Performance and designcertification:

Oil containment boom

June 11, 2010

Testing performed for:

Packgen Corporation

65 First Flight Drive

Auburn, Maine 04211

Attention: Don Roberts

Testing performed by:

Packgen Corporation

Testing observed/verified by:

Ian T. Durham, PhD∗

V.3

∗See Appendix B for credentials and contact information.

1

Contents

1 Test procedures and results 3

2 Narrative report 5

2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Boom design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Testing procedures and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3.1 Constituent materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3.2 Buoyancy and water absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.3 Boom connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.4 Tensile strength characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4 A note on containment boom ballast chains . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendices 13

A Appendix: Figures 13

B Appendix: Contact and credentials 16

B.1 Brief summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B.2 Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B.3 Professional society affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2

1 Test procedures and results

Table 1: ASTM standards for oil containment booms.

Test/Specification ASTM No.Standard certification

Yes Partial No

Tensile strength F1093-99 (07) X1

Boom connection F2438-04 X

Boom design F1523-94 (07)2 X

Table 2a: Component manufacturer information.

Boom material: woven polypropelene

Specification Avg. value Reported ASTM

Weight, oz./yd.2 8 (min.) D4632-91, D5034

Warp tensile strength, lb. 400 D4632-91, D5034

Fill tensile, lb. 400 D4632-91, D5034

Mullen burst, psi 850 D3786

UV strength retention 70% after 1200 h D4355

Bouyancy material: urethane foam3

Specification Avg. value Reported ASTM

Water absorption, lbs./ft.2 0.064 D2842

1Maximum tensile strength of the boom as a whole exceeds 7000 lbs. which exceeds BP’s

more stringent standards. See narrative for details.2Meets minimum requirements for Calm Water, Calm Water-Current, and Protected Water

classifications as defined in ASTM document F1523-94 (07).3Meets USCG title 33, Chapter 1, Part 183. Solvent, mold, and mildew resistant.4The value is for the urethane foam by itself. When employed in the boom it is surrounded

by the boom material which includes a thin film of polyethylene (as a polymeric barrier)

which, in theory, should actually reduce this number. Thus, the actual water absorption of

the boom as a whole should be much lower.

3

Table 2b: Component manufacturer information.

Webbing: woven polypropylene

Specification Avg. value Reported ASTM

Tensile, lb. 5000 (min.)5 Not specified

UV strength retention 70% after 1200 h D4355

Strapping: woven polypropylene

Specification Avg. value Reported ASTM

Tensile, lb. 110 (min.)6 Not specified

UV strength retention 70% after 1200 h D4355

Table 3: Additional specifications.

Ballast weight

Type Specifications

Chain 5/16 in., Gr-30, galvanized, coated, unwelded, 1 lb./ft.

Thread

Type Specification Avg. value

Tex 90

Strength 13.31 lb.

Seam strength, lockstitch 159.72 lb.

Seam strength, chainstitch 181.02 lb.

Tex 135

Strength 20.00 lb.

Seam strength, lockstitch 252.2 lb.

Seam strength, chainstitch 285.9 lb.

5This is for the webbing itself and not for the boom as a whole. The boom as a whole has

a tensile strength in excess of 7000 lbs. See narrative for details.6This is for the webbing itself and not for the boom as a whole. The boom as a whole has

a tensile strength in excess of 7000 lbs. See narrative for details.

4

2 Narrative report

2.1 Background

On April 20, 2010 the oil rig Deepwater Horizon, operated by British Petroleum

(BP), suffered a catastrophic failure and sank in the Gulf of Mexico 40 miles

south of the southern tip of Louisiana. Subsequently it was determined that

the well from which Deepwater Horizon was pumping oil was leaking at what

has been estimated is a bare minimum of 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) of oil

per day. Over the course of the next several weeks, numerous methods were

attempted to both cap the leak as well as contain the oil already present in the

water. Among the many options pursued by BP was the use of containment

booms. It is estimated that a minimum of roughly 7000 miles of boom would be

needed. Several factors, however, hampered immediate efforts to deploy booms,

the most obvious being that there simply wasn’t enough pre-manufactured boom

available on the worldwide market. In response, the Packgen corporation of

Auburn, Maine, was able to quickly develop a boom for use in calm, calm -

current, and nominally protected waters (see footnote 1) in order to support

the cleanup effort.

This report is intended to serve as an independent analysis of the specifica-

tions, testing, and quality control methods devised by Packgen, i.e. to indepen-

dently determine whether these booms will meet or exceed existing standards

established by ASTM, the United States Coast Guard, and others and to de-

termine whether these booms can be expected to operate as claimed under

reasonable limits. The purpose of this report is thus essentially to analyze the

design and performance of these booms and make any recommendations for im-

provement given the immediacy of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico. This

report is based on a series of site visits and observations of the manufacturing

and certain testing processes. This report does not cover any changes to the

5

design, manufacture, and/or testing processes subsequent to the submission of

this report.

2.2 Boom design

The boom is of a standard design that includes a 6 in. diameter freeboard and a

12 in. draft (skirt) that hangs below the waterline. It is produced in sections 100

ft. in length, foldable every 6 ft. The exterior material consists of coated, woven

polypropylene that has a minimum weight of 8 oz./yd2. This is lined with a

thin layer of polyethylene as an extra guard against absorption or transmission

of fluid through the polypropylene. Each section’s freeboard portion is filled

with urethane foam with gaps every 6 ft. allowing the section to bend or be

folded. These sections also include a 2 in. wide woven polypropylene tensioning

strap running the length of each section inside the freeboard portion. A 5/16

in. Gr-30, galvanized, coated, unwelded chain (sometimes known as ‘proof coil’)

will be threaded through the skirt to serve as ballast. The chain has a linear

weight distribution of 1 pound per foot (lb./ft.). Each section of the boom will

be mated to the next by a standard, sexless slide connection (see Figure 3 in

Appendix A) held together by pins. All stitching utilizes multifilament bonded

polyester thread. Drainage holes were poked in the skirt every few inches to

allow the water to drain from the boom when removed from the water. For a

complete description of the boom, please contact Packgen.

2.3 Testing procedures and analysis

Guidelines for the testing of containment booms for use in oil spill control and

storage are given in several ASTM documents7. Tensile characteristic tests are

7BP reportedly has plans to come out with their own, more stringent standards, but itis expected that the main difference will be a minimum tensile strength of the boom as awhole will need to be 5800 lbs. As such, the Packgen boom already meets this more stringentstandard.

6

described in F1093-99 (reapproved 2007) and guidelines for boom connectors

are give in F2438-04. Additional guidelines for the general selection of booms in

accordance with water body classification are given in ASTM document F1523-

94 (reapproved 2007). While not specifically required for oil containment booms,

some additional tests of the basic fabric of the boom were conducted by Packgen

under ASTM document 715-07.

2.3.1 Constituent materials

ASTM guidelines for oil containment booms do not give detailed specifications

on the type of material to be employed. Most employ vinyl. Using woven

polypropylene is actually an upgrade over vinyl in manner ways. In fact Packgen

employs the same polypropylene in their toxic waste storage bins. The curtain

portion actually has a double layer of the polypropylene (since any section is

created by folding over a larger piece of polypropylene). As an added measure

against fluid absorption, the inside was coated with a thin film of polyethylene.

Even though it is not specifically required, Packgen conducted further tests

of the polypropylene. In particular, a piece of the fabric (along with a piece

of the thread) was soaked in Diesel Fuel Grade 2 for 96 h as per specification

F715-07, 5.1.2, though not all practices and specifications given in D543 and

D975 were followed due to time restrictions. After 96 h no sign of degradation

of the material was evident. This should be no surprise as polypropylene is,

itself, a petrochemical.

Aside from the fabric and thread, metal portions of the boom (e.g. the chain,

etc.) were selected so as to be corrosion-resistant. In addition the urethane foam

employed in the boom meets USCG standards while also being solvent, mold,

and mildew resistant.

7

2.3.2 Buoyancy and water absorption

As per ASTM guidelines in document F1523-94 (2007), the minimum gross

buoyancy to weight ratio for calm water-current and protected water is 4:1. The

buoyancy test conducted by Packgen utilized a 24 in piece of boom with no ends.

This was first placed in water and the water line was marked. Next, 30 lbs. of

weight was attached uniformly to the underside of this piece and, as expected, it

sank. Reducing the weight to 23 lbs. caused the section to float, but with half of

the freeboard portion still submerged (see Figure 1 in Appendix A and compare

to the unloaded section shown in the Figure 2 in Appendix A). Calculations

place the buoyancy at roughly 11.4 lb./ft. The weight of a section depends

primarily on the weight of the ballast chain since the woven polypropylene,

urethane foam, and aluminum connectors are fairly light. The ballast chain has

a weight of 1 lb./ft. while the weight of the connectors depends upon the pins

and bolts used, but does not exceed the weight of the ballast chain. Thus it is

expected that the maximum weight will not exceed 2 lb./ft. Given the buoyancy

calculation, this puts the boom well within the ASTM guidelines. Since most

improvements would likely only serve to decrease the weight, this ratio would

only improve.

An overall water absorption test was also performed. The same 24 in. section

was placed in water and the water line was marked as before. Sufficient weight

was then attached to the section in order to completely submerge it. The section

was then left submerged for 24 h. The weights were then removed and the section

was observed to refloat at the original water line mark thus indicating that there

was no measurable absorption over the course of 24 h. Perhaps surprisingly,

ASTM guidelines F1523-94 (2007) do not specify conducting a water absorption

test. Nevertheless, the results of this additional test further suggest that the

excellent buoyancy to weight ratio should not change appreciably even under

8

adverse conditions. These tests were actually conducted prior to inclusion of

the interior polyethylene coating which would only serve to improve the results.

2.3.3 Boom connectors

ASTM guidelines for boom connectors for use in oil spill response falls under

F2438-04 (reapproved 2010). These guidelines recommend that all oil contain-

ment booms have slide connectors in order to prevent as much oil as possible

from seeping through the seams of the connectors and to make connecting them

a simple task for workers on the water. Packgen special ordered aluminum

boom connectors to be manufactured precisely to F2438-04 guidelines. Further

discussion of the connectors follows under tensile strength characteristics.

2.3.4 Tensile strength characteristics

Testing methods for tensile strength characteristics of oil spill response booms is

covered in ASTM document F1093-99 (reapproved 2007). These test methods

cover static laboratory testing only and do not cover all possible safety concerns.

Nevertheless, given the known durability of woven polypropylene and the other

constituent materials of the boom under exposure to hazardous materials, ten-

sile strength is arguably the most important characteristic requiring additional

testing since it tests not only the material itself but also the overall design of

the boom including the boom connectors.

ASTM guidelines given in F1523-94 (2007) specify a minimum tensile strength

of 5000 lbs. for calm water-current and protected water booms8. Specific details

of how to carry out tensile strength testing is given in ASTM document F1093-

99 (2007). Packgen carried out a series of tests on the booms that complied

8BP reportedly has plans to come out with their own, more stringent standards, but itis expected that the main difference will be a minimum tensile strength of the boom as awhole will need to be 5800 lbs. As such, the Packgen boom already meets this more stringentstandard.

9

with - and, in fact, exceeded - the specifications in that document. In all cases,

the boom met the 5000 lb. minimum requirement for tensile strength.

The first test consisted of testing the slide connectors for maximum tensile

strength (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). Under this test, the connectors and

material outperformed the testing apparatus as the test was stopped after ex-

ceeding 10,000 lbs. with no damage to the fabric or connectors having been

observed. Technically, this test is not included in ASTM guidelines, but was a

worthwhile and useful test of the design of the mating of the connectors to the

boom itself.

The first ASTM specified test was a fatigue test consisting of cyclically load-

ing a portion of boom as per ASTM guidelines. This was performed to a maxi-

mum of 5600 lbs. each time (see Figure 5 in Appendix A). Since this is a test

for material fatigue, it is naturally performed at a lower value than the maxi-

mum tensile strength required under the static load test. ASTM guidelines then

specify that a static load test be performed, increasing the tension until failure

of the boom. We define failure to be the point at which permanent deformation

occurs. In the first round of testing, the ballast chain was attached to the boom

webbing. Under these conditions it turns out the boom itself refused to fail.

Specifically, at various points exceeding 6500 lbs., the bolts securing the boom

to the testing device began to fail in such a way that the test had to be stopped.

In other words, the test mechanism failed long before the boom. A second static

test performed in the presence of a BP representative exceeded 7000 lbs.

Note that in the tests described above, a tensioning strap was run through

the freeboard section of the boom and the ballast chain was connected to the

slide connectors as per the standard (see section 2.3.5 for a general discussion).

In some boom designs the role of the tensioning strap is played by a cable. If the

chain is tensioned as well (which we recommend against - see section 2.3.5), the

10

natural question to ask would be whether the strapping or the chain would begin

to stretch first. Perhaps surprisingly, the chain has a greater expansion before

failure (20%) than the strapping (11-12%), though failure does occur at a lower

threshold for the strapping. Nevertheless, this should alleviate any concerns

about potential stretching in the strapping. Packgen did perform tensile tests

with the strapping and chain removed and, as expected, failure was at a lower

level (though, perhaps surprisingly, it still just met the BP standard of 5800

lbs.).

Early in product development, Packgen also performed consisted of an on-

water test of a 300 ft. section of boom. While not called for in ASTM guidelines,

the tests, conducted on a stretch of the Androscoggin River in Turner, Maine,

yielded some very useful data. Specifically it provided a relative benchmark of

towing capacity as, at 10 knots of speed, 300 ft. of boom did not submerge

noticeably or cause undue stress on the boat itself. It was also noted also

that the booms were simultaneously easy to deploy and yet should not twist

during deployment or in inclement weather due to the relative stiffness of the

polypropylene and the weight of the ballast (this has apparently been a problem

with other booms already deployed in the Gulf).

2.4 A note on containment boom ballast chains

Beyond the specific critique of the Packgen booms, these tests raise the impor-

tant and related question of how containment booms, in general, ought to be

deployed. Many different containment booms employ similar methods of ballast

(e.g. a chain). The question is whether to attach the ends of the chains to the

slide connectors (or webbing) or not. Clearly there is an advantage in doing so

in terms of tensile strength as demonstrated above. However, it is our concern

that this could cause the chain for bow, forming a catenary, pulling the center

11

of each section down a bit making it more susceptible to waves breaking over

the top. Since both situations, in the case of the Packgen booms, exceeded the

minimum requirements, we recommend deploying the booms with the ballast

chains unattached to the connectors (but perhaps lightly secured to the web-

bing). In fact this is a general recommendation for all oil containment booms

that include ballast, not just Packgen’s. However, in calm water situations, a

loose attachment of the chains to the connectors might be utilized if excessively

high tensions are expected.

2.5 Conclusion

It is our conclusion that these booms are of a very solid and rugged design

and should effectively be employed in the Gulf of Mexico to aid with the oil

spill and subsequent leakage from the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig accident.

Given that these booms are 18 in. in height, they do technically fall under the

‘protected water’ category in the ASTM guidelines, but we note that this is

the bare minimum for that category. We thus recommend that these booms

primarily be used for in-shore containment where waves will be nominal so as

to minimize the possibility of contaminated water washing over the boom.

We believe the choice of woven polypropylene to be an excellent one in that

it is known to be a highly durable material that is resistant to many highly

corrosive and toxic materials. Combined with the urethane foam (that has

very low water absorption) and the additional thin film, they make for a highly

durable containment boom.

In short, they meet or exceed all ASTM and USCG guidelines for oil spill

containment booms and meet the additional tensile strength requirement given

by BP.

12

Appendices

A Appendix: Figures

Figure 1: 23 lbs. of weight, half of freeboard submerged.

Figure 2: An unloaded section.

13

Figure 3: Static tensile load test.

Figure 4: Static tensile load test - failure point.

14

Figure 5: Static tensile load test.

15

B Appendix: Contact and credentials

Ian T. Durham

Department of Physics and Cooperative Engineering

Saint Anselm College

100 Saint Anselm Drive, Box 1759

Manchester, NH 03102

Phone: 603-222-4073

Cell : 207-730-2738

Fax : 603-222-4012

E-mail : idurham@anselm.edu

B.1 Brief summary

Degrees

PhD, Mathematics, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland

MSc, Applied Physics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

BSc, Mechanical Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York

16

Experience

Nine years experience as an active researcher and teacher at the under-

graduate level. Four years of industry experience and three years experi-

ence as a small business owner including extensive work interfacing with

the federal government. Over twenty-five papers and conference presen-

tations and four conference sessions chaired. Active on the national and

international level in research field.

B.2 Positions

Associate Professor and Chair, Dept. of Physics & Coop. Engineering

Director, Computational Physical Sciences Program

Saint Anselm College

Manchester, New Hampshire USA 2004 – Present

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Division of Enviro. and Biological Sciences

University of Maine at Machias

Machias, Maine USA 2002 – 2008

Research scientist, CATSAT program

University of New Hampshire

Durham, New Hampshire 2001

Adjunct Instructor, Department of Physics

United States Naval Academy

Annapolis, Maryland 2001

17

President and co-founder

Durham Research, Inc.

Crofton, Maryland 1998 – 2001

Aeronautical Systems Engineer; Programmer/Analyst

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Inc.

Laurel, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia 1997 – 2000

B.3 Professional society affiliations

American Physical Society 1998 – Present

• Topical Group on Quantum Information (GQI)

◦ Founding Editor, The Quantum Times, 2006 – Present

• Division of Computational Physics (DCOMP)

• Forum on Education (FEd)

• Forum on the History of Physics (FHP)

Royal Astronomical Society 2004 – Present

• Fellow, elected 2004

The Anacapa Society 2008 – Present

18