EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL TRANSLOAD FACILITY LOCATIONS IN THE UPPER PENINSULA (UP) OF MICHIGAN

Shippers want to improve their transportation efficiency and rail transportation has the potential to provide an economical alternative to trucking, but it also has potential drawbacks. The pressure to optimize transportation supply chain logistics has resulted in growing interest in multimodal alternatives, such as a combination of truck and rail transportation, but the comparison of multimodal and modal alternatives can be complicated. Shippers in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP) face similar challenges. Adding to the challenge is the distance from major markets and the absence of available facilities for transloading activities. This study reviewed three potential locations for a transload facility (Nestoria, Ishpeming, and Amasa) where truck shipments could be transferred to rail and vice versa. These locations were evaluated on the basis of transportation costs for shippers when compared to the use of single mode transportation by truck to Wisconsin, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Sault Ste. Marie. In addition to shipping costs, the study also evaluated the potential impact of future carbon emission penalties on the shipping cost and the effects of changing fuel prices on shipping cost. The study used data obtained from TRANSEARCH database (2009) and found that although there were slight differences between percent savings for the three locations, any of them could provide potential benefits for movements to Chicago and Minneapolis, as long as final destination could be accessed by rail for delivery. Short haul movements of less than 200 miles (Wisconsin and Sault Ste. Marie) were not cost effective for multimodal transport. The study also found that for every dollar increase in fuel price, cost savings from multimodal option increased by three to five percent, but the inclusion of emission costs would only add one to two percent additional savings. Under a specific case study that addressed shipments by Northern Hardwoods, the most distant locations in Wisconsin would also provide cost savings, partially due to the possibility of using Michigan trucks with higher carrying capacity for the initial movement from the facility to transload location. In addition, Minneapolis movements were found to provide savings for Northern Hardwoods, even without final rail access.

Comparative study of anchorage strengths of epoxy coated hooked bars

Hooked reinforcing bars (rebar) are used frequently to carry the tension forces developed in beams and transferred to columns. Research into epoxy coated hooked bars has only been minimally performed and no research has been carried out incorporating the coating process found in ASTM A934. This research program compares hooked rebar that are uncoated, coated by ASTM A775, and coated by ASTM A934. In total, forty-two full size beam-column specimens were created, instrumented and tested to failure. The program was carried out in three phases. The first phase was used to refine the test setup and procedures. Phase two explored the spacing of column ties within the joint region. Phase three explored the three coating types found above. Each specimen included two hooked rebar which were loaded and measured independently for relative rebar slip. The load and displacement of the hooked rebar were analyzed, focusing on behavior at the levels of 30 ksi, 42 ksi and 60 ksi of rebar stress. Statistical and general comparisons were made using the coating types, tie spacing, and rebar stress level. Many of the parameters composing the rebar and concrete were also tested to characterize the components and specimens. All rebar tested met ASTM standards for tensile strength, but the newer ASTM A934 method seemed to produce slightly lower yield strengths. The A934 method also produced coating thicknesses that were very inconsistent and were higher than ASTM maximum limits in many locations. Continuity of coating surfaces was found to be less than 100% for both A775 and A934 rebar, but for different reasons. The many comparisons made did not always produce clear conclusions. The data suggests that the ACI Code (318-05) parameter of 1.2 for including epoxy coating on hooked rebar may need to be raised, possibly to 2.5, but more testing needs to be performed before such a large value change is set forth. This is particularly important as variables were identified which may have a larger influence on rebar capacity than the Development Length, of which the current 1.2 factor modifies. Many suggestions for future work are included throughout the thesis to help guide other researchers in carrying out successful and productive programs which will further the highly understudied topic of hooked rebar.