EPA-600/2-77-150
August 1977
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF SELECTED INLAND OIL SPILL
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
by
William E. McCracken
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Leonardo,^ New Jersey 07737
Contract No. 68-03-0490
Project Officer
Frank J. Freestone
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
LIBRARY
U S. ENVIRON,..,At PROTECTION AGENDA
, N. J.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use nor does the failure to mention or test other com-
mercial products indicate that other commercial products are not available
or cannot perform similarly well as those mentioned.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This report describes performance testing of a total of sixteen com-
mercial, off-the-shelf inland oil spill control and cleanup devices under a
variety of controlled conditions. Based on these results, a number of oper-
ating techniques are recommended to ensure maximum performance. The methods,
results, and techniques described are of interest to those interested in
specifying, using or testing such equipment. Further information may be
obtained through the Resource Extraction & Handling Division, Oil & Hazardous
Materials Spills Branch in Edison, New Jersey.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Standardized performance tests were conducted at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's test facility OHMSETT with various off-the-shelf
inland oil spill control and clean-up devices. Operability limits were
defined and then quantified via testing for eight boom systems and eight
stationary skimmers. This information allows those concerned with spill
control to match the proper equipment with the existing environmental
conditions (wave characteristics, current, and oil properties) associated
with an oil spill in their inland waters.
Boom systems were tested in the catenary (U) configuration for oil
collection capabilities and in the diversionary (J) configuration for
fast-current oil diversion capabilities. Booms were first tested for
stability capabilities over a wide range of wave conditions without oil
and then with oil in wave conditions within their operational stability
limits. Booms and stationary skimmers were tested in the same wave
conditions and oils. Two test oils were used—No. 2 Fuel Oil and Sunvis
75 Lubrication Oil (without additives).
Operating techniques are recommended to ensure maximum performance
of skimmer systems (especially in very viscous oil) and booms deployed
in both containment and diversionary modes. The parachute mooring
technique is described for setting up a diversionary boom system.
Proper use of boom and connectors and universal bridles is described for
operational stability at higher currents.
A professional movie, entitled "Performance Testing of Selected
Oil Spill Control Equipment for Inland Use", was produced in conjunction
with this test project.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Job Order No. 6
by Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Leonardo, New Jersey, under the
sponsorship of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Con-
tract No. 68-03-0490. This report covers the period April 17, 1975 to
June 16, 1975; work was completed as of March 15, 1976.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols viii
List of Equipment Tested x
Acknowledgment xi
1 Introduction and Objectives 1
2 Conclusions 3
3 Recommendations 6
4 Facility and Test Apparatus Description 7
5 Test Plan 11
6 Test Procedures 23
7 Discussion of Results 29
8 Application of Testing and Test Data 37
References 45
Appendices
A. OHMSETT Description 47
B. Facility Modifications 49
C. Test Equipment - Booms 51
D. Test Equipment - Skimmers 75
E. Test Results - Booms 81
F. Test Results - Skimmers 100
G. Test Procedures - Booms 107
H. Test Procedures - Skimmers 110
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Photograph of Catenary Configuration 14
2 Photograph of Diversionary Configuration 14
3 Photograph of Oil Entrainment (Shedding) Failure Mode . . 15
4 Photograph of Oil Splashover Failure Mode 15
5 Photograph of Planing Failure Mode 16
6 Photograph of Submarining Failure Mode 16
7 Photograph of Bridging Failure Mode 17
8 Sketch of Catenary Boom Test Details 24
9 Sketch of Diversionary Boom Test Details 25
10 Photograph of Skimmer Test 27
11 Photograph of Traveling Tow Device 28
12 Photograph of Rotating Drums 39
13 Sketch of River Velocity Profiles 40
14 Sketch of Test Tank Relative Velocity Profiles 40
15 Photograph of Air Barrier Surface Currents 42
16 Sketch of Air Barrier Surface Currents 43
17 Sketch of Circulation Pattern and Velocity Profiles for an
Air Barrier 44
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Failure Modes 13
2 Stability Test Matrix 20
3 Tow Test Matrix for Inland Booms 21
4 Test Matrix for Stationary Skimmers 22
5 Optimum Boom Stability Performance 30
6 Optimum Boom Performance with Oil 30
7 Computed Diversionary "NO LOSS" Tow Speeds from Catenary
"NO LOSS" Speeds Using Angular Component Technique . 32
8 Optimum Skimmer Test Results 34
vii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
cm
cm2/s
cSt
m3
m3/min
mVs
CPM
ft
gal
gpm
H/L
in
lERL-Ci
I.M.E.
I.R.
kg
kg/m
kt
m
m/min
m/s
mz/s
imp
mV/m/s
OHMSETT
p.p.t.
%
PACE
Ibs
Ibs/ft
SSU
sec, a
ft2
m2
V/m/s
SYMBOLS
—centimeter
—centimeters squared/sec
—centlstokes
—cubic meters
--cubic meters per minute
—cubic meters per second
—cycles per minute
—feet
—gallons
—gallons per minute
—height to length steepness ratio
—inch
—Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, Ohio
—Industrial and Municipal Engineering
—infrared
—kilograms
—kilograms per meter
—knot
—meter
—meters per minute
—meters per second
—meters squared per second
—millimeters
—millivolts per meter per second
—Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
Tank
—parts per thousand
—percent
—Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian
Environment
—pounds
—pounds per foot
—Saybolt Universal Seconds
—seconds
—square feet
—square meters
—volts per meter per second
U —Catenary boom configuration
viii
-------
SYMBOLS (continued)
Vc --critical velocity
J --Diversionary configuration
1 —feet
" —inches
00 —infinity
± —plus or minus next amount shown
ix
-------
LIST OF EQUIPMENT TESTED
BOOMS
1 Clean Water, Inc., HARBOUR BOOM1
2 Coastal Services Coastal Oil Boom
3 Acme Products Company OK Corral Containment Boom
4 B.F. Goodrich SEA Products 18 PFX Permafloat Sea Boom
5 Slickbar, Inc., Mark VI Boom
6 Kepner Plastics Fabricators, Inc., Sea Curtain
7 PACE (Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian
Environment) Oil Boom
8 Whittaker Corporation Expandi-Boom
STATIONARY SKIMMERS
1 Slickbar, Inc. - 2.5 cm (1 in) Rigid Manta Ray (No. 1)
2 Slickbar, Inc. - 2.5 cm (1 in) Flexible Manta Ray (No. 2)
3 Slickbar, Inc. - 1.3 cm (0.5 in) Flexible Manta Ray (No. 3)
4 Slickbar, Inc. - Aluminum Skimmer (No. 4)
5 Acme Products Company - Floating Saucer SK-39T
6 British Petroleum Company, Ltd., Komara Miniskimmer
« 7 Coastal Services - Slurp
8 Industrial and Municipal Engineering Company (I.M.E.) - Swiss OELA
III
x
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report presents the results of the OHMSETT testing of manufacturer
supplied equipment. The cooperation of all participating manufacturers
is sincerely appreciated.
Mr. F.J. Freestone is the Project Officer of OHMSETT which is owned
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Messrs. F.J. Freestone and
J.S. Dorrler jointly served as the Project Officers for this project and
provided valuable assistance.
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. is the operating contractor
for OHMSETT. Mr. R.A. Ackerman, Manager, Mr. Gary Smith, chemist, and
Mr. Michael Johnson, test director, provided valuable guidance and
suggestions throughout the test project which is acknowledged with
sincere thanks. Also, Mr. S.H. Schwartz, engineering aide, assisted
greatly in the preparation of this report including graphics and tables
for which we express sincere thanks. The effort of all the technicians
involved in the testing program is greatly appreciated.
Funds for this project were provided by the Edison, N.J., office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnnatl, Ohio.
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND
Numerous oil spill control and clean-up systems exist today that have
application in the inland waterways. Some manufacturers supply both booms and
skimmers as a complete, integrated system for oil removal, while others supply
only one or the other. A definite need has existed for a test facility to
evaluate these systems on an equal basis to determine their operable ranges
and to determine the best combination of devices to meet the immediate needs
of the inland environments. Reliable performance data is usually not avail-
able and performance has been estimated either by unrepeatable, uncontrolled
real world tests or by extrapolation (References 1 and 2).
OHMSETT is a test facility where performance testing and evaluation of
full-scale and prototype equipment can be conducted. (For details see Appen-
dix A). Several reasons for conducting oil spill control equipment perfor-
mance tests in a hydrodynamically controlled environment, such as OHMSETT
are:
• They cannot be legally conducted on the open waterways, without
specific governmental approval.
• Ability to establish simulated hydrodynamic-environmental condi-
tions.
• Ability to establish simulated oil (or other hazardous material)
spill conditions on open waterways.
• Ability to repeat the test conditions and results to establish a
statistical format.
All of the above reasons lead to the ultimate goal of performing standar-
dized tests. These are necessary to quantify the performance characteristics
of equipment with respect to design specifications and other similar equipment.
Ultimately, the results obtained will allow the user of the equipment to match
the proper equipment with specific environmental conditions.
SCOPE
The purpose of this project was to test and evaluate commercially avail-
able inland oil spill control equipment—booms and skimmers. Tests were con-
ducted in a standardized manner to produce results such that field users would
-------
be able to objectively judge the relative merits of various devices and com-
binations of equipment used in inland oil spill conditions. Thus, test condi-
tions and procedures were designed to correspond to the typical inland water-
way field use requirements. For wave conditions, characterizations are
given in References 3 and 4.
Booms and skimmers that represented a cross-section of the commercial
market were solicited for testing on a consignment basis. Booms were re-
stricted to a maximum of 0.61 m (24 in) skirt and 61.0 m (200 ft) in length.
Skimmers were restricted to being stationary type, operable in 2.4 m (8 ft)
of water, and of size and weight to be reasonably managed by two men deploy-
ing and operating them. The number of pieces of equipment to be tested was
limited by the project funds and test time available. Eight booms and eight
skimmers were solicited and tested.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on standardized testing of various
off-the-shelf inland oil spill control and clean-up skimmers and barriers.
The testing was undertaken to relate various salient design features to per-
formance in various waves and currents representative of those found in in-
land waterways. Direct comparison of booms and skimmers was avoided. Each
boom and skimmer system was recognized as having its place of application in
the wide range of environmental conditions that exist on the inland waterways.
The tests conducted at OHMSETT defined the range of waves and currents under
which each type of system would perform. Only performance tests were con-
ducted .
For boom systems, the relationship between net buoyancy, skirt draft,
towing arrangement, and maximum tow speeds (currents) relative to waves are:
1. Catenary Boom Stability above 0.81 m/s (1.6 knot) current and
0.61 m (2 ft) wave (.067 steepness ratio, H/L)
a. Net Buoyancy 44.6 kg/m (30 Ibs per lineal foot)
b. Skirt Draft 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
c. Towing Arrangement...tension concentrated near bottom
2. Catenary Boom Containment at 0.51 m/s (1.0 kt) current and
0.61 m (2 ft) wave (.067 H/L)
a. Net Buoyancy 10.4 to 29.8 kg/m (7 to 20 Ibs per lineal
foot)
b. Skirt Draft 0.15 to 0.30 m (0.5 to 1.0 ft)
c. Towing Arrangement...tension concentrated near bottom
3. Diversionary Boom Stability above 0.81 m/s (1.6 kt) current and
0.61 m (2 ft) wave (.067 H/L)
a. Net Buoyancy 37.2 kg/m (25 Ibs per lineal ft)
b. Skirt Draft 0.46 m (1.5 ft)
c. Towing Arrangement...tension concentrated near bottom
4. Diversionary Boom Diversion above 0.56 m/s (1.1 kt) current
and 0.61 m (2 ft) wave (.067 H/L)
a. Net Buoyancy 37.2 kg/m (25 Ibs per lineal foot)
b. Skirt Draft 0.46 m (1.5 ft)
-------
c. Towing Arrangement...tension concentrated near bottom
All boom tests, excepting one, were conducted with a high viscosity lu-
brication grade oil. To illustrate the effect of a low viscosity oil on boom
performance, one boom system was tested with both the lubrication oil and No.
2 fuel oil. The results indicated a slight decrease in the critical tow speed
(no oil loss speed) of 0.07 m/s (0.15 kt).
Considering the eight boom systems as representing the current technology
for spill control systems on inland waterways, the optimum performance for all
of the booms at the various conditions was:
• Catenary Configuration (Stability Performance): Maximum Stable
Tow Speed ranged from 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) at a wave steepness ratio
of 0.111 to 1.27 m/s (2.5 kt) at calm water conditions.
Catenary Configuration (Performance with Oil): Maximum "No Oil
Loss" Tow Speed ranged from 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) at a wave steepness
ratio of 0.111 to 0.46 m/s (0.9 kt) at calm water conditions.
• Diversionary Configuration (Stability Performance): Maximum Stable
Tow Speed ranged from 0-25 m/s (0.5 kt) at a wave steepness ratio
of 0.111 to 1.02 m/s (2.0 kt) at calm water conditions.
• Diversionary Configuration (Performance with Oil): Maximum "No Oil
Loss" Tow Speed ranged from 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) at a wave steepness
ratio of 0.111 to 0.81 m/s (1.6 kt) at calm water conditions.
The diversionary capability of each boom system to divert oil from the
fast current regions on an inland waterway to the slow current regions where
oil collection (i.e. skimmers) is initiated was determined. For currents
greater than 0.51 m/s (1 kt), with the boom in the catenary configuration, the
tank tests indicated that the oil could not be contained. In that most inland
waterways have surface currents in excess of 0.51 m/s (1 kt), diversionary
boom techniques are most successful. From vectorial analysis of the forces
exerted on a boom by the current, the theoretical benefit of angling a boom
relative to the current can be easily calculated. However, deploying a flex-
ible boom to maintain a constant angle along its entire length is impossible.
Thus, parachute mooring lines and other techniques are used to maintain the
current directed perpendicularly against the boom below the 0.51 m/s (1 kt)
limit (Figure 9).
In that booms and skimmers must operate in the same environmental condi-
tions, the skimmers were tested with the same wave conditions as the booms.
Two different oils were used to test skimmer performance and their dependence
on oil viscosity. The oil slick thickness was controlled at 2.54 cm (1 in),
which represents actual inland-use situations where the oil slick is thick-
ened either by containment in a boom moving against the current, or by di-
version along a boom angled against the current.
In general, the skimmer's performance was affected by oil viscosity.
The rotating disc type skimmer performance strongly increased with viscosity.
-------
The self-adjusting weir and floating suction head registered a slight
increase with viscosity, while the adjustable weir performance remained
unaffected.
Also, the oil recovery capacity was very much dependent on the
other components in the skimming system—the connection hose (diameter
and length), the type of pump (diaphragm or axial flow) and the discharge
hose (diameter and length). For the viscous oils, hose diameters and
lengths, 7.6 cm (3 in) and 15.2 m (50 ft) worked best for the pumps
involved. Also, the diaphragm pumps perform much better in viscous oils
than axial flow or centrifugal pumps.
There was no clear correlation of skimmer performance and wave
conditions for the waves observed. In some cases, there seemed to be a.
slight improvement and in other cases a slight decrease in performance
with certain waves. In general, these differences were small enough to
be explained by the inaccuracies of test measurement.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional tests should be conducted with other oils and/or chemicals
which cover a wide spectrum of critical properties (i.e. viscosity,
specific gravity and interfacial tension). Theoretical predictions of
"No Loss" speeds should be correlated with measured speeds for the
catenary and diversionary boom configurations. These tests should also
include random and breaking waves (e.g. harbor chop).
In that the boom encounter angle with respect to current (diversionary
configuration) was held constant for each boom system, the effect of
varying this angle (i.e. 0 -*• 90) for one boom at each wave condition
would be of considerable interest. The potential user of this equipment
would then have experimental data which could be used to define the
angles at which the boom should be deployed for "No Oil Loss" once the
current and wave conditions are known. Also, for the industrial facilities
located at a fixed point on an inland waterway, the boom design features
necessary for controlling potential spills could be determined and
deployment techniques well defined.
Skimmer systems are inherently viscosity dependent. Even if the
skimmer head is viscosity independent (e.g. weir types), the connecting
hose, pump and discharge hose are viscosity dependent. Thus, when
testing skimmers, the entire system must be well defined (i.e. hose
diameter, pump capability). As recommended for the booms, the skimmers
should be tested in random breaking waves, such as are found in harbors
and inlets.
Some underwater films were taken during this test project, which
documented the oil entrainment phenomena that occurred when testing
booms in both the containment and diversion modes. In order to fully
understand these phenomena, further testing should be designed and
conducted to correlate the best available theoretical predictions with
test data both measured and clearly photographed. Underwater photo-
graphy would need to be of high resolution for documenting droplet size
and interfacial waves and turbulence.
-------
SECTION 4
FACILITY AND TEST APPARATUS DECRIPTION
OHMSETT DESCRIPTION
The OHMSETT facility is located in Leonardo, New Jersey, at the
Naval Weapons Station Earle. (For details see Appendix A). The facility
was built specifically for the testing of oil and hazardous materials
control equipment. Waves can be generated up to 0.9 m (3 ft) high and
45.7 m (150 ft) long and current simulated with a towable bridge up to
3.1 m/s (6 kt). The tank can be filled with either fresh or sea water.
The sea water comes from the Sandy Hook Bay (salinity 20 p.p.t.) and was
used during these tests.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO OHMSETT
In order to adequately test the recovery systems it was necessary
to make some modifications. A 1.13 m3/min (300 gpm) oil distribution
system was constructed and installed with a flow meter and other instrumen-
tation. Special nozzles to accomodate the high viscosity oils were
installed and calibrated for even flow distribution. Also, a traveling
truss was constructed which spanned the tank width and was connected to
the tow cables used for the bridge. It functions as an observation
deck, a reverse skimming system and a tow-back system when returning to
the starting position for the next test. For further details of the
modifications refer to Appendix B.
LIST OF EQUIPMENT TESTED
Booms
1 Clean Water, Inc., Harbour Oil Containment Boom
2 Coastal Services Coastal Oil Boom
3 Acme Products Company OK Corral Containment Boom
4 B.F. Goodrich SEA Products 18 PFX Permafloat Sea Boom
5 Slickbar, Inc., Mark VI-A Boom
6 Kepner Plastics Fabricators, Inc., Sea Curtain
-------
7 PACE (Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian
Environment) Oil Boom
8 Whittaker Corporation Expandi-Boom
Stationary Skimmers
1 Slickbar, Inc. - 2.5 cm (1 in) Rigid Manta Ray (No. 1)
2 Slickbar, Inc. - 2.5 cm (1 in) Flexible Manta Ray (No. 2)
3 Slickbar, Inc. - 1.3 c, (0.5 in) Flexible Manta Ray (No. 3)
4 Slickbar, Inc. - Aluminum Skimmer (No. 4)
5 Acme Products Company - Floating Saucer SK-39T
6 British Petroleum Company, Ltd. - Komara Miniskimmer
7 Coastal Services, Inc. - Slurp
8 Industrial and Municipal Engineering Company (IME) - Swiss
OELA III
For details of the equipment tested, refer to Appendices C and D.
DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION
The measurement and instrumentation systems used were designed to
measure, record and document all of the physical parameters necessary to
quantitatively evaluate the performance of the test devices. Instrumenta-
tion and measurement of fluid properties, fluid recovery, fluid distribu-
tion rate, and tow speeds were as follows:
• Fluid Properties - Samples of materials were collected prior
to distribution and after recovery. Laboratory analysis
included the following:
Specific Gravity laboratory hydrometers
Viscosity shear-type viscosimeter
flow-thru orifice viscosimeter
Temperature laboratory thermometer
portable I.R. thermometer
Surface Tension tensiometer
Interfacial Tension tensiometer
Percent Water sample centrifuged with 50%
-------
water
saturated Toluene
Fluid Recovery - Measuring containers, sizes .06, .19, .38,
1.89 m3 (15, 50, 100, 500 gallons) were calibrated in gallons
per inch.
These containers are constructed of translucent polyethylene,
which allows technicians to detect the oil/water interface and
take appropriate measurements. In the event that the thickness
of either phase was luss than 2.5 cm (1 in), that phase was
drawn into 1,000 ml graduated cylinders for more accurate
measurement. To ascertain that the oil phase contained
minimal dispersed water droplets, centrifuge samples of the
oil phase were routinely collected and analyzed. When the
water content was more than 2.5%, a water content correction
was employed.
The time required to allow complete settling of the oil phase
from the water phase depended upon many factors, including the
ambient temperatutes, type of oil used, and the amount of
mixing caused by the oil removal mechanism (i.e., pump, belt,
etc.). A minimum settling time of 1/2 hour with continuous
checks was standard procedure.
Ambient Conditions were recorded prior to each test and a
complete record of environmental conditions was compiled. The
following parameters were measured using standard weather
instrumentation.
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Per Cent Humidity
Barometric Pressure
Wave characteristics were routinely checked using a Polaroid
camera and stopwatch to measure the height, length, and period
of OHMSETT generated waves. Using a grid system superimposed
on the east tank wall, technicians observed wave parameters
and correlated their findings to the wave generator settings
of stroke length and r.p.m.
Test Fluid Distribution Rates and Total Volume Distributed
were measured using positive displacement-type flow meters.
-------
_t,wu signal from the test director, a predetermined amount of
oil was distributed through an air-operated nozzle system in
line with the flow meter.
Tow Speed data was acquired using a DC tachometer mounted on
the motor shaft of the bridge drive. The gear ratio provided
for 3.28 V/m/s which was reduced by a voltage divider to 0.055
mV/m/s and read by a three segment, one volt digital voltmeter.
10
-------
SECTION 5
TEST PLAN
Inland waterways represent a wide spectrum of environmental conditions
such as various wave conditions, currents and water properties. The
application of oil spill control equipment is often unique to each
specific situation. It would take years to test the application of
equipment in all of the different inland situations from tropical swamps
and small streams to the Great Lakes iced over in the winter. Thus, the
wave characteristics, currents and oil types were selected to represen-
tative of the more typical situations. For more detail on these environ-
mental conditions, see References 3 and 4.
The deployment of booms and skimmers in rivers and estuaries requires
special techniques. With the high current in midstream and low current
near shore, booms are normally angled against the current to prevent oil
loss under the skirt. This is called the diversionary boom configuration
and usually requires a special mooring technique to maintain the shape
of the barrier. This technique and other deployment techniques are
given in References 5 and 6. Booms are usually deployed in the catenary
configuration (U-shaped, Figure 1) when oil spillage is to be contained
against a current less than 0.51 m/s (1 kt). Once the oil is contained,
skimmers and other oil removal devices can be utilized. The test program
was designed for diversionary performance (J-shaped, Figure 2) as well
as containment performance evaluation.
In that certain design features of the test equipment directly
affect performance, commercially available skimmers and booms were
selected that incorporated the various design features of interest (e.g.
for booms, stiffness affects bridging; for skimmers, pump type affects
flow rate). For more detail on design features and their effects on
performance, see References 7 through 15. The design features considered
in this project were: net buoyancy, skirt draft, and towing arrangement
for booms; rotating disc, self-adjusting weir, adjustable weir and
floating suction head for skimmer designs. Also, several pump designs
were tested: centrifugal, axial flow and diaphragm pumps.
A high viscosity lubricating oil stock was used for most of the
tests since its properties represented a medium between very viscous oil
(No. 6 and greater) and low viscosity diesel fuel. To ascertain the
effect of a low viscosity oil, several selected tests were run with
diesel fuel.
11
-------
Performance criteria for booms was aimed at determining the exact
tow speed at which oil began to escape the boom in both the catenary and
diversionary modes. First, the boom was tested without oil in various
waves to determine its maximum stable-operable tow speed in each configu-
ration. Then, it was tested with oil in those waves where its stable
performance range was above 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) tow speed. This acknow-
ledged the fact that a physical phenomenon (oil entrainment mechanism)
exists at the oil/water interface which usually determines the maximum
tow speed attainable before losing oil under the boom. Also, the splashing
and heaving motion of waves can force oil under the top of the booms at
tow speeds well below their stability limits. For more detail on these
phenomena see References 16 and 17.
For skimmers, it was recognized that oil recovery rates depended
upon the pumping system (including hose dimensions and connectors) as
well as the recovery device at the oil/water interface. Thus, the test
included various pumps, hoses and connectors. Also, two test fluids
were used to measure the viscosity effects—diesel fuel and high viscosity
lube oil.
The standard test plan reflects the systematic evaluation of boom
and stationary skimmer systems relative to various inland environmental
conditions and specific design features. Performance was evaluated on
the basis that the establishment of maximum operability limits is paramount
to the selection of a system to be employed during a real spill situation.
In evaluating these limits, the failure mode was visually determined and
photographically documented. Stability testing was performed to evaluate
at which surface currents (relative velocities) either boom planing,
submarining, or other type failure occurred. In addition, splashover at
the boom fluid interface was considered to be stability failure, since
in many cases the loss of freeboard of a boom reflects its inability to
maintain an adequate vertical profile. These failure modes are listed
in Table 1 and shown in Figures 3 through 7.
Testing with oil was then performed to observe and note the critical
tow speed of other possible modes of failure.
12
-------
Table 1. Failure modes.
1. Fluid entrainment into the water column (Figure 3)
a. caused by interfacial shear
b. caused by inertia effects of large wave action (i.e. gravity
waves)
c. caused by inertia effects of small interfacial wave action
(i.e. capillary waves)
d. caused by eddy currents
2. Fluid forced (splashed or heaved) over the boom freeboard (Figure
4)
a. breaking waves with sufficient height to heave fluid over boom
b. splashing at boom - fluid interface
3. Fluid leakage at the joints of boom section
4. Boom failure relative to stability
a. boom planing (Figure 5)
b. boom submarining (Figure 6)
c. boom oscillating
d. boom bridging (Figure 7)
5. Fluid drainage under the boom due to excessive fluid thickening
13
-------
Figure 1. Photograph of catenary configuration.
Figure 2. Photograph of diversionary configuration.
14
-------
Figure 3. Photograph of oil entrainment (shedding) failure mode.
Figure 4. Photograph of oil splashover failure mode.
15
-------
Figure 5. Photograph of planing failure mode.
Figure 6. Photograph of submarining failure mode.
16
-------
Figure 7. Photograph of bridging failure mode.
17
-------
STANDARD TEST PLAN
A test plan was designed based on developing standard test procedures
for evaluating oil control and recovery devices. Standard test parameters
were defined to measure performance. The independent parameters of
interest were: oil type, oil thickness, tow speed, waves and boom configu-
ration. The dependent parameters for performance were defined as follows:
• Total Recovery Rate - (Skimmer) rate at which the equipment
recovers oil/water mixture under test conditions.
• Oil Recovery Rate - (Skimmer) total recovery rate multiplied
by the percent oil in the mix.
• Recovery Efficiency - (Skimmer) the percentage of oil re-
covered in the total mix.
• Stability Limit - tow speed at which boom loses its ability to
maintain an adequate vertical profile.
• Critical Tow Speed - maximum speed the boom can be towed
before losing oil under the skirt. Also called "no loss" tow
speed.
The above mentioned independent parameters were tested over ranges
defined according to the test rationale. The following ranges for these
parameters were selected:
• Oil Type (properties varied with temperature and water content)
a. diesel fuel - viscosity of 0.1 cm2/s (10 cSt),
specific gravity of 0.852
b. lube oil - viscosity of 5.1 cm2/s (510 cSt), specific
gravity of 0.915
Oil Slick Thickness
a. booms - 2 mm (.03 in)
b. skimmers - 2.54 cm (1 in)
• Tow Speed - 0 up to critical tow speed continuously controlled
within 3.05 m/min (10 fpm)
• Wave Characteristics
a. height - 0.03 m, 0.6 m (1 ft, 2 ft)
b. period - 1.5. 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, infinite (sec)
c. steepness ratio - 0.013, 0.022, 0.066, 0.111
18
-------
• Boom Configuration
a. catenary or containment (U-shape)
b. diversionary (J-shape)
Two types of skimmer tests were run. One test combined the skimmer
with the diversionary boom to remove the diverted oil at the end of a
test. This test represented field use of the total integrated boom/skimmer
system. Other tests were conducted with a fixed area of 147.6 m2
(1,588 ft2) controlled in size by a pneumatic barrier. In terms of
standardization and repeatability, tests conducted in the fixed area had
the advantage over tests conducted in conjunction with diversionary
barriers.
TEST MATRICES
To test the equipment with respect to the above mentioned variables,
three separate matrices were developed:
1. Stability Test Matrix for Booms
2. Tow Test Matrix for Inland Booms
3. Test Matrix for Stationary Skimmers
The stability test matrix was designed to determine the critical
(maximum) tow speed attainable for stable performance of containment and
diversionary booms being towed through five sea water surface conditions
(waves). The details of this matrix are given in Table 2.
The tow test matrix for inland booms was designed to determine the
critical tow speed for no oil loss under catenary and diversionary booms
being towed through the three most viable wave conditions identified
from the stability tests. The details of this matrix are given in Table
3.
The test matrix for stationary skimmers was designed to measure the
oil recovery rate and efficiency of a skimmer operating in the same
three waves of the tow test matrix for booms and two oil types—diesel
fuel and lube oil. The details of this matrix are given in Table 4.
19
-------
erator
c(ifcXCPM
C *H
CU H
O 4J
C
0) CU
> o
cd o
Sc u
'to'
4J
4-> O
*W *T1
^-\ 0)
CO p i
^ "
£* •(-*
^/ bC
C
n cu
0) iJ
4J
O •
Cd 4-1
j8 £}
u cu
PC
>
td
PE
4J
X-N
CO
5
*
cu
cu
f*
P-
CO
o
H
C
o
- 1
•rl
_. «"
6 V
o ^
f§ -H
«w
o
o
o
S3
4J
CO
(U
H
*
o o o
-* i-l CM
m m
!-)•>»» I-l
m in m
M • • • M
CO iH *^ *4" CO
00 0
o
•^ • vo in *^
co
« • rH •.
C^ s^. ZT~ « ^
«* - m /-N •*
^f ON f*^ ^ *^
*^ CM ^>^ ON ^^
**^ >H/
r^ ON r**
• i-H • r^ •
CO • CM • CO
iH ON CM CM i-l
« • IS 0 «
cu r^ r^ ir r^ H CM rM i-l > rH
rt >-^ v^ \*s *~s cd v^
CO vO CO CO CO
o • • • . o
55 O O O O 25 O
in m m in m m m
o o o o o o o
»n m m in m m m
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
• ••••••
o o o o o o o
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
u u u u u u u
^* ^^ ^^ ^^ t^ ^^ ^^
^** ^^
3 S
^ >N >^ >» ^1 O O
§cd cd cd cd co co
2 a e C M M
cu cu cu cu o cu cu
cd cd cd cd cd *H "H
O U CJ CJ CJ Q O
I-H ' CM co -^ in vo r~
o
•^
•^
in
*
1-1
o
•
CO
^
»
ON
CM
x_s
f-l
•
ON
^
^
CM
^-^
vO
0
m
o
^
m
CM
•
o
+1
u
>
^
cd
C
O
•H
CO
J-l
cu
^
o
oo
o
I-l
M
m
•
"*
o
•
vO
«
iT^
m
PS.
x^
o\
•
CM
CM
^
X-N
fH
s-/
co
*
o
m
0
m
CM
•
o
+i
o
>
>N
a
o
•H
co
M
CU
•H
n
ON
O
CM
M
m
•
"*
m
•
i-H
„
/WN
»
ON
s,^
r^
•
CM
,
^
r-l
s-x
CO
•
0
m
o
m
CM
•
o
+i
o
>
£»
a
Q
•H
CO
CU
•H
n
o
i-i
co
"s
m
CM
cu
00
§
cd
4-1
O
4J
cd
+1
-o
cu
0)
d,
CO
cd
u
X
•H
4-1
CO
(U
4J
CO
4J
CO
CM
•8
H
20
-------
I
<
U
ci)
00
CO
0
H
•H
O
CU
§
tH
0
>
*
CU
ft
H
i-l
•H
O
X"\
CO
M
4-1
4J O
>4-l iH
^, CU
co t^
e «
• 43
v2- M
(3
CU iJ
4-1
O •
CO 4J
Cd M
43 -H
U CU
w
CU
^
cd
&
4-1
CO
£
T3
CU
CU
W
§
H
•
Q
4J
CO
CU
H
/~\ x-s
oo oo
%^ ^f
CO CO
^s >-x
CM CM
CO CO
• •
iH H
CU CU
•§ •§
"^ ^
0
•
•
^"*
sf
st
V.X
^
.
CO
I— |
CU
> rH
cd ^^
s
co
o
» o
to to
C5 0
lO «O
CM CM
• •
O O
+1 +1
o o
i-H CM.
X-N
00
^*
CO
^,x•
CM
CO
•
i-H
CU
•§
^
0
CO
x^*
»
c^
CM
^^
i-H
•
O1*
p
CM
^x
VO
O
X-N
O
*^^
10
CM
•
O
+1
u
CO
oo
sr
co
CM
CO
oo
sr
co
CM
co
oo
•*
co
CM
CO
0)
&
3
CO
§
43
O
*
co
3
o
o
42
C
rt
tH
c
•H
•rl
(-1
4J
CO
CU
4J
o
H
CO
0)
rH
43
Cd
H
21
-------
CU
a
•H
O
CU
"§
01
•§
(J
0)
,0
0)
CM
0)
CM
0)
3
•
3
3
s
•H
4-1
P.
O
4-1
cO
4-J
CU
CO
CU
4-1
tO
O<
e
P-I
CO
4-1
CO
CU
4J
""O
e
cu
rrj
4-1
^
O
CO
^j
0
'O
cu
4-1
3
r*
•H
M
CO
•H
Tj
^— N
rH
CO
60
O
m
CO
\^
CO
e
CM
CO
•
rH
co
4J
CO
CU
4J
T3
C
0)
n
4-1
1-1
O
C
l-l
O
i4_i
T3
cu
4-1
3
n
•H
}-i
4J
CO
•H
T3
X-N
I-l
CO
60
0
O
O
*
r-1
v^
m
0
^
r*^
•
CO
m
CM
'cO
cu
CO
c
O
•H
4J
a
0)
t-H
rH
O
O
IM
O
CO
4-1
c
CO
e
cu
^1
p
CO
CO
cu
e
c
O
*o
cu
CO
cO
£>
CO
CO
cu
c
p**{
0
•H
^2
4-J
O
•H
i— \
Cfi
r
4-1
14-1
CO
e"
^e
^t
cu
4-1
0
O
M
(0
CJ
cu
>
CO
Period
•%
l^H
J-»
too
C
0)
J_J
n
J-J
r^
60
•H
CU
|T^
oo 2
• O O CU
^^ * ^3" • g
CO CO B
" -H
x— \ « x^s •> ^
•• X-N •• x-^ CO
^^ CM ^ CM ^"
Ni~*' ^"^ cd
r~. r- c
• rH • i— 1 O
CO • CO • -H
rH O1 I— 1 ON 4J
cfl
/"N X"N ^^^ /"*\ CO
cu cu
> rH CM > ^( CM (_|
CO v^ v^ cfl -^ v^ o
S > "4-1
CO vO CO vO
o • • o • • x
Z O O g; O O -H
)-l
4-1
cO
e
4-1
CO
cu
H
•
v^-
cu
t— H
60 ,£3
C n)
•H H
4-1
4-)
£3
^_l
CU
•
O
123
4-1
CO
CU
H
PM
a
iH CM CO •
-------
SECTION 6
TEST PROCEDURES
BOOM TOW TEST PROCEDURES
The first part of the boom test involved deployment and rigging of the
boom. Depending upon the standard length per boom section, the length of
boom used for the catenary configuration was approximately 60.96 m (200 ft)
and for the diversionary configuration was approximately 30.50 m (100 ft).
Boom sections were joined together and tow connections were rigged accord-
ing to the manufacturers' recommendations. Light-weight chain, snap hooks
and clevis connectors were used as much as possible to facilitate fast
rigging and derigging. Also, a special monorail towing device, as shown in
Figure 11, was constructed and used to support the trailing edge of the boom
when testing in the diversionary mode. A light-weight boom was used as
a "separation-boom" to simulate the shoreline quiet zone of a river and en-
able quantitative measurement of oil diverted.
For details of the catenary and diversionary test set-up, see Figure 8
and 9. To maintain a smooth diversionary profile against the relative cur-
rent, a parachute mooring device was employed as shown. The exact lengths
of booms tested are given in Appendix C.
After the boom was properly rigged and connected to the bridge, testing
began. First, the stability tests were run according to the STABILITY MATRIX,
Table 2. Once the water surface condition was established (wave or no wave),
the boom was towed at continuously increasing speed until judged unstable
by observation from the traveling truss located behind the boom apex. Then
the tow speed was decreased in 3 m/min (0.1 kt) increments until the boom
became stable and then increased by 3 m/min increments to reconfirm the
failure speed. This speed was then entered as "critical tow speed" data.
This established the upper limit on the range of tow speeds to be used in
the following TOW TEST MATRIX FOR BOOMS with oil, Table 3. The failure
point was also documented via 35 mm color slides and 16 mm color movie
film. Modes of failure were noted and included as data.
The tow tests for booms in oil were conducted in a similar manner as
the stability tests. Oil was distributed as a 2 mm thick spill, 15.24 m
(50 ft) wide and amounting to about 1.32 m3 (350 gal). Here the critical
tow speed was defined as the maximum tow speed for either catenary or
diversionary configurations at which there was no loss of oil under the
boom. Other modes of oil loss were documented, but not used as the criteria
23
-------
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
CONTROL
ROOM
I200gg||
BRIDGE
CONTAINED OIL
REVERSE
*TOW
CABLE
TRUSS
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
(D Test Director
S Fluids Dispensing Operator
Valve Operator
@ Photographer
(§) Data Documentation Officer
Figure 8. Sketch of catenary boom test details.
24
-------
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
300
gpm
PUMP
CONTROL
ROOM
BRIDGE
PARACHUTE
MOORING
LINES
QUIET
ZONE
TEST
BOOM
REVERSE
TOW
CABLE
TRAVELING
TOW DEVICE
TRUSS
SMALL
BOAT
SEPARATION
BOOM
MANPOWER DISTRIBUTION
(D Test Director
(2) Fluids Dispensing
@ Valve Operator
§ Photographer
Data Documentation Officer
Boom Operator
Figure 9. Sketch of diversionary boom test details.
25
-------
for determining the maximum tow speed. The only exception was if a mode
of failure, other than shedding, was prevalent at speeds significantly
lower than the speed required for sheeding, then the maximum tow speed
was based on that mode of failure. Photographic documentation included
16 mm film and 35 mm slides, both in color.
Diversionary boom tests with oil were considerably more complicated
in that a "separation" boom was deployed behind the test boom, as shown
in Figure 9 to separate diverted oil from all other oil. Thus, all oil
contained within the separation boom was judged controlled. Generally,
at the end of the diversionary boom test run, a stationary skimmer test
was conducted.
Procedural details including manpower distribution and a step-by-
step test run are given in Appendix G and Figure 8 and 9.
STATIONARY SKIMMER TEST PROCEDURES
Integrated boom/skimmer tests were conducted, while maintaining the
same wave condition by collecting the separated oil at the end of a
diversionary boom test. To accomplish this, the tow ends of the "separation
boom" were brought together near the middle of the tank. Two rotatable
barrels were mounted about I meter apart near the tank wall and well
within the influence of the pneumatic barrier as shown in Figure 12.
Each end of the boom was brought between and around the drums and pulled
in opposite directions along the tank wall to corral the oil into a
smaller pocket and thicken it for skimming. The air currents at the
tank wall prevented oil from escaping between the barrels and maintained
an oil thickness of about 2.54 cm.
Once the oil pocket was formed, the skimmer head was lowered over
the tank wall into the oil. Since 1.33 m3 (350 gal) of oil was distributed
during the boom test and possibly all of the oil diverted into the
separation boom area, 1.89 m3 (350 gal) polyethylene recovery tanks were
used to contain the recovered oil and water mixture. From the skimmer
head there was a connecting hose to the pump (except for the ACME skimmer
which had a pump mounted directly to the skimmer head) and a discharge
hose from the pump to the recovery tanks.
The skimmer test run began by starting the pump and skimming operation.
When recovered fluid was observed at the discharge end of the hose, a
stopwatch was started to measure the recovery rate. The tanks were
translucent so that periodic determinations of recovery rate could be
made. As the oil was recovered, the boom pocket was diminished by
drawing the boom around the barrels, thus maintaining the oil thickness.
Eventually the boom pocket would enclose the skimmer with only a small
volume of oil remaining as shown in Figure 10. The test terminated at
this point and the length of testing time was noted.
By volumetrically measuring the recovered oil/water mix and the
duration of the test run, total recovery rate was calculated and checked
26
-------
Figure 10. Photograph of skimmer test.
27
-------
against the periodic determinations. After allowing the water to settle
out of the oil by gravity for a minimum of one-half hour, the volume of
water in the recovered mixture was read through the translucent tank
walls. The percentage of oil recovered was calculted and documented as
recovery efficiency. Oil recovery rate was then caluclated by multiplying
the total recovery rate by the recovery efficiency.
Although the integrated boom/skimmer test simulated actual oil
spill clean-up operations, it did not lend itself to standardization
because of too many uncontrollable variables (e.g. boom pocket size, oil
thickness, etc.) that affected test repeatability. Therefore, tests
were also conducted at the north end of the test tank in a surface oil
containment area defined by air barrier lines across the tank and along
the tank walls encompassing 147.6 m2 (1,588.8 ft2) surface area as
schematically shown in Figure 16. Tests were conducted in a similar
fashion as described above and the test matrix is given in Table 4.
Detailed test procedures are given in Appendix H.
Skimmer tests were documented photographically with 16 mm color
motion picture film and 35 mm color slides.
}-it: i v % f
Figure 11. Photograph of traveling tow device.
28
-------
SECTION 7
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
BOOM TEST RESULTS
As mentioned in the Test Plan and Test Procedures sections of this
report, the performance parameters measured for both diversionary and
catenary testing of booms were: critical tow speeds for boom stability,
critical tow speeds for oil contaiment and diversion, and modes of
failure. All other performance information was either documented by
comments or photographically. The raw data for the boom tests is given
in Appendix E.
From the boom performance test data, the optimum boom stability
performance in terms of maximum stable tow speeds for all booms tested
was tabulated at each wave condition. These results are given in Table
5 for both catenary and diversionary boom configurations. Likewise, for
performance in oil, optimum values of the maximum "no oil loss" tow
speeds for all booms tested are given in Table 6.
The upper limit wave condition for all booms tested was the uniform
breaking, short period wave—0.3 m (1 ft) high, 0.111 steepness ratio
and 1.5 second period. Optimum stability performance of all booms in
this wave was less than 0.25 m/s (0.5 kt) which is unacceptably low for
most operations. Several test observations confirmed that oil could not
be controlled in this wave condition at tow speeds approaching 0.25 m/s.
This upper limit condition was carefully documented with 16 mm color
movie film.
Optimum boom stability performance correlated quite well with wave
steepness ratio (H/L). Performance steadily increased with decreasing
H/L for catenary boom tests. Because of the use of a very stress-
limited tow device, the actual optimum tow speed values could not be
measured for booms towed in the diversionary configuration (Figure 11).
Optimum boom performance with oil was found to be governed by the
oil shedding phenomenon at the oil/water interface. The tow speed at
which oil is sheared away from the slick to form droplets has been
theoretically shown to be 0.4 m/s (0.75 kt) in Reference 17 (this does
not include the effects of waves and turbulence). Boom performance
above this speed was then determined by its ability to prevent the
droplets from escaping under the skirt. Once the speed necessary for
interfacial shearing to occur was achieved, there appeared to be little
29
-------
Table 5. Optimum boom stability performance (maximum stable tow speed).
WAVE CHARACTERISTICS
H/L
0.111
0.067
0.022
0.013
0.0
H,L,P (m,m,s)(ft,ft,s)
0.3 (I1), 2.7 (9') 1.5
0.6 (21), 9.1 (29') 3.0
0.3 (!'), 13.7 (45') 4.0
0.3 (I1), 22.9 (75') 6.0
CALM WATER
CONTAINMENT
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED m/s (kt)
FAILURE 0.25 (0.5)
FAILURE 0.97 (1.94)
FAILURE 1.12 (2.24)
FAILURE 1.14 (2.34)
FAILURE 1.27 (2.54)
DIVERSIONARY
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED m/s (kt)
FAILURE 0.25 (0.5)
FAILURE 1.02+ (2.04)
FAILURE 1.02+ (2.04)
FAILURE 1.02+ (2.04)
FAILURE 1.02+ (2.04)
Table 6. Optimum boom performance with oil (maximum "no loss" tow speed).
WAVE CHARACTERISTICS
H/L
0.111
0.067
0.022
0.0
H,L,P (m,m,s) (ft,ft,s)
0.3 (!'), 2.7 (9') 1.5
0.6 (21), 9.1 (29') 3.0
0.3 (I1), 13.7 (45') 4.0
CALM WATER
CONTAINMENT
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED m/s (kt)
OIL LOSS 0.25 (0.5)
OIL LOSS 0.46 (0.92)
OIL LOSS 0.46 (0.92)
OIL LOSS 0.46 (0.92)
DIVERSIONARY
CRITICAL TOW
SPEED m/s (kt)
OIL LOSS 0.25 (0.5)
OIL LOSS 0.81 (1.62)
OIL LOSS 0.71 (1.42)
OIL LOSS 0.81 (1.62)
30
-------
the boom could do to prevent oil loss. This could explain the lack of
correlation between performance with oil and the wave steepness ratio
(See Table 6). Except for the breaking wave (H/L = 0.111), there was no
correlation of optimum boom performance in oil with the waves tested.
The purpose of stability testing the booms in the 0.3 m (1 ft) x
22.9 m (75 ft) x 6 s wave was to determine if excessively high tow
tension resulted when the boom system dimension coincident with the
direction of wave propagation nearly equalled the wave length. Resonance
did occur at the test condition when these two dimensions were nearly
equal. Tension forces exceeded 454 kg (1,000 Ib) during one catenary
boom test, sheared a steel bracket supporting the tension load cell and
destroyed the transducer. It was enough to confirm the harmonic exci-
tation problem and it ended all measurement of tow tension.
Diversionary boom deployment allows a boom system to perform effective-
ly in higher currents than when deployed in a catenary configuration.
The angle which the boom makes with the fast current determines its
performance. Knowing this angle and the velocity of the current, a
simple trigonometric calculation gives the component of the current
perpedicular to the boom. In theory, if the boom angle can be adjusted
to maintain the perpendicular component of the current below that value
at which the catenary boom fails, then the boom will successfully control
the oil spill. This benefit was experimentally tested. Test results of
the booms in both configurations are presented in Table 7. As expected,
the full benefit of angling the boom with the current was not obtained.
The main reason was the inability to maintain a constant angle along the
entire length of the boom. Unlike a moving body of water, the velocity
profile across a towing tank is constant. This proved to be critical
and caused failure at lower velocities than predicted.
One clear benefit of angling a boom to the current was the down-
stream water flow pattern next to the boom. Entrained oil droplets
escaping under the boom would tend to collect in the water flowing along
the backside of the boom and ultimately be collected within the "separation"
boom shown in Figure 9. However, as the tow speed was incrementally
increased above the "no oil loss" speed the droplets were driven deeper
into the water column and completely escaped this secondary controlling
effect of the boom.
With the exception of one trial, all boom tests were conducted with
Sunvis 75, a lubrication oil without additives. To measure the effect
of low viscosity oil on boom performance, one boom was tested with both
the lubrication oil and diesel oil. The results indicated a slight
decrease in the critical tow speed of 0.07 m/s (0.14 kt) when tested in
diesel oil.
STATIONARY SKIMMER RESULTS
The performance parameters measured for stationary skimmer systems
were oil recovery rate and efficiency. Two types of oil were tested:
31
-------
CO
o
rH
O
_C
>%
H
ca
C
01
4-1
tfl
o
0
M
m
en
T3 •
0) O>
0) 3
CX CT1
to -H
^
0 0
4-J CO
4-J
"cn 4J
CO PI
O 0)
iH C
0
o &.
c! E
= o
CJ
>1
>-i V-i
cti cd
C H
0 3
•H tol;
>-) to
OJ
> 60
•H d
•0 -H
to
T3 3
0)
4-i cn
3 T3
ft 01
C- fl)
O CX
O CO
•
r^
0)
.H
,Q
Cfl
H
ef
z:
o
DIVERSI
o;
<
2:
UJ
<
O
EDITION
o
o
UJ
<:
| OVERALL
•a
a>
>
O)
io
_Q
0
-a
a>
*->
L.
OJ
CO
J2
O
T3
0
r—
<~
0)
Q.
«s
jr
4->
cn
c
O)
_i
«t
4-J
i:
CD
a;
3:
2
o u
LI
UJ -
d p
z u
4-
A
+-)
4-
oo
*>
E
*l
e
o
: z H-
J < z
J LLJ
£ to o:
- z: Q:
J O Z>
3 O 0
CO
0
CD
•3-
^D
«.
•
CO
A
CO
CO
00
0
cn
«3-
to
UD
^1-
co
LO
WD
CO
CO
CO
«>
o
CO
c\
CsJ
CO
ai
n
10
CO
CXJ
o
CM
yD
r>«
0
CM
Ln
o
1
in
00
CO
«d-
OJ
>
(13
O
*d-
CM
O
•*
i —
r^
r~-
o
CM
un
o
i
Ln
00
CO
«d-
^t-
LO
«d-
r>
^d-
r>
r^
CO
CO
^i-
CM
O
O
Ln
CT>
CM
,—
1
O
CTl
U3
rO
O
t^
'd-
CM
O
00
•*
co
00
CO
CTl
in
r^.
00
CO
•*
ft
Ln
«d-
*v
*d-
ri
r^.
co
«<
co
^i-
CM
O
00
«3-
1^
o
CM
Ln
O
r— •
Ln
00
co
*3"
co
0
CO
CM
CO
r—
C^*
to
^3-
CM
O
^1-
l~^
cn
CM
,_
1
o
01
IO
•*
cu
>
0}
o
^
^a-
CM
i
•
CTl
CM
,—
•~
O
CTl
UD
•vf-
•=J-
ft
Ln
•3-
ft
*3-
n
r>^
CO
n
CO
*3-
CM
0
•st
r^
cn
CM
, —
r—
0
cn
to
•*
CO
rt
o
CO
rt
CM
CO
f\
cn
f\
UD
^J-
CM
O
IO
00
-
10
Ln
o
tn
LO
CM
0)
>
(O
:s
o
1^.
CM
o
o
Ln
co
co
00
l£>
O
U3
O
CO
«3-
f,
Ln
•=*
f\
«*
«s
1^
CO
n
CO
r^
CM
O
IO
r—
CO
r^
r-^
0
cn
Ln
CO
CO
•=3-
co
*\
0
CO
CM
CO
n
cn
*%
vo
r^
CM
32
-------
CO
£
•H
.u
c
0
o
( — .
0)
.0
H
;_
O
t— 1
V)
LU
i — i
Q
>-
9p
^
LU
r~~~
^^
O
^
o
I-H
H-
5
o
o
LU
ej;
IS
_1
_J
eC
LU
O
-o
CU
^_
O)
I/)
jQ
O
,^-x
T3
O)
3
O
(0
O
•— -
f s
-^3
0)
£
QJ
oo
.O
O
•a
o
O>
Q-
9\
.C
CD
OJ
"
S^
CD
i
3 1.
L
LU ;
^J i
-r I
< c
E
Q.
CO
E
Q.
4-
oo
E
E
Q.
4-
00
rs
C) —
*4
M-
(/)
E
E
Z Z t-
u < z
1J LU
5 oo CCL
- -Si CtL
iJ O ^
Q O (_>
CD
O
CM
r~
,_
VO
o
o
CM
CM
O
•"""
o
o
1 —
LO
cu
(0
3
O
•Z.
0
CO
o
CM
"~
,
IO
o
CO
1 —
f—
CTv
0
CT)
10
**
r,
LO
"=*"
)
^~
A
1^-
CO
1 —
CO
o
CO
o
CO
,
«*
o
o
r—
r—
LO
0
LO
LO
CM
CO
CD
CO
CM
CO
•%
1—
(Tl
^
O
CO
LO
CO
CO
^1"
^
CO
1 —
0
l~^
0
CTl
to
"*
cu
to
3
O
co
o
cri
vo
to
o
1 —
^f-
LO
o
r^
10
CO
-
LO
^
^
•z$-
*\
t~^
CO
CO
CO
LO
r^-
CO
CO
VO
o
1 —
«^J-
LO
0
^
to
CO
CO
0
CO
CM
CO
n
•—
CTl
^
CO
o
to
o
CO
^
LO
CTl
CM
0
"*
O
CM
CU
03
3
O
sf
O
LO
LO
CM
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
LO
•*
f\
^~
r*
r~-
co
r—
CO
5
LO
"*
CO
CM
O
LO
LO
CM
LO
CO
CO
1 —
CO
o
CO
CM
CO
*
r—
CTl
«?
5
33
-------
diesel oil and lubrication oil. These represented the extremes in oil
viscosity with a range from 32.6 cm2/s (3,260 cSt) to 0.1 cm2/s (10
cSt). In general, the oil slick thickness was controlled at 2.5 cm (1
in) to represent actual inland-use situations where oil is thickened
prior to removal via skimming devices. The raw data for the skimmer
tests is given in Appendix F.
From the performance test data, the optimum skimmer performances
were denoted and the effect of viscosity on performance was qualitatively
obtained. Test results are given below in Table 8.
TABLE 8. OPTIMUM SKIMMER TEST RESULTS
Optimum Performance Oil Type Skimmer Type
Maximum Oil Recovery Rate
2.54 x 10"3 m3/s (40 gpm) Lube Adjustable Weir
1.39 x 10"3 m3/s (22 gpm) No. 2 Fuel Floating Suction Head
Maximum Efficiency % Oil in
Oil/Water Mix
99%
99%
Lube
No. 2 Fuel
Rotating Disc
Rotating Disc
Since the purpose of these tests did not include direct comparisons
between manufacturers' skimmers, skimmer types were defined and used to
express the performance results. Also, it was recognized that the
performance of a skimming system depends upon every component of that
system; skimmer head type, connection hose dimensions, pump type and
capacity, and the discharge hose dimensions. The types of skimmer heads
tested are defined as:
• The rotating disc type—oleophilic discs rotate through the
oil and water. Oil collects on the discs via viscous friction
and is wiped off into a collection sump for pump-out.
• The self-adjusting weir type—a floating weir box collects oil
until the sump is filled to capacity. As oil intake exceeds
oil pump-out, the weir tilts, stopping oil intake. As oil
pump-out lowers the level in the sump, the weir tilts back
into oil skimming operation.
• The adjustable weir type—floating weir box that is manually
adjusted for thickness of skimmed layer.
34
-------
The floating suction head type—buoyant suction head and con-
necting hose, float partially submerged in the oil to skim off
thick layers of oil.
Most inland spills are not of a catastrophic nature such as oil
tanker spills at sea. Therefore, the typical inland skimmer systems are
sized for recovering the smaller spills at pumping rates of 3.15 to 6.31
x 10~3 m3/s (50 to 100 gpm). If the skimmers tested are considered
representative of the current technology (not to include vacuum trailers
which are used for large and small spills, if accessible), the maximum
oil recovery rate (not including recovered water) was 2.54 x 10~3 m3/s
(40 gpm) and the highest percent of oil recovered oil/water mix was 99%.
For the viscous oils, hose diameters and lengths 7.6 cm (3 in) and 15.2
m (50 ft) worked best for the pumps involved. Also, diaphragm pumps
perform much better in viscous oils than axial flow or centrifugal
pumps.
Of the waves tested, there was no clean correlation of skimmer per-
formance and wave conditions. In some cases there seemed to be a slight
improvement and in other cases a slight decrease in performance with
certain waves. In general, these differences were small enough to be
explained by the inaccuracies of test measurement.
EXPERIMENTAL ERRORS
Basically two types of accuracy are important to the results of
this test project. One is the accuracy with which the independent and
dependent variables were measured (e.g. tow speed). The other is the
accuracy of tank testing, or phrased differently, the correlation be-
tween tank testing, field testing and field use. The first one is
considered here and the second one is discussed in the following section
of Application of Testing and Test Data.
The test matrix specifies the desired nominal conditions for a
given test. For any test run, the measured independent variable did not
deviate from the nominal values by more than the following percentages:
Tow speed 10%
Wave height 10%
Wave length 10%
Wave period 5%
Oil application
rate 5%
These deviations were based on the following comparative analysis:
Tow speed data was collected using a pulse generating wheel apparatus in
direct contact with the towing cable and compared to the digital volt-
meter. Wave characteristics: expected vs. observed parameters were
compared using visual observation of wave profile against a sealed grid
painted on the east tank wall, and photographic documentation. Oil
35
-------
application: a flow rate comparison was performed by timing the fluid
output into measured recovery tanks. The accuracy of recovery measure-
ments is based on the thickness of the oil phase within the recovery
barrel, and the ability to read fluid levels to the nearest 0.16 cm
(1/16 in). In the majority of test cases, the thickness of the oil
phase was greater than 5.08 cm and increments of 0.16 cm (1/16 in) were
readable. The maximum error of these readings is expected to have been
not more than 10%.
36
-------
SECTION 8
APPLICATION OF TESTING AND TEST DATA
DEFINE OPERABILITY RANGES
One very important application of performance test data from OHMSETT
is the relationship between the measured performance of the test equipment
and to simulated environmental conditions. Aside from wind effects,
which are usually considered of secondary importance relative to waves
and currents, most waterway environments can be simulated quite adequately.
With the capability of varying wave height (0 ->• 0.91 m) , period (1 + °°)
and steepness ratio (0.5 ->• 0.005) in a continuous fashion with wave flap
rpm control (±1 rpm) , and tow speed (simulated current) from 0 ->• 3.05
m/s (±0.05 m/s), the performance is closely correlated with environmental
conditions and upper limits are closely defined where performance drops
off and becomes unacceptable. If this were accomplished for all types
of spill control and clean-up equipment, both the potential user and the
equipment manufacturer would benefit greatly. The user would benefit
from knowing precisely what type of equipment is needed for the environ-
mental conditions in which equipment is intended to be used. He would
not have to personally experiment with elaborate and expensive equipment
to find whether or not it meets his needs. The manufacturer would benefit
by knowing how to better design equipment to perform in various environ-
ments. Also the specifications and guarantees on equipment, if closely
correlated, would result in satisfied customers and improved business.
There are many benefits to all concerned with oil spill control and
clean-up whether they be government agent, consultant, manufacturer or
user. The tests described in this report could possibly find application
to this end.
OPERATING TECHNIQUES
Several techniques found useful in operating the test equipment can
be passed on to potential users. Even though some of the techniques are
found in the manufacturers' operating instruction manuals, they are
worth repeating along with the introduction to some new ones. Techniques
used included: connecting tow lines to the boom tension members, mooring
point selection, fabrication of a "parachute mooring" arrangement for
diversionary configuration and revolving drum system for maneuvering a
large amount of boom to form a small pocket of thickened oil.
If towing connections must be made to a boom without a bridle or
connection plate, a chain of proper gauge (but not too heavy) and strength
37
-------
acts as a very good bridge when connected between the ballast line and
the upper tension line. By fastening snap-hooks to the ends of the
towline, they can easily be connected at various links along the chain.
This was done for one boom system that had one tension line at the
floats and another at the ballast. After some trial and error, the
optimum point of towline connection to the chain was found to be one-
third up from the bottom. And it was also shown as an overall test
result, that when the tow force (or force profile) is concentrated near
the bottom, towing performance was optimized. Also, in conjunction with
this, the towline should be moored at the same elevation as the boom-
connection point to avoid either tending to lift the boom skirt out of
the water or submerging the boom floats. This arrangement gave the most
satisfactory results.
A universal "parachute mooring" arrangement can be easily made from
aluminum plate, chain and towlines as mentioned above. The plates
should be cut long enough to span the entire height of the boom plus
room for bolting back and front plates together above and below the
boom. The plates are normally 15.24 cm (6 in) wide and usually fit
between flotation members along the boom. The chain should be connected
to the plate with eye bolts and clevis. Towlines with snap-hooks are
connected to a common ring which is moored at the other end. Depending
upon the situation, several connection plates would be spaced along the
boom with towlines connected and moored to a common mooring line. This
could be at several segments of boom with several separate "parachute
mooring" rigs. The linkages were adjusted until the boom conformed to
the desired configuration with respect to the current. The "parachute
mooring" arrangement used for this project is shown schematically in
Figure 9.
Pait of the diversionary boom test consisted of taking a large
amount of boom containing the diverted oil thinly spread out over its
entire length and pulling the two ends together and around two revolving
drums to form a small thickened pool or oil for optimum skimming operation.
Two 0.20 m3 (55 gal) drums were found to have the necessary diameter for
smoothly pulling the light boom around the drums in a controlled manner
even while 0.6 m (2 ft) waves were acting upon it. The drums were cut
out at the bottom and vented at the top before being mounted on 5.1 cm
(2 in) steel pipes through 6.4 cm (2.5 in) steel pipe pieces radially
braced and welded so that the drums could freely rotate about the support
pipe while half submerged in water and yet be rigid enough to withstand
the forces involved in this operation. This set-up worked very well for
the test project and could have field application especially where
industrial operations near the shorelines require a permanent or semi-
permanent state of preparedness for potential spills (Figure 12).
For skimmers, the principle techniques included the type of pump to
use and the effect of hose dimension of oil recovery rate. When recovery
pumps are required to pump 3.2 -> 6.3 x 10~3 m3/s; (50 ->• 100 gpm) of oil
with viscosity greater than 432 x 10~6 m2/s (2,000 SSU), a diaphragm
pump was found to work best with 7.6 to 10.1 cm (3 to 4 in) connection
38
-------
Figure 12. Photograph of rotating drums.
39
-------
and discharge hoses.
TEST TANK EFFECTS ON DATA
Test tanks can only approximate actual waterways. There is no real
current (except with flumes) and the waves are affected by the finite
depth. No doubt a separate report would be needed to rigorously define
all of the differences. However, the primary differences are that the
waves are mechanically generated, shallow-water waves, and the currents
are simulated by relative motion of the traveling bridge with respect to
"motionless water". Also there are air generated currents from an air
barrier system which lies along the bottom of the tank, near the walls.
Perhaps the best way to describe the difference in water current profile
is to illustrate it schematically for a test tank and representative
river profile. See Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 13. Sketch of river velocity profiles.
Figure 14. Sketch of test tank relative velocity profiles.
40
-------
From the schematic diagrams, there appears to be no great difference
between the two bodies of water. Some could even say that for rivers
with very steep banks, the surface velocity profile becomes nearly flat,
which is true for some cases. However, for most cases, when the diversion-
ary technique is being applied, the very reason for setting the boom at
a smaller angle with the mid-stream current is to avoid those currents
greater than 0.51 m/s (1 kt) from directly encountering the boom and
causing oil loss entrainment). Ideally, the fast mid-stream currents
are used to divert oil to the much slower current zone near the shore-
line. When testing this concept in the test tank, obviously, there is
no "slow current" zoue. The bridge moves with respect to the tank water
and this relative velocity is the same all across the tank.
How does this affect the correlation of diversionary boom performance
between the test tank and the real world? Boom failure occurred at the
trailing end which was angled the most against the current and should
have been in the "quiet zone" which does not exist in a test tank. If a
"quiet zone" did exist near the test tank wall (or trailing edge of the
boom), the "no oil loss" test speed would have increased and been in
closer agreement with the calculated values (see Table 7) and actual
performance in waterways with parabolic surface profiles and "quiet
zones". The result is that the diversionary "no oil loss" tow speeds
are low and conservative.
As for waves, mechanically driven in the test tank, they are categorized
as shallow-water waves since the water depth 2.4 m (8 ft) never exceeds
the wave length capabilities of the wave generator. The significance of
this is twofold: 1) for wind driven waves on deep inland waterways,
the reproducibility of the wave generator will not be as close as with
shallow-water waves, and 2) the turbulent effects of waves will extend
to the tank bottom and thus their shape will be influenced by the bottom
and its contour. A wave study to define the significant wave characteristics
and wave spectra is planned for the near future. Until this is done, it
is difficult to intelligently argue the differences between test tank
waves and wind driven waves that are statistically defined and categorized
via wave spectra.
Apparently the turbulent effects of the waves tested were not
significantly affected by the shallow, flat bottom. At least the effect
on the critical current at which oil entrainment begins was insignificant
in that good agreement with the well established value of 0.38 m/s (0.75
kt) was confirmed. However, the effect of a shallow, flat bottom on
turbulence, orbital current and internal waves should be investigated
and well defined.
There is an additional effect in the OHMSETT test tank that is
perhaps unique—an air bubbler barrier system. The air barrier system
is designed to protect the walls, beach and wave flaps as shown photograph-
ically in Figure 15 and schematically in Figure 16.
Surface currents from the air bubbles have been observed 6.1 m (20
41
-------
'' ^"^ *"** "'
Figure 15. Photograph of air barrier surface currents.
42
-------
ft) from the wall where they originated and at speeds up to 0.3 m/s (0.6
kt) near the wall. Although accurate measurements have not been made,
hydrodynamic principles dictate orbital currents and vertical velocity
profiles are generated by the rising air bubbles. The circulation
pattern and velocity profiles are schematically shown in Figure 17.
Here again this effect should be defined with measurements and photographs
to rigorously defend the test results and their relevance to the real
world. Tests have been conducted with and without the air barrier with
no measurable difference in results when testing with booms. This plus
the above mentioned agreement with the critical velocity of catenary
booms on calm waters tend to argue against the need of costly measure-
ments of orbital circulation patterns and velocity profiles.
In conclusion, the test tank effects on the test data have not been
quantitatively documented at OHMSETT. Qualitatively, such effects can
be argued to have had negligible influence on the test data of this
particular test project. However, until these effects are quantified,
all test tank data will not be rigorously proven to have a direct 1:1
relationship to the waterways and the real world.
<4» BEACH AREA
r
*
***
+
,
*
4*
*
Figure 16. Sketch of air barrier surface currents.
43
-------
LU
cr
cc
o
LU
O
£
a:
ID
CO
a
o
:-.'3
00
H
X
1-1
cfl
rQ
C
n)
o
M-I
to
a;
o
o
a
ni
C
a)
3
O
•H
O
00
•H
PM
-------
REFERENCES
1. Abrahams, R.N. and E.R. Miller. Oil Spill Containmant System Develop-
ment and Testing Program. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on
Prevention and Control of Oil Spill, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., 1973. pp. 361-374.
2. Main Port Authority. Testing and Evaluation of Oil Spill Recovery
Equipment. Report No. 15080D02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1970.
3. Ippen, A.T. Estuary and Coastline Hydrodynamics. McGraw-Hill Co.,
New York, New York, 1966.
4. Kinsman, B. Wind Waves. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1965.
5. Brown, G.A. and S. Bartlett. In-Situ Measurements of Oil Barrier
Shape and Loads Due to Current Action. In: Proceedings of the Joint
Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1973. pp. 409-419.
6. Smith, M.F. and P. Lane. Planning - Equipment and Training for
Oil Pollution Control. Slickbar, Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1973.
7. Ayers, R.R. Tests of Certain Removal Subsystems of Harbor Oil Spill
Removal/Recovery Systems. Report No. 5-73, Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, 1973.
8. Bonz, P.E. Fabric Boom Concept for Containment and Collection of
Floating Oil. Report No. 670/2-73-069, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973.
9. Chung, J.S. and G.R. Cunningham. Design Parameter Study of an Oil-
Spill Boom. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and
Control of Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
1973. pp. 427-439.
10. Dorrler, J.S. and R.R. Ayers. High Current Control of Floating Oil.
In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975.
pp. 347-353.
11. Milgram, J.H. Physical Requirements for Oil Pollution Control Barriers.
In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of
45
-------
Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1973.
pp. 375-381.
12. Surveillance and Analysis Division and Oil Spills Branch - Region
II. Oil Containment Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973.
13. Oil and Hazardous Materials Research Section - Edison Water Quality
Laboratory. Oil Skimming Devices. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1970.
14. Widawsky, A. Development of Harbor Oil-Spill Removal/Recovery
Systems, Phase I. Report No. TN-1372, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command with Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,
California, 1975.
15. Wilcox, J.D. A Hydrodynamically Effective Horizontal Oil Boom.
In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
1975. pp. 363-364.
16. Stokes, V.K. and A.C. Harvey. Drop Size Distributions in Oil Water
Mixtures. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention
and Control of Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C., 1973. pp. 457-465.
17. Wicks, M. Fluid Dyanmics of Floating Oil Containment by Mechanical
Barriers in the Presence of Water Currents. In: Proceedings of
The Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1969. pp. 55-106.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
OHMSETT DESCRIPTION
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure A-l. Photograph of OHMSETT.
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 materials spills.
The primary feature of the facility is a pile-supported, concrete
tank with a water surface 203.3 m (667 ft) long by 19.8 m (65 ft) wide
and with a depth of 2.44 m (8 ft). The tank can be filled with fresh or
salt water. The tank is spanned by a towing bridge with a capability of
towing loads up to 15422.4 kg (34,000 Ib) at speeds to 3.05 m/s (6 kt)
for a duration of 45 seconds. Slower speeds yield longer test runs.
The towing bridge is equipped to lay oil on the surface of the water
several feet ahead of the device being tested, such that reproducible
thicknesses and widths of oil slicks can be achieved with minimum inter-
ference by wind.
47
-------
The principle systems of the tank include a wave generator and
beach, a bubbler system and a filter system. The wave generator and
absorber beach have capabilities of producing minimum reflection waves
to 0.61 m (2 ft) high and 24.38 m (80 ft) long, as well as a series of
reflecting, complex waves meant to simulate the water surface of a
harbor or estuary. The water is clarified by recirculation through a
1.26 m3/s (2,000 gal/min) diatomaceous earth filter system to permit
underwater photography and video imagery, and to remove the hydrocarbons
that enter the tank water a a result of testing. Oil is controlled on
the surface of the water by a bubbler system which prevents oil from
reaching the tank walls, the beach or the wave generator. This system is
designed to speed clean-up between test runs. A clean tank surface is
essential to reproducible oil spill conditions. The towing bridge has a
built-in skimming board which, in conjunction with the bubbler system,
can move oil to the North end of the tank for clean-up and recycling.
When the tank must be emptied for maintenance purposes, the entire
water volume 9842 m3 (2,600,000 gal) is filtered and treated until it
meets all applicable State and Federal water quality standards before
being discharged. Additional specialized equipment will be used whenever
hazardous materials are used for tests. One such device is a trailer-
mounted carbon adsorption unit which is availabe for removal of organic
materials from the water.
Tests at the facility are supported from a 650 square meter building
adjacent to the tank. This building houses offices, a quality control
laboratory (which is very important since test oils 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 to government agencies
at the Federal, State and local levels. The operating contractor, Mason
& Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., provides a staff of eleven multi-disci-
plinary personnel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides
expertise in the area of spill control technology, and overall project
direction.
For additional information, contact:
OHMSETT Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research & Development
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Phone: 201-321-6600
48
-------
APPENDIX B
FACILITY MODIFICATIONS
TRAVELING TRUSS
In that the boom tests required an observer near the boom apex to
make determinations of oil loss mechanisms and boom stability, construction
of a traveling truss was necessary. The truss was designed to span the
tank from rail to rail and with wheels to fit the rails so that it could
be towed along with the bridge. The walk-way on the truss was designed
to accommodate one row of observers across the width of the tank. The
truss is shown in Figure B-l. Only limited loads are attached to the
truss—907 kg (2000 Ib) maximum at the center.
Other useful purposes have been found for the truss. Photographs
from virtually any vantage point can be accomplished since the truss can
be stationed at any position behind or in front of the bridge. Also, a
light-weight skimming boom was mounted on the truss and dropped into the
water at the end of a test run to move residual oil into the surface
containment area at the north end of the tank. Thirdly, the truss acts
as a tow-back system for returning test equipment to the starting position.
OIL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Existing oil distribution equipment mounted on the bridge was
designed for 0.189 m3/min (50 gpm) and thin film studies. Other projects,
including this one, required higher distribution rates up to 1.134
m3/min (300 gpm) for various slick thicknesses and tow speeds. The oil
distribution system was composed of a pump, positive displacement flow
meter and flow-rate meter, two sets of spray nozzles (high viscosity and
low viscosity) and associated piping and instrumentation. A photograph
of the spray nozzle system is shown in Figure B-2. There was a total of
14 nozzle connectors equally spaced over a 18.2 m (60 ft) span. Each
connector pipe was joined to a nozzle set with hand valves for flow
control. The high viscosity nozzles were used for this test project.
49
-------
Figure B-l. Photograph of truss.
Figure B-2. Photograph of oil distribution system.
50
-------
APPENDIX C
TEST EQUIPMENT
BOOMS
The following section of this manual describes the individual boom
systems tested. Individual systems are detailed in the following manner:
Manufacturer—Name of system
Design characteristics
Tow point connections
Comments
Diagrams and photographs of devices, sketches of tow point connection,
and rigging specifications are given separately following the above
details in this appendix.
Certain materials are reprinted courtesy of the individual manufacturers.
CLEAN WATER, INC. - HARBOUR BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.61 m (24 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.20 m (8 in)
(3) Flotation - expanded polyethylene cylinders 0.15 m (6 in)
x 0.46 m (18 in) length
(4) Ballast - 0.635 cm (0.25 in) galvanized chain, pocketed along
bottom of skirt
(5) Skirt material - nylon reinforced, oil resistant PVC heavy-
duty sheet encasing
(6) Tension member - 0.794 cm (0.312 in) coated aircraft cable
threaded through float cylinders. Second tension member is
ballast chain.
(7) Weight - 3.04 kg/m (2.04 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 4.02 kg/m (2.70 Ib/ft)
(9) Available in 15.2 m (50 ft) sections.
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was connected top and bottom to coated
air craft cable and ballast chain. This then was connected to
bridge tow points.
51
-------
Comments
(1) Articulation between flotation elements facilitates handling
and storage, but caused interfloat regions to slacken during
test runs resulting in loss of freeboard. The addition of
slack retaining lines on the boom at these points would reduce
this effect.
(2) The boom required three men per section for handling and was
relatively easy to deploy and make connections.
COASTAL SERVICES - T-T BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.30 m (12 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.15 m (6 in)
(3) Flotation - polyethylene cylinders 0.10 m (4 in) diameter x
0.23 m (9 in) length
(4) Ballast - 0.635 cm (0.25 in) galvanized chain along bottom of
skirt
(5) Skirt material - oil resistant PVC nylon reinforced fabric
(6) Tension member - self-tensioning boom using end plates, fast
eye snap hooks; magnetic attachments available
(7) Weight - 2.46 kg/m (1.65 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 3.59 kg/m (2.41 Ib/ft)
(9) Available in 30.5 m (100 ft) sections as well as special
lengths
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was employed to connect the boom to the
bridge tow points by means of the provided end plate connectors.
Comments
(1) Lightweight, easily deployed.
ACME - O.K. CORRAL BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.15 m (6 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.15 m (6 in)
(3) Flotation - unicellular plastic foam (Dow Ethafoam) thermal
sealed into fabric 0.15 m (6 in) diameter x 1.37 m (4.5 ft)
length
(4) Ballast - 0.953 cm (0.375 in) chain ballast
(5) Skirt material - "Jaton" nylon fabric coated with polyvinyl
chloride, 0.79 mm (0.03 in) thick
(6) Tension member - self-tensioning boom
(7) Weight - 4.11 kg/m (2.76 Ib/ft)
52
-------
(8) Excess buoyancy - 13.50 kg/m (9.07 Ib/ft)
(9) Available in 3.05 m (10 ft) thru 91.44 m (300 ft) sections in
3.05 m (10 ft) increments
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was connected top and bottom to an end
connecting plate. This then was connected to bridge tow
points.
Comments
(1) Rigging and handling required 2-3 men/section and was easy to
connect.
B.F. GOODRICH - SEA BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.30 m (12 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.15 m (6 in)
(3) Flotation - continuous chambers of closed cell foam, protected
by a 0.635 cm (0.25 in) PVC coating and secured at the boom
ends with wooden plugs.
(4) Ballast - tubular extrusion filled with lead shot and sand
(5) Skirt material - 0.635 cm (0.25 in) thick vinyl sheet reinforced
with rib-handles of urethane
(6) Tension member - self-tensioning boom
(7) Weight - 11.91 kg/m (8.0 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 10.42 kg/m (7.0 Ib/ft)
(9) Standard length - 7.16 m (23.5 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A bridle arrangement was connected to the manufacturer's
provided "SEALOC" system. This consists of a piano hinge
arrangement with fiberglass pins.
Comments
(1) Required 10 men/section for handling as well as crane for
deployment and removal.
(2) End plates and connections were handled easily.
SLICKBAR, INC. - MARK VI BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.20 m (8 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.17 m (6.5 in)
(3) Flotation - polyethylene foam with solid polyethylene skin
53
-------
0.17 m (6.5 in) diameter x 1.27 m (4.2 ft) length
(4) Ballast - hardened lead weights
(5) Skirt material - polyester woven multifilament-fabric impregnated
with PVC
(6) Tension member - 0.953 cm (0.375 in) stainless steel cable
(7) Weight - 3.82 kg/m (2.57 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 5.94 kg/m (3.99 Ib/ft)
(9) Section length - continuous lengths from 15.2 to 152.4 m (50
ft to 500 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A towline was connected to the manufacturer provided "Mark II
End Set/Connector" and the bridge tow point.
Comments
(1) Easily deployed, lightweight
KEPNER - SEA CURTAIN BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.30 m (12 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.20 m (8 .in)
(3) Flotation - closed cell foam 2.44 m (8 ft) long
(4) Ballast - 0.635 cm (0.25 in) galvanized chain
(5) Skirt material - vinyl-coated nylon fabric
(6) Tension member - self-tensioning boom
(7) Weight - 3.72 - 4.46 kg/m (2.5 - 3.0 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 29.17 kg/m (19.6 Ib/ft)
(9) Common length of section - 30.5 m (100 ft) available in lengths
from 1.22 - 304.8 m (4 ft to 1000 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A towline was connected to the manufacturer provided slot end
connectors by means of eye bolt attachments. This then was
connected to the bridge tow point.
Comments
(1) Medium weight, easily deployed
STELTNER - PACE BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.51 to 0.71 m (20-28 in)
(2) Freeboard ^Ch30_m (12 in)
(3) Flotation - cured vinyl 0.30 m (12 in) diameter when inflated
54
-------
(4) Ballast - non ballasted
(5) Skirt material - tear-resistant nylon
(6) Tension member - dual tension boom
(7) Weight - 6.25 kg/m (4.20 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 138.3 kg/m (92.9 Ib/ft)
(9) Section length - 15.2 m (50 ft)
Tow Point Connection
(1) A connector bar was employed between forward and rear floats
and then attached to bridge tow point by means of towline.
Comments
(1) Rotational movement of oil in interfloat area was major cause
of oil loss.
(2) The sophistication of this device requires more concern with
regard to rigging and different testing considerations than
conventional booms (Figure C-14).
(3) This boom was considered unique and experimental in that it
was newly developed and had undergone limited field application.
WHITTAKER - EXPANDI-BOOM
Design Characteristics
(1) Draft - 0.50 m (19.5 in)
(2) Freeboard - 0.28 m (12.5 in)
(3) Flotation - automatic self-inflating sections measuring 1 to 2
m (3.3 to 6.6 ft) in length
(4) Ballast - 0.476 cm (0.250 in) embedded coil chain
(5) Skirt material - oil-proof mould-impregnated, plastic-coated
nylon weave
(6) Tension member - ballast chain
(7) Weight - 2.31 kg/m (1.55 Ib/ft)
(8) Excess buoyancy - 44.60 kg/m (34.44 Ib/ft)
(9) Section length - available in 25 m (82 ft) lengths
Tow Point Connection
(1) A towline was connected to bottom-tensioned ballast chain and
bridge tow point.
Comments
(1) A vacuum pump was used to draw out flotation air.
55
-------
n)
4J
-------
-SECTION LENTHS TO "C" FEET
0®
'4 BRASS GROMUET
EVER SO FT. C TOP
•~ ' 3 GALVANIZED
CHAIN BALLAST
CSEE CHART)
-4 BRASS GROMUETS CENTER OF
EACH SEGMENT FOR ATTACHMENT
OF ANCHORS OR WEIGHTS
-6OOO* NYLON WEBBING AND
•4 BRASS GP.OMMET END Sl'O.
COUPLERS OPTIONAL
*ROONO FLOATATION LOG
•• SKIRT LENGTHS 6" TO 120"
® HEAVY DUTY BOOM
[•DOUBLE THICKNESS JATON
IN LOG POCKET FOR HIGH
\STRENGTH - OPTIONAL
CLOSED CELL, FLEXIBLE,OIL
RESISTANT FOAM FLOATATION
LOG ENCASED AND THERMAL
SEALED IN JATON
OPTIONAL FEATURES
EXTRA GROMMETS AS REO'D
STAINLESS-GROMMETS INSTEAD
OF BRASS
LEAD BAR BALLAST INSTEAD
Of GAL. CHAIN
DOUBLE JATON LOG POCKET
FOR TOUGH APPLICATIONS
NYLON HANDHOLD
(OPTIONAL)
22 OZ. JATON SKIRT
DOUBLE JATON(44 OZ.)
CHAIN POCKET
TIONAL DETACHABLE LEAD WEIGHTS
>TAINLESS BOLT
FLOATATION DIA.
4 INCH
6 INCH
« INCH
IO INCH
12 INCH
"A" SEGMENT
STANDARD
10 FEET
10 FEET
75 INCHS
75 INCHS
SO INCH
OPTIONAL
S.S FEET
•i5 FCET
*9"CHAIN
STANDARD
1/4 INCH
i/a INCH
l/< INCH
3/8 INCH
3/S INCH
OPTIONAL]
3/8 INCH
J/6 INCH
3/8 INCH
1/2 INCH
1/2 INCH
"C" SECTION TO
300 FEET
3OO FEET
3OO FEET
200 FEET
IOO FEET
ACME OK CORRAL BOOM
OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES
•QUICK-LATCH COUPLERS
•FLEX COUPLERS
•TOW BRIDLES
• HITCHIN-POST BULKHEAD CONNECTOR
• ADP-ON LEAD BALLAST WEIGHTS
• HAND LOOPS
•QUICK-LATCH REPAIR COUPLER
•FAORIC REPAIR KIT
Figure C-2. Diagram of Acme boom details.
57
-------
3
(A
Q
Z
X
S
O
o
to
UJ
c/i
CO to
t--__1 1 •"
X
^
•o
Frefiboa
^
c.
01
I
8
«
o
s
CO
&
76
3
1
CO
m 1
IB * ^>
O
5!
CM
'5
Q
0
1
£
CO
CO
9)
£
0
>%
CD
a
£
a
I
_>,
normal
t:
i
*•
^
w
£
in
I-.'
CD
1
§o
0)
-8
T3" tt
C £
I ^
gj "O
*l
•o w
co g>
n jC
0 «•
— T3
CO CP
^h, O
Is
I §
li
IT)
ri
CM
^
Ifl
CM
1
V
•n
Standan
„
CO
I
"^
CO
jQ
(X
1
5
0
m
.2
Q.
s
Q.
Q.
6
ci
Q.
cii
|
00
CO
.0
to"
0>
I
CO
Working
CB
co
tf)
c
ir
X
>
^
O)
I
r
>
Stability
r
CNI
«J
W
1
3
B
CO
Volume/
«H
ca
0)
13
O
,0
a
•H
o
o
o
1-1
t>0
cfl
•H
O
o
0)
S-i
D
58
-------
SLICKBAR SPECIFICATIONS
SWAOEO CABLE TERMINATORS
The load support cable is attached to the Shcfc-
hitch Mark II Connector through a stainless steel
•waged cable,terminator This type ot construc-
tion allows the end sets and cable to carry almost
an ol the load instead of the skirt
FASTENINGS
All fastenings are stainless steel
FLOAT STRAP
Special nigh tenarto PVC coated polyester fabric.
1" wide
SLICKHITCH MARK It CONNECTOR
The SIickhiicn Mark 9 Connector is extruded
aluminum, anodi/ed to exceed MIL-A-6625 (Type
2) It ts designed to toin section* ot boom together
instantly without any tools When you want to
disconnect sections, just remove the retaining pm
and the halves come apart
HARDENED FLOAT ENDS
Float ends are provided with a hard, tapered •<•
dunng processing tor durability and streamiu
FLOATATION
4" (10cm) or 65" (165 cm) htgh. bright yellow
polyethylene foam The foam i* processed to
impart a solid polyethylene sfcin over the entire
surface Ultra violet and oxidation inhibitors are
incorporated in the foam for durability and ex-
tended hie
SKIRT MATERIAL BALLAST
Woven polyester fabric coaled with Internationa) Ballast is lead, hardened with antimony for longer
Orange PVC with UV inhibitors tor longer hie The life Each weight is securely riveted to the bottom
fabric exceeds USA FTMS 191 required to meet ot the skirt The amount of ballast is varied to
MIL-B-28617 (YO) Temperature range -20° F to meet individual conditions See our price list for
+ ZOO'F information about selecting ballast
TOW ROPES
LOAD SUPPORT CABLE
Stainless steel, 7x i9x i -4"dia The load support
cable supplies tension load capability in excess
of 5 000 Ibs 2272 kg During use loads imposed
on the boom are transferred to (Tie cable through
numerous attachments along the floats and at
•very anchor point
ANCHOR POINTS
50'. braided, 1/2". higniensvle floating synthetic Anchor Pomts are standard every 100' Additional
rope anchor points are available
MARK M SLICKHITCH CONNECTORS
Une up two opposite ends and remove the lowing
plates by pulling out the retaining pm
Interlock the two halves it is not necessary to
slide the ends together from top or bottom
11 SLICKBAR.INC
Insert the retaining pin For added security both
pins may be used even though only one is neces-
sary Th« Mark II ShcKhilch allows 4" and 6 5"
Dooms to be interlocked without misalignment of
the toad support cables or the float water un«
250 P£QUOT AVEKUE, P.O. BOX 339
SnTmn>0°T, CT 06403 U.3.A. 203-255-2601
•Sffckbar and SltcHMch art registered Trademarks ol Sttckbar Inc
Patent numbers USA 3146593 3321923 3499290, 3564852
3,5*3,036, United Kingdom 993 227 Canada E62 4Q1 France 1403411
Italy 732,311 866,009. Japan 563400, Belgium 735 074 Other US
and foreign patents pending
Specifications subject to change without notice
Printed in USA 10M 573
«— Copyright 1073 SUCKBABINC
Figure C-4. Diagram of Slickbar boom details.
59
-------
Figure C-5. Photograph of Kepner boom.
60
-------
Section View
—••»H«fr i ..
DOWNSTREAM-FLOAT
UPSTREAM-FLOAT
UPSTREAM
TAIL
Figure C-6. Diagram of Pace oil boom details.
61
-------
Nylon-reinforced
Plastic cover
Air Intake Valve
i
with Anti-splash
Bonnet
r Line
Rust-proof
Springs
Bottom-tensioning
Ballast chain
UNINFLATED
Frame
ne Plastic
INFLATED
Figure C-7. Diagram of Whittaker boom details.
62
-------
fi
o
o
a)
o
o
c
•H
O
&
a
o
o
01
ca
c
CO
01
rH
O
m
o
C>0
nl
oo
O
3
60
•H
63
-------
o
Q_
Q-
ID
OO
C3
c
o
•H
4-1
O
01
C
C
O
O
O
ex
§
o
o
CO
0)
O
•H
>
S-i
0)
c/i
w
cd
o
n)
Vi
M
cfl
CTv
U
00
•H
O
64
-------
GO O O
G
o
•H
4-1
CJ
0)
c
O
O
o
ex
I
S
o
o
0)
o
o
3
60
•H
65
-------
-------
LU
O
(—t
OO
Cu
a.
DC
UM
§<
t
O
i — i
I—
/I
LjJ
D;
o
Q-
Cu
rD
oo
es
o
C
o
•H
U
a
0)
C
C
o
o
O
ex
(-1
cd
•H
iH
C/)
C~J
TH
I
(U
M
M
•H
P-i
67
-------
o
I—I
I
o
u_
o o o o
LU
UJ
Q
Q
UJ
GO
O
O-
Q-
rs
CO
Q
/CD
2
o:
eo
c
o
o
0)
c
c
o
u
o
a
o
1J
§
o
(U
C
P.
0)
U
60
•H
68
-------
C
O
c
c
O
O
c
•I-)
O
p.
O
O
•H
O
0)
CJ
I
O
60
•H
Fn
69
-------
a:
-------
en
iH
•H
60
C
•H
60
60
•H
S-l
S-i
ffl
C
-------
00
ft
•H
W)
00
•rl
c
O
•rl
CO
^
tt)
u
QJ
00
•H
72
-------
BOOM
CLEAN WATER
COASTAL SERVICES
ACME
B. F. GOODRICH
SLICKBAR
KEPNER
PACE
WHITTAKER
DRAFT
meters (ft)
0.61 (2)
0.30 (1)
0.15 (0.5)
0.30 (1)
0.20 (0.6)
0.30 (1)
0.61 (2)
0.50 (1.5)
FREEBOARD
meters (ft)
0.20 (0.6)
0.15 (0.5)
0.15 (0.5)
0.15 (0.5)
0.17 (0.5)
0.20 (0.6)
0.30 (1)
0.29 (1.1)
WEIGHT
(kg/m)
(Ib/ft)
3.04
(2.04)
2.46
(1.65)
4.11
(2.71)
11.91
(8.00)
3.82
(2.57)
4.09
(2.75)
6.25
(4.20)
2.31
(1.55)
NET
BUOYANCY
(kg/m)
(Ib/ft)
4.02
(2.70)
3.59
(2.41)
13.50
(9.07)
10.42
(7.00)
5.94
(3.99)
29.17
(19.60)
138.25
(92.90)
44.60
(34.44)
Table C-l. Summary of boom design characteristics.
73
-------
>%
u
cfl
C
.versio
o
enary
cfl
O
g
nf
rJ
a
iJ
a
>
J?
hJ
o
o
m
4-1
"4-1
6
4J
m
e
4-1
I-H
e
4-J
m
e
4-1
M-(
6
4J
4-1
6
4J
14H
e
m
CN
VO
•
r^~
CN
0\
rH
O
0
CN
O
*
rH
vD
Coastal Services
(tests 15 •> 23)*
m
CN
^D
r~-
CN
ON
O
oo
CN
rH
sj
m
CN
rH
OO
ON
ON
ON
CN
ro
ON
m
00
CN
rH
^D
vD
00
rH
m
ON
rH
r^
«
ON
in
CJ
I
oo
CN
UTl
OO
m
oo
ON
in
CN
rH
-O
ON
P")
ON
CN
Kepner
CN
<)-
OO
CN
rH
rH
01
00
rH
O
0
rH
m
•
o
m
<1J
o
ct)
Pn
m
CN
vD
r-.
O
00
ro
-•
M
CO
CN
O
-------
APPENDIX D
TEST EQUIPMENT
SKIMMERS
The following section of the manual describes the individual skimmer
systems tested. Individual systems are detailed in the following manner:
Manufacturer - Name of system
Design characteristics
Pump data
Diagrams and photographs are given separately following the above
details in this appendix.
Certain materials are reprinted courtesy of the individual manufacturers.
SLICKBAR, INC. - I INCH RIGID MANTA RAY (NO. 1)
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.03 m (1 in) opening by 1.22 m (4 ft) diameter
(2) Weight - 11.3 kg (25 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - twin diagram, self-priming
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I.D. floating suction hose, 3.05 m (10 ft)
lengths
(3) Capacity - 1.1 x 1Q~2 m3/sec (178 gpm)
SLICKBAR, INC. - 1 INCH FLEXIBLE MANTA RAY (NO. 2)
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.03 m (1 in) opening by 1.52 m (5 ft) diameter
(2) Weight - 26.3 kg (58 Ib)
Pumt
(1) Type - twin diaphragm, self-priming
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I.D. floating suction hose, 3.05 m (10 ft)
lengths
(3) Capacity - 1.10 x 10~2 m3/sec (178 gpm)
75
-------
SLICKBAR, INC. - 0.5 INCH FLEXIBLE MANIA RAY (NO. 3)
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.01 m (0.5 in) opening by 1.52 m (5 ft) diameter
(2) Weight - 26.3 kg (58 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - twin diaphragm, self-priming
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I,D. floating suction hose, 3.05 m (10
ft) lengths
(3) Capacity - 1.1 x 10~2 m3/sec (178 gpm)
SLICKBAR, INC. - ALUMINUM SKIMMER (NO. 4)
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.05 m (2 in) opening by 1.22 m (4 ft) wide
(2) Weight - 31.8 kg (70 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - twin diaphragm, self-priming
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I.D. floating suction hose, 3.05 m (10
ft) lengths
(3) Capacity - 1.1 x 10~2 m3/sec (178 gpm)
ACME - FLOATING SAUCER SK-39T
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 1.17 m (46 in) diameter
(2) Weight - 62.6 kg (138 Ib) with gasoline power
Pump
(1) Type - axial flow
(2) Hose - 0.10 m (4 in) I.D.
(3) Capacity - 1.3 x 10~3 m3/sec (200 gpm)
V.I. KOMARA - MINISKIMMER
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - maximum width - 1.16 m (46 in); height - 0.51 m (20 in)
(2) Weight - 52 kg (115 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - double acting induced flow
76
-------
(2) Hose - 0.04 m (1.5 in) I.D.
(3) Capacity - 3.2 x 10"3 m3/sec (50 gpm)
COASTAL SERVICES - SLURP
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - 0.93 m (36.8 in) length
(2) Weight - 28 kg (60 Ib)
Spate Pump
(1) Type - single acting diaphragm
(2) Hose - 0.04 m (1.5 in) I.D. suction hose; 0.08 m (3 in) I.D.
discharge hose
(3) Capacity - 3.2 x 10~3 m3/sec (50 gpm)
Homelite Pump
(1) Type - single acting diaphragm
(2) Hose - 0.04 m (1.5 in) I.D. suction hose; 0.05 m (2 in) I.D.
discharge hose
(3) Capacity - 2.0 x 10~3 m3/sec (32 gpm)
Coastal Services Pump
(1) Type - centrifugal
(2) Hose - 0.04 m (1.5 in) I.D.
(3) Capacity - 2.1 x 10~3 m3/sec (33 gpm)
I.M.E. - SWISS OELA III
Design Characteristics
(1) Size - height - 0.39 m (15.25 in)
(2) Weight - 49.9 kg (110 Ib)
Pump
(1) Type - single acting diaphragm
(2) Hose - 0.05 m (2 in) I.D.
(3) Capacity - 2.0 x 10~3 m3/sec (32 gpm)
77
-------
Figure D-l. Photograph of Slickbar skimmer no. 1.
Figure D-2. Photograph of V.I. Komara miniskimmer.
78
-------
CO
rH
•H
4J
0)
13
to
•H
C
•H
6
cfl
o
Q
79
-------
Figure D-4. Photograph of Coastal Services skimmer.
Figure D-5. Photograph of I.M.E. skimmer.
80
-------
APPENDIX E
TEST RESULTS
BOOMS
The following appendix includes raw data compiled from individual test
runs. The tables include:
Test identification
Test fluids' properties
Ambient conditions
Oil slick characteristics
Tow speed
Wave characteristics
Performance measurements
Test fluids' properties represent physical characteristics of pre-test
samples taken from the bridge storage tanks.
Failure is represented as follows:
SU = submarine failure
SP = splashover failure
SH = shedding or entrainment-type failure
PL = planing failure
TC = tow point connection failure
NO = failure not observed through this range of tow speed
81
-------
o
0
,0
(-1
Ol
4-1
M
is
(3
cd
OJ
iH
U
1
w
rH
3
M
(U
H
4J
M
0)
H
rH
W
O
§
r-
Ul
r-
3Hmiw jo aacw
•oas/n (Q3dtS
HOI TTOIilHO
•33S
aoiaaj
sjg^sra
BIOH31
OJ3->sm
ITOI3H
X3HVH
•39S/1U 033dS HOI
uiu
SS3N)I3IHJ. XDI1S
n aNfflOA
Nounqibisia
NOU33«ia
QNIM
'oas/iu
033dS QNIM
3o
3MniW3dH3i MIV
AilAVMS
5ldID3dS
E-Ol x >"/N
1VI3VJa31NI
E-Ol x m/N
NOISN31 33VJ«nS
Ot x -3as/zui
A1IS03SIA
3.
3anj.VD3dW31
3dU
M38WnN 1S31
3HU
31VQ
v
1
s
§
•f
iH
tf\
8
o
o
H
ir\
I
\o
«n
•
»
cu
CM
tfN
H
IT\
3
1
g
cr\
t-;
8
o
0
iH
CO
1
r-t
IT*
•
»
CM
CM
UN
CM
•S
3
^
_rf
S3
W
ON
t^
•
8
o
o
s
£
•
£
(u
CXI
t-
n
u\
jr
f5
£
%
$
0
u>
o\
Si
fO
o
^
o
g
CO
VD
-j
•
o
CO
1-1
cA
VO
0
t-4
v£>
O
g
Cd
CO
t-
in
S
ir\
M
1
3
ra
a
0
-»'
t-
n
m
c>
*
0
g
OJ
OJ
t-
vo
UN
«n
ir\
^
^
R.
CO
0
irv
»-(
t-
CJ
m
C3
in
CM
O
g
CM
CM
CD
r-
S
«-(
^
S
rH
VO
0
-3-
c-
m
H
fn
C>
5
0
o
CM
^
H
g
O
CO
t~
lf\
^
vO
•
tn
ro
1
o
w
o
%
00
S
m
H
a
_*
i?
5
o
rn
rH
CA
VO
O
r-\
-3-
O
o
*
OJ
H
in
•H
S
o
c-
t~
u\
£
VC
m
m
1
o
C\J
1
o>
o
m
j-
iM
S
-3"
w
CO
3
8
o
o
rH
VO
O
o
CM
m
ro
H
M
O
m
JN
ir\
rH
ON
-3-
OJ
m
^
t-
iH
g
«>
S
o
rH
i
fH
OJ
OJ
-3-
S
oa
3
•
o
-»
t-
co
r-H
CO
O
S
o
o
Ol
\o
m
H
%
CO
o
^r
21
IT\
~
o\
ir\
n
*
rH
S
1
s
8
fH
<
_3-
82
-------
Table E-1 (continued) .
m
WK
w n
95 H
PERFORM
CHARACTER]
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
aam v.j jo aaow
•oas/ra aaadS
MOI IVOEliaO
•oas
COUCH
S.I34.3UI
Hiouan
sas^sui
UBI3H
ZDNVH
•aas/iu Q33JS HOI
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
TEST auiDS PROPERTIES
UftU
SS3N)IOIH1 XOI1S
j-w awmoA
NOiinaibisiQ
NOiiD3ciia
QNIM
•39S/U1
Q33dS ONIfl
Do
3ciniVci3dW3i a iv
AiiAVaB
DIJID3dS
£•-01 x ui/N
"IVI3VJa31NI
e-Ol x UI/N
NOISN31 30VJanS
q-Ol x -oas/zui
A1IS03SIA
30
3afUVH3dW3Jl
3dAi
aaflWflN iS3i
3WU
31VQ
X
X
o
a
w
»-(
VO
8
0
o
»
*
ir\
n
S
o
•
c~
s
CJ
H
lf\
a
H
m
CM
fe
CO
iH
l/N
O
^T
t-
3
m
O
^
3
pa
m
o
t~
s
3
in
3
rn
C\J
--^
j-
CL,
CO
H
m
O
\o
0\
»
fO
•
o
3
•
4
s
DO
CO
a
J-
r-l
8
m
/H
CO
CVJ
-3-
04
W
irv
CVJ
•
<3
CO
i-l
O^
VO
•
O
\D
^T
•
1
U\
OJ
s
CO
CD
a
(A
r-l
3
rn
H
rn
CM
J
a*
CO
0
v\
•
iH
t-
W
m
d
ir\
cu
»
8
s
in
d
H
m
in
83
-------
e
O
o
rC>
CD
0)
o
•H
>
Vi
0)
W}
t-i
CO
4-J
CO
Cfl
O
CJ
1
CO
4-1
.H
3
to
01
n
4-1
CO
0)
H
CN
1
W
0)
,0
cd
H
01
o
B K
if
i
ra
J
'
iO
o
p
l/>
0 (X
5S
c£
<:
I
«
1
9
CO
Et
*
8
o
o
»
1
in
OJ
H
CO
CM
CM
r\
CU
rH
8
S
_3-
CM
j»
»
to
»H
J1
*
0
•
VO«-
0\
•
CM
(M
m
o
rH
in
1
irt
N
H
CO
CU
CM
3
CM
Si
3
15
.»
r>
CO
*
*
o
•
m
H
c^
VO
o
3
I
irt
OJ
^
to
ir\
•*
^
en
0
3
«H
-J-
CV
-*
to
*
*
o
.4-
t^
ro
rH
n
•
o
*
1
w\
CU
•
2
tf\
-»
*H
OJ
-^~
lf\
iH
I-
•H
^
-^~
p.
CO
0
in
A
t—
CM
-------
^
T3
0)
§
•H
4-1
c
o
o
X_x
I/N
H
O
H
ir«
iH
O
H
*
^*
a
CO
VO
^*
o
^1-
t^
ro
H
m
O
H
U\
(
~
g
e^
\0
IT\
rH
rH
H
U%
8
H
VO
C\J
^T
CL,
CO
O
tn
,-J
t—
•
OJ
m
0
H
J-
J
0
g
»n
_*
a
a
tr\
^
r-l
VO
evi
-J
g
iH
-»
O
VO*
O\
«
CO
•
o
VO
^t
4
g
ir\
-a-
9
tn
H
ir\
a
«
j-
g
rH
-a-
o
m
H
<£.
VO
0
H
tf\
t
ir\
CM
g
irv
^r
3
•3
O
if\
3
«
-31
g
s
8
o
o
H
if\
vO
CO
f
t-
Cvl
a
ir»
rH
tr\
3
CO
CM
-*
a
CO
H
J-
0
r1 1
rt
c^
VO
0
S
1
lf\
w
•
*
(-
CM
rn
•H
vO
rH
O
m
a
|_
-=r
O
w
rH
-31
O
•
vO
O
K
VO
0
VO
-3-
1
m
CM
•
3
t-
CM
3
&
ir\
3
CO
CM
J-
a
M
CO
-^~
o
^t
t~
•
-------
^
CD
C
•H
4-1
C
O
o
CM
w
cu
I-l
rd
cfl
H
CO
|B
*
CO
CO
S 0
'
CO
o
h-
co
t-* UJ
to o
to
UJ •— t
ae o
I
ce
Ul
&
a
UJ
»—
aHmra jo aacw
r&S
ao^
1^0^
IHOI3H
30HW
•DBS/Ill Q33dS MOi
Ulil
SS3N>3IHi X3HS
£« awmoA
NOU33HIQ
QNIM
'D9S/U1
Q33dS QNIH
Do
3SIU\fti3dW31 cilV
3un^ds
E-Ol x U/N
£_0l x "J/N
NOISN31 30VJcins
01 x 'Das/zui
AlISOOSIA
. 3o
3dAi
3WIi
31VQ
SM
S
§
CO
-.
o
ro
•H
ro
O
s
O
0
CM
OJ
ro
H
*
5
VO
H
IA
H
a\
-y
ITN
CO
ro
O
CO
V
OJ
8
^.
CO
H
-3-
O
VO
cr\
OJ
OJ
ro
o
rH
O
O
OJ
OJ
ro
i-J
w
irv
a
o\
VO
ir*
fo
1
CO
OJ
•H
O
H
OJ
CO
CO
ro
O
rn
S
0
CO
rn
O
0
OJ
ro
H
«
CO
t
ir\
H
ir\
rH
O\
IT\
OJ
ro
CO
ro
OJ
ro
V
ro
OJ
1
CTN
OJ
i
86
-------
0
O
0
,a
§
3
I
CO
4-1
.H
3
CD
0>
H
4J
CO
cu
H
1
W
cu
,-(
^2
cfl
H
• i
B|
s
B
fW] P£
P W
3 G
tsi
O
£
t/j
o ce
«-t UJ
_l h-
oo o
«c
5
€/>
feg
Ul t-1
§r o
*S
8
LO
£
LU
O.
o.
a
d
»—
£
-
amruw jo aaoe
•oas/n aaajs.
«OL TVOIilHO
•aas
dorsal
SJS^am
KLOM5TI
sj3q.ani
IHOI3H
3DHVH
•aas /in Q33dS M01
UJU1
SS3N>I3IH1 XOI1S
g" awmcA
Nounaiaisio
Nouoaara
QNIM
•D9S/UI
Q33dS QNin
Oo
3yniv^3dW3i a iv
AlIAVHS
OIJID3dS
£-01 x UI/N
1VIOVJM31NI
E-Ol x W/N
NOISN31 3DVJ«ns
-01 x -oas/ziu
AIIS03SIA
Do
3ani«i3dW3i
3dAi
M38WPN 1S31
3WI1
31 VO
*
I
o
&
CO
J-
8
0
p
H
lf\
O
H
t;
vO
0
.3-
M
1
&
a
rn
^~
0
rn
H
<&
SO
O
*H
*T\
<4
u
t-
VO
O
ir\
Cvj
g
H
£
-3-
J
Pk
\0
J-
o
•
VO
o\
8
en
o
H
ITv
0
H
l-
vD
O
*
g
^
J-
H<
CO
o
I/N
H
t-
PJ
m
•
O
IA
CU
O
H
t-
VO
o
&
IT*
ro
5
ON
>
a
s..
o
J-
t^
•
m
H
I"1
O
H
m
o
H
ir\
•
-*
O
OO
cu
ir\
«
ON
CO
J-
8
H
J-
8
o
o
r-l
U\
•
in
cu
0
•
CM
$
i-5
H
IT*
^r
£i
»r\
51
•
-*
M
1
»
I
o\
CM
a
2)
o
CO
^r
8
H
-=r
o
-a-
t-
cn
H
CO
O
i~i
ur\
ITi
OJ
O
OJ
CO
en
H
H
u>
•
^r
tn
tr\
5s
*
IA
»
&
CVJ
o
CO
1
O
m
o
m
3
O
ro
j-
e
i-4
J-
O
•
m
!-<
ON
VO
o
H
m
•
IT*
CM
C)
OJ
R
»-I
H
in
-a-
J5
?
IT\
W
&
a
i
H
CO
£
3
O
rn
_*
87
-------
y^S
T3
0)
P
•H
U
(3
o
(TO
1
w
OJ
rH
,0
cfl
H
to
U
ga
55 CO
5 M
K W
O en
K u
K "S
Kg
ra
o
J
!> p
5 0
CO
<_>
»— «
h-
l/l
OK
•-« UJ
rife
<
z
o
VI
fe§
UJ *-i
s: o
£
u>
o_
§
O-
to
o
§
(—
UJ
r~
aamiv^ jo aacw
•oas/ra aaais
ftoo. ivomao
•oas
aoiaaj
saa^aui
KlOMai
sjs^sia
iHOISH
30MVH
•aas/ui Q33JS M01
UUJ
SS3NX3IH1 >!3nS
go anmoA
Nounaiaisio
Nouoaaia
ON IK
"33S/U1
033dS QNIM
Do
3ifnitfb3dW3i a iv
AilAVbS
OIJI33dS
£-OL x m/N
lVIOVJy31NI
E-OL x m/N
NOISN31 aovjans
01 x -3as/zui
A1IS03SIA
3o
3«niva3dW3i
3d/U
H38WnN 1S31
3WU
31VQ
P£
g
B
g
fi
o
o
rH
8
o
o
a.
*H
IT.
CVJ
W
CO
t-
OJ
ir\
on
CO
H
H
•s
w
ir\
a
^
o
_T
t-
ro
rH
rn
O
8
H
1^
C\J
U
CO
t--
C\J
ir\
^f
rn
o
rn
vo
H
w
l/\
d,
w
o
tf\
H
c-
OJ
m
o
t^
w
o
H
CO
f-
(\J
l^
ir\
m
in
ir>
\o
rH
cu
ITS
C"<
CO
CO
-*
o
ro
H
CN
xO
O
vo
lp«
u^
CO
u
CO
CVJ
CM
in
«
CO
p
rH
CU
IO
H.
CO
£
o
UP
o\
-------
g
0 .
.JO
,c
a
•H
H
«T3
O
O
O
fe
ffl
1
CO
4-1
.H
3
CD
01
)-l
4J
cn
0)
H
o-
i
w
0)
rH
43
CO
H
w
O
W M
O f-"
i
PC M
K O
*
to
ee
£5
to
O
f-
V)
<_> OZ
IP
C/) O
s
t- z
Z O
UJ r-»
£ 3
§§
O
t/1
£
UJ
£X
a.
oo
CD
§
H-
t/1
UJ
h-
aamiwi jo aacw
•oas/m oasis'
MOL ivomao
•DSB
dOIiEU
sja^am
HJ.ON31
sjs^sm
iHSian
aoiivu
•Das/ui Q33dS MOi
1UUI
ssawoiHi >ions
£t» awmoA
Noungiaisio
Nouoaaia
QNIK
'33S/UI
Q33dS QNIH
Do
3bflittl3dW3i a IV
AiiAvas
OUI33dS
E-Ol x UI/N
1VI3Vja31NI
e-Ol x IU/N
NOISN31 aovjans
01 X '33S/,lll
A1ISOOSIA
3o
3MniVil3dW3i
3dAl
aaawnN iS3i
3WI1
31VQ
X
ft
PH
CO
t-
iH
8
O
O
~
A
\c\
CM
U
D]
t~
CM
s
H
J-
O
8
ir\
in
IX,
«
^
H
O
-3-
t^-
rn
^
m
O
a
r-J
ir\
CM
H
CO
t^
CM
O
rH
s
IT.
f
tr\
ITv
a,
CO
irv
r-(
t-
OJ
rn
O
m
cy
ir\
rH
e
t-
C\i
H
r-<
cn
-3-
^
m
ir\
B,
OT
-?
O
O
rn
H
cA
^o
0
8
r4
IA
CO
M
CO
CM
CXJ
rH
^
^>
_*
UN
*
rH
UN
ITv
^
-^
r-3
0
U)
O
CM
CM
rn
O
r-
CM
H
1T>
CM
8
W
-------
/•*>
13
QJ
C
•rl
•U
(3
O
O
^-
W
<_>
p
l3IHi X3PS
f
CM
CO
t/x
-3-
t-
ro
WN
m
rn
-s
SS.
tf>
W
M
vi)
o
8
o
0
rH
CO
o
0
cu
CM
d
f-t
CO
o
CO
lf\
5J
o
cA
CM
S
Cvj
-a-
CM
J3-
ITS
o
R
o
t-
IA
U>
rH
l/\
O
o
m
rH
O
VO
0
H
UN
1
O
0
W
•a
H
U
-»
0
VO
ITS
ft
CD
CO
CM
a
CO
CVJ
ir»
ir\
8
^
CO
ir\
to
f-t
c^
O
0
^7
t~
rn
rH
ro
0
i-i
t-
o
O
CJ
CO
r-»
rH
H
C7\
^»
rH
IA
&
t-
CO
-------
g
rQ
I*
frt
S
0
•rl
rH
CO
CO
4-1
CO
H
ITI
w
(!)
r-l
rQ
cfl
H
I
1
g
ba as
> H
S G
t/i
o
^5
UK
H-l UJ
V) O
<
;n
tj
V)
feo
u S
Sti
li
8
ons
g« awmoA
Nounaiaisio
NOU03Mia
ONIM
•D3S/UI
Oo
3aniva3dW3i aiv
AIIAVM9
DIdI33dS
£-01 x IU/N
1VIDVja31NI
£-01 x UI/N
NOISN31 33tfdans
OL x -33S/7iu
A1IS03SIA
Do
3Hf)ltf«3dW3i
3dAi
H38WnN 1S31
3MU
31VQ
>H
1
a
S
VD
JT-
8
0
Q
a
r4
0
»
I/N
•
CM
m
m
[-
1
H
(M
m
£
CO
•
8
o
o
a
r-3
O
»
IT*
•
£
J1
C^
R
3
r-(
CM
tfN
a
VO
•
0
-»'
t^
m
H
CO
0
H
^3
»
O
»
ir\
cu
m
jf\
t~
irx
3
.-<
C\J
u>
S
VI)
•
O
vO
CT»
«
cn
<3
<-<
VO
O
i
v\
•
M
fc
1
^
trv
a
vC
•
O
ro
iH
CA
VC
•
O
rH
VO
O
3
VD
a
fc
0
^f
t^
*H
^
m
ft,
OJ
m
H
r-
w
m
<3
«-<
ir\
O
^
VD
R
^
1
H
CM
>
K
CO
VO
•
8
0
0
•&
o
o
•
cu
a
rH
H
*
o\
rH
»
CO
J-
f5
CO
A
0
•a
M
«
1
Ov
(^
H
^
ITv
S
vD
O
CO
»-<
-------
.
T3
OJ
•H
j_l
c
o
a
s*^
w
rH
,0
tfl
CO
11
^
m
o
H
EH
%
K QZ
P" W
S O
s
^2
oS
St
<
nr
o
to
£§
UJ *-<
35 3
3 z
8
tn
£
UJ
D-
a.
s
5
H-
£
aHtnivj io aacw
•ass/a aaajs
MOVL ivomaa
•338
aoiaad
us^aoi
monan
aja^sui
XROI3U
aotwsr
•aas/ui Q33ds MOi
IUU1
SS3N)I3IH1 »nS
£0 anmoA
NounaiaisiQ
Nouoaaia
QNIM
'33S/U1
Q33JS QNIH
3o
3aniVD3dW3i MIV
AiIAV»9
DIJI33dS
£-01 * m/N
1VI3VJ«31NI
e_0l x UI/N
NOISN31 30VJanS
01 x -oas/zui
A1IS03SIA
Oo
3«niVa3dW3i
3dAi
M38WnN 1S31
3WIJL
31 VQ
><
£
H
vO
8
o
0
8
H
O
H
^T
CM
•
cu
3
Ss
1
^
lf\
£
r-f
-3-
o
J-
c-
s
ro
C3
ft
A
o
H
-3-
CM
OJ
CU
CM
m
oo
in
r-«
s
^
IfN
e
H
in
O
vO
CT\
cu
(M
ro
o
\D
•
0
H
m
irv
O
s
c3
i
cn
CM
-^,
IT*
fi
H
-T
0
•
m
•H
cA
VO
•
o
V0
•
0
M
0}
O
UN
0
0
CM
CM
CO
rH
CO
t-
CM
O>
0*
1
iH
VO
CO
H
en
CM
75
rn
-3-
O
£
%
-Z
m
CM
UN
92
-------
a
O
0)
ts
tx
1
to
4-1
tH
CD
0)
M
CO
0)
*
w
rO
cfl
E-i
CO
gE
O
yl
CO
a
i* o
to
o
t—
*-t LU
1
t/1
t— 3=
UJ •-«
5^
O
O
t/1
P
a:
Ul
tx
O-
d
UJ
1—
7HDTT tf if _JA KfTrftJ
i5cs i j.j. 7is jtu ^u^n
*O9S/B d33ds
MOX 1VOIUHD
aoiaad
£oS
JBOI3H
•39S/UI Q33dS M01
SS3NXOIH1 XOI1S
j-n awmoA
NOI133aiQ
QNIM
•Das/ui
Do
3aniVB3dW3i MIV
A1IAVH9
OIJI33dS
£-01 x UI/N
£-01 * m/N
NOISN31 33tfjans
o-Ol x -Das/,111
A1IS03SIA
3»
3dJU
asawnw 1531
3WI1
3i va
CO
H
8
o
o
CM
H
1
M
W
to
CO
8
5;
1
o\
.H
OH
CO
OJ
rH
t-
CXf
CO
(D
VO
CO
1
0
U
CO
H
CO
CO
in
H
ON
in
CO
*
O
-a-
§
rn
O
"
in
CM
w
CO
H
CM
a
1
ON
H
in
O
CO
a
0
VO
8*
rn
O
8
m
OJ
w
OO
H
CW
s
lf\
ON
in
ft.
*
o
rn
i-l
vo
O
Ei
in
H
CO
S
H
VO
in
•-I
s
in
CO
vo
8
o
o
fe
o
C3
H
H
CO
H
CXI
*
CO
CM
CO
H
CO
*
rn
-3-
A)
OJ
1
2
x
CO
vo
o
m
rH
ON
VO
O
»
O
o
OJ
0
-a-
rH
H
OO
H
CV
OO
CM
3
m
rn
*
rn
I
CO
VO
0
3
rH
ITS
I?
vO
O
en
rn
0
-.
o
o
OJ
cvi
CO
B
^
SJ
CD
CNJ
^r
on
iH
fn
fc
en
v
a
3
a
VN
rH
<
93
-------
Table E-6 (continued) .
en
63
s
H
tf t>
3HQ7IVJ iJO 3GON
•oss/m gaads
MOI 1VOI1IHO
•oas
a-ia^am
KIOH31
IHOI3H
•aas/uj Q33dS HOi
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
tuui
SS3NX3IHJ. XDHS
go awmoA
Nounaiaisia
NOU33HIO
QNIH
•oas/ui
033dS QNIM
Do
3bniVci3dW3i a iv
AJ.IAVH9
t-OL x w/N
1VI3VJM31NI
E-Ol x ""/N
NOISN31 3atfjans
o-Ol x -3as/zui
AilSOOSIA
Do
3dAl
M38WnN 1S31
3WI1
3J.VQ
M
CO
*.
8
o
p
CM
1
CM
CO
ro
-3-
CM
$
B
ro
iH
m
w
*
o
t—
3
CO
*
0
i-J
CO
CO
«
a
S
s
CO
0
£
CM
ro
O
IA
1
O
e
IT*
-a-
£
O
H
tf\
3
CO
s,
o
CM
CM
ro
O
a
i
o
e
-
«
ss
a
o
CO
*
o
PO
ON
O
~.
0
s
IA
1A
CM
Ov
f
tr»
»
CO
H
8
0
o
t-
o
0
CM
ro
rH
CO
0
CM
m
?
0
IA
•H
t~
o
ro
CM
CM
H
-3-
Cl
&
0
m
O
IA
33 CL,
CO CO
rH
O
CO
iH
MD
CJ
*-(
1
0
o
CM
CM
rn
s
CO
0
m
CM
ft
-.
0
CM
m
CO
CO
CM
1
fl
I
rH
CM
1A
z
z
o
-3-
C-
00
o
r-l
1
O
o
CM
CM
ro
rH
CO
ro
-5
ft
•a
o
CM
rn
CO
a
I
?i
o
ro
a
cu
tr\
94
-------
Table E-7. Test results - Pace oil boom.
PERTORMUKE
CHARACTERISTICS
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
aurniw .10 aacw
•oas/% Q33JS
MOI ivoiiicD
•oas
aoiaaa
ua^ao
HIDJCn
BJa^ata
1HDI3H
aSHVH
•oas/ui Q33JS HOI
SLICK
CHARACTERISTICS
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
TEST aUIDS PROPERTIES
mil
SS3NXOIH1 XOHS
g« aHonoA
Nountriciisia
NOU338IQ
ONIM
"33S/IU
033dS ONIM
Do
3cinJLVcJ3dW3i HIV
AilAVcIO
OIJI33dS
£-01 x UI/N
1VI3VJcl3iNI
• E-Ol * ui/N
NOISN31 33VJcinS
A-Ot X -39S/ m
A1IS03SIA
3.
3MIUVel3dW3i
3dAl
H38WnN 1S31
3HI1
3.LVO
S"
g
»
8
0
0
8
H
1
O
g
t~
CM
-a
§
ir\
a
CM
^
Q*
CO
J-
t-
o
m
rH
•
O\
vo
•
o
£
o
g
cu
•
CM
i-t
CU
a
&
m
vo
PL,
m
S
o
VO
Ov
fS
cn
O
*
•
o
g
OJ
ol
s
9
in
EH
o
cn
vo~
S
o
CM
8
o
o
°
H
1
O
o
•
CM
CM
m
A
f
•o
o
^
g
CM
s
irv
•
CM
m
\O
m
rH
ro
-*
u
3
0
^
CM
VO
SO.
CO
CO
H
.
O
m
rH
cA
VO
•
o
®
1
o
0
•
C\J
™.
H
1
CM
CM
CM
CM
?
CM
&
fl
OJ
ro
g?
ro
O\
CM
tl
1
•3
1-1
o
g
rn
MD
95
-------
•
/-N
T3
0
3 G
'
S
^5
o a:
5t
<
:r
t_>
GO
£§
UJ »-«
§ 0
<: as
o
o
<
m
a
3
3
8
o
o
8
H
0
g
-*
*
m
H
en
CM
ir\
S
H
en
vo
t)
CO
3
o
J»
^
a
n
0
S
H
0
g
ir\
-*
s
S
o
-3-
VO
B.
CO
£
O
ft
H
cA
\O
O
8
H
1
0
1
o\
J-
en
CM
Ov
3
O
m
ir\
H
-»
VO
&.
CO
CO
H
4T\
•
r-l
t-
•
CM
en
o
IT*
cu
•
1
o
t
ir\
*
jj-
O
w
H
a
UN
-a-
t-
rH
^~
\o"
£>
CO
^
O
VO
C*
%
O
8
t-i
i
o
w
CO
en
H
S
S
ir\
S
u\
vo
to
CO
o
m
8
o
o
iH
I/N
•
1
O
O
CM
fH
H
M
VO
•
tn
a
m
i-t
o\
•
t-
&
o\
rH
m
8
OJ
CO
m
4)
1
a
s
3
rn
^D
e
»
0
-*
f-
en
H
rn
o
iH
ITt
•
1
o
0
C\J
a
H
i
ir>
^
S
?
UN
•
3
CT\
r4
cn
3
CM
-------
g
0
o
ft
t-i
0)
,x
tO
4-1
AJ
•H
.C
5
w
4-1
.H
W
0>
!-l
4J
M
01
H
OO
W
0)
rH
•s
H
CQ
W H
i|
to
u
1
jiq a"
P w
*S
i/>
o
I—
oo:
»-. UJ
-J h-
-•
CO 1-4
<
i
+
8
r5
8
o
0
8
1
ir\
w
^
w
w
m
C\J
8
ir\
fH
O
H
t-
CJ
in
a
~
iH
8
o
o
t-
w
«H
i
1-1
ir\
*
CM
n
en
CM
1
0
1
t-
CM
IA
e
&
o
-y
t~
J?
rn
O
&
M
i
H
m
• *
CM
CM
rn
CM
r-(
O\
8
3
£
ir\
S
£j
O
•
-3-
l>
3
n
CD
J-
H
H
1
rH
l/\
a
CM
CM
on
CM
si
o
S)
H
§.
IA
fe
CO
O
IT>
H
t-
CM
m
•
O
H
IA
IA
CM
*
CM
CM
on
CM
&
0
J-
r-*
H
t^
CM
IA
a
&
o
^3
Os
a
m
•
o
8
H
1
IA
CM
S:
CM
CM
OO
CM
S
1
t^
M
IA
&
*
O
rn
H
cA
vJ3
O
-=r
t--
17
on
o
en
-:T
i
O
0
-------
•
13
0)
3
C
•H
4J
C
Q
U
CO
1
w
-------
/— s
T3
CU
1
4J
O
o
N*^
00
1
w
CU
rH
•s
H
pB
1
ff! W
B|
CO
a
s
U ""•
> W
S G
2
P
CO
o ce
•-* UJ
tn o
l^
feg
UJ I-H
5 ^
8
a
S
UJ
0-
s
§
t_
y
samivj jo aacw
•oas/to Q33ds
,»icxi ivomao
•D3B
aoiaaj
HXOM37
iHOISH
30MVH
•33S/UI Q33dS MOi
UJUJ
SS3N)l3IHi XDI1S
Nonngiaisio
ONIM
•33S/UI
d33dS QNIM
. Do
3HJSSI
£-01 x UI/N
£-01 x IU/N
NOISN3I 3DVJ«ns
-01 x -Das/,ui
A1IS03SIA
Do
3dAl
3WU
31VO
M
a
c^
O
3
s
£
i
o
o
ca
fe
O
*
ir\
tn
CO
CD
CD
CD
S
«
«
ft
§
00
m
CO
*
o
m
i-l
ON
VO
0
H
ITv
O
0
CO
ro
H
R
t^
cu
*
ir\
i9
CD
CO
00
*
3
CO
CU
*
8
H
UA
H
1
99
-------
APPENDIX F
TEST RESULTS
SKIMMERS
The following appendix includes raw data compiled from individual test
runs. The tables include:
Test identification
Test fluids' properties
Ambient conditions
Oil slick characteristics
Tow speed
Wave characteristics
Performance measurements
Test fluids' properties represent physical characteristics of post-test
samples taken from recovery barrels.
Recovery rate i«s the rate at which the total mixture (oil and water)
was recovered.
100
-------
ex
1
fX
&
0
tH
)-i
CO
s
43
4-1
•H
&
CO
Vi
OJ
•rl
4<5
to
H
cfl
JD
X
O
•H
t-H
&0.
1
M
4-1
iH
3
to
0)
^
4-1
en
O
ft
?
H
•
H
CO
&
CO
in
OJ
I
&
O
m
•5
o
CV1
in
o
t^
-3-
0
en
ir\
ON
_=!•
r-4
CO
VO
s
~
CO
o
-r
t~
3
iPO
o
0
»
o
^
H
CO
t^
OJ
lf\
OJ
fe
CO
o\
c^
o7
8
i
3
f^
tn
rH
s
tr\
101
-------
•
/-s
T3
-------
Table F-2. Test results - Acme skimmer.
W8
WAV!
CHARACTERISTICS
H3XVM %
110 %
E-Ol X -DBS/fill
3iva Aci3AOD3c!
•395
aOIH3d
saa^sra
Hiorai
saa^wn
IHOI3H
TEST FLUIDS
WATER COHTEHT
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
" "
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
*
IS3I ISM
*
isai-SRH
iiOHDsaia
cmiM
'33S/U1
033dS QIJIM
Do
3aruv«3dW3i aiv
A1UVM9
oun3ds
£-01 x UI/N
lVnVJ«3iNI
£-01 * uVN
NOISN31 3DVJans
01 x -oas/Jii
A1IS03SIA
0.
3bniVM3dW3i
3dU
aaswriN is3i
3HI1
aiva
t-
?i
ro
K
3
•
u-v
8
o
o
o
tf\
rH
O
•
3
H
UN
-»
3
?
Ol
CO
m
I
S
1
C7\
CM
&
S)
O
ro
-»
Os
OJ
.3-
rH
t^
IfN
fc
*H
8
o
o
0
c\j
CO
.
M
O
a
m
5s
*
in
cA
CM
s
CM
IfN
CM
1
*
8
•a
fc
^*
CO
m
vx>
iH
^^
ON
.»
*
CO
O
•
m
r-l
cA
\D
C3
CO
O
C5
CO
H
M
•
O
3
?
tr\
CO
CM
§
o\
rt
i>
s
ITN
lf\
I
CO
ir\
m
m
j*
**-
vD
*f\
l^
-a-
•
j-
C5
-»
t-
a
CO
•
o
ir>
O
•-I
O
H
O\
•
J-
a
?
-------
CU
4-1
ca
CO
4-1
•H
Vikoma skimmer
PH
1
CO
4-1
rH
CO
cu
4-1
CO
0)
H
ro
1
PH
Q)
rH
.0
n)
H
PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
™*
110 %
£-01 X •33S/gl(l
•338
aoraad
HION31
IHOI3H
TEST FUJIBS
WATER COHTEBT
"
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
±833, 1SCH
xsai-aai
MOU33«IO
•38S/IU
033dS QNIM
3yniv«3dW3i a iv
OIJI33dS
£-01 x UI/N
e-0l x IU/N
NOISN31 30VJfinS
01 x -OBS/JU
A1IS03SIA
3,,
3dAl
cBSWflN 1S31
3WU
31 VQ
o
R
H
8
o
0
0
8
0
CM
s
J-
H
CM
C^
o\
m
m
CM
01
3
O
m
s
S
0
o
CM
O
m
iH
0
o
00
(M
?
5
CO
OJ
a
CM
tf\
w1
t)
O
1
\o
m
CM
H
IfN
O
rH
8
o
o
o
ft
o
a
g
CM
^
c5
H
rn
o
t-
*
1
lf\
0
5
CM
VO
O
s
m
o
8
o
o
o
o
H
1
t-
CM
CM
£
ITv
CD
CM
3
*
CM
=tfc
VC
1
S
104
-------
CO
1
G
a)
4-J
•H
pH
0)
§
a
-d
fi
rt
OJ
4-1
n)
p.
W
4J
>
M
en
c«
4-1
in
o
u
CO
4-1
,_4
CO
0)
j_i
4J
CO
CD
H
t-
rH
8
o
o
eg
0\
0
H
i
c-
ol
«
4
»-
«
H
CM
H
M
*
M
I
1
O
*
O
vD
3
1
o
o
w
o
o
ft
2
t-
CJ
o
OJ
rn
<°
m
00
CM
•x
IB
«
CO
UN
m
•5
«
tf\
O
*
o
VO
£
8
0
o
CO
o
o
*
H
a
t-
•
CvJ
«
m
«
v\
«
s
«
«
J-
R
H
1
i
|
*
-3-
rt
UN
t£
CO
^-
S
•
o
o
.a-
^
•
m
H
m
o
in
c-
O
•
t-
>
lf\
*
J*
•s
u\
^
J*
f>l
if
s
1
3
I
SL
j-
ir\
•
-------
Table F-5. Test results - I.M.E. skimmer with Spate and Homelite pumps.
FERTORMABCE
CHARACTERISTICS
WAVE
CHARACTERISTICS
aaivtt %
•no %
£_0l x -Das/fiii
31VH AH3A033cl
•oas
aoiaaa
saa?3Ui
HIOHOT
sjaq.aia
JMDI3H
TEST FLUIDS
WATER CONTENT
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
TEST FLUIDS PROPERTIES
*
xsai ISM
*
Ian-am
¥01133810
QNIM
•D3S/UI
Q33dS QNIM
30
3Hnj.va3dW3i MIV
A1IAVH9
3I:)I33dS
£-01 x tu/N
1VI3VJH31NI
J.-01 x UI/N
NOISN31 33VJanS
01 x -Das/,ui
A1IS03SIA
3o
3aniVb3dW3i
3dAl
a3HWflN 1S31
3WU
31 va
%
n"»
ro
ir\
t-
VO
-3-
fO
I/N
H
O
.3-
t-
00
»-(
ro
•H
8
0
o
lf\
tA
o
3
8
t-
VO
s
ir^
r-l
O\
CM
m
m
CO
in
a
-3-
I
&
8
3
m
OJ
-a-
w
R
oo
o\
-st
•3
OJ
o
tn
rt
0^
vo
o
o
ITN
H
o
ir\
>
^
-»
3
UN
a
OJ
m
m
m
a
CM
-a-
I
o\
rH
O
§
«
^*
1
CO
ir\
R
in
H
\0
~
H
8
o
0
o
«
0
«
H
VO
OO
^r
(VI
?
00
«
VX>
^
^
I
1
8
&
ro
5-
-31
in
CVJ
vO
^
a
»H
8
o
0
o
a
o
-^
w
H
VO
•
fO
«
$
VO
si
ro
OS
m
8!
«
1
m
a
in
it
r-l
CO
\O
106
-------
APPENDIX G
TEST PROCEDURES - BOOMS
A step-by-step test procedure for booms is given below in the
following format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist, Test Se-
quence, Data Sheets and Data Analysis.
MANPOWER ALLOCATIONS
The following allocations of duties were made:
1. Test director - responsible for running the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the
test personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the traveling bridge, wave
generator and bubbler barrier from the Control Tower located
at the North end of the tank. He also collects the data for
ambient conditions.
3. Fluids dispensing operator - usually a temporary technician
who adjusts the flow control valves for the proper flow rate
and records the flow rate.
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records failure
conditions and modes of failure. Communicates with the test
director and photographer on tow speed changes and documentation
of performance. Performs the analysis and reduction of all
data.
5. Photographer - photographically documents the test runs with
35 mmm color slides, 16 mm color motion pictures, and/or
underwater video tape.
6. Chemical analysis officer - takes samples of the test fluid
before its distribution and after its recovery for analysis of
water content, viscosity, specific gravity and interfacial
tension for the test run. In general, analysis of fluids for
chemical and physical properties are within his responsibility.
7. Valve operator- usually a temporary technician who operates
the pneumatic valve controls for recirculation and distribution
of the test fluid.
107
-------
8. Fluids clean-up team leader - heads up the operation of cleaning
the residual test fluid from the water surface in preparation
for the next test run.
9. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads up the operation of
removing water (both free and emulsified) and contaminants
from the test fluid prior to its reuse. Also, responsible for
operating the diatomaceous earth filter unit to maintain tank
water purity and clarity.
10. Other temporary aides were positioned as required.
PRE-TEST CHECKLIST
To ensure that all test systems and equipment were maintained and
ready for the test day, the following checklist was used prior to the
first test run:
1. D.E. filter system operating
2. Chlorine generator operating
3. Air-bubbler barrier system operating
4. Bridge drive system operating
5. Wave generator system operational
6. Test device operational
7. Test instrumentation operational
8. Test fluid ready
9. Test fluid distribution system operational
10. Test support equipment operational
11. Photographic systems ready
12. Test personnel prepared and ready
13. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists
TEST SEQUENCE (WITH OIL)
The following test sequence was used for the catenary and diversionary
boom tests:
1. Position the traveling bridge and test devic<= for testing (see
Figures 8 and 9).
2. Position all test personnel for testing (see Figures 8 and 9).
3. Inform all test personnel of test conditions taken from the
, Test Matrix.
4. Calibrate the flow rate using the recirculation mode and con-
tinue to recirculate while observing oil temperature and pres-
sure drop. Immediately prior to test run, take sample of re-
circulating oil and record oil temperature.
5. Give three (3) blasts on the air horn to clear the tank decks,
alert all test personnel of test run, and start the wave gene-
rator, if required.
6. Using either intercom system or walkie-talkies, begin countdown
108
-------
from five (5) with the Control Room Operator to begin bridge
motion at zero (0) with one (1) blast on the air horn.
7. One (1) blast on the air horn initiates the following: start
bridge, start oil distribution, and start stopwatches.
8. Control Room Operator informs Test Director of steady state
bridge speed.
9. Data Documentation Officer informs Test Director of boom
performance and advises him of speed increases and/or decreases.
Photographic documentation occurs simultaneously.
10. Oil distribution ceases after 1.3 m3 (350 gal) is distributed
and distribution time is recorded.
11. Define the boom "no oil loss" speed and modes of failure.
12. Test Director begins countdown from five (5) to stop the
bridge, the wave generator and the stopwatches.
13. Lower the bridge "skimming plate" to prevent oil from passing
under the bridge and to skim all residual oil back to the
North end of the tank into the surface containment area.
14. All boom data sheets are completed and the integrated skimmer
tests begin if required.
15. Reverse the bridge and test boom to prepare for the next test
run.
16. Stability Tests would follow this same procedure without the
oil being distributed.
DATA SHEETS
The following data sheets were used for the boom tests:
1. Test Equipment Characteristics
2. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
3. Flow Rate/Volume Data Sheet
4. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
5. Boom Test Data Sheet
DATA ANALYSIS
The Data Documentation Officer performs all data analysis and
reduction. All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto
master raw data sheets as shown in Appendix E. The ultimate responsi-
bility for proper data collection, analysis and presentation belongs to
the OHMSETT Project Engineer. He writes the final report and disseminates
data to the EPA Project Officer.
109
-------
APPENDIX H
TEST PROCEDURE - STATIONARY SKIMMERS
A step-by-step test procedure for stationary skimmers is given
below in the following format: Manpower Allocations, Pre-test Checklist,
Test Sequence, Data Sheets, and Data Analysis.
MANPOWER ALLOCATIONS
The following allocations of duties were made:
1. Test director - responsible for running the tests according to
the prescribed test matrix and test procedure. Manages the
test personnel.
2. Control room operator - operates the wave generator and collects
the data for ambient conditions.
3. Fluids dispensing operator - maintains the oil thickness at
, 2.54 cm at the beginning of each run. Assists with other
duties as needed.
4. Data documentation officer - observes and records oil collection
data and keeps a notebook of performance observations. Performs
the analysis and reduction of all data.
5. Photographer - documents the test with 35 mm color slides and
16 mm color motion pictures.
6. Chemical analysis officer - samples the test fluid before and
after the test run. Samples are analyzed for water content,
viscosity, specific gravity and interfacial tension.
7. Test equipment operator - starts the recovery pump and operates
the equipment according to manufacturers' recommendations.
8. Fluids refurbishment team leader - heads up the operation of
removing water and contaminants from the test fluid prior to
its reuse.
PRE-TEST CHECKLIST
To ensure that all test systems and equipment are maintained and
110
-------
ready for the test, the following checklist is used prior to the first
test run:
1. D.E. filter system running.
2. Chlorine generator operating.
3. Air-bubbler barrier operating.
4. Wave generator system operational.
5. Test device operational.
6. Test fluid ready.
7. Test support equipment operational.
8. Photographic systems ready.
9. Test personnel prepared and ready.
10. Complete all pre-run data sheets and checklists.
TEST SEQUENCE
The following test sequence was used for the stationary skimmer tests:
1. Establish thickened spill condition of 2.54 cm thick slick.
2. Place skimmer system in operating position for the test run.
3. Establish wave conditions according to the test matrix.
4. Place and maintain the recovery hose in the polyethylene recovery
tanks.
5. Start the skimmer system with controls set for optimum recovery
conditions.
6. Start the stopwatch when recovered fluid begins discharging into
the recovery tanks.
7. Check the recovery rate intermittently and photograph the test
run.
8. Terminate test run after either 1.89 m3 (500 gal) is recovered or
30 minutes of test time elapsed.
9. Measure the total recovered fluid, recovery time and temperature
of test fluid.
10. Measure the collected oil after allowing the water to settle out
for at least one half hour.
11. Take sample of the oil layer for analysis.
12. Prepare for the next test listed in the test matrix.
DATA SHEETS
The following data sheets were used for the skimmer tests:
1. Test Equipment Characteristics
2. Chemistry Laboratory Analysis
3. Ambient Conditions Data Sheet
4. Skimmer Test Data Sheet
DATA ANALYSIS
The Data Documentation Officer performs all data analysis and reduction.
Ill
-------
All data sheets are submitted to him for compilation onto master raw data
sheets as shown, in Appendix F. The ultimate responsibility for proper data
collection, analysis and presentation belongs to the OHMSETT Project
Engineer. He writes the final report and disseminates data to the EPA
Project Officer.
112
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'lcasc rt'oJ iHMnti tio/u on the reverse before conip/cii/igl
Me coil 1 NO
EPA-600/2-77-150
Til LE AND SUBTITLE
PERFORMANCE TESTING OF SELECTED INLAND OIL SPILL
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATfc
August 1977 issuing date
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
William E. McCracken
8. PERFORMING ORGANI2ATION REPORT NO
MHSM-LNJ-01
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 117
Leonardo, NJ 07737
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
]BB041
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0490
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory- Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final April 1975-March 1976
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Supplements a professional movie of the same title.
16. ABSTRACT
Standardized performance tests were conducted at the Environmental Protection
Agency s test facility, OHMSETT, with various off-the-shelf inland oil-spill control
and clean-up devices. Operability limits were defined and then quantified via
testing for eight boom systems and eight stationary skimmers. This information
allows those concerned with spill control to match the proper equipment with the
existing environmental conditions (wave characteristics, current, and oil properties)
associated with an oil spill in inland waters.
Boom systems were tested in the catenary (U) configuration for oil collection
capabilities and in the diversionary (J) configuration for fast current oil diversion
capabilities. Booms were first tested for stability capabilities over a wide range
of wave conditions without oil and then in wave conditions within their operational
stability limits with oil. Booms and stationary skimmers were tested in the same
wave conditions and oils. Two test oils were used—No. 2 Fuel Oil and Sunvis 75
Lubrication Oil (without additives).
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Water Pollution
Performance Tests
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI field/Group
13B
B. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS /This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
125
20 SECURITY CLASS /This page I
Unclassi fied
22 PRICE
EPA form 222O-1 (9-73)
113
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - 1977 0-241-037/58
------- |