Winter Roadway Maintenance Material Enhancers (Field) Evaluation
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Winter Roadway Maintenance Material Enhancers (Field) Evaluation

Filetype[PDF-14.73 MB]


Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed
  • English

  • Details:

    • Corporate Creators:
    • Publication/ Report Number:
    • Resource Type:
    • Abstract:
      In this study, the performance and cost analysis of four deicers products, i.e., Aqua Salina (AS), Beet Heet (BH), Green Blast (GB), Magic Minus Zero (MMZ), and two references, Rock Salt (RS) and/or Salt Brine (SB) were evaluated through parking lot tests and onroad tests. The rankings from the different tests were compared and discussed. The parking lot tests using the PennDOT's formulation for field operations (i.e., mixing the deicer product with SB 50:50 in volume before pre-wetting RS with 10 gallons per ton, application rate 500 lb/lane mile) gave the following ranking: BH ≈ GB ≈ MMZ > AS ≈ RS > SB, while the parking lot test using the manufacturer's recommendations provided an overall ranking that can be summarized as GB > AS > RS ≥ BH ≥ MMZ ≈ SB. Considering only the significant results, the road tests suggested that AS ≈ BH and GB > AS ≈ RS. The ranking of GB > AS ≈ RS is consistent with the parking lots test using PennDOT's formulation for field operations. Ranking deicer products based on these tests gave relatively inconsistent results, primarily because of the different formulations and application rates used. Because of the low statistical significance and partial ranking from the on-road tests, only results from the parking lot tests were used to perform the cost analysis. Using the manufacturer's recommended application rates and the price of the deicers provided by PennDOT, the cost difference between the deicer products under study and SB was calculated showing the following ranking (per gallon basis): BH (cost difference 10.4) > MMZ (cost difference 8.6) > GB (cost difference 7.4) > AS (cost difference 4.5) > SB (cost difference 1.0). Results from the first parking lot test were used to calculate the differences in performance between the deicers product under study and the reference, SB. It can be concluded that the performance of AS was 2.8 – 8.8 times better than SB (AS is 4.5 times more expensive), performance of GB was 3.3 – 12.4 times better than SB (GB is 7.5 times more expensive), the performances of BH and MMZ were not statistically different from SB (BH and MMZ are 10.4 and 8.6 times more expensive, respectively). Results from the second parking lot test were also used to calculate the differences in performance. It can be concluded that AS, BH, GB, and MMZ performed 20%, 51.3%, 66.7%, and 86.2% better than SB, respectively, although the cost differences by comparison to SB were 4.5, 10.4, 7.5 and 8.6 times, respectively.
    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.21