapat di daerah Arctic.

 Kekurangan:
 Paper tidak memberikan penyelesaian masalah secara nyata, hanya mensimulasikan masalah yang biasa
terjadi pada daerah Arctic.