&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-78-082
May 1978
Research and Development
Performance Testing
of Three Offshore
Skimming Devices
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research
and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2, Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-082
May 1978
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THREE OFFSHORE SKIMMING DEVICES
by
H.W. Lichte and M.K. Breslin
Mason § Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo, New Jersey 07737
Contract No. 68-03-0490
Project Officers
John S. Farlow
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Roy D. Maxwell
Department of Energy
Division of Environmental Control Technology
Washington, DC 20545
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
ISST^!:!JL? If'" 56VieWed b^ the Industrial Environmental
Research
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, con-
verted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and
Iven on our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient
Pollution control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
^inratorv - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating
net ^improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
This report describes performance testing of three commercial oil
spill cleanup devices under a variety of controlled conditions. Based
on these results, a number of operating techniques described are of
interest to those interested in specifying, using or testing such equip-
ment! Further information may be obtained through the R*sour« Ex"a^°n
and Handling Division, Oil & Hazardous Materials Spills Branch in Edison,
New Jersey.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
3
in funif SUbmitted b? M38011 & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
*
., nc.
Contr«c*: Dumber 68-03-0490, Job Order No. 34, with the
iv
-------
CONTENTS
iii
Foreword ....••••• * iv
Abstract • I!*.*.'.! vi
Figures • • '.'.'.'.'.'.'..•• -vii
Tables ' ' ix
Abbreviations and Symbols ' x
List of Conversions "..!!... xi
Acknowledgment
1
1. Introduction 2
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 3
3*. CYCLONET 100
Conclusions and recommendations ^
Device description 5
Test plan . • '. '. 13
Test procedures * ' 14
Test results ' 2Q
Discussion of results • ,
4. MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER 26
Conclusions and recommendations 2g
Device description '"""'* 31
Test plan '.31
Test procedures 24
Test results ' ^2
Discussion of results
5. U.S. Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER |*
Conclusions and recommendations
Device description ....
Test plan and procedures ^
Discussion of results
68
References
Appendices
69
A. Facility Description *. '. 72
B. Test Oils 76
C. OHMSETT Waves
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Side and front view of CYCLONET 100
2 Top view of CYCLONET 100 ....
3 Schematic of CYCLONET 100 rigging .'.'.' I
4 Typical mounting of CYCLONET 100 for marine use o
3 Test tank layout of CYCLONET 100 -,n
6 CYCLONET 100 during testing at OHMSETT' .' i?
7 CYCLONET 100 entrance with height selection
descriptions
8 The oil distribution system for the CYCLONEl'lOO 13
y Maximum observed throughput efficiency vs. tow speed'
10 Maximum observed recovery efficiency'vs.'tow'speed'for' ^
the CYCLONET 1 00 r~*-»* *.^j.
11 Maximum observed oil recovery rate'vs.'tow'speed'for' ' ' ' "
the CYCLONET 100
12 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER ....'.'.'.' ,
13 Schematic diagram of filterbelt oil recovery
system
14 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER under test'at OHMSETT 3?
Test tank layout of MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER ..'."'*"" «
17 "^- s" to" ' ' '
18 vs. to.
19 Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER-skimmer unit ........ =J
20 Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER-barrier unit ! ........ «
1 Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER under test at OHMSETT ..... 57
"' '
93 tank.^y°ut of Coa^t Guard SKIMMING BARRIER .... . 53
23 Maxxmum oil recovery rate vs. tow speed of the Coast
Guard SKIMMING BARRIER ...
24 Maximum recovery efficiency vs. tow speed of 'the' Coast' ' '
Guard SKIMMING BARRIER ...
* ........... 65
vi
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Manufacturer Specifications of CYCLONET 100 ........ *
2 Test Results CYCLONET 100 with Circo Medium ........ ."
3 Test Results CYCLONET 100 with Circo Heavy . . . . .
4 CYCLONET 100 Maximum Observed Performance Data - Calm ^ ^ ^
• • •
5 CYCLONET 100 Device Settings for Maximum Throughput
Efficiency - Calm Water
6 CYCLONET 100 Device Settings for Maximum Recovery
Efficiency - Calm Water .
7 CYCLONET 100 Device Settings for Maximum Oil Recovery
Rate - Calm Water . . - - - - m ^ _ 2g
9 Test^ResultrMARCo'class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Heavy,
_ — ~-> • . m _ _ A- ~n« AMA«4i4-v><-* _ _ _ . • • • • • J *J
8 condensed Specifications MARCO a-.JT MV SKIMMER
Tost-
First Belt, First Test Procedure
10 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Heavy,
First Belt, Second Test Procedure
11 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Heavy,
Second Belt, Second Test Procedure •• • • - •
12 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Medium,
First Belt, Second Test Procedure • • • •
13 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Medium,
First Belt, Third Test Procedure ', \.' ' '
14 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Medium,
Second Belt, Third Test Procedure •;••••••'•
15 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Medium,
Second Belt, Second Test Procedure '.'''
16 Test Results MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER with Circo Medium,
Deteriorated First Belt, Second Test Procedure .... 41
17 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Maximum Performance Data - ^
3 mm thick slick •
18 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Maximum Performance Data - ^
6 mm thick slick ' ' ' '
19 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
Throughput Efficiency - 3 mm thick slick
20 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
Throughput Efficiency - 6 mm thick slick w
21 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
Recovery Efficiency - 3 mm thick slick
22 MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
Recovery Efficiency - 6 mm thick slick
vii
-------
23 MRCO Class V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
Recovery Rate - 3 mm thick slick ...... 51
' '
->L MA*™ c ......
24 MAROOn5Tltt" V OIL SKIMMER Device Settings for Maximum
L Recovery Rate - 6 mm thick slick ...
Specifications U.S. Coast Guard SKIMMING
26 Test Results Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER with
Circo Heavy Oil
27 Test Results Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER with
Circo Medium Oil
28 coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER Maxim,™'plr-fJ™' " \' ' ' ' „
on BARRIER Maximum Performance Dat-a
29 Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER Device Settings for
Maximum Oil Recovery Rate .
30 Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER Device Settings'for
Maximum Recovery Efficiency
viii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
bbls
cm
cm2/s
dynes/cm
ft
ft/s
gpm
Hp
in
kg
kg/cm
kPa
kt
Ibs
m
mm
m/s
m2/s
m3/s
m3/hr
m3
N/m
OHMSETT
psi
rpm
s
w
—barrels
—centimeter
—centimeters squared per second
—dynes per centimeter
—feet
—feet per second
—gallons per minute
—horsepower
—inch
—kilogram
—kilograms per centimeter squared
—kilopascal
—knot
—pounds
—meter
—millimeter
—meters per second
—meters squared per second
—meters cubed per second
—meters cubed per hour
—meters cubed
—newtons per meter
—Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental
Test Tank
—pounds per square inch
—revolutions per minute
—second
—watts
ix
-------
LIST OF CONVERSIONS
METRIC TO ENGLISH
To convert from
Celsius
joule
joule
kilogram
metre
metre
metre2
metre2
metre3
metre3
metre/second
metre/second
metre2/second
metre3/second
metre3/second
newton
watt
ENGLISH TO METRIC
centistoke
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot
foot2
foot/minute
foot3/minute
foot-pound-force
gallon (U.S. liquid)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/
minute
horsepower (550 ft
Ibf/s)
inch
inch2
knot (international)
litre
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
to
degree Fahrenheit
erg
foot-pound-force
pound-mass (Ibm avoir)
foot
inch
foot2
inch2
gallon (U.S. liquid)
litre
foot/minute
knot
centistoke
foot3/minute
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
pound-force (Ibf avoir)
horsepower (550 ft Ibf/s)
metre2/second
Celsius
joule
metre
metre2
metre/second
metre3/second
joule
metre3
metre3/second
watt
metre
metre2
metre/second
metre3
newton
kilogram
Multiply by
000
374
2.205
3.281
3.937
076
549
1,
1,
2.642
1
1,
1,
1.
000
969
944
000
2.119
.587
,248
1.341
(tp-32)/1.8
E+07
E-01
E+00
E+00
E+01
E+01
E+03
E+02
E+03
E+02
E+00
E+06
E+03
E+04
E-01
E-03
1.000 E-06
tc = (tp-32)/1.8
1.000 E-07
3.048 E-01
9.290 E-02
5.080 E-03
4.719 E-04
1.356 E+00
3.785 E-03
6.309 E-05
7.457 E+02
2.540 E-02
6.452 E-04
5.144 E-01
1.000 E-03
4.448 E+00
4.535 E-01
x
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
5
xi
-------
SECTION 3
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental
by EPA in the OHMSETT test facility, reflects their joint u
meeting that goal.
results of the study.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Picfcup'lvi'es'are'? "" '«f— «" e <-">* «* these three oil spill
2. Performance deteriorates as wave conditions become more severe.
3' useless?1" ^ bleakln8 "3VeS WU1 render th™ -"Actively
superior
f
as soon as possible. Effective^^ iw P e"OrtS must be lnltiated
favorable wLther conditions As a rL ^ 'qUlpment dePM
-------
SECTION 3
CYCLONET 100
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
s-^sss'fS: ^ss^^^t^-sar- calm -i.
Other conclusions derived from testing the CYCLONET 100 follow:
1) collection performance was more successful for heavy oil than
for medium viscosity oil.
2) CYCLONET performance was affected by variations >16 cm from
the optimum immersion depth.
3) The ratios of the pump discharge rate to oil distribution rate
did not significantly alter the performance output.
4) The device, as deployed in OHMSETT, was trouble free during
the six week immersion. Pump seals and system components did
not require replacement or repair.
5) The mid-range of tow speeds selected for testing oil recovery
proved to be the optimum for performance.
The performance of the device may have been hampered by the following
conditions which should be investigated further:
presence of channel iron frame work around the inlet,
formation of vortex in the mouth,
absence of debris grill,
inefficient performance of the hydroejector,
• high speed pump settings,
vector relation of device with wave position (roll),
-------
""•
capacity in
steepness ratio selections,
sensitivity of cyclone to oil properties, and
device orientation to wave direction.
100 can ded inturtest8 In adi
of the device (mounted in pairs on 'a large worTbo M
study in future simulations at oiSsETT? }
reqU±re m°re
DEVICE DESCRIPTION
separate.
The light
==
rter- the
lnlet rotates and tends to
Body diameter
1.00 m
3.50 m
2.00 m
Average draft
Weight (steel)
Oil pump discharge rate
Water pump rate for air
-------
TEST PLAN
The device was mounted below the auxiliary bridge, 7.0 m from the
west tank wall. The power pack and collection barrels were located on
top of the auxiliary bridge! The oil distribution manifold and splash
tray were positioned forward of the device directly (center to center)
upstream of the CYCLONET.
The test plan for the CYCLONET considered was based upon controlled _
inputs in various combinations. Two ASTM-proposed oils were «?«JC8J« T
B-l in the Appendix). Each was laid down in a swath 3 mm thick and 1.5
m wide, corresponding to the CYCLONET's horizontal opening width.
Separate test series were carried out using Circo tedium and Circo X
Heavy oils. Sea conditions were calm, a 0.3 m ^V^'Y^VJ^t
long (5 s period), with two different harbor chops (confused sea) that
were 0.3 mor 0.6 m high (see Appendix C). The water current was simulated
with five different tow speeds of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 m/s.
The CYCLONET system operating conditions (i.e., mounted on a
rolling ship) were simulated by immersing the convergent inlet in the
water at 4 different fixed depths on successive runs. Certain_tests
were selected to vary the immersion depth during each run to simulate
field operation conditions more closely. The hydraulic fluid pump rate
was also varied to change the oil/water discharge pump^flow rate. The
selection of the discharge rate was based upon the ratio of 1.3:1 or
2.0:1, corresponding to the ratio of the discharge pump flow to the oil
distribution flow encounter. The absolute values of flow were selected
from the tow speed requirement for oil distribution necessary to maintain
the slick width and nominal thickness.
Stability tests were conducted to verify the rigging design and
the turbulence caused by immersed CYCLONET support structures. Measurements
of observed water levels on vertical members at various tow speeds were
used to predict immersion depth settings for later tests with oil.
Tow speed, wave generator settings, weather conditions, oil properties,
and oil distribution rates were recorded during each test. CYCLONET
operation data consisted of immersion depth settings, calibration of
discharge pump output with water only, and total volume of water/oil
pumped during each test. Performance data included the percentage of
oil in water recovered whenever the CYCLONET encountered the oil slick.
Extensive photo and video coverage were used mainly for qualitative
evaluation of CYCLONET interactions with oil and water, both above and
below the waterline. This recorded data exists as 16 mm movies (black &
white and color), 35 mm prints (black & white and color), and 35 mm
slides (color). The video data on file consists of color and black &
white 2.5 cm helical scan format tape. Audio tape records of observations
were transcribed for the test files. Figures 1 through 6 provide various
views of the CYCLONET 100 both at OHMSETT and during marine use. Figure 7
depicts immersion levels as they were set during the test program.
-------
Water
Water/air
HYDROEJECTOR
OIL \
DISCHARGE
PUMP
WATER
OUTLET
SIDE VIEW
Tow Direction
V
Water
Level
Cyclone^/
Entrance
?
==f=« ,
':": v • *.
_-
•
\ I
FRONT VIEW
Figure 1. Side and front view of CYCLONET 100.
6
-------
Air/water
Oil discharge pump
o
H-
O4
C
rt
H-
O
3
pi
H
n>
P>
Figure 2. Top view of CYCLONET 100.
-------
To Hoist
"H" Beam (2)
Oil Discharge Pump
Figure 3. Schematic of CYCLONE! 100 rigging.
-------
Figure 4. Typical mounting of CYCLONE! for marine use.
-------
OIL STORAGE AREA
OFFICES/
LAB SHOP
FACILITIES
) Test Director
I Test Engineer
Cyclonet Observer
i Oil Distribution
Discharge Hose Op.
Video Camera
Photographies
Data Analysis
Qj; Chemistry Lab
H^ Bridge/Wave Op.
(y) Filter/VDU Gen.
Figure 5.
Test tank layout of CYCLONET 100.
10
-------
Figure 6. CYCLONET 100 during testing at OHMSETT.
11
-------
Position "D"
Position "M"
Position "U"
Position "U + 100"
Position "U + 195"
Passage way between
convergent and cyclo"ne~
inlet (350 mm x 500 mm)
NOTE - Water level selections:
U + 195" = 95 mm below top of inlet
"U + 100" = at top of inlet
= 100 mm above top of inlet
= 260 mm above top of inlet
= 420 mm above top of inlet
= denotes position change during test run
"U"
"M"
"D"
A
Figure 7.
CYCLONE! 100 entrance (1.5m wide x 1.2 m high) with height
selection descriptions.
12
-------
TEST PROCEDURES
The CYCLONET 100 tests simulated a starboard unit
^
The
immersion depth was set for each test condition and the die-
were established.
tent to pumping 0.4 m3, calculated as the effective oil volume m the
s umed cle
cclone.
mping . m, cacu
At the end of each test, the CYCLONET was pumped clear of oil.
Each sample barrel was evaluated separately by measuring the total
volume of fluid collected, decanting the water below the ffi^ra°^v
layer, measuring the emulsion volume, selecting a sample for ^^
analysis, and determining the percentage of oil m the sample. The oil
distribution system is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. The oil distribution system for the CYCLONET 100.
13
-------
TEST RESULTS
LEGEND FOR TABULAR DATA COMPUTATION
RESULTS CYCLONET 100
1. Oil Slick Thickness
= .(40. 8)** (on Distribution Rate
(Tow Speed fpm) (Slick Width ft)
slick width = 5.0 ft
2. Discharge Rate
m3/hr = (Total Mixture Barrel n
(Collection Time Barrel 1)
3. Pump Ratio
= Discharge Rate
Oil Distribution Rate
4. Oil Recovery Rate
ORR, m3/hr = (Volume Oil Barrel 1)(4Q.8)**
(Recovery Time Barrel 1)
5. Recovery Efficiency
RE» % = (Volume Oil Barrel 11
(Total Volume Barrel 1) x 100%
6. Throughput Efficiency***
. TE, % = (Volume Oil Barrel 1 and 2)
(.95) (Volume Oil Distributed) x 100%
"""in certain teat,
**40.8 = constant for English to metric (SI)
-^Throughput efficiency calculated with average encounter of oil at
14
-------
_
Test
no.
'— -
1R
1R1
2
2R
3
3R
4
4R
5
5R
6
6R
7
8
9
9R
10
10R
11
11R
12
13
14
15
15R
16
13R
14R
17
Date
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/10
6/10
6/10
6/10
6/10
6/10
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/13
6/14
6/14
6/14
6/14
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
TABLE
Tow
speed
m/s
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
1.54
3.09
3.09
2.06
2.06
2.06
3.09
3.09
2.06
2. TEST
Slick
thick.
iron
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.8
3.2
3.3
RESULTS CYCL
Discharge
rate
m3/hr
82.8
69.3
67.2
68.6
44.6
48.1
42.8
42.2
18.7
21.9
43.5
51.5
45.8
46.0
35.9
36.6
36.1
36.2
45.8
49.2
48.7
63.8
39.8
67.5
61.5
38.2
59.9
28.8
7.3
ONET 100 W
Pump
ratio
1.72
1.43
1.37
1.35
1.43
1.47
1.28
1.28
0.57
0.68
1.32
1.46
1.30
1.33
2.09
2.22
2.15
2.24
1.79
1.82
2.01
1.21
0.78
2.11
1.75
1.07
1.30
0.53
0.20
ITU U1KUU Jl
Device
position
M
M
U
U
U
U
U+100
U+100
U+195
U+195
U+100
U+100
U
M
U+100
U+100
U
U
U
U
U+100
U
U+195
U+100
U+100
U+100
U
U+195
U+195
Cijjj-ui'i
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
0.00
0.09
0.41
0.45
0.64
0.91
2.07
2.16
1.41
1.84
1.64
0.79
1.93
3.41
6.56
7.11
0.68
3.34
4.43
2.57
8.74
0.0
0.50
5.36
3.09
7.11
0.59
0.18
1.45
_
Oil rec
eff.
7
/o
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.7
1.4
1.8
4.8
5.1
7.5
8.3
3.7
1.5
4.2
7.4
18.3
19.4
1.9
9.2
9.7
5.2
18.0
0.0
1.2
7.9
5.0
18.6
1.0
0.6
20.0
— —
Through-
put eff.
^
0.0
2.3
0.9
0.9
3.3
3.7
6.5
6.8
4.7
6.0
9.8
10.9
13.3
17.4
56.7
56.8
8.2
34.5
27.3
21.8
53.3
15.9
1.0
24.1
19.2
21.6
1.4
0.4
4.2
(Continued)
-------
Test
no.
25
25R
18
18R
19
19R
20
2 OR
21
21R
22
22R
23
23R
26
26R
27
27R
Date
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
6/16
Wave
-Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
2.06
2.06
3.09
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.57
1.54
1.54
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
2.57
2.57
3.09
3.09
"•
Slick
thick.
nun
— _
3.4
3.2
2.8
3.2
2.9
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.2
- — • —
Discharge
rate
_ m3/hr
64 7
UH • £.
64 7
WT- • /
85.8
85.8
69.1
73.0
69.7
68.0
45.2
44.2
32.5
32.5
•}Q -\
~J -J . J
33 ^
-f~J • J
81 3
vJi • J
72 4
/ A. • *T
54 1
-'tr • X
53.4
•
Pump
ratio
1-7-1
. 71
1~7n
• 79
1.82
1.60
1.70
1.66
1.73
1.63
1.63
1.74
1.77
1.89
1f\O
. 98
21 -7
.17
In c
• 95
1"? C
. 75
11 /•
. 16
1.01
~~ —
Device
position
— .
A
A
U+195
U+195
U+100
U+100
U+195
U+195
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
u
u
A
A
A
A
— 1 —
•
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
"* 1 111.
4.54
5.22
0.32
1.32
1.09
5.52
1.32
1.32
7.81
8.97
4.54
5.97
1.89
5.25
0.82
0.82
0.41
0.09
. — .
- _
Oil rec
eff.
V
h
•
7.1
8.1
0.4
1.5
1.6
7.6
1.9
1.9
17.3
20.3
14.0
18.4
5.7
15.7
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.2
•
Through-
put eff.
%
— — . ,
22.7
20.3
0.9
5.2
3.0
19.5
3.6
3.9
51.7
54.2
48.2
56.1
21.3
42.6
3.0
3.6
3.1
0.4
-------
HEAVY
TABLE 3. TEST RESULTS CYCLONET ±uu wiin ^i^w ^^^^ —
Test
no.
35
30
32
31
3 OR
31R
32R
35R
28
28R
29
29R
33
28R1
34
34R
33R
30R1
36
36R
37
37R
38
40
40A
40B
41
41A
42
42A
*.6 R =
Date
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/17
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/20
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
.6 m
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.6 R*
.6 R
.6 R
.6 R
.6 R
.6 R
.6 R
Reg
Tow
speed
m/s
3.09
2.06
3.09
2.06
2.06
2.06
3.09
3.09
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
2.57
1.03
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.06
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
0.51
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
2.06
2.06
Slick
thick.
TfllQ
2.5
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.3
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.5
(No
(No
(No
3.2
3.0
(No
(No
Discharge
rate
m3/hr
52.8
62.3
51.5
58.5
58.5
58.1
52.8
50.8
33.5
32.3
52.3
49.7
73.0
36.4
71.9
71.3
73.5
61.1
61.0
60.3
59.9
59.9
20.1
Oil)
Oil)
Oil)
32.3
7-7
. /
Oil)
Oil)
_— •
Pump
ratio
1.27
1.85
1.09
1.79
1.64
1.65
1.14
.01
2.13
1.94
2.20
1.91
1.86
1.99
1.84
1.63
1.62
1.72
2.13
1.97
2.07
2.10
2.05
1.80
n 4S
Device
position
_ •
A
U+100
U+100
A
U+100
A
U+100
A
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
A
A
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
A
A
U+100
U+100
u
D
D+50
M
M
U+100
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
0
7.81
0
7.36
0.74
4.70
0.05
o
9.02
9.65
14.22
15.40
0.16
6.88
0.48
0.34
0.16
8.36
12.54
12.51
11.49
11.29
3.04
(No
(No
(No
0.02
0.02
(No
(No
Oil rec
eff.
%
0
12.5
0
12.6
1.2
15.5
0.1
0
26.9
29.1
27.2
31.0
0.2
19.0
0.7
0.5
0.2
13.7
20.6
20.8
19.2
18.9
15.2
Oil)
Oil)
Oil)
0.1
0.2
Oil)
Oil)
Through-
put eff.
_%
2.3
36.7
0.3
34.9
2.3
20.9
0.2
0.2
70.0
70.8
73.7
68.3
0.8
40.4
1.3
1.2
0.4
25.4
46.9
58.5
42.3
60.2
64.4
0.1
0.4
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
oo
Test
no.
42B
42C
57
57R
61
62
63
63R
64
64R
67
70
71
68
68R
69
69R
65
65R
66
66R
72
72R
74
74R
73
73R
69R1
Date
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
Wave
.6 R
.3 R
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
1.54
1.54
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.03
1.54
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
1.54
Slick
thick.
xnm
(No
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.0
Discharge Pump
rate ratio
m3/hr
Oil)
28.3
33.5
37.8
29.0
0
34.0
51.4
42.1
64.5
48.2
34.8
109.1
28.4
35.9
48.7
54.5
45.1
49.9
65.0
58.6
87.7
88.3
27.1
32.0
27.0
33.8
53.6
0.85
1.00
1.15
1.15
0
2.08
3.03
2.45
3.87
2.06
2.13
4.92
1.67
2.20
2.10
2.17
2.95
2.84
3.07
2.33
5.15
5.20
1.55
1.92
1.12
1.30
2.15
Device Oil rec. Oil rec Through-
position rate eff. put eff.
m3/hr % %
U+100
U+50
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
u
u
u
u
U+100
U+100
U+100
(No Oil)
0.20
0.09
0.34
0.14
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.27
0.16
0.14
8.83
9.56
12.81
13.60
0.30
0.45
0.23
4.50
0.95
1.07
0.09
1.04
0.59
3.63
4.43
0.8
0.3
0.9
0.5
0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
31.1
26.6
27.3
23.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
7.7
1.1
1.3
0.3
3.3
2.2
2.7
8.3
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
69
82
78
110
4
4
2
31
7
8
1
9
3
5
49
.9
.8
.4
.1
.7
.1
.1
.2
.7
.1
.7
.4
.7
.5
.3
.6
.2
.4
.0
.3
.2
.1
.6
.0
.1
.8
*.6 R = .6m Reg
*.3 R = .3 m Reg
.6 HC = .6m Harbor Chop
.3 HC = .3m Harbor Chop
(Continued)
-------
... 1 1 •• '"~
Test
no.
.
75
75R
75A
68A1
66R1
76
_____ — -— — —
Date
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.3 HC
.3 HC
'• "
Tow
speed
m/s
2.06
2.06
2.06
1.03
1.54
1.03
— .!... '
Slick
thick.
mm
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.1
•— •
TAJiL.-- J \^
Discharge
rate
m3/hr
63.2
70.1
68.8
25.4
84.5
101.4
1 -
UIH-J.liu.cuy
Pump
ratio
__— — — . . • • '—
1.93
2.04
2.03
1.48
3.44
5.80
Device
position
...
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
6.02
3.93
3.45
8.45
0.45
0.36
Oil rec
eff.
%
9.5
5.6
5.1
33.3
0.5
0.4
_. — •
Through-
put eff.
%
25.6
31.6
11.2
83.2
3.9
3.8
*.3 HC = .3m Harbor Chop
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The CYCLONET had two selectable modes of operation that were ad-
justed during this test series. The depth of immersion selection was
originally intended to be any one of three positions 160 mm apart, the
first being with the free water surface 100 mm above the inlet. Pre-
selected positions were determined by stability runs as mentioned in the
Test Procedures section. In general, the higher efficiencies measured
were accomplished at the lower positions (water level at inlet top) and
lower speeds. Attempts to increase performance at higher tow speeds by
adjusting the level to a higher position were defeated by an abnormal
bow wave which prevented the oil from entering the cone.
On the fifth tank day, at the request of the designer, the CYCLONET
water outlet was enlarged and repositioned nearer the stern. No signi-
ficant change in performance was found when tests were repeated.
The possibility of turbulent effects caused by the mounting system
was also investigated after concern was expressed about the forward
vertical support beam. No detrimental effect was observed by either
visual or video observation.
An additional comment is necessary concerning the dimensions of the
unit tested. One week following the completion of the test program, it
was suggested by the designer that a manufacturing error of the vertical
port side contour may have caused a vortex we observed in the conver-
gence of the CYCLONET. A template was constructed from supplied drawings
which revealed that one of three radii may have been misplaced slightly.
Specifications required 5000 mm, while measurement showed only 4970 mm
(30 mm short). The significance of this discrepancy is not known.
Throughput efficiency was higher for the heavy oil than for the
medium test oil and peaked at the 1.0 m/s tow speeds (Figure 9). Recovery
efficiency was also better for the heavy oil tests and more stable over
the mid-range tow speeds (Figure 10). The oil recovery rate was more
sensitive to the tow speeds, nearly doubling at 1.5 m/s, compared to the
1.0 and 2.0 m/s (Figure 11). Effects of the variables are tabulated in
Tables 4 through 7.
20
-------
TZ
THROUGHPUT EFFICIENCY %
n>
!
o
cf
co
ro
c
rt-
rt!
t-h
Hi
CO
T3
tD
p*
(D
9
i
o
o
i
CO
o o
o
H-
n
n
o
(D
O
H-
OJ
H
O
o
o
-------
100
fO
B
O
5
w
>
o
o
80
60
40
20
0.50
1.00
1,50
CYCLONET 100 CALM WATER
3 mm SLICK
D Circo Heavy Oil
O Circo Medium Oil
2.00 2.50 3.00
TOW SPEED (m/s)
Figure 10. Maximum observed recovery efficiency vs. tow speed for the CYCLONET 100.
-------
OIL RECOVERY RATE (m3/hr)
H-
m
c
CO
(D
ro
o
in
(D
9
o
f
o
2
w
O
o
o
o
o _
l_n
O
o
o
o
0
Ul
O
O
-------
TABLE 4. CYCLONET 100 MAXIMUM OBSERVED PERFORMANCE DATA CALM WATER
Tow
speed
m/s
1.03
1.54
2.06
2.57
3.09
0.51
1.03
1.54
1.80
2.06
2.57
3.09
Oil recovery
rate
mVhr
7.1
9.0
7.1
5.5
1.3
3.0
9.7
15.4
12.5
8.4
0.5
0.1
Recovery
efficiency
%
19.4
20.3
20.0
7.6
1.5
15.2
33.3
31.0
20.8
15.5
0.7
0.1
Throughput
efficiency
%
56.8
54.2
24.1
19.5
15.9
64.4
83.2
78.5
60.2
36,7
1.3
2.3
Oil
type
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
TABLE 5. CYCLONET 100 DEVICE SETTINGS FOR
MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT EFFICIENCY - CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
1.03
1.54
2.06
2.57
3.09
0.51
1.03
1.54
1.80
2.06
2.57
3.09
Position
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U
U+100
U+100
U+100
A
U+100
A
A
Discharge rate*
2.22D
1.74D
2.11D
1.66D
1.21D
2.05D
1.94D
2.20D
2.10D
1.85D
1.84D
1.27D
Oil type
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
*Discharge rate is referred to in terms of oil distribution rate (D).
24
-------
TABLE 6. CYCLONE! 100 DEVICE SETTINGS FOR
MAXIMUM RECOVERY EFFICIENCY - CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
1.03
1.54
2.06
2.57
3.09
0.51
1.03
1.54
1.80
2.06
2.57
3.09
Position
U+100
U+100
U+195
U+100
U+195
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
A
A
U+100
Discharge rate*
2.22D
1.74D
0.20D
1.66D
1.60D
2.05D
1.94D
1.91D
1.97D
1.65D
1.84D
1.14D
Oil type
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
*Discharge rate is referred to in terms of oil distribution rate (D).
TABLE 7. CYCLONET 100 DEVICE SETTINGS FOR
MAXIMUM OIL RECOVERY RATE - CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
1.03
1.54
2.06
2.57
3.09
0.51
1.03
1.54
1.80
2.06
2.57
3.09
Position
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+195
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
U+100
A
U+100
Discharge rate*
2.22D
1.74D
1.07D
1.66D
1.60D
2.05D
1.94D
1.91D
2.13D
1.72D
1.84D
1.14D
Oil type
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
*Discharge rate is referred to in terms of oil distribution rate (D).
25
-------
SECTION 4
MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the device was dependable and trouble free. For optimum
performance, a proper trade-off between the speed of advance through the
water and the induction pump pressure setting was necessary; too high an
induction pump setting for any given speed produced oil losses from the
impeller, while too low a setting allowed more oil loss at the skimmer
inlet area due to headwave shedding. The optimum vessel-speed/pump-
pressure combinations were as follows:
Forward Speed: m/s 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0
Induction Pump
Pressure Setting: kg/cm2 7.1 14.1 56.3 70.4
The best overall performance was obtained at a tow speed of 0.5 m/s.
At a forward speed of 1.5 m/s oil recovery was so minimal that operation
was impractical. Subsequent changes in pump setting and belt speed at
that tow speed did not improve performance significantly.
The belt speed reflecting best performance results was 0.6 m/s.
Slower speeds produced a decline in recovery rate and faster speeds
contributed to losses from the underside of the belt on its return to
the oil slick. Oil was lost from the belt as it passed over the rungs
on the underside of the ramp (this loss was observed to be directly
related to belt speed).
» The device performed almost as well in the medium oil as in the
heavy oil. The lower viscosity of the medium oil allowed it to be
drawn through the sponge belt more easily than the heavy oil. Subse-
quently, more medium oil was lost from the belt.
The device was successfully operated in 0.6 m and 1.2 m harbor chop
wave conditions. To ensure that the belt encountered oil in these
waves, a high induction pump setting was used. The device performed
better in waves than in calm water when using medium oil, while per-
formance decreased slightly with heavy oil. The performance of the
device in waves varied to a great degree. The changes in test parameters
were not solely responsible for these variances. Random waves sloshing
oil onto the belt were probably contributing factors. However, further
tests will be necessary to quantify this observation.
26
-------
The polyurethane belt, normally used on the device, was subject to
deterioration by sunlight. The sponge fibers became brittle and broke,
thus forming larger sponge pores. As a result, the oil retention capa-
bility of the belt declined drastically. Raising the belt from the water
and covering it with light canvas during inactive weekends did not
sufficiently protect the sponge fibers. Over the long July 4th weekend,
the first belt deteriorated over 60% of its length. Varying device
settings had almost no effect on the performance of the device when using
the damaged belt. The best results with the deteriorated belt were
obtained using a high (102 kg/cm2) induction pump setting and a belt speed
of 1.0 m/s. The roller squeeze pressure was not varied from the 2.46
kg/cm2 recommended in the operations manual. The deteriorated belt was
replaced with a new belt which had accompanied the device. It had been
slightly oiled and wrapped in black polyethylene. Up until the time of
its use, it was stored away from sunlight.
The second belt did not perform as well as the first one prior to its
deterioration. In comparison tests using the same parameters, dis-
crepancies in throughput efficiency of as much as 45% were recorded. The
second belt appeared in good shape with the sponge fibers flexible and
the sponge pores of a size comparable to the ones in the first belt when
it was new. The cause for the difference in performance has not yet been
determined.
When new, both sorbent belts required at least one oil run to
prewet them before consistent results could be obtained. After a test
run, a good deal of oil remained in the belt or beneath the belt ramp.
This contributed to a decline in throughput efficiency from 52% to 44%
reflecting a retained volume of approximately 26 litres. The belt
probably could not retain 24 kg of oil after one squeezing, so it is
reasonable to say that most of this oil was located beneath the belt
and between the forward hulls. To recover some of this oil, the belt
was run after the test until very little oil resulted from the squeezing
process. Still some oil probably remained beneath the belt, between
the hulls. In future testing, this volume should be considered when
determining throughput efficiency.
The water drawn through the sponge belt by the induction pump
caused oil loss from the belt as it was returning to contact the slick.
To see if a current could be induced beneath the belt to subsequently
draw oil to it without passing a great deal of water through the sponge
in the process, the belt ramp was raised until only a small portion
remained in the water. However, performance declined using this method.
Running the device without using the debris scraper did not affect
performance.
The floating guide ropes, located within the boom adapters and the
device collection area, appeared to prevent oil from spreading out to
the billowing boom adapters. This was advantageous since small vortices
developed there which tended to cause oil loss beneath the contact zone
27
-------
of the device.
A relatively stagnant region developed in the throat of the device
(0.6 m forward of the sorbent belt) in almost every test. This allowed
oil to build and thus escape by headwave shedding or by entering the
vortices generated in the boom adapters. The results of the three test
procedures indicate device performance would increase if this stagnant
area was eliminated. Water or air jets in the bows or the boom adapters
should be investigated as a possible solution.
DEVICE DESCRIPTION
The MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER uses a continuous sorbent belt to
recover oil and an induction pump to overcome the tendency of the headwave
that prevents the oil from reaching the belt. The belt carries the oil
up an incline to a set of squeeze rollers which removes the oil over the
collection well. The belt is designed to allow water to flow through
the reticulated polyurethane foam while at the same time capturing oil
or debris (3). The only modification made to the device was a polyethylene
extension on the suction pipe. This enabled the operators to completely
empty the collection well. The test device's specifics are given in
Table 8 and Figures 12 and 13.
TABLE 8. CONDENSED SPECIFICATIONS MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER
Particulars
Metric
Length, overall
Beam, overall
Displacement, R.F.S.
Nav. draft. R.F.S.
F.O. capacity
F.W. capacity
Oil slops cap. (42 US gal/bbl)
Shrinkage (saltwater)
Freeboard R.F.S. amidships
Freeboard 1/2 P.O., full slops
Free sweep width
Maximum belt submergence
Filterbelt flow, m3/hr at 0.51 m/s
Induction pump
Maximum rated flow
Main engine
Speed, R.F.S.
Propulsion unit
Offload pump
Navigate
Being towed, high speed or rough sea
Oil skimming
10.97 m
3.66 m
750 kg
1.07 m
0.38 m3
None
6.4 m3
240 kg/cm
0.46 m
0.20 m
1.83 m
1.0 m
1740 m3/hr
(1) at 14914 W
1817 m3/hr
74.6 kw at 2900 RPM
2.6 m/s
MARCO hydraulic drive 360°
rotation
(1) Progressive cavity 45.4 m3/hr
Forward or backward (BWD)
Forward
BWD, w/ or w/o diversion booms
28
-------
(Travel mode)
Port
Figure 12. MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER
mechanism
Sorbent belt
Forward (oil collecting
mode)
-------
Drive Roller-
Belt Scraper
Grating
Support Grating
CO
o
Collection
Well
Figure 13.
Schematic of filterbelt oil recovery system.
-------
TEST PLAN
t
tests. The oil
distributed in a swath
e
speeds were varied from 0.2 m/s to *.«» / ke/cm2. stability tests
starting the oil tests.
tests were documented by photo and vide o coverage £ provide
'
on the sides and front of the device.
TEST PROCEDURES
Procedure 1 - List No- 1 through 19
After starting the belt and induction pump, the br idge was st ar ted.
-
91 and 101 through 139
Procedure 2 - T.1«t No
would occur at a low pump speed.
31
-------
the last of the
pump were stopped and any remaining oil was h8^, belt "** indu"ion
The belt was then squeezed for ?n?« i ?? *Way from the belt-
retained. These tests were conductpjj f Md the drain^e was
pumped to ensur. all ou
oil collection barrel to
put efficiency and
tant
the
as It
"aS "ken frc»»
»««• M and the test
Figure 14. MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER under test at OHMSEIT.
32
-------
OIL STORAGE AREA
OFFICES/
LAB SHOP
FACILITIES
Q) Test Director
Q) Test Engineer
^3 Oil Distribution
Jy Bridge/Wave Op.
~B) Skimmer Op.
*^S
"6\ Sample Collector
j) Photographies
Video Camera
C^ Data Analysis
/O Chemistry Lab
(T!) Filter/VDU Gen.
CONTROL TOWER
(A)
BEACH
VIDEO BRIDGE
AUXILIARY BRIDGE
/ / xv / / / > /_
MARCO
< SKIMMER
D©
UW VIDEO
BELT
TOWLINES AND
BOQ_M_S_KIKI
OIL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
WAVE FLAPS
D
FILTER
r-
o
G>[
n
Figure 15. Test tank layout of MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER.
33
D
-------
TEST RESULTS
OIL
the basis for a re yco
performance at varying conditions SS
are now grouped. Not! that the list
the tables. Preceding the tables £ *
calculating the parameters.
V
**** 8«l»«ce) to provide
dat3' ComParisions of
dlfferin* test Procedures
f contlnuous throughout
detallin§ the method for
LEGEND FOR TABULAR DATA COMPUTATION
RESULTS MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER
1. Oil Slick Thickness
mm
[Tow Speed fpm) (Slick Width
Oil Recovery Rate**
2.
" •**•**^^^.\. UJ.IFIJ
(Recovery Time)
3. Recovery Efficiency (from discrete sampling)
N = sample numbers in total
' " N, > t(N2 through N-l) - 10] then sample ^
If N > [(N2 through N-l) - 10] then sample N was averaged in.
If Nz or N did not meet this requirement tn.n •,
included in determining *-v,Q 4"J-remenc, then it was not
n determining the average recovery efficiency.
4. Throughput Efficiency***
TE,
(Volume ot Oil Distributed)
x 100%
Conversion factor 1 gal/ft^ = 40.8 mm thickness/ft
- --ncounter of 100,
34
-------
TF.ST PROCEDURE
U1
«TTH CIRCO HEAVY
List
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Test Date Wave
Tow
speed
m/s
Slick
thick.
mm
____— ^ — - — — — ^— —
Induction
pump
kg /cm2
Belt
speed
m/s .._
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
Rec.
eff.
%
• •
4
4R
4R2
4A
4A2
5
5R
5A
5A2
5B
5B2
6
6R
8
9
12
12R
13
13R
6/22
6/22
6/22
6/22
6/22
6/23
6/23
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/23
6/23
6/23
6/23
6/23
6/23
6/23
6/24
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.4
3.0
3.3
2.8
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
14.
14.
14.1
14.
14,
14.1
.1
,1
14.
14.
14.1
14.1-21.1
101.9
101.9
101.9
101.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.14
5.27
6.50
7.22
5.72
7.93
7.99
7.74
6.88
7.15
7.40
7.84
7.86
8.34
5.61
5.22
4.09
8.68
8.68
81.0
68.2
75.4
,3
,5
.7
87,
84.
82.
76.4
86.6
80.1
62.0
60.0
82.7
76.9
65.8
73.0
29.9
43.1
76.7
79.9
Throughput
eff.
24.4
57.9
71.0
71.0
63.1
79.3
94.9
84.1
75.8
.1
,2
83.
85.
82.8
83.8
48.8
30.
29,
23.
47.4
46.7
.7
.5
,2
-------
TABLE 1,. TEST
W!TH CIRCO HE«V
BELT. SECOND TEST PROnimTTPp
J-t-khJ I.
no.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
leal
— - -
28
29
5C
5C2
5T
5T2
25
25R
26
27
27R
36
30
31
38
32
33
34
35
17
17R
14
14R
14A
14A4
14A2
14A3
18
18R
18R1
uate
••
6/30
6/30
6/24
6/24
6/29
6/29
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/30
6/29
6/29
6/27
6/27
6/27
6/27
6/27
6/27
6/29
6/29
6/29
Wave
—
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.26
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
Slick
thick.
TlTTfl
- • .—
3 Q
•j • y
3.7
2.8
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.9
6.0
2.8
3.0
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
Induction
pump
_ kg/cm2
7f\
.0
17.6
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
28.2
28.2
42.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
42.2
56.2
56.2
70.3
84.4
56.2
56.2
42.2
42.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
Sfi 7
-*w • £.
Belt Oil rec
speed rate
m/s m 3 /hr
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
Of
.6
._.
3.00
NA
6.88
6.88
5.43
4.75
4.91
5.47
4.07
4.57
3.63
9.94
6.81
7.31
NA
7.34
7.09
8.52
16.15
10.36
10.08
9.58
8.34
5.84
6.02
7.99
7.61
12.01
11.38
11.67
Rec.
eff.
%
. i— —
87.1
89.6
77.3
78.1
83.7
80.9
86.2
86.1
88.8
85.6
79.2
84.2
89.3
85.7
83.0
85.6
88.4
93.4
87.5
87.9
83.2
79.1
77.4
84.1
81.9
80.7
83.9
92.7
92.7
91.4
Throughput
eff.
^_^_^_^_^^^^^^
74.3
52.0
81.3
81.3
69.9
66.8
61.6
71.1
53.3
58.8
51.3
71.3
65.1
65.5
72.8
66.2
64.1
76.6
69.2
66.8
65.7
53.3
50.7
35.6
39.7
54.0
50.1
72.8
70.2
72.0
(Continued)
-------
u>
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
15
15R
16
16R
24
24R
19
19R
19R1
19R2
37
20
20R
21
21R
22
22R
23
23R
6/29
6/28
6/28
6/28
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/30
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
6/29
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
70.3
70.3
84.4
84.4
84.4
84.4
98.5
98.5
98
98
84
56
56.2
.3
.3
70.
70.
84.4
84.4
98.5
98.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.77
10.17
9.40
9.24
10.81
NA
9.97
10.42
9.02
8.38
18.58
6.72
5.66
3.72
7.99
5.59
7.22
6.11
6.20
89.3
83.3
89.1
88.3
93.9
94.3
89.7
87.3
85.0
87.3
85.9
78.3
84.6
74.3
60.7
65.4
67.3
71.0
72.5
62.5
61.8
61.6
60.7
68.5
64.0
66.3
67.0
58.3
59.4
61.2
27.7
21.8
14.4
29.6
23.8
28.4
25.2
23.7
-------
.TABLE 11. TEST RESULTS MAP™
u>
oo
List
no.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
* .6 HC = .6 m Harbor Chop
1.2 HC = 1.2 m Harbor Chop
Test
•I —
16A
16B
16C
15A
15B
92
93
94
95
95R
96
97
98
90
90R
91
— -
Date
. .
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/13
7/12
7/12
7/12
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.6 HC*
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
1.2 HC*
1.2 HC
1.2 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
— "
Tow
speed
m/s
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.51
0.51
0.76
1.03
1.03
0.51
0.51
0.77
0.51
0.51
0.51
Slick
thick.
mm
— — •
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.9
5.7
5.8
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.0
Induction
pump
_ kg/cm2
84.4
84.4
84.4
70.3
70.3
98.5
70.3
56.2
52.7
52.7
70.3
98.5
70.3
42.3
42.3
70 3
t \J • ^j
Belt
speed
m/s
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Of\
.9
Oil rec.
rate
_. m3/hr
' _
4.97
5.13
5.27
5.66
5.13
2.04
2.25
3.70
4.00
4.47
2.59
2.13
3.27
4.36
4.77
4.04
Rec.
eff.
%
78.7
83.1
84.4
84.0
86.6
66.6
43.4
49.0
47.8
41.6
48.3
44.2
47.4
47.7
47.4
46.5
— ' •—
Thro
eff.
7
/o
32.7
33.0
33.7
38.4
33.4
27.9
29.8
31.2
13.9
14.8
33.5
28.3
28.6
61.9
63.0
55.0
-------
TABLE 12.
List
no.
. . J-l^L.
Test
,..i
40
4 OR
41
41R
42
43
44R
) J. J-VJ^ k* W *•
-
Date
7/1
7/1
7/1
7/1
7/1
7/1
7/1
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
Slick
thick
mm
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.0
6.61
5.
Rec.
eff.
75.2
71.8
68.8
60.9
52.2
51.1
59.5
Throughput
eff.
79.2
70.8
74.0
75.0
67.4
63.5
54.9
UJ
VD
THIRD TEST PROCEDURE
TJTTH r.IRCO MEDIUM FIRST BELT
TEST RESULTS MAKHO CLASS V OIL
List
no.
92
93
94
Test
45
46
47
Date
7/1
7/1
7/1
Wave
•
Calm
Calm
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
0.51
0.51
0.51
Slick
thick.
mm
3.1
3.1,
3.0
Induction
pump
kg/cm2
14.1
28.3
42.3
Belt
speed
m/s
0.9
0.9
0.9
Oil rec
rate
m3/hr
5.79
6.70
6.50
Rec.
eff.
50.5
59.5
58.9
Throughput
eff.
57.7
67.0
65.0
-------
TABLE 14.
List
no.
95
96
97
98
Test Date Wave
Tow Slick
speed thick
m/s mm
Induction
pump
kg/cm2
Belt
speed
m/s
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
Rec.
eff
V-i. J_ *
7
/o
48A
48B
48C
49A
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
3.2
3.0
~j • \j
3. 0
•~J • \J
3.0
56.2
56.2
56.2
70.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
5.41
9.31
10.20
12.47
78.2
60.0
68.6
72.2
THIRD TEST PROCEniTP
Throughput
eff.
29.8
48.4
50.5
58.1
List
no.
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
52A
51A
50A
53A
54A
55A
80
8 OR
81
82
83
Date
—
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/11
7/11
7/11
7/11
7/11
7/11
7/11
7/11
Wave
_
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
1.2 HC*
1.2 HC
1.2 HC
1.2 HC
1.2 HC
Tow
speed
m/s
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.77
Slick
thick.
mm
• .
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
6.2
3.7
3.9
4.2
3.0
3.0
Induction
pump
kg/cm2
'
42.3
56.2
70.3
84.4
84.4
84.4
42.3
42.3
70.3
98.5
56.2
Belt
speed
m/s
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
5.18
8.13
7.47
5.63
5.75
15.10
7.20
3.86
3.75
4.57
8.27
Rec.
eff.
%
•~
47.6
57.3
55.3
69.0
82.2
86.0
29.1
38.2
51.5
29.4
30.0
Throughput
eff.
JL
35.4
53.0
48.1
36.8
38,
50,
84.8
39.7
35.8
63.7
68.8
-------
TABLE 16.
IEST RESULTS HARCO CLASS V OIL SKIVER «TH CIRCO MEDIUM DETERIORATED FIRST BELT,
TEST RESULTb MAKOU CT.nnm TEST PROCEDURE
..
List
no.
"
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Test
57
58
58A
62
62R
61
61R
56
59
65
52
52R
48
50
49
51
64
63
63R
53
53R
54
54R
55
55R
60
71
72
70
73
Date
1 —
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/6
7/7
7/7
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/8
7/7
7/8
Wave Tow
speed
m/s
• " ~
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.6 HC*
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
-
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
—
Slick
thick.
mm
6.0
8.9
8.8
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
6.0
8.6
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0
6.0
6.1
8.7
3.0
3.2
3.6
2Q
. y
_ — . —
__ — - — •
Induction
pump
k^/cm2
c f O
56.2
56.2
56.2
28.2
28.2
42.3
42.3
56.2
56.2
28.2
42.3
42.3
56.2
56.2
70.3
70.3
28.2
42.3
42.3
84.4
84.4
84.4
84.4
84.4
84.4
84.4
28.2
42.3
56.2
70 3
/ \J * — *
'
Belt
speed
m/s
0 Q
\J • 7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
_ — ~
_ .
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
4.43
6.22
5.93
3.54
2.86
4.81
3.72
6.59
NA
5.11
3.43
3.86
4.63
3.54
4.68
3.88
4.29
6.13
4.52
4.00
4.32
4.81
5.54
8.11
7.97
NA
3.75
2.93
4.29
NA
_— — — — — — —^-~~~~
Rec.
eff.
7
/o
72.1
79.4
86.8
63.8
65.1
73.2
78.1
81.5
87.3
63.0
71.6
63.4
76.3
70.1
72.7
72.8
63.0
78.7
69.6
80.3
81.3
75.9
77.4
83.7
77.3
87.0
39.4
65.4
49.7
70.4
—
Tnrougr
eff.
%
28.3
30.2
29.5
28.7
23.6
37.0
31.6
30.6
26.8
32.2
20.2
24.7
23.3
22.1
23.9
25.4
23.5
30.3
26.4
25.0
26.7
31.2
34.5
26.5
25.6
26.6
47.3
36.8
48.5
NA
. • •
— . —
1C =
-------
The following are notable changes in device parameters of test pro-
cedures and are related to their respective test numbers.
List Numbers Description
4, 5, 8, 9 Comparison runs to investigate differences in
previous results.
10, 11 Debris scraper was not used.
15 Induction pump was varied while observing dis-
charge on underwater video monitor.
16, 17 Filterbelt was raised so that only a small
section of belt remained in the water.
22, 23 Oil left in the throat of the device was hosed away
from the belt.
41, 42, 44 Oil obtained by the post-test procedure of rotating
the belt for ten revolutions was discarded.
43, 45 Boom adapters were tied together underwater to pre-
vent them from billowing and causing vortices to
develop. 45 - kept 10 revolution results. 43 -
discarded 10 revolution results.
46, Boom adapters not tied. Results from post-test
wringing were kept.
58, 59 The floating oil guide ropes were raised to
determine if they were preventing the slick
from reaching the billowing boom adapters and
becoming entrained.
95 to 109 These tests used the second belt which was com-
prised of five sections attached to the web
reinforcing with Velcro.
110 to 139 The belt used in these tests had deteriorated
over the July 4 weekend.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The MARCO V mechanism was generally trouble free. The chief exception
was the hydraulic pressure relief valve on the sorbent belt drive which
had a tendency to jam in the open position. Also, the last two tests
were defeated by cracks in the fuel line serving the diesel engine.
The data illustrates that the overall optimum forward speed was 0.5
m/s. At this speed, the throughput efficiency peaked, the recovery
42
-------
efficiency was within five percent of the maximum value, and the recovery
rate per m/s value was the greatest.
Even at a forward speed of 0.25 m/s, a low induction pump setting,
and slow belt speed, the device did not reach 100% recovery. It seemed
that the water draining through the belt tended to draw oil from it as
the belt returned to contact the slick again. A less viscous oil is
drawn from the belt more easily, which explains the slightly lower
performance in medium oil (see list #22 through 25 and 85 and 86).
At forward speeds of >_ 1.2 m/s, the induction pump is unable to
draw enough fluid through the belt to prevent the buildup of a headwave
and subsequent oil loss (see list #61 through 68). If the device is to
operate effectively at this speed range, it may be desirable, then, to
either increase the capacity of the induction pump or to install an
adjustable weir or hydrofoil in front of the belt which will diminish
turbulence at the fluid/belt interface.
The belt speed is very important. A change in belt speed at tow
speeds of 0.75 and 1.0 m/s produced a change upon performance comparable
to that obtained with a relatively large change in induction pump pres-
sure. The slow (0.6 m/s) belt speed did not drain the belt of oil as it
passed over the rungs on the return side of the ramp, but was fast
enough so that water working through the belt did not have enough time
to strip the oil out. The belt residence time in the squeeze rollers
was probably also a factor.
Additional time for wave tests would have been useful. Lower in-
duction pump settings in waves should be investigated. Device settings
were selected to prevent the oil from washing away from the belt in the
harbor chop condition. The data generally show a scattering of results,
but at tow speeds above .75 m/s in waves, the performance of the device
definitely declined. Large variances in results occured in tests with
the same parameters (see list #105 and 106). The device exhibited good
seakeeping ability, but it should be noted that the tow back ropes
restrained much of the pitch, heave, and roll of the vessel in the
larger waves. Device performance was probably enhanced by their restraint.
The greatest improvement that could be made on the device is
making the sorbent belt resistant to sunlight. The belt damage caused
by sunlight which occured over the July 4th weekend began to be noticed
when only two out of the five sections of belt delivered large quantities
of oil to the sump. The decrease in device performance was not noticed
in the data because the parameters of testing changed directly after the
belt damage occurred. The data obtained while the "bad belt" was still
on the device is almost worthless as far as comparing device performance
to parameter settings. The variance in the results of tests using
identical parameters is almost as great as the variance in the results
between totally different tests. Samples from the belts showed the
sponge pores of the deteriorated belt to be larger due to the fibers
becoming brittle and breaking. The pigment of the dyed oil (red) had
also entered the material of the deteriorated belt and turned the normally
43
-------
was
eu*S£13t2LrsS thlV6 krTlts ~~ •*««- 1.
This was far from the case? IS second w^1',"*"" " had ««=rlor.ted
between the results of the gooTbelt ™* S C ~Jntalned « Performance in
-t--'-
made data analysis very difficult. lscrePan<:y 1" test results and
u not
return trip, if more oil ™uS be re^LT f U8h the belt on lts
through design eliminated', ou'lo'Les Zldt^dS?2108 " ""
s^sS--vr
variety of conditions. The numbers"refleet onlv'th^ Settln§s for a
If more tests were conducted na-t™ n * / y tests conducted.
would probably increase 8 °'6 m/S belt sPeed' efficiencies
44
-------
THROUGHPUT EFFICIENCY %
H-
OQ
NJ
O
CO
O
O
O
to
Ul
(B
01
CO
1
CA
CO
O
•
O
O
•
m
O
O
Ni
Ul
i-1
•
O
-------
RECOVERY EFFICIENCY %
ro
o
o\
o
09
r<
(D
O S
M (U
f X
co g
(0
O
n
o
n
M
Co
CO
co
NJ
Ul
Ul
o
3
CO
M
o
O H-
o
O
g
00
n
oo
o
o
o
-------
OIL RECOVERY RATE (m3/hr)
oo
NJ
cr>
to
o
00
i-!
(D
oo
s§=
IT1 X
»l
H 3
H
fi>
O
O
(D
H
^
^
(B
rr
(D
U
in
n>
D-
o
o
o
H
P
to
01
Ul
O
CO U1
w
x^s
^_
CO
O
o
Oi
Ui
o
DO
O
/*
1-1
O
O
8s
\
\
\
t*>
OO CO
O O g
o o ?b
H- H- O
^ H O
D f>
O O O
s a ^
It
-------
TABLE 17. MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE DATA
FOR CALM WATER - 3 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.54
0.51
1.03
Oil recovery
rate
m3/hr
3.0
8.0
8.5
12.0
8.0
6.7
12.5
Recovery
efficiency
%
89.6
88.8
93.4
94.3
84.6
75.2
82.2
Throughput
efficiency
%
74.3
94.9
76.6
72.8
29.6
79.2
58.1
Oil
type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
TABLE 18.
MARCO CLASS V OIL
FOR CALM WATER
SKIMMER MAXIMUM
PERFORMANCE DATA
- 6 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.03
Oil recovery
rate
m3/hr
10.0
16.2
18.6
15.1
Recovery
efficiency
%
84.2
87.5
85.9
86.0
Throughput
efficiency
%
71.3
69.2
61.2
50.2
Oil
type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
48
-------
TABLE 19. MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT
EFFICIENCY IN CALM WATER - 3 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.54
0.51
1.03
TABLE 20.
Tow
speed
m/s
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.03
Induction pump
settings
kg/ cm2
7.0
14.1
56.3
56.2
70.2
14.1
70.2
MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER DEVICE
EFFICIENCY IN CALM WATER -
Induction pump
settings
kg /cm2
56.3
56.3
84.3
84.3
Belt speed
m/s
0.15
0.91
0.61
0.61
1.01
0.91
0.91
SETTINGS FOR
6 mm THICK SL
Belt speed
tn/s
0.91
0.91
1.01
1.01
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT
ICK
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
49
-------
TABLE 21. MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR MAXIMUM RECOVERY
EFFICIENCY IN CALM WATER - 3 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.54
0.51
1.03
Induction
settings
kg /cm2
17.5
42.2
56.3
84.3
56.3
56.3
84.3
pump Belt speed
m/s
0.15
0.91
0.61
0.61
1.01
0.91
1.01
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
TABLE 22.
MARCO CLASS V OIL
EFFICIENCY IN
SKIMMER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR MAXIMUM RECOVERY
CALM WATER - 6 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
*
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.03
Induction
settings
kg /cm2
56.3
56.3
84.3
84.3
pump Belt speed
(kpsi) m/s
0.91
0.91
1.01
1.01
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
50
-------
TABLE 23. MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR MAXIMUM
OIL RECOVERY RATE IN CALM WATER - 3 mm THICK SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.54
0.51
1.03
Induction pump
settings
kg /cm2
7.0
14.1
56.2
56.2
70.2
28.1
70.2
Belt speed
m/s
0.15
0.91
0.61
0.91
1.01
0.91
0.91
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
TABLE
24. MARCO CLASS V OIL
OIL RECOVERY RATE IN
SKIMMER DEVICE SETTINGS
CALM WATER - 6 mm THICK
FOR MAXIMUM
SLICK
Tow
speed
m/s
0.51
0.77
1.03
1.03
Induction pump
settings
kg /cm2
56.3
56.3
84.3
84.3
Belt speed
m/s
0.91
0.91
1.01
1.01
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
51
-------
SECTION 5
U.S. COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of performance testing the Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER
in combination with their high seas skimmer indicate that the system
produces high recovery efficiencies and oil recovery rates at the normal
low speed current simulations in calm water and wave conditions.
Performance decreased in waves contrasted to calm water conditions.
Also, in wave conditions, recovery of medium viscosity oil decreased as
opposed to heavy oil.
The device rigging was preset at the same level for all tests. The
various pump rates selected did not affect performance except at extreme
high and low settings.
The device operating design and test design for simulating an order
of magnitude longer barrier, precluded quantifying throughput efficiency
performance.
The seakeeping ability of the barrier was commendable at most test
conditions. There were considerable losses under the barrier at the
higher tow speeds, that were not attributable to the OHMSETT tank wall
effects. The diaphragm pumps maintained high capacity but required
various seal replacements in the pumps and manifold-flowdivider hydraulic
fluid paths.
The device was rigged in a fixed operational position for the
OHMSETT test series. It is recommended that future tests be conducted
to study variables not included in this series, such as:
barrier radius at apex,
light version of ASTM oils,
• throughput efficiency measurements,
• performance of individiual weirs,
• variation of current direction, and
• following sea conditions.
52
-------
DEVICE DESCRIPTION
This device consists of a U.S. Coast Guard high seas prototype boom
modified with weir slots and sump tanks mounted on the boom. Oil that
flows over these weirs is subsequently offloaded from the sump tanks by
a hydraulically operated pumping system. Table 25 and Figures 19 and
20 detail specifications as received from the manufacturer.
TABLE 25. MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS U.S. COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER
Particulars Metric (SI)
Freeboard 53.3 cm
Draft 68.6 cm
Length (standard) 93.3 m
Weight 23.8 kg/m
Pump rate maximum 3,8 m3/hr
Inflatable float 305 cm x 121.9 cm
Barrier tensile strength 22680 kg
Material - Two-ply nylon fabric with an elastomer coating
53
-------
HIGH SEAS
SKIMMER UNIT
11 DEBRIS SCREEN
12 WEIR
13 SUMP TANK
14 OUTLET HOSE
ADAPTOR
15 BALLAST
OIL SIDE
1L * .._^_ ,._^ __
NON-OIL SIDE
TOW LINE
SPILLED OIL
BARRIER
. Figur4 19. Coast Guard SKIMMING. BARRIER.
54
BARGE FOR ,
RECOVERED OIL
-------
Ui
Ui
1 STRUT
2 CURTAIN
3 INFLATABLE FLOAT
4 CX>2 BOTTLE & VALVE
5 SLACK RETENTION LINE
6 MAIN TENSION LINE
7 DYNAMIC BUCKET BALLAST
8 FOAM FLOTATION
9 PICKUP LOOP
10 BATTEN POCKET
with BATTEN
HIGH SEAS BARRIER
Figure 20. Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER.
-------
TEST PLAN AND PROCEDURES
The test plan for the Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER was intended to
simulate a 200 m long barrier deployed in the open seas. The length
actually tested was 25 m long. A photograph of test operations is
available in Figure 21 and the test tank layout is shown in Figure 22.
This series of tests used a 19 m3 preload of oil. Additional oil was
not distributed during individual test runs, however, the preload was
replenished between runs.
Two ASTM-recommended test oils were used (see Table B-3 in the
Appendix). The preload pool spread the full width (20 m) of the OHMSETT
tank. The thickness at the apex weir was estimated to be 152 mm during
tow.
Sea conditions tested were calm, a 0.3 m high regular wave 24 m
long (5 s period), with two different harbor chops (confused sea) that
were 0.3 m or 0.6 m high (see Appendix C). Water currents were simulated
by tow speeds between 0.26 and 0.77 m/s.
The boom geometry and freeboard were not changed during the tests.
The freeboard was 0.5 m for the curtain barrier and mid position of the
weir throat when stopped in calm water.
The discharge pump system was maintained at 60 strokes per minute
by adjusting the speed of the diesel engine driving the hydraulic power
pack that powered the three diaphragm discharge pumps. The majority of
the tests were run at a speed of 2000 rpm with specific tests at 1500
and 2400 rpm. The hydraulic fluid pressure and flow rate were monitored.
Each test lasted 60 seconds at steady-state conditions. The volume
of discharge fluid was measured, and samples taken were later analyzed
for oil and water content.
Extensive photo and video coverage was used mainly to aid in quali-
tative evaluation of oil, water, and barrier interactions. This recorded
data exists as combinations of 16 mm and 35 mm, color and black and white
film. The video data on file consists of color and black and white 2.5
cm helical scan format tape. Audio tape records of observations were
transcribed into typewritten pages for the test files. Underwater film
footage is limited to trailing observations because of insufficient
light under the main oil pool.
Tables 26 and 27 include all of the data derived from this test
sequence and are preceded by a. legend to depict the method of calculation.
LEGEND FOR TABULAR DATA RESULTS
COMPUTATION - COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER
1. Recovery Efficiency
% = Total Volume Oil
Total Mixture Collected
56
-------
2. Oil Recovery Rate
m3/hr = Total Oil Collected
Collection Time
Figure 21. Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER under test at OHMSETT.
57
-------
OIL STORAGE AREA
OFFICES/
LAB
SHOP
FACILITIES
Q-y Test Director
V2_J Test Engineer
Qj OSD Observer
(bj Hose Operator
(cj Photographies
(&) Video Camera
(7) Bridge/Wave Op
fg"\ Chemistry Lab
'9^ Data Analysis
fl) Filter/VDU Gen.
Figure 22. Test tank layout of Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER.
58
-------
TABLE 26. TEST RESULTS COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER WITH CIRCO HEAVY OIL
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
4R
5
6
7
7R
8
8R
9
10
11
14
14R
6R
6A
12
13
13A
15
ISA
15R
17
17R
17A
17AR
18
*.3 R =
*. HC =
Date
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/27
7/27
7/27
7/27
7/27
7/28
7/28
7/28
7/28
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
Time
1128
1147
1254
1319
1647
1706
0911
1030
1104
1127
1330
1357
1544
1617
1656
1727
0910
1027
1059
1137
1159
0910
0920
1000
1701
0901
0951
1049
1349
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.3 R*
.3 R
Calm
Calm
.3 R
.3 R
.3 R
.5 R
.5 R
.5 R
.3 HC*
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
Calm
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.39
0.51
0.64
0.64
0.77
0.26
0.39
0.39
0.51
0.51
0.64
0.45
0.51
0.45
0.45
0.26
0.26
0.51
0.26
0.26
0.45
0.26
0.45
0.26
0.26
0.45
0.45
0.39
Engine
speed
rpm
1500
1500
2200
2200
2000
2000
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2400
2000
2000
1500
1000
2000
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2050
2000
2050
2000
Hydraulic
pressure
kg/cm2
80.9
78.9
104.1
77.3
98.4
99.8
88.6
106.9
102.7
136.4
142.0
115.3
113.9
125.2
111.1
111.1
97.0
84.0
118.1
87.2
102.7
105.5
105.5
105.5
94.2
101.2
139.2
143.4
77.3
Hydraulic Total Oil rec. Oil rec.
flow rate sample eff . rate
collect.
mVhr m3 % m3/hr
2.
2.
4.
4.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
3.
2.
1.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
84
84
26
32
86
86
73
66
68
82
75
86
79
57
84
84
84
82
68
88
86
86
95
86
82
86
63
75
63
STABILITY
STABILITY
STABILITY
STABILITY
STABILITY
STABILITY
1.85
1.77
1.80
2.38
2.30
2.32
2.54
2.61
2.37
2.47
2.00
0.94
2.87
2.06
2.69
2.67
2.77
2.66
2.62
2.76
2.45
2.39
6.01
64.1
82.5
81.0
75.5
72.3
75.7
69.3
64.6
74.0
68.1
65.8
65.2
63.5
50.6
47.9
58.1
48.5
59.1
50.1
42.6
63.3
63.5
59.3
71.2
87.6
87.4
108.2
99.9
104.0
105.4
100.5
105.4
101.0
78.9
36.8
110.1
63.0
80.0
93.5
80.8
95.0
79.0
70.6
92.7
90.9
58.8
. 3 m Regular Wave
. 3 m Harbor Chop
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
Test
no.
Date Time Wave Tow
speed
m/s
Engine
speed
rpm
Hydraulic
pressure
kg/cm2
Hydraulic
flow rate
rnVhr
Total
sample
collect,
m3
Oil rec.
eff.
i
%
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
ISA
18B
18C
18D
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
1537
1646
1720
1815
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
1900
1900
2000
2000
149.1
143.4
108.3
105.5
3.63
3.63
3.86
3.86
6.05
6.09
6.26
6.05
70.0
70.0
60.2
58.7
76.2
77.6
72.9
81.8
-------
TABLE 27. TEST RESULTS COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER WITH CIRCO MEDIUM OIL
o\
Test
no.
26
26R
27
27R
28
28R
31
30
29
37
37R
37A
37AR
33A
33AR
33AR1
34
34R
38
39
40
32
35A
35
35R
41
42
43
*.3 HC
Date
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/4
= .3 m
Time
0947
1018
1119
1138
1315
1340
0920
0950
1050
1308
1346
1451
1619
1723
0815
0845
0915
0937
1055
1126
1150
1316
1359
1430
1502
1601
1650
0940
Harbor C
Wave
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
Calm
.3 HC*
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
.3 HC
Calm
Calm
.3 R
.3 R
.5 R
.5 R
.5 R
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
hop
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.26
0.39
0.39
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.45
0.64
0.26
0.26
0.45
0.45
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.45
0.45
0.26
0.45
0.39
0.51
0.26
0.45
0.45
0.39
0.51
0.26
Engine
speed
rpm
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2400
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Hydraulic
pressure
kg/cm2
80.9
83.0
94.9
97.0
124.4
123.7
130.8
125.2
101.2
90.0
88.6
97.0
90.7
91.4
60.5
94.2
125.9
135.7
97.7
135.7
135.7
117.4
96.3
100.5
111.1
100.5
104.8
92.8
Hydraulic Total Oil rec
flow rate sample eff.
collect.
m3/hr m3 %
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.73
.84
.73
.84
.86
.75
.54
.75
.86
.75
.75
.75
.86
.86
.86
.86
.75
.75
.75
3.63
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.86
.75
.86
.75
.75
.86
.86
.75
0.99
1.90
1.66
1.67
2.20
2.29
2.72
2.40
2.40
2.49
2.63
2.53
2.55
2.66
1.21
2.75
2.41
2.37
2.57
2.17
2.53
2.36
2.71
2.73
2.62
2.82
2.60
2.55
63.2
59.4
80.0
67.0
60.5
60.0
59.9
54.5
52.3
28.3
26.8
40.4
39.3
37.7
38.4
41.4
56.8
59.0
45.5
49.0
48.0
39.1
31.3
35.3
50.6
42.4
35.5
30.2
Oil rec.
rate
m3/hr
37.4
67.9
79.5
67.1
80.0
82.5
97.9
78.1
75.3
42.6
42.0
61.2
60.0
60.3
24.1
68.3
81.8
83.9
69.4
63.0
73.1
54.1
50.6
57.9
79.7
71.5
54.6
46.2
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 27 (Continued)
cr-
Test
no.
43R
44
44R
45
46
46R
34R1
42R
Date
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
Time
1055
1127
1310
1350
1430
1610
1737
1805
Wave
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.6 HC
.5 R
.5R
Tow
speed
m/s
0.26
0.45
0.45
0.51
0.39
0.39
0.45
0.51
Engine
speed
rpm
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Hydraulic
pressure
kg/cm2
92.1
92.1
87.2
87.9
90.0
86.5
87.9
89.3
Hydraulic Total Oil rec
flow rate sample eff .
collect.
m3
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
/hr
86
86
75
75
86
86
75
86
m3
2.60
2.69
2.62
2.62
2.68
2.65
2.59
2.77
%
25.8
31.9
29.7
29.7
33.3
36.6
44.7
37.1
. Oil rec.
rate
rnVhr
39.8
51.5
46.6
47.2
53.6
57.9
69.9
57.8
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The OHMSETT simulation of normal operating conditions of this
offshore skimmer required special rigging and installation. The preload
of oil (19 ,m3) was statically contained on the water surface by the com-
bination of the main bridge skimming bar, the tank walls, and wall
wipers attached to the Coast Guard skimming barrier end points. The
preload during tow shifted nearer the skimmer barrier causing the 152 mm
thickness at the apex, tapering off to zero near the main bridge. Each
tow speed increase caused the zero thickness line to shift towards the
barrier apex, providing a consistent and predictable interface for each
tow speed. Leakage was not significant around the barrier ends because
of the efficient wall wipers. Tank wall affects were monitored by
observing the normal water flow to the tank wall behind the barrier.
The higher tow speeds produced significant wall affects (low water
levels) in the region approximately 2 m from the wall at each barrier
termination. The result of the performance measurements were considered
not to be significantly affected by the walls of OHMSETT. The total
length of curtain wiper, barrier, and skimmer sections was 25 m. The
center section of the six skimmers was 11 m long, well away (4 m) from
the observed wall affects.
Oil recovery rate was high as the tow speed approached 0.5 m/s.
Recovery efficiency was relatively maintained at all the tested speeds,
with heavy oil affecting the performance at the higher speeds. The
maximums are illustrated in Figures 23 and 24 followed by Tables 28
to 30 which show that the effects of pump engine speeds for the Coast
Guard SKIMMING BARRIER are not too significant in the test performance.
However, the settings for optimum performance are given.
63
-------
110 r-
cr>
W
H
§
o
w
Pi
M
O
100
90
80
Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER
Calm water 152 mm slick
Q Circo Heavy Oil
O Circo Medium Oil
D
70
60
. 10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Figure 23.
TOW SPEED (m/s)
Maximum oil recovery rate vs. tow speed of the Coast Guard SKIMMING BARRIER.
-------
RECOVERY EFFICIENCY %
H-
0<3
c
S3
O
.p-
o
oo
o
O
o
O 0
ID
o
o
CD
3
fD
Hi
Hi
H-
O
H-
CD
It
o
Si
O
Hi
n
o
g
H
CL
en
2;
O
i
CO
w
M
O
3
CO
o
o
O
(O
o
O
O
a.
H-
i
O
H-
OD
u>
o
o
•
o
O
H-
O
O
n>
PJ
1-n
O
o
•
o
pj
M
a
(O
os
O
rt C
n>
H
CO Z
I-1 O
M
D
M
-------
TABLE 28. COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE
DATA FOR CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
Oil recovery
rate
m3/hr
78.9
87.6
105.5
108.2
104.0
69.4
79.5
78.1
97.9
75.3
Recovery
efficiency
%
65.8
82.5
69.3
75.5
75.7
63.2
80.0
54.5
60.5
52.3
Throughput* Oil
efficiency type
%•
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
^Throughput Efficiency was not determined for this device.
TABLE 29. COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR
MAXIMUM OIL RECOVERY RATE IN CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
Engine speed
rpm
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
1500
2000
2400
2000
Hydraulic pressure
kg /cm2
96.9
106.8
114.9
136.4
115.3
96.7
94.9
125.1
135.7
101.2
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
66
-------
TABLE 30. COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER DEVICE SETTINGS FOR
MAXIMUM RECOVERY EFFICIENCY IN CALM WATER
Tow speed
m/s
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
0.26
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.64
Engine speed
rpm
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
Hydraulic pressure
kg/cm2
96.9
102.7
113.9
136.4
115.3
80.0
94.9
125.1
124.4
101.2
Oil type
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
67
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oil Spills and Spills of
Hazardous Substances. Oil and Special Materials Control Division,
WH-548, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC, March
1977. 41 pp.
2. Pichon, Jacques. The Cyclonet: A Device for Picking up Oil Slicks
from the Sea Surface. In: Proceedings 1975 Conference on Pre-
vention and Control of Oil Pollution, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC, 1975. pp. 387-394.
3. Norton, R.W. and D.W. Lerch. An Oil Recovery System for San Francisco
Bay Area. In: Proceedings 1975 Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Pollution, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC,
1975. pp. 317-322.
4. Smith, G.F. Performance Testing of the MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1978.
(In press).
68
-------
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operating an Oil and
Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) located
in Leonardo, New Jersey. This facility provides an environmentally safe
place to conduct testing and development of devices and techniques for
the control of oil and hazardous material spills.
The primary feature of the facility is a pile-supported, concrete
tank with a 203 metres long by 20 metres wide water surface, and a water
depth of 2.4 metres. The tank can be filled with fresh or salt water.
The tank is spanned by a bridge capable of exerting a force up to 151
kilonewtons, which permits the towing of floating equipment at speeds up
to 3 metres/second for at least 45 seconds. Slower speeds yield longer
test runs. The towing bridge is equipped to lay oil or hazardous ma-
terials on the surface of the water several metres ahead of the device
being tested, so that reproducible thicknesses and widths of the test
fluids can be achieved with minimum interference by wind.
The principle systems of the tank include a wave generator and
absorber beach, and a filter system. The wave generator and absorber
beach have capabilities of producing regular waves up to 0.7 metre high
and 28.0 metres long, as well as a series of reflecting, complex waves
meant to simulate the water surface of a harbor or sea. The tank water
is clarified by recirculation through a 0.13 cubic metre/second dia-
tomaceous earth filter system in order to permit full use of a sophis-
ticated underwater photography and video imagery system, and to remove
the hydrocarbons that enter the tank water as a result of testing. The
towing bridge has a built-in skimming board which can move oil onto the
North end of the tank for cleanup and recycling.
When the tank must be emptied for maintenance purposes, the entire
water volume of 9842 cubic metres is filtered and treated until it meets
all applicable State and Federal water quality standards before being
discharged. Additional specialized treatment may be used whenever
hazardous materials are used for tests. One such device is a trailer-
mounted carbon treatment unit for removing organic materials from the
water.
Testing at the facility is served from a 650 square metres building
69
-------
adjacent to the tank. This building houses offices, a quality control
laboratory (which is very important since test fluids and tank water are
both recycled), a small machine shop, and an equipment preparation area.
This government-owned, contractor-operated facility is available
for testing purposes on a cost-reimbursable basis. The operating con-
tractor, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., provides a permanent
staff of fourteen multi-disciplinary personnel. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency provides expertise in the area of spill control tech-
nology, and overall project direction. An aerial view is given in
Figure A-l.
For additional information, contact:
OHMSETT Project Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
& Development, Edison, New Jersey 08817, 201-321-6631.
Figure A-l. Aerial view of OHMSETT.
70
-------
Figure A-2. Aerial view of OHMSETT.
-------
APPENDIX B
Test oils used during this test program were obtained from the Sun
Oil Co. and are designated as Circo Medium and Circo X Heavy. These
oils are continually reprocessed by OHMSETT to remove water and sediment
that becomes entrained during test operations. As a result, certain
documented physical properties do change over time and use and need to
be monitored. These properties and changes are detailed in the following
tables.
Since oil temperature, upon distribution to the water surface,
quickly equilibrates to tank water temperature, it is necessary to
detail water temperature throughout the program. Generally, this ranged
from 21.1 to 23.9°C.
Interfacial tension (I.T.) and surface tension were determined at
22.8°C with tank water salinity at 8.6 p.p.t. Samples were collected
from the oil distribution holding tanks just prior to discharge onto the
tank water surface during testing, and after the oil collected from the
tank surface by the test device had been de-watered by the vacuum dis-
tillation unit ("after VDU").
72
-------
on
type
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo
medium
Circo
medium
Date Location
sampled sampled
6/17
6/20
7/18
7/19
6/9
6/16
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
after VDU
Bridge
after VDU
Viscosity Specific Surface Interfacial % Water
gravity tension tension & sediment
xlO"6mz/s xlO~3N/m xlO"3N/m
598 @ 24.4°C
59.2 @ 54.4°C 0.931 34.7 15.9
635 <§ 23.9°C
53 @ 57.2°C 0.934 34.6 17.8
850 @ 23.3°C
58 @ 58.9°C 0.937 36.6 10.6
860 @ 22.8°C
63 § 56.1°C 0.937 36.1 11.5
183.1 <§ 20.6°C
31.9 @ 56.7°C 0.923 34.6 14.1
119 (? 28.9°C
26 @ 54.4°C 0.919 34.3 10.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
-------
TABLE B-2. OIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MARCO CLASS V OIL SKIMMER
Oil
type
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo
medium
Circo
medium
Date
sampled
6/22
6/24
6/27
6/28
6/30
7/13
7/7
7/6
Location
sampled
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
After VDU
Bridge
Bridge
after VDU
Viscosity Specific Surface
gravity tension
xlO~6m2/s xlO~3N/m
753 @ 22.8°C
56
-------
TABLE B-3. OIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES COAST GUARD SKIMMING BARRIER
Oil
type
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo X
heavy
Circo
medium
Circo
Date
sampled
7/25
7/29
7/29
8/1
Q ll
Location
sampled
Bridge
Surface
sample
New
Bridge
Surface
Viscosity
xlO~6m2/s
882 @ 22.8°C
73.3 @ 56.1°C
823 @ 22.8°C
78.6 @ 56.1°C
1215 <§ 20°C
66. 6@ 56.7°C
180.7 @ 23.9°C
26.8 @ 56.7°C
212 @ 23.9°C
oo A ra ";/. /•"r
Specific
gravity
0.937
0.940
0.938
0.924
rt 097
Surface
tension
xlO~3N/m
35.5
36.0
32.4
34.4
Interfacial
tension
x!0~3N/m
9.5
12.0
28.2
8.6
% Water
& sediment
0.1
12.0
0.0
0.1
n.fi
-------
APPENDIX C
OHMSETT WAVES - JO 34
The following waves were used during this test project.
UNIFORM WAVES
STROKE
cm
19
22.9
22.9
RPM
20.0
13.3
20.0
WAVE HEIGHT
cm
36.0
30.8
45.7
WAVE LENGTH
m
11.9
20.1
11.9
WAVE PERIOD
sec
3.0
4.5
3.0
STROKE
in
3.8
7.6
15.2
HARBOR CHOP
RPM
NOMINAL HEIGHT
38.5
26.2
20.0
cm
30.5
61.0
121.9
76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-082
2.
4. TITl E AND SUBTITLE
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THREE OFFSHORE SKIMMING DEVICES
7. AUTMOR(S)
H. W. Lichte and M. K. Breslin
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 117
Leonardo, NJ 07737
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cinn., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
6. REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623
T1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0490
13. TVPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 6/77 - 8/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Job Order No. 34
16. ABSTRACT
The CYCLONET 100, MARCO Class V OIL SKIMMER, and U.S. Coast Guard SKIMMING
BARRIER (CGSB) were evaluated in terms of their throughput efficiency, recovery
efficiency, and oil recovery rate. Test variables included several wave conditions
and tow speeds to simulate the effective harbor and offshore environments. Results
of the program indicate that effective device performance was limited to current
speeds below 2.0 to 3.0 m/s. Additional independent variables included such param-
eters as device immersion depth, pump rate, belt speed, and slick thickness.
This report was submitted by Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. in fulfillment
of Contract Number 68-03-0490, Job Order No. 34, with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period June 7, 1977 through August 5, 1977
and work was completed as of September 9, 1977. The work was sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Energy under Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-R7-01182.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Performance tests
Water pollution
Oils
Skimmers
Harbors
Equipment evaluation
Oil spill cleanup
Coastal waters
Continental Shelf Waters
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
89
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
77
•k U. S. GOVERHMEN1 PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/1350 Region No. 5-11
------- |