Thank you for considering helping me in my effort to communicate with the maritime operators in arctic environments. We consider the following to be a significant advance in the area of safety as it relates to icing/deicing in harsh environments.
My company has developed a deicing process which utilizes the spraying of pressurized, heated water to impact and drive off ice. The pressurized, heated water is mixed with a non-freezing agent (liquid) which is compliant with maritime environmental regulatory agency lists of chemicals approved for direct release into the ocean. The process is identical to aviation deicing methods without the environmental issues. .
I am looking for information and guidance related to effectively approaching the maritime operators in these environments. We have made progress in the off shore oil exploration industry with this product. It is a natural progression to carry this message to the commercial fishing industry as well as other operators. I am also looking for expert advice on the typical design of harsh environment vessels, specifically the fire main systems as we propose to use this system for deicing spray.
I would be most appreciative if anyone would care to participate in the advancement of this safety process. I am more than happy to provide additional information about the system if this would help you get clearer on the concept…I look forward to any and all responses…yours truly, Msweetman
How much liquid at what flow rate do you need to de-ice 100mm thick ice on 1000m2 of deck & structure at -30 deg C (once), and what temperature of water do you need at what flow rate? Newer boats use heated surfaces to cause the ise to fall off.
First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond.
We are primarily a custom pressure washer manufacturer which designs permanent systems for larger manufacturing facilities. We have been forunate to provide the offshore oil industry with systems which satisfy their explosion proof requirements. We also offer systems which provide pump redundancy for dependability and maintenance purposes.
We were actually asked by the oil industry to look into ice removal with heated, pressurized water. The issue was/is… “removing the large ice deposits, which account for the excess weight hazard, with pressurized, heated water is more desireable than manually removing the ice with mallets and risking crew injury”…the fact remained, however, that the residual sprayed water would quickly refreeze. We were also advised of the strict environmental regulations for any substances (anti-freeze) directly released into the ocean.
After some research we partnered with a chemical company who has experience in the maritime industry. This company has developed a HCNOF PLONOR compliant agent which is ok for direct release into the sea. It will not refreeze at temps as low as -45C. The chemical can be heated and broadcast out through a pressure washer…The residual fluid will not refreeze and the surfaces would stay clear of ice. The chemical has some deicing properties however, its primary purpose is to act as an antifreeze.Mixing with sea water has no adverse effect on the chemical.
You can cut through 8 inches of non-salinated ice (actually harder ice than sea ice) in 30 seconds at a flow of 4 gallons per. minute, 2000 psi…temperature of the fluid would be around 145 F. As you probably know, once “critical mass” is achieved when cutting through large deposits of ice, they tend to fall under their own weight…result//.one crew member working in a pressure washing posture rather than many crew members swinging baseball bats and mallets…
The oil industry has plenty of technical water to feed the pump, however, smaller vessels (commercial fishing) would be better served using sea water for these events.
Any further advice or ideas are very much appreciated…and again thanks for taking the time! Msweetman
I have had good results clearing ice with a hot water pressure washer. There are lots of things on a boat (radar antennas, running lights, winch controls, windows, etc. that cannot be pounded with ice mallets.
The chemical that you have developed, I am guessing will cling to the surface you have de-iced?
Is the substance slippery? Based on my experience in working with non-tox winterizing solutions (propyleneglycol) is that the stuff is VERY slippery. Could cause a real slip and fall hazard.
The answer to question one depends on thickness of ice and outside ambient temperature. The mix ratio to -35 C is 70% solution, 30% water. We are planning to do controlled testing at the CRREL lab in New Hampshire (Army Corp of Engineers). We will have documentation available regarding deice fluid volumes vs. ice amounts. I can say that the “rough” testing we have done on our own has been impressive against ice deposits of 8 to 12 inches…slice through these blocks took 35 seconds. This is at 4 gpm, 2000 psi. Ice thicknesses will vary and the critical mass property of deicing also applies.
Dosing can be controlled through a dosage device…again, this procedure parallels aviation deicing…chemical concentration can be controlled based on the temperature. As is the case with all deicing events, the current conditions dictate the procedure. Crews may be able to do bulk deicing with 100% heated water to remove large deposits then switch to the mixture later in the procedure.
What are reasonable/manageable container sizes for commercial fishing vessels for items like this? A typical chemical tote is roughly a 4’ x 4’ square. Also, we would appreciate your opinion on tying in with the fire main system for use as the broadcast device. Can you suggest some good sources for researching the fire main systems in these vessels? So far I have had little help from the boat builder companies I have contacted in the Northwest.
I did make preliminary contact with a rep from “The Time Bandit” fishing vessel featured on TV’s The Deadliest Catch. They are reviewing information I forwarded to them.
As always, we remain quite grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and experience. Would you consider direct phone contact at some point in the future?
Yes, it can leave a slippery residual and we are quick to point this out. Crews must be mindful of conditions when using this procedure. So far, the trade off between being cautious about slick residual and the elimination of manual ice removal weighs in favor of the deicing agent. Lets face it, when ice is present it is always hazardous but the danger of significant additional weight on the vessel supersedes the need for heightened awareness of the deicing fluid.
Much of the residual will make its way overboard depending on the conditions present when deicing.
Yes, it can leave a slippery residual and we are quick to point this out. Crews must be mindful of conditions when using this procedure. So far, the trade off between being cautious about slick residual and the elimination of manual ice removal weighs in favor of the deicing agent. Lets face it, when ice is present it is always hazardous but the danger of significant additional weight on the vessel supersedes the need for heightened awareness of the deicing fluid.
Much of the residual will make its way overboard depending on the conditions present when deicing.
You wouldnt want to tie into the fire system for this for the following reasons: 1. The sea strainers on fire systems allow small particles through. 2. saltwater being pumped and heated through your expensive machine would destroy it quick, without a complex cathodic protection system. 3. unnecessary with only 4GPM. You should set it up to plug a garden hose into it, there are always hose bibs throughout the deck of any vessel. pm me for more info
[QUOTE=msweetman;76875]The answer to question one depends on thickness of ice and outside ambient temperature. The mix ratio to -35 C is 70% solution, 30% water. We are planning to do controlled testing at the CRREL lab in New Hampshire (Army Corp of Engineers). We will have documentation available regarding deice fluid volumes vs. ice amounts. I can say that the “rough” testing we have done on our own has been impressive against ice deposits of 8 to 12 inches…slice through these blocks took 35 seconds. This is at 4 gpm, 2000 psi. Ice thicknesses will vary and the critical mass property of deicing also applies.
Dosing can be controlled through a dosage device…again, this procedure parallels aviation deicing…chemical concentration can be controlled based on the temperature. As is the case with all deicing events, the current conditions dictate the procedure. Crews may be able to do bulk deicing with 100% heated water to remove large deposits then switch to the mixture later in the procedure.
What are reasonable/manageable container sizes for commercial fishing vessels for items like this? A typical chemical tote is roughly a 4’ x 4’ square. Also, we would appreciate your opinion on tying in with the fire main system for use as the broadcast device. Can you suggest some good sources for researching the fire main systems in these vessels? So far I have had little help from the boat builder companies I have contacted in the Northwest.
I did make preliminary contact with a rep from “The Time Bandit” fishing vessel featured on TV’s The Deadliest Catch. They are reviewing information I forwarded to them.
As always, we remain quite grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and experience. Would you consider direct phone contact at some point in the future?[/QUOTE]
How much solution at 145 deg F is required to melt a square meter of ice (of a particular thickness)?
Until the amount of solution required to clear a given SURFACE AREA is known— you have no answer on the practicality for shipboard use.
As for melting the ice with hot water alone, the reason this is likely not practical for diesel powered vessels is the large amount of energy required to heat seawater from 30-32 deg F to (hot enough) deg F. BUT - there are lots of (practical to use) onboard waste heat streams that might be tapped depending on the specific heating requirements your system might have.
The size of a heater or heat exchanger to heat sea water for any given flow rate and temp rise can be calculated, but the practicality of your system cannot be understood until the quantity of water and concentrate (solution) needed to clear a specific area of ice is disclosed.
Cutting through a block (of ‘x’ thickness) doesn’t indicate the area cleared - You might have cleared a block the size of an aircraft carrier, or drilled a half inch hole thru the block…
=======
Separately heating seawater to (rather hot enough to be useful) can be problematic due to fouling of the heater / heat exchanger, but the rate of fouling mainly depends on the heat transfer rate / m2 surface area in the heater itself and the required output temperature. If it is an operational or maintenance nightmare or if it requires constant heater dosing to prevent fouling, its use will be passively resisted by thse charged with dealing with it.or paying for the (heater) dosing compound.
Tugsailor, Thanks for your reply and input. This is exactly why we are pursuing the project. Any additional ideas or thoughts you may have would be very welcome. To this point we have encountered nothing but encouragement from any contacts we have made in the maritime industry
This ice melt area testing will be conducted in the very near future either at the CRREL or other accredited lab. We do understand the importance of an area/capacity measurement for practicality reasons.
May I ask what other waste heat streams you are referring to?
How much fresh water is available onboard commercial fishing and similar harsh environment vessels for this type of procedure?
We also understand your last sentence clearly as this is a common phenomenon in any industrie. That is precisely why we are inquiring to people like you for practical, experienced based information. I hope we can benefit from your experience as we proceed because we have encountered only encouragement from the maritime industry relative to this process.