Do any of our resident Statos know how many ICT Home games have been called off since we arrived in the SPL and the costs of such call offs. Also do we know if ICT have a gas or water system. I have a professional interest in this information as i work within the Utility Industry and im investigation a solution to Under Soil Heating problems in sports stadiums.

From my initial research there are various methods of laying Under soil heating, which is laid in a coil format around the pitch, however the gaps between the pipes tends to determine whether the system works more efficiantly, choosing the cheaper option with a larger gaps is the problem. Sorry if im not making sense, as its easier to demonstrate this in a diagram

Thanks

BC

I know we only had two or three games called off at Caley Stadium in the eight or nine years before the USH was installed - Morton and Raith ring a bell.

I'm not sure that both those two were even due to a frozen pitch, I think at least one was due to snow and/or weather on the A9 (having driven up all the way and run into a whiteout at Drumochter I got a call five minutes later to say game off!).

And there was the New Year Derby off in 2003, when I got the call around Carrbridge after seven hours driving, but I can't remember if that was in Sneck or Dungwall.

I'm pretty certain the ratio of call offs is higher since the USH went in, but that could just be down to more bad weather than before.

The Highland Derby game was a home tie that was called off at about 1PM IIRC on matchday. There was also a Celtic game called off at around 2005ish as well and I think I read somewhere a game against Clyde was called off as well.

we live in the north of scotland FFS its cold and the USH costs alot of money to run (we also live in tight times money wise) we dont need it down in the SFL, we needed it in the SPL, now while we slate the club for it, what about all the other clubs that done even have it... I think we should just cut the plug untill it is needed again, and live like other clubs in the SFL....

haveing it switched off and the mid week game played we'd lose some /most of the away fans (down here thats not a bank busting amount anyway) and a few home fans but if you looked at money saved by not running the USH for say 2 days pre game... I'd take a stab that over all we'd save a couple of quid...RANT DONE!

Edited February 25, 201016 yr by Georgeios

we live in the north of scotland FFS its cold and the USH costs alot of money to run (we also live in tight times money wise) we dont need it down in the SFL, we needed it in the SPL, now while we slate the club for it, what about all the other clubs that done even have it... I think we should just cut the plug untill it is needed again, and live like other clubs in the SFL....

haveing it switched off and the mid week game played we'd lose some /most of the away fans (down here thats not a bank busting amount anyway) and a few home fans but if you looked at money saved by not running the USH for say 2 days pre game... I'd take a stab that over all we'd save a couple of quid...RANT DONE!

Depends whether money is already invested in staff (ie catering) and policing for the game that day. I'd imagine it would still have to be paid for and therefore it would be in the clubs best interests to get the game on 1st time round.

I get that totally just puting out another chain of thought thats all, I dont see it as the Clubs fault, after all weather is weather...

Do any of our resident Statos know how many ICT Home games have been called off since we arrived in the SPL and the costs of such call offs. Also do we know if ICT have a gas or water system. I have a professional interest in this information as i work within the Utility Industry and im investigation a solution to Under Soil Heating problems in sports stadiums.

From my initial research there are various methods of laying Under soil heating, which is laid in a coil format around the pitch, however the gaps between the pipes tends to determine whether the system works more efficiantly, choosing the cheaper option with a larger gaps is the problem. Sorry if im not making sense, as its easier to demonstrate this in a diagram

Thanks

BC

I seem to remember that our pipes are 12" down and 12" apart. I recall Tommy complain once, when we were waterlogged, that the pipes prevented proper tyning to get rid of the water. It is a hot water system provided for by an oil burning boiler. Personally I dont remember any games called off as a result of USH problems. In the SPL we would have faced fines had that happened. Not sure what you mean by 'gas or water' system but the biggest problem for clubs running USH systems is not the system. It's the utility company charging extortionate prices for fuel.

Do any of our resident Statos know how many ICT Home games have been called off since we arrived in the SPL and the costs of such call offs. Also do we know if ICT have a gas or water system. I have a professional interest in this information as i work within the Utility Industry and im investigation a solution to Under Soil Heating problems in sports stadiums.

From my initial research there are various methods of laying Under soil heating, which is laid in a coil format around the pitch, however the gaps between the pipes tends to determine whether the system works more efficiantly, choosing the cheaper option with a larger gaps is the problem. Sorry if im not making sense, as its easier to demonstrate this in a diagram

Thanks

BC

I seem to remember that our pipes are 12" down and 12" apart. I recall Tommy complain once, when we were waterlogged, that the pipes prevented proper tyning to get rid of the water. It is a hot water system provided for by an oil burning boiler. Personally I dont remember any games called off as a result of USH problems. In the SPL we would have faced fines had that happened. Not sure what you mean by 'gas or water' system but the biggest problem for clubs running USH systems is not the system. It's the utility company charging extortionate prices for fuel.

Thanks Alex,

I believe the majority of problems is cause by clubs opting for cheaper installations with large gaps between the coiled pipes as they take longer to heat and dont defrost the whole pitch . Most tend to be water based, either gas or Electric controlled boilers. Gas is the cheaper fuel to use, and you are correct that Shippers (Gas/Elec Suppliers) will charge a higher rate because of the amount of gas usage ( kws) per hour/day etc coupled with the fact that the systems are not used all the time so the Gas/Elec is more expensive to transport.

Now there are more expensive to install but cheaper to run systems that can use the ground or air to generate heat, and these pay for themselves on average over 10 years as well as almost 0 Carbon Emmisions. Now we are installing them for domestic use but we believe they can be used on large commercial sites as well, but we are not sure of they can generate enough heat for this purpose, so its early days.

Im suprised ICT opted for an oil based boiler and these eat energy/money.

As for a Tommys waterlogged pitch. Im not sure the USH will resolve that no matter what system you have.

Now there are more expensive to install but cheaper to run systems that can use the ground or air to generate heat, and these pay for themselves on average over 10 years as well as almost 0 Carbon Emmisions. Now we are installing them for domestic use but we believe they can be used on large commercial sites as well, but we are not sure of they can generate enough heat for this purpose, so its early days.

Wow!! That's an intriguing thought. These will have to be amazing heat exchangers! It's the concept of taking the heat from the AIR that intrigues me... or at least that's what I'm assuming is the case from the quoted passage.

A wee bit of maths and science now - if that turns you off, just ignore the next bit! :D

It's amazing what you can work out from the ballpark figure of the ?70 per hour that it's meant to cost to run the TCS system. That equates to around 200 litres of oil per hour which in turn, after a few more sums, equates to a power rating of approximately 2100kW. (All calculations very much back of envelope and fairly approximate! For the benefit of the scientifically inclined I am taking the heat of combustion of hydrocarbons as 47kJ/g)

That, therefore, is the rate at which energy is required to run the system. Now to take energy at that rate from the air in order to transfer it to the USH and hence to the pitch, I calculate you would need to do the equivalent of passing the equivalent of 160 cubic metres of air through the heat exchanger, and cool it by 10 degrees centigrade - EVERY SECOND. (I had to look up the specific heat and the density of of air to work that out.) 160 cubic metres is the equivalent of four 4m x 4m livingrooms so that volume would have to be cooled by 10 degrees every SECOND! Also, remembering that the air is typically at -5, it would need to be cooled to -15 in this scenario.

The TCS system, by the way, has a carbon footprint of about half a ton of CO2 per hour, but hey... they partly sold us the greehouse gas theory by ramming down our throats how bloody hot the summer of 2003 was. Well to follow that logic through, look how bloody cold the winter of 09-10 has been! :D

To turn to the discussion on the general features of a USH system, I suppose the "efficiency" of the system could be measured in terms of the rate at which energy can be passed on to each unit volume of undersoil. Presumably the units would therefore be something like "kilowatts per cubic metre". The higher the value, the faster you can thaw a pitch out. But on the other hand if you are merely keeping an already soft pitch in that condition, you can presumably turn the thing down to a level which achieves thermal equilibrium - ie the rate at which heat is being lost to the "cold" air above equals the rate at which it is being supplied by the USH system.

This is a very complex scenario. The variables (assuming that there is no limit to the power you can generate from your plant) would appear to be total pipe length, spacing between adjacent lengths of pipe (which is related to pipe length), thickness of pipe (given that a thin pipe with a larger relative surface area will transfer heat faster) and rate of flow of water through the pipes. At a qualitative level it would seem fairly clear that the closer the pipes are together, the more effective (and more energy consuming) the system will be. Then there are other factors such as the idea that the more piping you have, the less soil you have left that needs thawing in any case and also the rate of heat loss, principally by radiation and conduction.

However there is also the notion that the higher the power per unit volume, the more chance there is of damage to the grass roots.

Interesting topic!

Edited February 25, 201016 yr by Charles Bannerman

Now there are more expensive to install but cheaper to run systems that can use the ground or air to generate heat, and these pay for themselves on average over 10 years as well as almost 0 Carbon Emmisions. Now we are installing them for domestic use but we believe they can be used on large commercial sites as well, but we are not sure of they can generate enough heat for this purpose, so its early days.

Wow!! That's an intriguing thought. These will have to be amazing heat exchangers! It's the concept of taking the heat from the AIR that intrigues me... or at least that's what I'm assuming is the case from the quoted passage.

A wee bit of maths and science now - if that turns you off, just ignore the next bit! :D

It's amazing what you can work out from the ballpark figure of the ?70 per hour that it's meant to cost to run the TCS system. That equates to around 200 litres of oil per hour which in turn, after a few more sums, equates to a power rating of approximately 2100kW. (All calculations very much back of envelope and fairly approximate! For the benefit of the scientifically inclined I am taking the heat of combustion of hydrocarbons as 47kJ/g)

That, therefore, is the rate at which energy is required to run the system. Now to take energy at that rate from the air in order to transfer it to the USH and hence to the pitch, I calculate you would need to do the equivalent of passing the equivalent of 160 cubic metres of air through the heat exchanger, and cool it by 10 degrees centigrade - EVERY SECOND. (I had to look up the specific heat and the density of of air to work that out.) 160 cubic metres is the equivalent of four 4m x 4m livingrooms so that volume would have to be cooled by 10 degrees every SECOND! Also, remembering that the air is typically at -5, it would need to be cooled to -15 in this scenario.

The TCS system, by the way, has a carbon footprint of about half a ton of CO2 per hour, but hey... they partly sold us the greehouse gas theory by ramming down our throats how bloody hot the summer of 2003 was. Well to follow that logic through, look how bloody cold the winter of 09-10 has been! :D

To turn to the discussion on the general features of a USH system, I suppose the "efficiency" of the system could be measured in terms of the rate at which energy can be passed on to each unit volume of undersoil. Presumably the units would therefore be something like "kilowatts per cubic metre". The higher the value, the faster you can thaw a pitch out. But on the other hand if you are merely keeping an already soft pitch in that condition, you can presumably turn the thing down to a level which achieves thermal equilibrium - ie the rate at which heat is being lost to the "cold" air above equals the rate at which it is being supplied by the USH system.

This is a very complex scenario. The variables (assuming that there is no limit to the power you can generate from your plant) would appear to be total pipe length, spacing between adjacent lengths of pipe (which is related to pipe length), thickness of pipe (given that a thin pipe with a larger relative surface area will transfer heat faster) and rate of flow of water through the pipes. At a qualitative level it would seem fairly clear that the closer the pipes are together, the more effective (and more energy consuming) the system will be. Then there are other factors such as the idea that the more piping you have, the less soil you have left that needs thawing in any case and also the rate of heat loss, principally by radiation and conduction.

However there is also the notion that the higher the power per unit volume, the more chance there is of damage to the grass roots.

Interesting topic!

What an amazing calculation. In the time it took you to work that one out, I would have filled up the oil tank ran the system for an hour and toped it up again to see how much oil is used on full load and multiply it by the ppl and also measure the current to the pumps and calculate how much electricity is used. Or over a 24 hour period for a move exact figure.

For a more efficient system you would have to remove the pitch completely (not really feasable)dig down and install some thermally insulated material back fill with top soil lay the turf and also lay covers when in use to retain more of the heat used.

As has been eluded too, the biggest issue with USH is not the delivering of heat, but the fact that the heat has to be at a temperature which causes root damage.

The obvious answer is to install a system which prevents the temperature of the ground dropping that far in the first place and geothermal energy could be one solution.

A geothermal installation also has the added advantage that it could help reduce energy bills for not only the USH but the whole stadium at times of the year when frost is not threatening.

Can you be more specific Charles?

Can you be more specific Charles?

I could PM you with my detailed calculation or send you the envelope on the back of which I worked it out. :D

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that USH performs extremely well, in countries with warm and sunny climates.

:D

Can you be more specific Charles?

Can you be more specific Charles?

I could PM you with my detailed calculation or send you the envelope on the back of which I worked it out. :(

Charles

- Indeed the Air source Heating system is intruiging and very clever, im not fully versed in the technical babble as i deal with the Gas side. But i will keep you posted on them.