We would like to thank Gold for his most interesting discussion of our paper and the synthesis he has made of the recent papers on the bearing capacity of ice covers. We had discussed in our paper the use of either the elastic or the plastic theory for the computation of the bearing capacity of ice covers and this brought a comment from Gold which seems essentially to confirm our own computations and conclusions. Gold states: They do (the authors) consider, however, that the development of a full plastic section is a condition that can occur for moving loads, but information on the deformation behavior of ice indicates that this cannot be so. In the next paragraph Gold shows that ice would behave inelastically for loads applicd and removed in 200 s or more and that a load must travel at a speed of about 1 mph (1.6 km/h) to obtain this condition for 4 ft ( 1.3 m) thick ice. May we say that we have shown in our paper that the full plastic moment would be developed at speeds of less than 0.15 mph (0.3 km/h) and this was based on tests that were made in the laboratory (Lafleur 1970) on beams of snow ice loaded at various rates. These are indeed very low speeds and taking into account that the bearing capacity is much higher in the plastic range than in the elastic one, there is little do~tbt from the engineering point of view, that an ice bridgc should be designed for elastic failure as Gold has contended for many years and as was also done for ice bridges of the James Bay project. We do not believe however, as Gold seems to imply, that ice suddenly passes from a duc-
Read full abstract