&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

-------