Optimal Usage of De-Icing Chemicals when Scraping Ice, Final Report of Project HR 391, 2003

Optimal Usage of De-Icing Chemicals when Scraping Ice, Final Report of Project HR 391

Optimal Usage of De-Icing Chemicals when Scraping Ice, November 2003

One of the challenges that faces the winter maintainer is how much chemical to apply to the road under given conditions. Insufficient chemical can lead to the road surface becoming slick, and the road thus becoming unsafe. In all likelihood, additional applications will have to be made, requiring additional effort and use of resources. However, too much chemical can also be bad. While an excess of chemical will ensure (in most circumstances) that a safe road condition is achieved, it may also result in a substantial waste of chemical (with associated costs for this waste) and in ancillary damage to the road itself and to the surrounding environment. Ideally, one should apply what might be termed the “goldilocks” amount of chemical to the road: Not too much, and not too little, but just right. Of course the reality of winter maintenance makes achieving the “goldilocks” application rate somewhat of a fairy tale. In the midst of a severe storm, when conditions are poor and getting worse, the last thing on a plow operator’s mind is a minute adjustment in the amount of chemical being applied to the road. However, there may be considerable benefit and substantial savings to be achieved if chemical applications can be optimized to some degree, so that wastage is minimized without compromising safety. The goal of this study was to begin to develop such information through a series of laboratory studies in which the force needed to scrape ice from concrete blocks was measured, under a variety of chemical application conditions.

Evaluation of Bias in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device, RB00-010, 2013

As the list of states adopting the HWTD continues to grow, there is a need to evaluate how results are utilized. AASHTO T 324 does not standardize the analysis and reporting of test results. Furthermore, processing and reporting of the results among manufacturers is not uniform. This is partly due to the variation among agency reporting requirements. Some include only the midpoint rut depth, while others include the average across the entire length of the wheel track. To eliminate bias in reporting, statistical analysis was performed on over 150 test runs on gyratory specimens. Measurement location was found to be a source of significant variation in the HWTD. This is likely due to the nonuniform wheel speed across the specimen, geometry of the specimen, and air void profile. Eliminating this source of bias when reporting results is feasible though is dependent upon the average rut depth at the final pass. When reporting rut depth at the final pass, it is suggested for poor performing samples to average measurement locations near the interface of the adjoining gyratory specimens. This is necessary due to the wheel lipping on the mold. For all other samples it is reasonable to only eliminate the 3 locations furthest from the gear house. For multi‐wheel units, wheel side was also found to be significant for poor and good performing samples. After eliminating the suggested measurements from the analysis, the wheel was no longer a significant source of variation.