United States sea ice physics project, 1954–59

Polar Record ◽  
1959 ◽  
Vol 9 (63) ◽  
pp. 553-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. F. Weeks
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Physical Properties ◽  
Bearing Capacity ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
General Physical

In 1954 the Geophysics Research Directorate of the Air Force Cambridge Research Center (AFCRC), at the request of Northeast Air Command, United States Air Force, organized a study of the physical properties, growth, and bearing capacity of sea ice. The object of the study was to gain information about the conditions under which various aircraft and vehicles could operate on sea ice, for supply and rescue purposes. The Navy Hydrographic Office (NHO) and the Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Establishment (SIPRE) of the Army Corps of Engineers also took part in the project. The spheres of interest of each organization were as follows: AFCRC, the application of geophysical and crystallographic methods to the study of sea ice; NHO, the details of the relations between meteorological conditions and the growth rate and general physical properties of sea ice; and SIPRE, the variation of the strength of sea ice as determined by small-scale field tests, and the application of this information toward an analysis of the bearing capacity of sea ice.

Observations on the Physical Properties of Sea-Ice at Hopedale, Labrador

ARCTIC ◽  
1958 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilford F. Weeks ◽  
Owen S. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Physical Properties ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Sea Water ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Water Levels ◽  
Cambridge Research ◽  
Freezing Period ◽  
Before And After ◽  
General Physical

Preliminary results are reported of field studies 1955-56 by the U.S. Air Force Cambridge Research Center, the Hydrographic Office and SIPRE on the general physical properties of sea ice; methods of measurement are described. Characteristics of sea water during the freezing period are outlined: formation, structure, and salinity of the initial ice cover, formation and characteristics of infiltrated snow-ice, growth of the ice and influencing factors, density of the ice at various periods, and crack formation are discussed. Data on the salinity of sea ice formed during during wave action and that of sheet-ice, hourly averages of air and ice temperatures at various levels, snow and slush density and thickness, observed slush levels and theoretical water levels are shown. Salinity of ice before and after the slush layer froze, and that of deteriorating ice , salinity of ice vs. ice thickness, thickness of ice versus degree-days, the density of the ice, and measured ice densities vs. theoretical density of air-free sea ice at -15 C are figured and discussed. The orientation of sea ice c-axes and of infiltrated snow-ice c-axes are diagrammed.--From SIPRE.

scholarly journals Backward erosion progression rates from small-scale flume tests

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Montalvo-Bartolomei ◽  
Bryant Robbins ◽  
Jamie López-Soto
Keyword(s):  
Failure Probability ◽  
Internal Erosion ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Progression Rate ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Current State ◽  
Flume Tests ◽  
Temporal Aspects ◽  
Backward Erosion Piping

Backward erosion piping (BEP) is an internal erosion mechanism by which erosion channels progress upstream, typically through cohesionless or highly erodible foundation materials of dams and levees. As one of the primary causes of embankment failures, usually during high pool events, the probability of BEP-induced failure is commonly evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for existing dams and levees. In current practice, BEP failure probability is quantitatively assessed assuming steady state conditions with qualitative adjustments for temporal aspects of the process. In cases with short-term hydraulic loads, the progression rate of the erosion pipe may control the failure probability such that more quantitative treatment of the temporal development of erosion is necessary to arrive at meaningful probabilities of failure. This report builds upon the current state of the practice by investigating BEP progression rates through a series of laboratory experiments. BEP progression rates were measured for nine uniform sands in a series of 55 small-scale flume tests. Results indicate that the pipe progression rates are proportional to the seepage velocity and can be predicted using equations recently proposed in the literature.

scholarly journals Wetlands and Environmental Legislation Issues

1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy R. Carriker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Army ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThe federal government program for wetlands regulation is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Proposals for amending and/or reforming the Section 404 program are included in Congressional deliberations regarding Clean Water Act reauthorization. Specific issues of public policy include the definition of “waters of the United States”, criteria for delineation of jurisdictional wetlands, definition of activities exempt from regulation, mitigation and classification of wetlands, and issues of property rights.

Surveying by Satellite

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-348
Author(s):  
A. J. Flatman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Army ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Range Measurements ◽  
United States Army Corps ◽  
Sources Of Error

Two basic methods of surveying by satellite are possible: that of photographing a satellite against the star background and that of range measurements from ground stations to the satellite. The latter method, which is used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in its SECOR program, is described in this paper. With the SECOR method, distances are measured simultaneously from four ground stations to a satellite equipped with a transponder system. Results of SECOR tests are given and sources of error are discussed.

Contribution to the knowledge of early geotechnics during the twentieth century: Arthur Casagrande

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-123
Author(s):  
Rubén Galindo-Aires ◽  
Antonio Lara-Galera ◽  
Gonzalo Guillán-Llorente
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soil Mechanics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Professional Career ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Engineering Projects

Abstract. Arthur Casagrande (1902–1981) is one of the main people responsible for the geotechnics that we know today. Born in Haidenschaft, now Slovenia, he went to the United States in 1926 to participate in major civil engineering projects: he graduated in 1924 from the Technische Hochschule in Vienna, Austria. On this visit to the USA he met Karl Terzaghi (1883–1963), the father of soil mechanics and geotechnology, who taught him the basic concepts of this discipline to which Casagrande dedicated the rest of his life. In his early years of work with Terzaghi, Casagrande focused on research studies, such as the development on the limits of Atterberg published in 1932, and the development of equipment for soil trials, such as the Casagrande spoon also developed in 1932. Casagrande not only dedicated himself to research in his early years, but he also carried out studies throughout his professional career, such as those carried out on liquefaction, which he began in 1937 and continued throughout his life. Casagrande not only made important contributions in the field of geotechnology, but also lectured at Harvard University, which he joined in 1932. He also consulted and was involved in several projects for the Army Corps of Engineers of the United States. In addition, Casagrande made an important contribution to the 1st International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering that took place at Harvard University in 1936. The aim of this paper is to analyze, through the biography of Casagrande, his contribution to the field of geotechnics, based on his research, teaching, and consulting work. Moreover, Casagrande influenced other important people in the field, such as Terzaghi, Peck, and even the work with his brother Leo, and, of course, the influence of these people on Casagrande's team.

scholarly journals USACE PREPARATION AND RESPONSE TO 2017 HURRICANES HARVEY, IRMA, AND MARIA

2018 ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Mary A. Cialone ◽  
Jane M. Smith ◽  
Julie D. Rosati ◽  
Michael L. Follum ◽  
Chris Massey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
The People ◽  
Hurricane Season ◽  
Major Hurricane ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The U.S

The year 2017 was an extremely active hurricane season with five hurricanes that reached major hurricane strength (Category 3 or higher) on the United States (U.S) or the Caribbean coast. This paper focuses on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) preparation and response to the three most destructive events (Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria). Each of these storms posed unique challenges to the people and infrastructure in its path.

scholarly journals Federal Wetlands Jurisdiction – The Quagmire of Rapanos v. United States

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. W. Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Foreign Commerce ◽  
Bodies Of Water

Federal jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) 1 has always been difficult to delineate. Wetlands, by definition can be difficult to classify as either water or land. The CWA attempts to regulate these areas; it prohibits discharge of material without a permit into “navigable waters,” which are in turn defined in section 1362(7) of the CWA as the “waters of the United States.” The Army Corps of Engineers 2 is charged with granting permits, and must make the determination of whether or not certain areas of wetlands fall within the jurisdiction of the CWA.3 The Corps has interpreted the phrase “navigable waters” very broadly to include waters “which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce.”4 The tributaries of any of these “waters” also fall within the Corps’ jurisdiction.5 Intrastate waters are covered if their “use, degradation or destruction . . . could affect interstate or foreign commerce.”6 Wetlands “adjacent” to waters, such as those described above, except waters that are themselves wetlands, also clearly fall within federal jurisdiction under the CWA.7 Jurisdictional problems arise however when there are bodies of water or wetlands close to but not directly connected to navigable waters. These areas may still have significant impact on the neighboring navigable waters if a developer fills them in, or an industrial site discharges pollutants into them. Thus the Corps of Engineers has sought to regulate some of these wetland areas, in order to hold true to the CWA’s overall goals “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document