1 / 39

June 24, 2011

Ice Melt Application for Profit Maximization RUSS Alger, Michigan Technological university niles hysell, Morton salt. June 24, 2011. Ice Happens… And Sometimes Plowing Isn’t Enough. Why Use Ice Melt?. Ice Melt helps snow professionals work faster and safer.

holden
Télécharger la présentation

June 24, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ice Melt Application forProfit MaximizationRUSS Alger, Michigan Technological universityniles hysell,Morton salt June 24, 2011

  2. Ice Happens…And Sometimes Plowing Isn’t Enough.

  3. Why Use Ice Melt? • Ice Melt helps snow professionals work faster and safer. • Yet, the ‘unknown’ behind what type of ice melt to use, when to use it, and how much to use can cause: • Ineffective melting: Slow melt, no melt, refreeze, etc. • Over application - runoff • Client dissatisfaction • Reduction in profits Identifying optimal application rates can help minimize negative impact of all these factors.

  4. What Application Rate Is Optimal? • Application recommendations exist from a myriad of highly reputable organizations: “Managing Snow And Ice”, 2002 “Evaluation of Deicing Blends”, 2009 “Contractor Practices Survey”, 2010 “Handbook of Test Methods For Evaluating Chemical Deicers”, 1992 “Winter Parking Lot & Sidewalk Maintenance Manual” (Fortin), 2006 “Sidewalk and Parking Lot Application Study”, 2011 “Guide For Selecting Deicing Chemicals”, 2001 Minnesota Snow and Ice Handbook , “Environmentally Sensitive Spreading Rates”, 2005 Application Recommendations Vary Significantly From Source To Source…

  5. Wide Range of Recommendations Can Lead To “Melter Abuse” Recommended application ranges from 2lb - 65lb/1,000 ft2 Bulk Highway Package Retail Commercial Using Too Little Ice Melt Can Lead To Safety Hazards While Using Too Much Leads To Environmental and Profitability Concerns.

  6. So Who’s Right?…Everyone and No One. Surface Temperature Many factors influence ice melt performance and effect optimal application rate. Melter Particle Size Air Movement Air Temperature Foot/Road Traffic Snow/Ice Level Altitude Precipitation Melter Type Radiation Application Rate Morton’s Goal Was To Understand Impact of Key Variables To Identify Stronger Guidelines for Commercial Melter Application Rates.

  7. What Are We Going To Cover Today: • PART 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW • Third Party Research • Test Variable Selection (Melters, Temperatures, Conditions, etc.) • PART 2: TEST SET UP • Final Parameters • Data Gathering Process & Analysis • PART 3: RESULTS OVERVIEW • Initial Findings At Selection Temperature Ranges • Findings Detail By Temperature, Product & Application Rate • PART 4: RECOMMENDATIONS & THE BIG PAYOFF • Common Ice Melt Myths • Recommended applications by product and temperature • Potential Savings and Assistance Tools • PART 5: QUESTIONS

  8. Research overviewRuss ALGERDirector of snow researchmichigan Technological university PART 1

  9. Third Party Testing Helps Ensure Relevance of Results • In developing research study format and structure, Morton teamed with Russ Alger of Michigan Tech’s Keweenaw Research Center. • MTU experience and focus in Snow & Ice research helped develop optimal testing and data gathering plan for both controlled lab and external field testing. • Location In Houghton, MI provided ideal testing environment. Laboratory testing validates safety and performance claims in a controlled setting. Keweenaw Research Center Field testing validates melting performance in real-world settings.

  10. Key Testing Variables Were Identified: Key factors influence ice melt performance and vary the optimal application rate. Surface Temperature Melter Type Application Rate Air Temperature Air andSurface Temperatures, Melter Type, and Application Rate Were Identified as Prime Variables Which Contribute Most To Melter Performance.

  11. Surface Temperature Selection: Average Monthly Temperatures: MINNEAPOLIS, MN • Air temperature directly impacts surface temperature and so was used as a ‘starting point’ for ST selection. • Even in extreme climates like Minneapolis, MN, the average temperature does not drop below 0°F for extended periods of time. • However, there are extreme temperature and wind chill drops that snow professionals must work through in any given season. Surface Temperature “Ranges” Were Selected To Identify Melting Performance In Extreme And Average Winter Temperatures. WEATHER.COM Monthly Averages

  12. Resulting Surface Temperature “Ranges”: • Team identified surface temperature ‘groups’ to capture a range of potential conditions a snow professional may encounter… > 21°F 11°F – 20°F 0°F – 10°F <0°F • “Extreme Cold”: <0°F • “Below Average”: 0°F to 10°F • “Average”: 11°F to 20°F • “Just Freezing”: >21°F

  13. Melter Selection: • Melting materials were selected to provide a range of pricing options (expensive/inexpensive) and to align with most commonly used melters in the field: Sodium Chloride (Rock Salt), Calcium Chloride, Calcium Chloride/Rock Salt Blend, and Magnesium Chloride were selected for trials. GIE Snow Magazine, 2010 State of the Industry Report, “Icing Salt Prices”, Kyle Brown, May 2010

  14. Test Melters: • Deicer Selection and Application Rate Criteria • Widely used • Availability • Economical • Temperature melting range • Commercial/Highway application variability

  15. Application Rate Selection: • Initial High/Medium/Low application rates were selected as a starting point based on common recommendations from various reputable organizations. • Adjustments to these application rates could be made during the course of the study in the case of observed over/under-melting.

  16. Test set-up & data gathering PART 2

  17. Laboratory Testing • A controlled laboratory test was performed on each material at each temperature range as a control and comparison point. • The SHRP recommended application rate* of 21lb/1,000 ft2 was used for all melters. * SHRP H-205.1

  18. Test Plot Layout

  19. Data Gathering Methodology

  20. Test Methodology

  21. Example: Calcium Chloride @ 3°F-10°F 60lb/1,000ft2 30lb/1,000ft2 15lb/1,000ft2 Calcium at 60 minutes

  22. Image Analysis with ImageJ Software * Test Area Image With Bare Pavement Defined by ImageJ Test Area Image Sample output: * Rasband, W.S., ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/,1997-2011

  23. Results overview PART 3

  24. FIRST THE LAB RESULTS

  25. Controlled Laboratory Test Results: -5°F At -5°F, 21lb/1000ft2 is not sufficient to melt significant amounts of ice – however, CaCl2 and MgCl2 melt some ice at this temperature & amount. -5°F Ice Melted (Measured Brine mL/g) * SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2 Note: MgCl2 results were overstated as a result of water present in the hexa-hydrate formula.

  26. Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +5°F At +5°F, 21lb/1000ft2 – CaCl2 still melts faster, however the salt/calcium blend and salt catch up over time. +5°F Ice Melted (Measured Brine mL/g) * SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

  27. Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +15°F At +15°F, salt and salt blends generate the most melting over time. (MgCl2 demonstrates the least melting capacity despite hydrate levels.) +15°F Ice Melted (Measured Brine mL/g) * SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

  28. Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +25°F At +25°F, all melters (Except MgCl2) perform fairly consistently. +25°F Ice Melted (Measured Brine mL/g) * SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

  29. THE REAL WORLD RESULTS

  30. Field Test: Surface Temp < 0°F In extreme winter temperatures, only calcium chloride melts. A minimum of 60lb/1,000ft2 of calcium chloride is necessary to create partial bare pavement. 15lb/1,000ft2 No measurable melt. 60lb/1,000ft2 30lb/1,000ft2 No measurable melt. Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) Other Conditions: February 10, 2011; 0.25 – 0.5 inches packed snow; Air temp +3 – +6°F; Light flurries.

  31. Field Test: Surface Temp 0°F to 10°F In low winter temperatures, a blend of salt and calcium chloride performs better than pure calcium chloride. A minimum of 60lb/1,000 ft2 is necessary to melt to bare pavement. 15lb/1,000ft2 Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) 60lb/1,000ft2 30lb/1,000ft2 Percent Bare Pavement Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) Time (Minutes) Other Conditions: January 25, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow, 0.25 inches loose snow, air temp 20°F, light snow

  32. Field Test: Surface Temp 11°F to 20°F In moderately low temperatures, a blend of salt and calcium chloride performs generally as well as calcium chloride. A minimum of 60lb/1,000ft2 at 30 minutes is necessary to melt to bare pavement. 15lb/1,000ft2 Percent Bare Pavement 60lb/1,000ft2 Time (Minutes) 30lb/1,000ft2 Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) Time (Minutes) Other Conditions: January 28, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow, air temperature 12°F, no snow

  33. Field Test: Surface Temp > 20°F 15lb/1,000ft2 In the highest temperature range tested, the blend containing calcium melted comparably to straight calcium chloride and magnesium chloride albeit a bit slower. Salt achieved similar results but only at the highest application rate. Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) 60lb/1,000ft2 30lb/1,000ft2 Percent Bare Pavement Percent Bare Pavement Time (Minutes) Time (Minutes) Other Conditions: March 4, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow; Air temp 25 – 29°F; Freezing drizzle

  34. Application guideline recommendations PART 4

  35. Disclaimer The information presented herein is based upon our own research and general experience and is believed to be accurate and reliable. However, you should conduct your own test to evaluate the effectiveness of deicing products under your own test conditions prior to use. As you can appreciate, since the conditions of handling, use and testing are beyond our control, we make no guarantee of results and assume no liability for direct or consequential damages incurred by following these suggestions. Nothing contained herein is to be construed as a recommendation for use in violation of any patents or of applicable laws and regulations.

  36. Key Findings Summary: In “Extreme” Temperatures In “Typical” Temperatures In “Warmer” Temperatures In “Low” Temperatures +11°F to +20°F > +21°F T < 0°F +0°F to +10°F Performance of the salt/calcium blend becomes equivalent to calcium and magnesium chlorides. The salt/calcium chloride blend is the most cost effective deicer in this temperature range. Performance of the salt/calcium and calcium chloride are roughly equivalent. Salt becomes the the most cost-effective deicer in this temperature range. Only anhydrous calcium chloride produces measurable melting. A deicer must be complimented with mechanical removal (i.e. plowing) to produce bare pavement. High application rates of any deicer are needed to produce bare pavement. At heaviest application rate the salt/calcium chloride blend is most cost-effective deicer.

  37. Application Recommendation Summary Application (lb/1,000ft2) = recommended melter

  38. Morton Helps Optimize Ice Melt Use With New Smartphone App • Store and track site information • Recommend optimal Morton ice melter based on external conditions • Calculate and track total ice melt quantities needed for each specific snow event Morton Snow Pro App available in early August 2011!

  39. questions/discussionquestions/discussion Next steps

More Related