ALLEN WINER and C A R . W. F. SEARLE,JR.

,USN

PLASTIC F O M S FOR MARIM? SALVAGE

THE AUTHORS
A l l e n Winer, Materials Development and Applications Ofice, Naval Ship
Engineer Center, has been the Navy's project engineer for Foam-In-Salvage
studies f r o m the initial laboratory feasibility study in 1964 u p to the present
state of development. His areas of responsibility include plastics, cordage and
fabrics. He was graduuted from TUFTS University in 1948 and received his
M.S. degree in Chemistry in 1950. He has published several other articles on
cellular plastics. He holds one U.S. Patent and has several others pending
at this writing.
At the time of this writing, Capt. Searle wore two hats; one as Supervisor of
Salvage, and the second as Head of Ocean Engineering and Inshore Division
of the Fleet Maintenance and Logistic Support Directorate of NAVSHIPS.
The Captain has guided the operational aspects of this program from its con-
ception. Capt. Searle, a n ASNE member, attended the Naval Academy from
1942 to 1945 and received his B.S. in Naval Engineering. He received his
advanced degree as Naval Engineer f r o m M.I.T. in 1952. He has written several
articles for the US.Naval Institute Proceedings and the Naval Review, as well
as other technical periodicals.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Two quite different plastic foam systems are de-
scribed for raising large sunken objects; Urethane
Foam-In-Salvage (FIS) and Expanded Polystyrene
Bead (EPS)systems. This paper will first review
the major salvage operations in which the FIS and
EPS internal buoyancy systems have been em-
ployed and second, address the technology involved.
An FIS system operational to an ocean depth of
200 feet is presented and a possible technique for
extending FIS depth capability to 450 feet is de-
scribed. FIS is considered to be a breakthrough in
technology in the ship salvage field.
Successful salvage recoveries of sunken vessels
involving the use of plastic foam systems are also
described. There are specific advantages and dis-
advantages associated with each of the two systems.
of sunken ships, one of the prin-
I N THE RAISING
cipal problems which the salvor faces is that of
gaining buoyancy. The utilization of plastic foam is
one of the latest aids in solving this problem. A
salvor may add external buoyancy in the form of
structural pontoons or collapsible rubber bag pon-
toons, filled with air. Alternately, he may prefer,
for reasons of logistics or engineering, to apply in-
ternal buoyancy in the ship. He may perform this
latter operation by merely pumping out the compart-
ment, if possible, or by displacing the water by
means of compressed air (i.e. blowing down).
The pumping and air blowing methods are the
standard techniques of the salvor and every salvage
ship is equipped with pumps and compressors
especially designed for the task. There are, how-

Naval Engineers Journal. August 1970 97

Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
 PLASTIC FOAMS WINEX & SEARLS

ever, frequent salvage cases where these standard

techniques cannot be used at all or are not suffi- GROWTH RATE OF
cient to save the ship. It is in such cases that the RIG1 D URETHANE FOAM PRODUCTION
application of buoyancy material into the ship is
necessary or, at least, cost effective.
The internal application of buoyancy is not a new
idea. However, what is novel and unique about the
use of plastic foam for internal buoyancy is the
concept of obtaining lift by injecting a liquid poly-
mer system into flooded spaces, expanding-in-place
to many times its original volume, and displacing
water.
Historically, ancient salvors in the Far East cut
sections of bamboo, weighted them, and carried
them below, freeing them into their sunken, over-
turned craft. Early Mediterranean salvors employed
blown-up goat skins in a similar manner. In more
modem times the Sunday supplements seems to be
the primary exponents of using ping-pong balls,
blown into famous wrecks like Andrea Doria,
as a cure-all salvage material. Ping-pong balls, be-
ing quite thin-skinned and brittle, are not in them-
selves a practical buoyancy material, but the idea
is sound. The key point is the development of an
optimum buoyancy material and a system for intro-
ducing it into the sunken hull.
The past several years have seen the development
of at least two significant cellular plastic systems
for the introduction of internal buoyancy, under-
water, as a tool for the salvor. One of the systems,
called Foam-In-Salvage, or FIS, is a cast-in-place
urethane foam technique. The other system which ~-
is referred to as EPS involves the use of Expandable 1961 1968
Polystyrene Beads which are pumped in a water
1955
slurry into the flooded ship. The latter system was YEAR
developed into a practical ship salvage technique Figure 1.
in 1964-1965 by the firm of Karl Kroyer, z / Inc. of
Denmark. Both systems have already been success- Co., Inc., and the paint and chemical firm, Glidden
fully used on a number of salvage operations. Company, undertook a joint effort to develop and
test out a polyurethane, cast-in-place type foam sys-
FROTH-IN-PLACE URETHANE FOAM BUOYANCY tem for use in salving sunken off-shore oil rigs. This
The above mentioned Sunday Supplement salvage effort was reported in a paper by Mr. R. D. Tam-
“primer” was typical of the proposals which were burello, z / of McDermott, which was presented at
put forth after the loss of the famous Italian liner. the XXth International Navigation Congress of the
As indicated, the idea was a good one. The signifi- Permanent International Association of Navigation
cance is that at the same time-in 1956-the chemi- Congress (PIANC),in July 1961, at Baltimore,
cal and material handling technologies involving Maryland. Nothing much came of this joint effort
expanded polystyrene and other blown or frothed by the two firms, except that the US. Navy was
plastics had been improved to the point where they receptive to the concept. The US. Navy’s Super-
were becoming widely used. Figure 1illustrates this visor of Salvage at that time, Captain W. L. Mar-
graphically. It was thus a natural evolution, first to shall, USN, was, however, the Reporter General
the use of these light weight, water-resistant ma- at the PIANC Congress’ session on “Raising and/or
terials for buoyancy in small boats and yachts, and removal of wrecks; Refloating of stranded or sunk-
then to efforts to use them for inserting buoyancy en vessels”, at which hh. Tamburello’s paper was
in sunken craft. given. The Supervisor of Salvage, with considerable
A survey of the literature indicates that the f i s t World War I1 and Korean War ship salvage and
serious attention to the use of plastic buoyancy harbor clearance experience behind him, saw the
material in ship salvage was in 1960 and 1961 when, immense value of such a technique in military sal-
as a joint effort, the New Orleans-based off-shore vage work.
rigging and salvage fim, J. Ray McDermott and In 1964, the Navy advertised for competitive bids

98 Naval Enginean Journal, Auqust I970

Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
 WINER & SEARLE
from industry for a laboratory study to determine
the feasibiiity of raising sunken ships by %lac-
ing water from flooded compartments in ocean
depths to 375 feet. The principal system to be
studied was urethane cast-in-place systems. An
R&D contract was eventually awarded and this
effort progressed for about two years and, while it
proved the feasibility of the idea, it never actually
got out of the laboratory.
Apparently, quite without knowledge of any of the
foregoing laboratory work, a west coast construc-
tion company had undertaken to remove a large
lumber barge from a sunken position blocking the
channel at Eureka, California, and elected to try
cast-in-place polyurethane foam in an actual field
operation. This decision was taken only after con-
ventional salvage methods had proved insufficient.
With technical assistance and raw material supplied
by Polytron Corporation (now a subsidiary of Olin-
Mathieson Corporation), the Murphy Pacific Cor-
poration in November, 1964, inserted nearly 33 tons
of foam buoyancy into the sunken barge Lumber-
jack, and successfully refloated her. The work
was preceded by a few days of materials testing at
the site in order to adjust the mixing formula for
the raw materials to suit the 40°F water and maxi-
mum depth of 50 feet.
By chance, a former U.S. Navy salvage officer,
then a civilian, participated in the Lumberjack
operation. Once again, the potential of the Urethane
foam technique was recognized; particularly for
military salvage where time is often critical and
logistic considerations frequently are a governing
factor. Accordingly, Alex Rynecki, Lt., USNR, re-
ported the operation informally to the Navy Super-
visor of Salvage. In the spring of 1965, a series of
conferences ensued between Navy salvage and ma-
terials engineers and the Murphy-Pacific-Polytron
team who had developed the polyurethane cast-in-
place underwater foaming technique in the field.
In 1965, with the war in Vietnam building up, the
Navy was particularly interested in further improv-
ing the technique for emergency deployment and
use any place required. At the same time, the
Navy’s pt-Thresher Deep Submergence SYS-
tems Program was just getting up a head of steam
and was particularly interested in systems for apply-
ing life to submarines sunk at considerable depth.
The Murphy Pacific system, by then called F ~ a m -
In-Salvage, or FIS*, seemed to have promise for
both of these Navy requirements, and it was decided
to focus attention here rather than continue the
previous laboratory effort.
From the outset of discussions with Murphy-Pa-
cific, the Navy had two principal objectives. The
objective having top priority was to work out a
Fewices contract for the employment of Murphy-
Pacific’s patented FIS system on Navy or other gov-
crnment salvage jobs. The other objective was to
- free surface to worry about as there is with the
‘The terms “Foam-In-Salvage” and “FIS” are copyrighted by
.lurphy PaciAc Marine Salvage Co. of Emeryville. California.
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
work out an arrangement whereby the system as it
then existed could be improved, both for “fire drill“,
relatively shallow harbor clearance and also for
deep submarine salvage work. A contract with
Murphy-Pacific was executed in May, 1965, to im-
prove the FIS system and to show the feasibility of
the system to 200 feet at Sealab 11. Just two
months later, the USS Frank Knox (DDR 742)
ran aground on Pratas Reef in the South China Sea
and when conventional salvage techniques by them-
selves were insufficient, a call went out for the FIS
system.
The Frank Knox salvage operation tested FIS
far beyond any capability that planners would have
expected of it at so early a time in the development
of the technology. The chemistry was only just
being developed; the materials handling and under-
water application equipment was ad hoc when the
Pacific Fleet salvage forces called for it in June,
1965. Raw materials, foaming equipment, and tech-
nicians were flown from California on less than two
day’s notice. Over a period of two weeks on the ship,
approximately 1000 tons of foam buoyancy was
placed in the destroyer’s engineering spaces and
forward tanks. There have been several reports
3*4/ published on the Frank Knox salvage opera-
tion, including NAVSHIPS Technical Publication
0994-002-6010, which is the official version. The
unique point about the use of FIS in the operation
was that the foam allowed the salvors to use other
standard salvage techniques and save the ship, more
or less intact. As she sat stranded on the reef with
her forward boiler and engine rooms completely
bilged, her keel broken and her main deck wrinkled,
Knox would have been in such a sagging load
condition had she been pulled free that even if she
had been able to float, her hull would have broken
in two. “he filling of the engineering spaces with
foam not only reduced the ground reaction of the
stranded ship; more importantly, it added buoyancy
amidship, reduced the sag and dangerous loading of
the hull girder and, in effect, saved the ship.
The Knox job also proved, at a very early
stage, the three most significant advantages of the
FIS plastic system over the competitive EPS-
expandable polystyrene-system. First and fore-
most in the military use of either of the systems
was the ease and rapidity of the logistic aspects of
the system. Ssoild, the relative simplicity of on-
site materials handling and application. The divers
and other salvage people on the K m x were able
to set up the system and be trained in it in a matter
of hours. Third, the fact that the froth-in-place M S
foam sets up into a rigid cellular mass very quickly.
This means several things to the salvor; the foam
has shear strength and it is not neceSSary to blank
off or caulk small holes, split seams, cracks, or even
port holes; and perhaps most importantly, the center
of buoyancy applied will stay put and there is no
EPS system. These advantages do not, however,
Naval Engineers Journal, August I970 99
PLASTIC FOAMS
make FIS a cure all, for in some salvage jobs where
logistics, time, and engineering considerations allow
it, the EPS system may prove more cost effective.
In October, 1965, with the Knox job completed,
attention was devoted to demonstrating the use of
FIS at deeper depths for application in submarine
salvage. After extensive trials in San Francisco
Bay, the Navy-Murphy Pacific-Polytron team parti-
cipated in Sealab ZZ off La Jolla, California where
the hulk of a fighter aircraft had been weighted and
placed on the sea bottom at 190 feet in close proxim-
ity to the Sealab habitat. With foam raw ma-
terials on the deck of a salvage ship above, and the
foam "fun" and delivery hoses passed down to them,
the Aquanauts successfully foamed the aircraft,
applying some 1200 pounds of buoyancy.
With the K m x job and the Sealab II demon-
stration to build on, the Navy and Murphy Pacific*
subsequently entered into two separate contracts
involving FIS. One is a service type contract whch
requires the firm to warehouse, for the Navy, raw
material sufficient to generate 2000 tons of buoyancy.
The material, owned by the Government, is stored
partly in the San Francisco area; partly in the New
York area. Materials handling, foam application
and safety equipment owned by the contractor is
stored in San Francisco. All of this material, with
technicians, are available for deployment by air on
less than a 24 hour basis. This "fire-house" capabil-
ity is also available to the maritime industry on a
straight commercial basis through Murphy Pacific.
The other contract addressed the continuing de-
velopment of FIS technology and the improvement
of associated machinery. Both the contractor and the
Navy were interested in a program of this nature
for their own operations needs. In so far as shallow
water application is concerned, such as for harbor
clearance and stranding salvage, the military and
commercial interests are about the same. However,
for deep water use as in submarine salvage, there
would doubtless be no commercial interest. With
these factors in mind, a jointly funded R and D
program was negotiated. As a result of this con-
tract, Murphy Pacific designed, built and now main-
tains a fully owned FIS pressure vessel and labora-
tory facility wherein form formulations can be test-
ed to simulated Ocean depth intervals to 600 feet.
The actual development work was undertaken under
a cost sharing contract in accordance with a Navy
prescribed technical program. This work is further
described later in this paper.
The efficacy of the "fire-house", or standby, FIS
contract has been demonstrated in several instan-
ces. In early January, 1967, the USS Mahlumzen
County (LST 912) grounded, broached, and was
bilged in a hostile coastal area near Chu h i , South
Vietnam. Approximately 1000 tons of FIS buoy-
ancy material with associated machinery and tech-
nicians, were flown out to the site and the foam
*The satellite firm, Murphy Pacific Marine Sslvage Com-
pany, was formed in February, 1966.
100 Naval Engineers Journal, August 1970
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WINER & S-8
was successfully placed in the LST's b t tanks.
Subsequent monsoon storms, enemy harassment,
and the severly impaled condition of the hull re-
sulted, however, in the eventually abandoment oi
the ship.
While still in-country in South Vietnam, the Mur-
phy Pacific technicians were shifted from the LST
to the contract operated dredge, Jamaica Bay,
which had been sabotaged and sunk in mid-January
at My Tho in the Mekong Delta area. Additional
raw material was flown out an4 a carefuly en-
gineered application of 300 tons of FIS buoyancy
was successfully undertaken at a maximum depth of
about 30 feet. This salvage operation, which was
also performed under enemy harassment, was fully
successful.
There have also been a number of commercial
salvage jobs in which the FIS system has been used.
An interesting one occurred in the Panama Canal
Zone where, on Christmas Eve, 1967, the tuna boat
Southern Seas sank and partially capsized in
50 feet of water alongside a pier. The Murphy Pa-
cific salvors placed 100 tons of foam buoyancy in
the hull in order to lighten her enough so that other
lifting systems could right and raise her. This job,
and the Jamaica Bay, demonstrate that small
quantities of foam can be carefuly placed to aug-
ment the use of other lift techniques-lift by cranes,
by pontoons, or cofferdam dewatering. In such
instances, the cost effectiveness of FIS, as compared
either to EPS or other standard salvage systems,
is marked and the foam removal problem is mini-
mized.
Salvage operations to date, involving the use of
FIS buoyancy system are shown in Table 1.
SALVAGE OPERATIONS INVOLVING USE Of FIS BUOYANCY SYSTEM
MAHNOMEN C W N T Y
JAMAICA BAY
'SWTHERN SfAS
ITUNA BOAT
MC 1967 ~~~~~
I
Isbla 1
' CChWRCIAl
Table 1.
EXPANDABLE POLYSTYRENE BEAD
FREE FLOATING BUOYANCY
The use of the expandable polystyrene-EFS-
buoyancy technique is essentially the same scheme
used by the ancients when they put free floating
bamboo sticks inside a sunken hull, or the same as
 -WINEX & SEARLE
the ping-pong balls of the Sunday supplements. The
basic difference between the EPS and the FIS buoy-
ancy is clearly evident in the terminology-free
floating for EPS; froth-in-place foam FIS.
The first reported use of the EPS buoyancy tech-
nique was in late 1964, when the Danish salvage
firm Em. A. Switzer Inc. was employed to raise
the freighter S S A2 Kuwait. This 3,200 ton freighter,
with a load of 6,000 live sheep had sunk and rolled
over alongside her loading berth in Kuwait Harbor.
Aside from blocking a principal berth in the port,
the decomposing sheep posed a pollution hazard to
the port and the city’s desalinization waterworks.
Underwriters for the ship, under considerable pres-
sure to remove the hulk as quickly as feasible, ac-
cepted a proposal from the Danish chemical process-
ing firm of Karl Kroyer to salvage the ship by using
a heretofore unproved EPS system. In this way the
hulk could be removed without having to dismantle
the pier or transit sheds. Removal of these struc-
tures would have been necessary had a normal par-
buckling and cofferdam-to-pump salvage scheme
been used. Also, the hulk could be removed more
quickly than if either were undertaken. The
Switzer-Kroyer team commenced work in Decem-
ber, 1964, inserting 1500 tons of buoyancy into the
hulk in the form of tiny polystyrene free-floating
beads. With the use of pumps and pulling purchase,
the ship was rolled nearly upright and floated
away. The buoyancy material used had a reported
density of about 1.1 pounds per cubic foot. It was
necessary for the salvors to employ divers to blank
off doors, portholes and other openings before start-
ing to insert EPS to other spaces. Additionally, the
salvage engineers had to take into account the free
surface effect of the floating balls and continuously
reestimate the position of the EPS’s center of buoy-
ancy as the ship was rolled upright. This was not
a particularly serious problem in the A1 Kuwait op-
eration because the ship was never fully submerged
and so there was always a large enough water plane
area to aid stability.
The next use of the EPS system was undertaken
in 1965 by the Dutch salvage firm,Bureau Wijs-
muller of Ijmuiden, Netherlands. In this case, by
February, 1966, the 165 ton trawler Jaco-Mina was
raised from a depth of 10 fathoms by the combined
techniques of EPS, crane lift, and air-blowing. Ap-
proximately 50 tons of EPS buoyancy was em-
ployed. In evaluating this successful operation, the
salvors concluded that for gaining buoyancy in a
difficult-to-seal space, such as an engine room or
hold, it was less difficult and less time consuming
for divers to prepare the space for EPS than to
make it completely tight suitable for air blowing.
The deepest application for the Kroyer EPS sys-
tem came in May, 1966 when the new 4200 ton
Danish freighter Mu Martin S sank in the fjord at
Sukkertoppen, on the west coast of Greenland. The
ship rested on an even keel at a depth of 105 feet.
The dead weight lift to raise the valuable hull was
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
estimated to be about 1700 tons. Several salvage
proposals were offered to underwriters. One would
have used the standard lift-ship method such as was
used in 1957 to clear the blocked Suez Canal.
The competitive EPS proposal offered by the Van
Den Tak’s Salvage Company of Rotterdam was,
however, accepted. Though it has not been an-
.nounced, it can be assumed that the overall cost of
the EPS system was less than the lift ship system.
Any cost comparison in a case such as this must in-
clude not only the cost to salve but also the cost
to repair the salved vessel. The likelihood of the
heavy round-the-hull lift wires damaging the hull
probably was a negative factor in considering the
lift ship method.
An additional factor favoring use of a foam system
in the case of the Martin S was the long homeward
tow that she faced once raised. Had the lift-ship
method been employed, her hull would have had
to been patched at Sukkertoppen prior to the tow.
By using a foam system to provide stable, long-
lasting internal buoyancy, this near-impossible
patching job was not necessary, Just as in the case
of the USS Frank Knox (with FIS), Martin S was
able to be successfully towed in a damaged con-
dition over a long Ocean transit.
Martin S was successfully raised in July, 1967,
after approximately 1550 tons of EPS buoyancy had
been placed in her #3 and #4 lower holds and the
#2 upper hold. To this internal buoyancy was added
the crane type lift to two heavy lift ships, one over
the sunken ship’s bow and one over the stern, lifting
about 200 and 110 tons respectively. By employing
this buoyancy assisted lift plan, the salvors had
positive control of the hull at all times during the
raising operations. It is important to note that the
amount of positive lift (310 tons) was a significant
amount (20%) compared to the EPS buoyancy. This
was a vital point of the salvage plan since the poly-
styrene beads expand as the hulk is brought up. If
the increase in EPS buoyancy were so great that
the entire hulk became buoyant, the wreck would
“get away from” the salvors and pop to the surface
out of control. While not nearly as serious a prob-
lem with EPS buoyancy as with air, which would
have almost tripled its buoyancy lift between 110
feet and the surface, the polystyrene beads are not
nearly as stable across a pressure differential as is
the case with FIS froth-in-place urethane foam.
The most recent salvage operation employing the
EPS system involved the dredge Cessnock which
capsized and sank off Princess Pier, Greenwk, Scot-
land in 1968. The dredger was raised in January,
1968 using some 29 tons of unexpended h d s ,
which when “blown” to a density of 1.5 l b d c u
feet, created enough internal buoyancy to reduce
the underwater weight of the dredge by about 570
tons. The remaining 400 tons were lifted by Van den
Tak’s floating sheerlegs AT& and Condor.
Prior to pumping in expanded polystyrene beads,
the dredge’s 42 buckets, each of which weighed over
Naval Engineers Journal, Augult I970 101
 PLASTIC FOAMS
2.5 tons and the bucket ladder weighmg about 105
tons were removed.
There have also been several EPS-type salvage
operations in the United States, though not under
the Karl Kroyer patented system. One operation
occurred in 1965 in the Gulf of Mexico and involved
the raising of a 450 ton leg which had been lost off
an offshore drilling rig belonging to the Penrod
Drilling Company. Approximately 20 tons of Dow
Chemical Company, “Pelaspan”, EPS free floating
buoyancy beads, were used at a depth of 140 feet.
Another EPS job, also in 1965, was the raising of
the hulk of a former Navy coastal minesweeper
(YMS)which had sunk in 21 feet of water in the
Mississippi River at New Orleans. This operation
was performed by a local salvage firm,A1 Veverica
Company, using DOW’S“Tyril” expandable styrene
copolymer beads having a density of 1%pounds per
cubic foot. Because of the organic solvent environ-
ment into whch the flotation material was injected,
a more solvent resistant EPS bead was used but at
considerable increase in material cost.
Salvage operations to date involving use of EPS
buoyancy system are shown in Table 2.
SALVAGE OPERAIIDNS I N V a V l N C US[
JACO-MINI IIRAWL t R I 1b5 Y Y)
MINtSMtPtR IYMSI IN 21
C W R C I A L ONLY l t X C t P 1 I M 5 I
...
.* 4% TON DRILL I O W t R I t 6
S I Y R t N l COPIXYMlK MA0 USIO iw1 SCIVtNT
UVI UIAD WIGHT LOAO
Table 2.
EPS-type salvage has been proposed for other
salvage tasks in this country. However, beyond
those noted above, this buoyancy system has not
been employed here. This is, in part, because in
the United States there are usually more than
enough heavy lift cranes to handle routine lifting
jobs. The salvage of the famous chlorine barges in
the Mississippi River is an example of brute force
lifting. There is seldom a need for help in this
country from RPS buoyancy as mere buoyancy
alone. In the United States the more general situa-
tion in salvage work is the need for buoyancy that
can be engineered into a salvage plan when nothing
else will do; in difficult righting operations where
the center of buoyancy must not shift in remote
locales where logistic considerations govern; or in
cases involving wide open and bilged compartments
102 Naval Engineers Journal, Auqust 1970
WINER & SEARLE
where there would be no chance of containing either
air of EPS buoyancy.
FOAM REMOVAL
Much has been said on the one hand of the mat-
ter of removing FIS foam after a job has been com-
pleted and, on the other hand, of the ability to
recover and reuse the EPS beads after an operation.
Both points need to be clarified.
In the case of FIS there is no question about the
fact that removal is more difficult than EPS. This
very fact is the consequence of one of the FIS
system’s principal advantage: that of having a posi-
tive shear strength. It is this property which keeps
the center of buoyancy fixed, and prevents the buoy-
ancy from migrating or from escaping out of gaping
holes as in a ripped-out hull. The foam also adheres
tenaciously to surfaces with which it comes in con-
tact. The real advantage of FIS is that it can be
used in situations where nothing else wiU work, and
in such situations the removal problem is the least
of the owner’s or salvage engineer’s worries.
There is yet another advantage of FIS which is
a concomitant of its hard-to-remove characteristic.
The FIS buoyancy material is a solid mass and when
properly used, as in an engine room, will provide
I P S B U O Y A K V SYSTLM considerable protection to machinery. Anyone who
has ever pumped out a flooded engineering space
will understand this point. There is always an oily
surface in a flooded engine space: As the space is
pumped out, a dirty oily fikn is left on everything.
It is this film whch especially ruins instruments
and electrical apparatus and which leads to the need
ftB 1% - for gas-freeing which could constitute a fire hazard.
... Im ,w6
M I S S I S S I P P I RlVlR
Llyl IDI<.Y<
FIS filled engineering spaces, as on Frank Knox,
have been found to be protected from oily film and,
once cleared of the cast material, do not present
a fire hazard.
This may not be a significant advantage but the
RfSISTANCt
point is that FIS is not all bad. The removal of
rigid urethane foam from any space is purely and
simply laborious and for the present, at least, a
more economical, rapid and efficient system for
simplifying the removal problem has not been de-
veloped. Thls principal disadvantage of the FIS sys-
tem must be considered from the very outset.
However, when well-engineered, the characteristics
of FIS which make it so difficult to remove, can
a h be the very reason for using it in the first
place.
The removal of EPS, on the otherhand, is not as
easy at is might seem to be. Clearly, since it is free
floating and has no sheer strength, the little beads
can be shoveled out, pumped out in a slurry, blown
out with air, or as in the case of Martin S, sucked
out by means of a fan and blown directly into an
incinerator. However, the tendency of the little
beads to migrate makes total removal very difficult.
The beads get into every possible inaccesible corner
in machinery and piping, they lodge behind wains-
coating and are transported throughout ventilation
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WINEX & SEARLE
systems. Harbor pollution can a h occur. Still, the
EFT3 removal operation, as a single evolution, should
be much cheaper and less time consuming than FIS
removal.
Disposal of removed material is a problem with
either system. However, the idea of saving the EPS
beads and reusing them is simply conjecture and
does not appear to be at all practical. In most
instances, the used beads will be d u l y , oily, possibly
water-logged, and perhaps even contain minute ma-
rine life. The problem of warehousing, either inside
or outside, will be complicated by odors, weather
deterioration (Unless sheltered) and fire hazard.
Although the material might be treated to neutralize
odor, handling and storage costs are sufficient rea-
sons for not storing used EPS materials.
MATERIALS AND PROCESSING
Liquid urethane plastic has been foamed-in-place
in air against atmospheric pressure and ambient
temperatures, under vacuum and cryogenic con-
ditions, and now in an aqueous environment at tem-
peratures as low as 35°F and under laboratory
simulated Ocean depths to 450 feet.
Development of the unique capability of foaming
under water has added a new dimension to marine
salvage where a multiplicity of techniques are al-
ready in use.
Except for the singular case of polystyrene foam,
which will be discussed in detail later in this paper,
one has only to consider the amazing versatility and
latitude of urethane chemical technology to under-
stand why urethane foam has virtually preempted
consideration of the use of any other type plastic
foam for Navy salvage. One of the important attrib-
utes of this family of polymers is that liquid sys-
tems are available for casting, spraying or foaming-
in-place as required.
Availability of liquid components to react to form
a rigid plastic polymer is the first criterion of utility
for foam-in-place systems to be used in Navy sal-
vage. With a foamed-in-place liquid system, one
can also avoid the packing factor limitations gen-
erated by using either a pelletized system such as
expanded polystyrene beads or preformed hollow
spheres.
Foaming a plastic, whether in prior liquid or solid
form, may be accomplished in a variety of ways to
form a rigid cellular structure. These methods are
shown in Table 3. However, rigid cellular plastics
expanded from the liquid state have greater utility
and efficiency for Navy salvage than do those cel-
lular plastics expanded from the solid state. There
are relatively few plastic polymers that are com-
mercially available as liquids at room temperature
and which have sufficiently rapid curing properties,
have easily controllable exotherm characteristics
and have sufficiently low viscosity for conversion
into a rigid cellular structure for use in marine sal-
v:) ge. Commercially available liquid plastic polymer
SJ stems meeting these criteria are shown in Table 4.
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
VARIOUS FOAMING MEXHODS FOR FORMING RIGID
CELLULAR PLASTICS
1. Volatilize a low Boiling Liquid through Reaction Ex-
otherm.
2. Vaporize a Liquefied Gas through Pressure Reduction
(Frothing).
3. Liberate Carbon Dioxide Gas by Generating a Chemical
Reaction "In-Sib" ( i e . Reaction of Water with Excess
Diisocyanate Component).
4. Mechanical Incorporation of Compressed Gases.
5. Mechanical Air Entrapment.
6. Thermal Decomposition of Compounds Liberating Nitro-
gen Gas.
Table 3.
PLASTIC POLYMER SYSTEMS
AVAILABLE: IN LIQUID FORM
1. Urea-Formaldehyde
2. Phenolic
3. Silicone
4-np0XY
5. Urethane
Table 4.
The liquid plastic polymers shown in Table 4 can
ordinarily be foamed-in-place in air against atmos-
pheric pressure without the necessity for external
heating. Candidate liquid systems selected for sal-
vage foam are based on relatively low viscosity
reactants in order to avoid excessive pressure drop
during pumping and mixing operations. Wide dif-
ferences in viscosities between reactants can result
in inefficient mixing and could lead to variable
physical properties in the foam. The viscosity of
urethane froth foam reactants may be further re-
duced as a result of mixing with low viscosity
fluorocarbon frothing agents.
For all polymer systems shown in Table 4, foam-
ing and subsequent rigidization into a cellular struc-
ture is finally accomplished simply through reaction
exothenn.
Of the polymers shown in Table 4, urethane ex-
hibits the widest latitude in formulations, processing
and physical properties. Consequently, urethane
systems were selected for intense study to determine
the feasibility for dispensing liquid reactants under-
water, foaming-in-place, displacing water and gen-
erating positive buoyancy. The broad range of p h y s
ical properties possible for properly formulated
urethane foam systems are shown in Table 5.
RANGE OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES POSSIBLE FOR
W E FOAMS
-
Density A Feather-Lib 0.5 lbs/cu. ft. to over 40 lbs/cu. ft.,
Simulating Wood.
-
Compressive Strength Approv. 20 psi for 2 p.cf. Density
Rigid F m to over 1,oOO psi for
a 20 p.cf. Density Rigid Foam.
-
Shear Strength Approximately 50 psi for a 2 p.c.f. Density
Rigid Foam to over 600 psi for a 20 p.c.f.
FOam.
-
Cell Structure Unicellular, Water Resistant.
-
Composition Flexible, Semi-Rigid or Rigid; Soft or Hard.
Flame Resistance -
Self-Extinguishing or non Self-&-
tinguishing Characteristics.
Table 5.
Naval Enqinrrrr Journal, August 1970 103
 PLASTIC FOAMS
Dispensing of urethane foam may involve any
of the following system: conventional liquid pour-
in-place, froth-in-place or spray-in-place systems.
Except for the Navy’s initial feasibility study which
simply involved liquid pour-in-place systems, sub-
sequent development has focused on froth-in-place
systems. The versatility and commercial utility of
the urethane foam system is apparent from an
examination of the growth rate of rigid urethane
foam as shown in Figure 1.
In an earlier paper, 5 / Winer and Munger de-
scribed the urethane foam reaction and presented
formulations.
Foaming under water involves contact with a
more hostile environment than foaming in air
against atmospheric pressure and ambient tempera-
ture conditions. The Ocean provides both a heat sink
and reaction inhibiting environment which poten-
tially can cause the urethane underwater foaming
reaction to become either inoperative or at best
inefficient. The Ocean’s deleterious influence, how-
ever, can be countered by developing suitable foam
formulations, dispensing equipment and accessories.
For example, heated Lines are not ordinarily re-
quired with presently developed urethane froth
foam systems operational to 200 feet. However, at
deeper depths to 450 feet, heated lines are essential
to reduce reactant viscosities to a workable level,
increase foam reaction rate and elevate vapor pres-
sure of frothing gases to exceed ambient hydro-
static pressures. It is now anticipated that by using
heated lines, for Ocean depths to 200 feet, although
not technically required, will, nevertheless, increase
the vapor pressure of less volatile, less expensive
frothing gases (i.e. F-22 in lieu of F-13B1) so that
foaming beyond the 150 foot Ocean depth levels can
be accomplished at considerably lower material cost.
While the versatility of urethane is apparent from
a review of Table 5, it should nevertheless, also be
noted that development of desired specific physical
properties will not necessarily be consistently at-
tainable unless close process control is exercised
over the entire system. This will involve close con-
trol of mixing, metering, dispensing and delivery
systems. Relatively small changes in metering of
reactants (especially if other than a 1:l ratio is
used), an increase in component viscosity, faulty
valve operation, or the existence of even partially
clogged delivery lines, will adversely affect final
foam properties.
When two liquid reactants, a diisocyanate and a
polyol (sometimes called A and B components), are
blended together with modifiers and catalyst, exo-
therm is developed and viscosity increases. The exo-
therm developed subsequently vohtilizes a blowing
agent which in turn expands the viscous mass, and
finally rigidizes the resultant cellular structure.
Depending upon the end application, foam reaction
rate and rise time can, of course, be varied within
wide limits by formulation changes.
Adhesion of the foam is tenacious to meet dry
104 N a v a l Engineers Journal, August 1970
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WINER &: SEARLE,
surfaces and a parting agent is required where ad.
hesion is not desired. Adhesion to wet or oily sur-
faces, however, is greatly reduced.
Figure 2 shows the Murphy Pacdic Foam Labora
tory photo demonstrating the preferred process 0;
downward water displacement by a machine dis-
pensed urethane froth foam.
It has been shown both in the laboratory and irk
earlier salvage operations that injection of “free-
rise” urethane foam results in largely open cell
foam structure and reduced strength which reduces
the foam’s buoyancy efficiency. This method of foam
injection should, however, be avoided wherever
possible in favor of downward water displacement.
On the other hand, in the case of expanded poly-
styrene beads (EPS),a system which will be dis-
cussed in greater detail later in this paper, “free-
rise” has no significant detrimental effect on buoy-
ancy characteristics since a rigid closed cell struc-
ture has already been formed prior to injection un-
derwater.
Figure 2. Inside Hydrostatic Pressure Chamber as seen
through View Port. “Courtesy of Murphy Pacific Marine
Salvage Co.”
A second common method for gaseous expansion
of basic urethane reactants involves the incorpora-
tion of a small quantity of water with the polyol
component which reacts with excess diisocyanate
component to generate carbon dioxide gas.
The advantage of having carbon dioxide gas gen-
eration tied directly to the urethane polymerization
reaction for purposes of control and homogeneity is
nulhfied at progressively deeper Ocean depths. At
progressively higher ambient hydrostatic pressures,
more diisocyanate resin must be added to the foam
formulation to generate more carbon dioxide gas
blowing agent. For example, at seven atmospheres
(200 feet), seven times the weight of gas is needed
as i s required for near-surface application.
However, the addition of substantially more
diisocyanate in the foam formulation beyond the
amount needed for the basic urethane reaction pro-
WINEX & SEARLE
duces a more friable and undesirable foam cell
structure.
The feasibility of foaming-in-place underwater to
a simulated Ocean depth of 375 feet was previously
demonstrated in the laboratory with a conventional
liquid pour-in-place carbon dioxide (reaction gen-
erated) blown urethane foam.
However, subsequent successive large scale com-
mercial as well as Naval operations previously
described have confirmed that froth foam systems
are more efficient, more useful, and more reliable
than conventional carbon dioxide (reaction gen-
erated) blown systems for marine salvage. Urethane
froth foams, because of both superior thermal in-
sulating properties underwater and immediate water
barrier formation facilitate the underwater foaming
process and yield lower density foams than con-
ventional liquid pour-in-place urethane systems.
Selection of effective blowing agents for a froth-
in-place urethane foam requires information con-
cerning the hydrostatic pressure and water tem-
perature at the salvage site since it is necessary to
select compatible blowing agents having vapor pres-
sures exceeding ambient hydrostatic pressures at a
given water temperature, otherwise foaming will
either not occur at all or inefficiently at best. H e c -
tive blowing agents ,for the indicated depth levels
are shown in Table 6.
EFFECTIVE FLUOROCARBON GAS BLOWING
AGENT BLENDS FOR VARIOUS OCEAN DEPTHS
Blowing Agents OCEAN DEPTH (FEET)
F-11 and F-12 50
F-11, F-12 and F-22 100
F-Z2 and F-13B1 (75/25 Percent By Weight 150
F-22 and F-13B1 (50/50 Percent By Weight) 200
Table 6.
Successive commercial as well as Naval opera-
tions have successfully demonstrated the utility,
dependability and effectiveness of using Fluoro-
carbon 11 and 12 blowing agents for frothing ure-
thanes for near-surface recovery (75 ft.).
Deeper than approximately 75 feet, the frothing
gas must exhibit higher vapor pressures to over-
come increasingly higher hydrostatic pressures,
therefore Fluorocarbon 22 was used in combination
with the above blowing agents. Beyond 125 feet to
200 feet, it became necessary $0 incorporate an even
more volatile fluorocarbon gas, F-13B1 along with
fluorocarbon F-22 gas. Unfortunately, this gas (F-
13B1) is very expensive and its use greatly in-
creases the cost per pound of buoyancy at the
deeper ocean depths. The approximate material cost
of urethane froth foam for various Ocean depth in-
tervals and the pounds of lift obtainable per pound
of material for each depth interval are shown in
Table 7.
The conventional commercial practice of dispens-
ing a trial “shot” of urethane foam in air at atmos-
pheric pressure to measure the density and curing
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
URETHANE FROTH FOAM COST VS. OCEAN DEPTH
(MATERIAL ONLY1
50” 201 1 3.0 .44 .a2 $44.
100 1611 3. P .46 .03 $66.
I I I I I I I
1% 1211 4. R .67 .05 $110.
2Cbl 911 6.4 .42 09 $198.
AUTOFROTH PROIXSS.
** DOES NOT INCLUDE LABOR COSTS.
Table 7.
characteristics of a foam formulation is meaningful
only for surface conditions. Determining the density
of a trial surface pour is of little value as a quality
control tool when dispensing foam under water. A
trial surface pour will simply indicate whether the
foam will cure properly in air at atmospheric pres-
sure.
In order to test foam equipment for proper opera-
tion before commencing pouring in a salvage opera-
tion, a suitable mold should be lowered to test
depth, injected with foam and allowed to cure and
cool at depth before taking a density check on re-
covered foam specimens. When this routine is per-
formed periodically throughout the entire salvage
operation, quality control can be maintained es-
pecially when combined with the usual topside
controls including the use of flow meters.
When polyurethane foam is expanded “in-situ”
under water, volume contraction occurs as a result
of thermal shrinkage and hydrostatic bulk com-
pression. Water absorption, although simply a sur-
face phenomenon for well formulated large scale
foam pours, contributes to a further increase in
foam density. All three influences ultimately result
in considerable loss of net buoyancy of a foam
formulation over the original poured volume when
hot. Consequently, procurement of foam for salvage
should be specified on a cost per pound (or ton) of
buoyancy basis, rather than on the more nebulous
cost per pound basis foamed in air.
The foam permeability factor or foam efficiency
is always considerably less than 100 percent because
of thermal shrinkage, bulk compression, water ab-
sorption and space losses (due to presence of p i p
ing, equipment, structural cargo and other restric-
tions). Space losses, of course, will vary depending
upon the vessel to be salved and load carried at
that time.
The dismantling and subsequent flotation of Texas
Tower #3, off Nantucket Island, Massachusetts in
July 1964, established a precedent €or the utility
and speed of machine dispensing urethane foam by
massive installation and greatly advanced the base
of urethane foam technology.
Naval Enqinrerr Journal. Auqurt 1970 105
 PLASTIC FOAMS
Having served its usefulness as an early warning
radar station, this three-legged, jack-up structure
was to be removed. The building demolition firm,
Lipsett Incorporated, of New York, was awarded a
contract to do the job. Rather than employ costly
floating cranes and struggle against the vagaries of
North Atlantic weather to dismantle the platform
piece-by-piece, a daring demolition plan was under-
taken. The entire lower deck of the platform was
filled with 1.5 lbw‘cu. ft. density urethane foam.
Over 231,000 pounds of foam was dispensed to fdl a
volume of over 140,000 cubic feet. The foaming op-
eration required 82 hours and was accomplished by
inserting pipe nozzles down through holes in the
deck above. Explosive charges were then set on the
tower legs both below the platform level and at the
ocean bed. The charges were then exploded one
second apart so as to create a &ding action into the
water. The platform, intact, was towed to port
where is was subsequently sold to a firm which
planned to use it in the off-shore oil fields.
LARGE SCALE OCEAN TESTS
The results of large scale (100 cubic feet) ocean
tests are shown in Table 8. An analysis of these data
shows that the initial densities of foam generated
at 150 and 200 foot depth intervals are nearly dou-
ble that of foam generated at 50 or 100 feet.
,.I?I
.
Table 8.
After 5 weeks exposure at depth intervals to 150
feet, the loss in buoyancy did not exceed 1.5 per-
cent for any depth. The 4.5 percent loss in buoy-
ancy for the 200 foot depth pour for the same ex-
posure period, while not excessive “per se,” was
nevertheless nearly five times higher than that
measured at 100 feet utihzing the same dispensing
equipment.
The apparently anomalous situation in which the
100 foot depth pour exhibited a lower change in
buoyancy than under the milder 50 foot depth
conditions is apparently due to the greater efficiency
of mechanical mixing compared to the “Autofroth”
106 Naval Enpineerr Journal, August 1970
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WINEX & SEARLE
system which does not use metering pumps. The
buoyancy gain exhibited by foams after an addition-
al exposure period of 5 weeks to a 10 foot head was
not unexpected. At depth there is some bulk com-
pression and water absorption. The internal gas
pressure in the foam cells equalizes the ambient
hydrostatic pressure at depth. After the foam mass
COOLS, the drop in internal gas pressure could re-
sult in some water absorption through crushing, if
cell walls have weakened sufficiently. At depth,
loss in buoyancy after thermal stabilization is due
to a combination of hydrostatic bulk compression
and water absorption. During ascent to surface an
increasing pressure differential between ambient
hydrostatic and internal gas pressure (internal gas
pressure in foam cells will exceed ambient hydro-
static pressure during rise to surface) will cause
entrapped water to be expelled from the periphery
of foam mass while relaxation of external hydro-
static stress on the foam mass upon ascent permits
recovery in volume if the compressive yield point
has not been previously exceeded at depth. Expul-
sion of water during ascent and retention of trapped
gases exterior to the foam accounts for the slight
increase in buoyancy upon retrieval to near surface.
The greatest increases in buoyancy were observed
in connection with the 150 and 200 foot depth pours.
Th~swas expected since these foams were exposed
to greater hydrostatic compression at depth while
the pressure differential experienced upon ascent
was the hghest. After ten weeks hydrostatic ex-
posure, net buoyancy of all foams was essentially
unchanged from the net buoyancy registered after
just one day’s exposure.
Strain gauge and other measurements have re-
vealed no significant expansive force that could
rupture a foam filled compartment or deck during
rise to surface from depth. Examination of foam
retrieved from Ocean depth of 200 feet revealed an
intact cell structure and indicated that cell wall
integrity was maintained despite the increasing
pressure differential upon rise to the surface.
URETHANE FROTH-IN-PLACE FOAM EQUIPMENT
For near-surface salvage operations (not over 75
feet), and where the amount of foam to be lspensed
is less than ten tons, it is usually simpler to use
the Autofroth process since neither a power source
nor metering pumps are required. Nitrogen gas
from pressure bottles is used to “pump” the foam
reactants to the mixing head and then through the
delivery hoses to the sunken object. Figure 3 shows
a schematic of t h s process.
Despite repeated successes with the Autofroth
system in commercial as well as Naval salvage o p
erations, experience has shown that the use of this
relatively simple system is not practical for deeper
depths. Beyond 75 feet, the difficulty of keeping ad-
ditional fluorocarbon frothing gas uniformly dis-
persed in the reactants without continual agitation
precludes the use of the Autofroth system.
WINER & SEARLE PLASTIC FOAMS

polyol, isocyanate, catalysts, surfactants and frothing

gases can each be metered separately into inline
mixers. Although more metering pumps are used
which could cause increased maintenance problems,
this system nevertheless, permits closer process con-
trol over foam reactants, surfactants and catalyst sys-

--
I
I agents.
f A current development of an alternate, potentially
Figure 3. The Aerosol Urethane Foam System.
Mechanical pumping of urethane foam reactants
has the versatility and capability for use at any
depth to at least 450 feet and is especially useful for
large scale salvage operations. Equipment has been
designed for a maximum foam out-put of 100 lbs/
min. with a maximum working pressure of 1000 psi.
Figure 4 is a schematic of a mechanical Urethane
Foam Pumping System designed for underwater
foaming.
There has been a more sophisticatedly developed
FIS mechanical pumping system process in which
tems. This system also includes a heat exchanger
for heating delivery lines which results in increased
uniformity of foam properties, reduced viscosity of
reactants and increased vapor pressure of blowing
less expensive foam process for generating positive
buoyancy at the deeper depths (to 450 feet) in-
volves the technique of injection of compressed
gases in order to froth the foam reactants. Develop-
ment to date has focused on the evaluation of com-
pressed carbon dioxide gas as the prime candidate
froth system because of its good solubility in ure-
thane foam reactants, its universal availability, and
relatively low cost. However, difficulty has been
experienced in controlling the frothing reaction due
to carbon dioxide being introduced as a gas.
Consideration has also been directed towards in-
troducing liquid carbon dioxide to provide a more
homogeneous liquid dispersion and thereby improve
the retention characteristics of the gas within the
liquid reactants after external pressure reduction

ISOCYANATE FEED FROM

AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SYSTEM-
FEED RATE 50lb./minc

15-GALLON
ISOCYANATE TANK OUICK-
DlSCONNECl

1
- _- -r
EXPANSION PRESSURE
BLEED OFF VALVE

LEGEND

VALVE
CHECK VALVE ARROW
INDICATES FLOW DIRECTION
PRESSURE CONTROL
VALVE ARROW INDICATES
FLOW, DIRECTION
RELIEF VALVE

UNION

EXPANSION PRESSURE PRESSURE REGULATOR

I FLOWMETER
' A BLEED OFF VALVE PRESSURE -OPERATED
POLYOL FEED FROM I ELECTRIC SWITCH
AmOMATlC TRANSFER SYSTEM- QUICK-DISCONNECI
HOSE COUPLING
15 -GALLON
POLYOL TANK

THE MECHANICAL URETHANE PUMPING SYSTEM

MURPHY PACIFIC MARINE SALVAGE CO
Figure 4. The Mechanical Urethane Pumping System.

Naval Engineers Journal, August 1970 107

Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
occurs. This approach, however, requires very high
pumping pressures since, for the deeper depths, the
reactants must also be heated to reduce viscosity of
reactants and compensate for increased heat loss
and pressure drop in lines. Since heating will in-
crease the vapor pressure of the liquefied gas, ad-
ditional pumping pressure is required to keep the
frothing agent liquefied and in solution until dis-
pensed at the salvage site.
Successful development of the technique of using
compressed gases for frothing foams would remove
the Ocean depth limitations inherent in the use of
heavy and expensive fluorocarbon frothing gases.
However, factors that could limit foaming-in-
place at deeper ocean depths beyond 450 feet involve
considerations of the pressure differential that oc-
curs across foam cell walls in crushing at depth
or bursting upon decompression. A cell wall struc-
ture strong enough to resist hydrostatic forces at
depths beyond 450 feet might not have sufficient
buoyancy for economical and effective use at these
deeper depths.
Another system under study involves develop
ment of a technique for injection of glass micro-
spheres into urethane reactant streams. After the
foam structure has rigidized, the glass filled foam
should be more highly resistant to bulk compres-
sion and water absorption, which would be especial-
ly useful at deeper Ocean depths beyond 200 feet.
The advantage of this syntactic type foam (syntac-
tic foams are defined by ASTM as systems of hollow
spheres dispersed in a resinous matrix) is already
well established from its present successful wide
usage as flotation material (epoxy resin matrix) in
deep submergence research vehcles. Consequently,
design of a syntactic type foam for use in marine
salvage is worthy of investigation.
HYDROSTATIC TEST EQUIPMENT
San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard has designed
specialized submergence test equipment for salvage
foam test and evaluation and was described in an
earlier paper by Winer and M ~ n g e r . ~The
/ equip
ment is instrumented to measure changes in buoy-
ancy to simulated ocean depths of 600 feet. The
hydrostatic test tank is further designed to permit
either heating or cooling to simulate any ocean
temperature. It is anticipated that this test tank,
which can accommodate specimen sizes up to
approximately 30 cubic feet will be useful in
eventually evaluating suppliers’ foam systems for
conformance with procurement specifications.
Murphy-Pacific Marine Salvage Company has
also designed, fabricated and instrumented a hydro-
static test chamber suitable for simulating ocean
depths to 600 feet. Specimen volumes to six cubic
feet can be accommodated. A viewport is a special
feature of this pressure tank which permits visual
monitoring of the foaming process. The hydrostatic
test chamber can be seen in Figure 2.
108 Naval Engineerr Journal, August 1970
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WINE23 & SEXRLE
EPS PREFORMED BUOYANCY SYSTEM VS.
FOAM-IN-PLACE SYSTEM
Commercial development of plastic foams for ma-
rine salvage has focused on two competing basic
plastic foam systems: froth-in-place urethane foams
and expandable polystyrene (EPS) beads. Although
both systems have already been successfully and
repeatedly employed in marine salvage operations
as described earlier in this paper, salvage using EPS
beads has necessarily been limited to clearance type
operations because of the magnitude of transport
and storage problems for raw material. The poly-
styrene plastic beads are expanded at the salvage
site on the deck of a salvage support ship, which
circumvents the need for transporting the plastic
buoyancy material in the fully expanded state.
However, a logistics disadvantage arises from
the use of EPS buoyancy systems since the unex-
panded beads will lose the blowing agent incorpo-
rated in the bead as a function of time in storage.
Consequently, the beads should not remain in stor-
age6/ longer than from two weeks to two months
depending upon the type of packaging used and
storage conditions.
Urethane foams frothed-in-place under water are
neither as depth limited as are EPS beads nor are
as susceptible to the dangerous “springback” effect
exhbited by EPS beads. When using the EPS bead
buoyancy system, deck and hatch areas must be
shored before retrieving a sunken vessel from
depth in order to prevent the upward buoyancy
forces exerted by the expanding EPS beads from
rupturing decks, hatches and bulkheads when the
pressure differential across the foam cell walls in-
creases to maximum.
Expandable polystyrene beads (EPS) ’/ are
shipped to the salvage site in 55-gallon drums. This
system is largely dependent upon nearby shore fac-
ilities for drum storage because of the large number
usually needed. EPS beads in the unexpanded condi-
tion have the appearance of sugar granules, have a
bulk density of approximately 40 lbs/cu f t and con-
tain a hydrocarbon blowing agent. A 1.5 to 2.0 lbs/cu
f t density bead produces approximately 35 lbs. of
buoyancy per cubic foot of beads for near surface
application. FIS system, on the other hand yields
approximately 60 lbs. of buoyancy per cubic foot of
foam for near surface application. EPS beads are
expanded in a continuous process involving exposure
to a steam expansion chamber and can be expanded
more than 40 fold in volume to yield a bulk density
as low as 1.1lbdcu. ft. for near surface application.
For deeper Ocean depths to 200 feet, higher EPS bead
densities to 2.5 lbs/cu. ft. may be used but with
reduced net buoyancy.
Following exposure to the steam expander top-
side on a salvage support ship, EPS beads are blown
into storage bins for a four to eight hour stabilizing
or curing period depending upon the bead density
to allow for external and internal pressure equali-
zation.
WINER & SEARLE
This time delay or hiatus in the EPS process is a
serious disadvantage when time is critical or in-
terim storage facilities inadequate.
Upon completion of the stabilization period in
storage, the EPS beads are subsequently metered
into a water slurry and pumped into flooded com-
partments of a sunken vessel.
One important advantage of the EPS bead system
over FIS urethane is that one may operate the
EPS buoyancy system independent of ambient air
and water temperatures, i.e., no process adjust-
ments are required because of ambient water or air
temperatures.
On the other hand, the FIS system is adversely
affected by very low water temperature and sub-
freezing air temperatures. FIS formulation changes,
heated delivery lines and topside shelter for FIS
reactant storage, metering and mixing equipment
would be required to generate satisfactory foams
under such particularly adverse operating con-
ditions.
In other words, an ambient low temperature en-
vironment would be more restrictive to FIS foam
formation and processing than would be experienced
when working with the EPS system.
In addition to the need for reinforcing ships’ hatch
and deck areas subject to vertical buoyancy forces
imposed by injected EPS foam beads, efficiency
of the EPS system is reduced by the packing factor
efficiency limitation, bulk compression, creep and
susceptibility to solvent attack (unless a solvent
resistant bead is used at much higher cost), if pres-
ent; i.e., diesel fuel or gasoline.
On the other hand, froth-in-place urethane foams
do not exhibit a “spring back” effect as is the case
with the EPS buoyancy system. With froth-in-place
urethane, because of considerable initial hot foam
volume after injection. Because urethane foam will
also adhere to equipment, bulkheads, piping, etc.,
vertical pressure on overhead strudures is reduced
during the ship’s subsequent ascent to surface.
Once urethane foam has rigidized, contact with
lubricating or diesel oils, gasoline, or Navy special
fuel oil will have no sigmficant degrading effect on
the foam. However, laboratory studies have shown
that foaming directly into a solvent environment
such as gasoline or fuel oil is deleterious to efficient
foam formation. One possible method of circum-
venting this problem, if necessary, would be to foam
into polyethylene bags at the salvage site to protect
reacting foam from the solvent environment. This
method, however, would greatly reduce the effic-
iency of the Foam-In-Salvage system and would
require more diver service time at the salvage site.
Only five percent of the final-in-place volume of
froth-in-place urethane must be transported to the
salvage site for a near surface salvage operation
while less than ten percent would be required for
a 200 foot depth emplacement. To effect a recovery
at deeper depths to 450 feet, laboratory test data
indicates that only 1/5 to 1/3 of the foam-in-place
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
PLASTIC FOAMS
volume of urethane foam would have to be trans-
ported to the salvage site.
FOAM REMOVAL AFTER SALVAGE
Urethane foam removal methods based on use of
solvents, burning, explosives or hydroblaster are
either too dangerous or too destructive to person-
nel, ship’s structure, instrumentation or equipment.
A paradoxical situation arises regarding selection of
foam where a known flammability hazard exists as
in a stranding type salvage operation for example,
where considerable dry surface area may be ex-
posed to the atmosphere. In this type salvage opera-
tion, foam may be introduced to increase structural
integrity, to prevent further flooding or both. In
this case, if self-extinguishing foam were specified
to reduce the potential fire hazard, foam disposal,
regardless of removal method, would be more diffi-
cult. Incineration would become a less efficient
method for disposal, and would produce increased
quantities of smoke.
Removal of polyurethane foam after salvage
could be a monumental task q d expensive depend-
ing upon where in the world this task was per-
formed. Urethane foam removal from the U.S.S.
Frank Knox has been described by Searle and
Rynecki and Kawasaki in work referenced earlier
in this paper.
SAFETY AND TOXICITY CONSIDERATIONS
Since underwater FIS foaming operations involve
the use of diisocyanate reactants, halogenated hy-
drocarbon gases for frothing (Freon, Genetron, etc.)
and chlorinated solvents (methylene chloride) for
clean-up of foam equipment, it is essential that one
understands the potential hazards involved and ob-
serves safety precautions.
FIS foaming produces large quantities of irritat-
ing vapors and if urethane foam is ignited it will
release large volumes of toxic gases into the en-
vironment. When foaming under water, large
amounts of isocyanate vapor may be released at the
surface in the vicinity of tenders.
Foaming in voids can be particularly hazardous
since, in addition to the toxicity of TDI, halogenated
hydrocarbon gases (Freon, Genetron, etc.) and
halogenated solvent. The vapors, all of which are
heavy, will tend to displace air adding to the haz-
ard of anoxia if the atmosphere is respired.
Since all these gases are heavier than air, they
will lay on the surface of the water. A diver coming
to the surface should be very careful not to remove
his mask too soon
Methylene chloride, a solvent flush to clean hoses,
pumps, mixing head and nozzle, is toxic in high
concentrations.
Low density cellular foams provide considerable
surface area for rapid flame propagation. Foam re-
moval operations can constitute a particular fire
Naval Enqinaars Journal, Auquit 1970 109
PLASTIC FOAMS
and explosion hazard since the atmosphere will be
filled with b e particles of foam.
In the case of EPS buoyancy materials, ignition
of the material will cause:
1. dripping and flame propagation
2. production of black asphyxiating smoke
3. release of copious quantities of black sooty
particles into the atmosphere.
With regard to FIS, given suitable protective
clothmg, breathing equipment and adequate training
including emergency safety procedures, topside op-
erating personnel and divers should be able to
work with the new salvage system with not much
greater danger than one would ordinarily encounter
for any other type salvage operation.
Successful salvage operations involving the use
of plastic foams were described earlier in this
paper and give ample testimony to the utility of
plastic foams for marine salvage.
CONCLUSION
Materials, mixing, dispensing and delivery sys-
tems have been developed for generating positive
buoyancy under water at various depth intervals
to 200 feet.
Despite anticipation of a successful large scale
Ocean demonstration of FIS feasibility to 450 feet,
addtional development work will still be required
to subsantially reduce the present very high ma-
terial cost of generating urethane foams in ocean
depths beyond 100 feet.
It is, nevertheless, anticipated that compressed
or liquefied gas frothing technology for FIS can be
developed within several years to obtain more
cost/effective systems at the deeper depths.
If compressed or liquefied gas frothing is success-
fully developed to a 450 foot Ocean depth, it is rea-
sonable to assume that FIS depth capability can
subsequently be extended to 600 feet without an
110 Naval Enginaers Journal, August I970
Delivered by Ingenta
Date : Wed, 15 May 2024 17:21:34 IP : 68.9.234.144
WIN= & SEARLE
inordinate increased expenditure of effort in time
and money.
Since the EPS bead flotation system appears to bc
useful only for near-surface salvage recoveries in
harbor areas, and because of engineering problems
associated with its use, it is not considered expedient
to pursue further developments of this system to
deeper depths at this point in time.
The unique FIS process constitutes a significant
breakthrou@/ in technology in the salvage field
where, prior to the present development, the use
of plastic materials for buoyancy have been virtual-
ly unknown.
The value of the FIS technique has already been
demonstrated. It has proved itself where no other
conventional technique could do the job in a given
cost/time frame situation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Kroyer, Karl, Method of Raising Sunken or Stranded Ves-
sels. Denmark: British Patent No. 1,070,660 1 June 1%7.
2. Tamburello, Russell D., Salvage Operations in OffshoreOil
Fieldp, Proceedings of the X X t h International Congress.
Baltimore, Maryland: The Permanent International Asso-
ciation of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium (Sec-
tion 11) 1961.
3. Rynecki, A,, and Searle, W. F. Capt. USN, Salvage of the
U S S Frank Knor: Military Engineer, March-April 1968.
4. Kawasaki, T., Restoration of USS Frank Knor (DDR 7 4 2 ) .
Naval Engineers Journal, October 1968.
5. Munger, M. and Winer, A., Foam-In-Salvage. Naval En-
gineers Journal, June 1967.
6. Bender, R., Handbook of Foamed Plastics. Illinois: Lake
Publishing Corp., 1965 (Pg 256).
7 . “A New Flotation Material for Underwater Salvage-
Expandable Polystyrene Beads”, Technical Bulletin. Dow
Chemical Company.
8. Kroyer, K., Aarhus, Denmark, and Van den Tak,W. A.,
Rotterdam, Holland, Salvage of Martin S.
9. Marshall, W. L. Capt. USN (Ret), Polyurethane Foam,
A New Salvage Tool. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,
January 1969 (Pg 132).