Ice Engineering: Progress in Evaluating Surface Coatings for Icing Control at Corps Hydraulic Structures

• Main Authors: Mulherin, Nathan D., Haehnel, Robert B.
• Other Authors: ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER HANOVER NH COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2003
• Subjects: Snow; Ice and Permafrost; *ICE FORMATION; *PROTECTIVE COATINGS; *HYDRAULICS; MAINTENANCE; REMOVAL; SURFACE FINISHING; FIELD TESTS; COLD REGIONS; STRENGTH(MECHANICS); COSTS; ENGINEERING; NAVIGATION; ICE; THERMOPLASTIC RESINS; ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; BONDING; PAINTS; CLADDING; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; PNEUMATIC EQUIPMENT; EXPULSION; DEICING SYSTEMS; *ICEPHOBIC COATINGS; HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES; Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Ice; permafrost
• Online Access: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA430717; http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA430717

Removal of accreted ice during the winter at Corps hydropower and navigation projects is time-consuming, costly, and sometimes hazardous. Annual maintenance costs incurred at Corps of Engineers projects as a result of ice problems were estimated by Haynes et al. (1993) to be $33 million in 1992 (Fig. 1). A previous issue of Ice Engineering (Haehnel 2002) described an ongoing icing research program at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), part of the Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). Program tasks included an assessment of thermoplastics and spray-on coatings for reducing the cost of icing control at Corps projects. The goal of the research effort is to determine whether commercially available surface coatings and thermoplastic cladding materials can make icing control more economical. In this issue, we will discuss further progress made in this program in the form of laboratory and field tests. Numerous materials, coatings, and paints having low friction properties are commercially available. Many are even marketed as "icephobic," the name implying that ice accretion is reduced or eliminated. Our research has shown that these materials will not prevent ice buildup. In fact, ice often builds on these materials at the same rate as on any other material. Instead, they typically reduce the force or energy required to remove it (i.e., the bond strength of the ice to the icephobic material is lower). For this reason, icephobics are sometimes used in conjunction with other ice removal techniques, such as heating, electro- or pneumatic expulsion, or-more often than not-baseball bats and pike poles. The original document contains color images.