oEPA
jntal Prot>-
Municipal Environn•••
Research Labor,
mati OH 45268
EPA-600,2-78-035
March 1978
'Pment
Optimization and Interim
Testing of Highway Report
Materials to Mitigate
Ice Adhesion
Environmental Protection
Technology Series
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6, Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8, "Special' Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-035
March 1978
OPTIMIZATION AND TESTING OF
HIGHWAY MATERIALS TO
MITIGATE ICE ADHESION
Interim Report
by
M. Krukar
J. C. Cook
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99163
Grant No. R-804660
Project Officer
Hugh E. Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Enviromental Protection Agency was created because of increasing public
and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land
are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components re-
quire a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
i
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment
for public drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse economic,
social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is
one of the products of that research, a most vital communications link
between the researcher and the user community.
The study described here was undertaken to .optimize the ice-release and
wear-resistance properties of hydrophobic materials as developed in earlier
Environmental Protection Agency research. These materials will be used in
environmentally sensitive areas as an alternative for conventional deicing
materials.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This project optimized and evaluated hydrophobia materials developed by
EPA research in 1974. Laboratory optimizing of materials was accomplished
by Ball Brothers Research Corporation (BBRC) under contract with Washington
State University (WSU).
Field tests at the WSU Pavement Test Facility augment BBRC laboratory tests
with comparative results. Factors of concern included pavement type, tire
type, environment and toxicity, wear, ice/snow adhesion and asphalt overlays
which included the substances as a component of the mix.
Although the winter conditions were mild, the limited amount of tests and
data did allow a ranking based on skid resistance change, water beading,
and snow/ice removal properties of the different formulations. The most
effective formulations were combinations of modified traffic paints and
room-temperature-curing silicone rubber.
Of the formulations tested, only one was deemed toxic. Other formulations
showed little or no toxicity.
The applied costs of the hydrophobic coatings in this study were about
$.046/ft2 ($.50/m2) compared to $.037/ft2 ($.40/m2) for salt when taking
into account salt's costs from environmental damage (excluding adverse
health effects). It should be emphasized that the hydrophobic material costs
are on the high side since actual program purchase costs for small quantities
were used in the calculations. The amount by which these material costs
could be reduced by volume purchasing is somewhere between 20 and 40 percent.
Although definitive results were obtained in the study, unusually mild
winter conditions in eastern Washington in 1976-1977 restricted completion
of the desired operational parameters. In order to obtain research ful-
fillment, a repeat of the test program is planned during the winter of
1977-1978. Iteration will also increase the statistical validity of the
results discussed in this project.
This interim report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Grant No. R-804660
by Washington State University, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The report covers the period of October 1976 to
April 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Abstract iy
Figures vi
Tables viii
Acknowl edgements -, x
Introduction 1
Objectives of the Project 1
Project Tasks 1
Task Division 2
Background 2
Conclusions 4
Recommendati ons 5
G.A. Riedesel Pavement Testing Facility 6
Description 6
Tires 6
Instrumentation 10
Construction 11
Overal 1 Concept 11
Existing Track Surface 11
General Preparation Procedure 11
General Description of Pavements 11
Optimization Tests on Formulation 21
Formulation Application 21
Testing Procedure 29
Test Track Apparatus Application _... 29
Weather Analysis 29
Skid Resistance Measurements 29
Experimental Results. 36
Skid Resistance Results 36
Beading Wear Results 52
Snow and Ice Removal Properties 52
Overall Comparision of Test Section 54
Comparison of Test Results with Laboratory Tests 55
Environmental Test Results 55
References 71
Additional References 72
Appendi ces 73
A. Optimization and Testing of Highway Materials to Mitigate
Ice Adhesion (Ball Brothers Research Corporation Data
Summary) 73
B. Toxicity of Nine Experimental Road Surfacing Materials
to Daphnia Pulex 131
C. Infared Absorption Spectrophotometric Analysis of Test
Track Runoff , 141
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. A view of the present G. A. Riedesel Pavement Testing
Facility 7
2. Wheel paths and tire types 9
3. Arrangement of tires on apparatus, Wheel Paths #1 to #6 9
4. Location of sections at Test Track showing type of
pavement surfaces 12
5. Section 16, 10/19/76 13
6. Section 23, 10/19/76 13
7. Sections 29 and 30, 10/19/76 14
8. Sections 7-10, 10/19/76 14
9. Sections 21-23, 10/27/76 18
10. Reclaimed rubber used in Sections 24, 25 and 26 18
11. Rubberized asphalt concrete after rolling 19
12. Petroset overlay, Section 27 19
13. Petroset overlay, Section 28 20
14. Viscospin overlay, Section 30 20
15. Ice formation on Section 7, 01/20/77 60
16. Ice formation on Section 6, 01/20/77 60
17. Ice formation on Section 19, 01/20/77. 61
18. Ice removal from Section 7, 01/26/77 61
19. Ice beading on treated area, Section 13, 01/26/77 62
20. Ice beading, Section 16, 01/26/77 62
vi
-------
Number
21. Snow removal from wheel paths, Section 25, 01/26/77 63
22. Treated and untreated areas, Section 6, 01/31/77 63
23. Treated and untreated areas, Sections 7, 6, 5, 01/31/77 64
24. Treated and untreated areas, Section 7, 01/31/77 64
25. Section variation in wheel path appearance, Sections 24-27,
01/31/77 65
26. Ice formation and wear, Sections 17-20, 02/01/77 65
27. Traffic removal of snow and ice, Sections 7-2, 02/01/77 66
28. Pavement raveling, Section 25, 02/08/77 66
29. Ice beading, Sections 17-14, 02/08/77 67
30. Traffic removal of snow and ice, Sections 8-5, 02/26/77 67
31. Open-graded asphalt Sections 21-23, 02/26/77 68
32. Rubberized asphalt Sections 24-26, 02/26/77 68
^
33. Traffic removal of snow and ice, Sections 11-15, 02/26/77 69
34. Overlay Sections 30-27, 02/26/77 69
35. "Fatigue cracking" of ice in wheel paths, Section 25, 03/13/77 . . 70
36. Ice removal, Sections 2-6, 03/13/77 70
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Types of Tires Used at the WSU Test Track 8
2. Test Track Section Identification 15
3. Test Track Asphalt Mix Designs 16
4. Formulations and Coverage Rates 22
5. Disc Contact Angles and Toughness Observations 23
6. Environmental Test Data (Houser Rpt. 76-498) 24
7. Ice Adhestion Data (Metal Substrate) (Houser Rpt. 76-475 25
8. Asphalt and Concrete Skid Values and Water Beading 26
9. Formulations and Quantities Sprayed on Different
Track Sections 27
10. Test Track Spray Coating Summary 28
11. Summary of WSU Test Track Operations - January
through April 1977 30
12. Climatological Data - December 1976 (2400 to 2400) 31
13. Climatological Data - January 1977 (2400 to 2400) 32
14. Climatological Data - February 1977 (2400 to 2400) 33
15. Climatological Data - March 1977 (2400 to 2400) 34
16. Climatological Data - April 1977 (2400 to 2400) 35
17. Track Skid Data Summary - Skid Numbers. 38
18. The Effect of Spraying of Formulations on Skid Resistance
Numbers (BPN) 39
19. Comparison of Skid Resistance Values for the Portland
Cement Concrete Sections 1-10, in BPN and Corrected to 20°C ... 40
vm
-------
Number Page
20. Comparison of Skid Resistance Values for thp r.lass "8"
Asphalt Concrete Sections 11-20, in BPN and Corrected to 20°C. . 43
21. Comparison of Skid Resistance Values for the Three Open-Graded
Asphalt Concrete Overlays, Sections 21-23, IN BPN and
Corrected to 20°C 44
22. Comparison of Skid Resistance Values for the Three Rubberized
Asphalt Concrete Overlays, Sections 24-26, in PBN and
Corrected to 20°C 45
23. Comparison of Skid Resistance Values for the Four Asphalt
Concrete Overlays, Sections 27-30, in BPN and
Corrected to 20°C 46
24. Wear Ranking Scale Based on Water Beading Criteria
(Bead Wear Ranking Number) 47
25. Wear Ranking of WSU Test Track Sections at End of Test
by Water Beading Criteria (BWR) 48
26. Comparison of Skid Resistance Change Rates (SRCR) with
Beading Wear Ranking (BWR) for PCC Sections 49
27. Comparison of Skid Resistance Change Rates (SRCR) with
Beading Wear Ranking (BWR) for Class "B" A.C. Sections 50
28. Comparison of Skid Resistance Change Rates (SRCR) with
Beading Wear Ranking (BWR) for Asphalt Concrete Overlays .... 51
29. Ranking of Portland Cement Concrete Sections According to
Snow/Ice Removal Properties 56
30. Ranking of Class "B" Asphalt Concrete Sections According to
Snow/Ice Removal Properties 56
31. Ranking of Asphalt Overlay Sections According to
Snow/Ice Removal Properties 57
32. Overall Group Ranking of the Asphalt Overlays According to
Snow/Ice Removal Properties 57
33. Tire Ranking According to Most Rapid Snow/Ice Removal 58
34. Overall Rankings Based on Three Criteria with Respect
to Pavement Type 59
35. Comparison of Test Rankings with Laboratory Results
Ranking 58
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals took part directly or indirectly in this project. Their
efforts are greatly appreciated. Sincere thanks go to the following:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Storm & Combined Sewer Section:
Hugh E. Masters, Project Officer;J. Howard McCormick, Research Aquatic
Chemist.
Ball Brothers Research Laboratories, Materials & Processes - Aerospace
Division;
H. C. Poehlmann, Jr., Staff Scientist; G. A. Ahlborn, Senior Member Technical
Staff; Bill Deshler, Technician.
Washington State University, College of Engineering:
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering:
Environmental Analyses:
Dr. Surinder Bhagat, Professor and Head, Environmental Engineering Section;
Ervin Hindin, Professor; Gary C. Bailey, Junior Environmental Scientist;
Jim Skrinde, Civil Engineering Graduate Student.
Work at the Test Track:
Randy Elliott, Joe Floyd, Keith Metcalf, Rich Riedesel.
Engineering Photographic Laboratory:
Herbert D. Howard, Photographic Supervisor; Glen F. Sprouse, photographer.
Mechanical Engineering Shops:
Norman H. Shoup, Research Engineer; Tom Hellesto, Technical Services
Supervisor; Marion Johnson, Leadman; Robert J. Skipper, Instrument Maker;
Bill N. Yockey, Maintenance Mechanic.
Electrical Engineering Research Laboratory:
Robert A. Bureau, Electrical Technician; John D. Hunter, Electrical
Technician.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Objectives of the Project
The purpose of the project is to continue the development of a highway coating
material, which, when placed on existing highway surfaces, will significantly
reduce the adhesion of ice to the pavement surfaces, and will also be cost-
effective as compared to conventional methods. This research effort involved
Ball Brothers Research Corporation (BBRC), Aerospace Division, Boulder,
Colorado, and the Transportation Systems Section, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
The sponsor was the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Project Tasks
Task No. 1: Contracts, Coordination and Test Timing. This portion of the
overall task required the establishment of many arrangements necessary for
the timely completion and effective performance of this research. This in-
cluded the exact time-phasing for all consulting work, logistics with re-
spect to other research, financial workings, timing, definition of various
laboratory and Test Track results, and the coordination of requests and
purchases.
Task No. 2: Coating Optimization. Formulations of paint/DC 732, DriSil
73/DC 732, Petroset AT, and Viscospin B were selected based on tests con-
cerning (a) the magnitude and stability of their contact angles, (b) their
ice release abilities on both asphalt and concrete, (c) their skid re-
sistance levels on asphalt only, (d) their durability/wear properties on
both asphalt and concrete, and (e) their environmental contamination
potentials. Tests for contact angles for the latter two materials are
inapplicable. Based on recommendations made on the test results on the
Petroset AT and the Viscospin B, two concentration levels in 1.6 in
(4.25 cm) asphalt overlays were determined for use at the WSU test track.
Wear, skid resistance, environmental contamination potential, and ice
release ability were tested using laboratory techniques.
-------
Task No. 3: Washington State University Test Track Coating Verification. The
results from the above tasks showed which coating/substrate combinations would
have the best possibility for success. These combinations were used on the
WSU Test Track. Various combinations of tire types were used to study their
effects. The data obtained from the WSU Test Track includes air and surface
temperatures, visual observation of water beading and ice release, photographs
of coatings and substrate conditions, and coating skid values.
Task No. 4: Reporting. Progress reports were submitted. This interim report
includes details and results of all work completed.
Task Division
The Transportation Systems Section, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Washington State University, had prime contract responsibility
and direct control of the Test Track operational phase of the program des-
cribed in Task No. 3.
Ball Brothers Research Corporation, Aerospace Division, Boulder, Colorado,
worked directly with WSU and had direct responsibility for Tasks 1 and 2.
Background
Winter driving has increased significantly in recent years. The motorists
expect the roadways to be safe and clear. Hence cities, counties, and states
are expected to keep the streets, roads and highways clear of snow and ice to
facilitate these motorist needs. This is done to lessen the probability of
accidents, accident injuries, and fatalities.
Also, to answer this need, tire manufacturers have developed winter tread
tires, different rubber compounds, and traction devices. However, these
devices have limited use.1 Winter tires do add to winter driving safety as
they are more effective than regular tires. However, this use is limited to
light snow and ice conditions. Rubber compounds have been tried with some
success and sometimes dubious claims. Traction devices have proved to be
useful for use under winter conditions but they too have their drawbacks.
Chains have been used successfully for years, but their use is limited to
short distance driving because of limited durability of the chain links and
pavement damage causability. Studded tires have been more successful in that
they can be used under most conditions, but they do cause pavement damage.2
This damage has resulted in the refusal of many American and Canadian highway
engineers to endorse or permit their use. In fact, the Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, has recommended that their
use be banned.3 Studded tires are allowed in Europe but with the requirement
that they be used on all four wheel s.1* In the United States, several tire
stud manufacturers have ceased operations.
1Numbers refer to references listed in separate section.
-------
The city, county and state highway departments have responded to help the
motorist drive in the winter by plowing the roads, improving traction by sand
and cinder applications, and facilitating the melting of snow and ice by the
use of chemical compounds, principally salt and salt compounds. Plowing the
roads does create some damage to the curbs, the pavement surfaces and the
striping, but it is the only way to clear the roads of deep snow and drifts.
Sand and cinder applications have aided traction and lowered minor accidents,
but there is the problem of appearance, cleanup and pollution. The use of
salt and salt mixtures are successful in melting the snow and ice but at the
cost of environmental damage5, pavelnent damage6, accelerated bridge deck
deterioration and bridge corrosion7, and corrosion decay of automobiles and
trucks. The fact remains that the costs incurred by snow and ice removal by
salt use may outweigh the benefits.8
D. M. Murray8 states "The costs of actual damage to water supplies and
health, vegetation, vehicles, bridge and utilities are immense. The annual
damage costs at a very lower.bound, approach $3 billion. This "hidden" cost
is almost 15 times the annual national budget for the purchase and applica-
tion of road salt, and about 6 times the entire national budget for snow and
ice removal," p. 21; and "As much as 5% of the population consuming water
contaminated by road salt may be adversely affected", p. 22.
Hence there is a need to develop a compound or compounds which can be used as
an alternate for salt in environmentally sensitive areas. The compounds
should be economical, easy to apply, long-lasting, and without the harmful
side effects previously mentioned. The development of such a compound or
compounds is the long-range purpose of this research.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Although the winter conditions were mild, the limited amount of tests and
data did allow a ranking based on skid resistance change, water beading, and
snow/ice removal properties of the different formulations. The four most
effective formulations were F, G, C and B (see page 22), These results, ex-
cept for formulation B, compared favorably with laboratory results.
Of the overlays, the three rubberized asphalt sections and the two Petroset
asphalt sections were most effective. The best rubberized asphalt section
also showed reduced abrasion resistance which would negate its other perfor-
mance. The superiority of the rubberized sections was due to their flexibil-
ity which, under cold temperatures of 10°F (-12.2°C) or^less, may not be so
effective. The Viscospin sections did not perform very well. The open-graded
asphalt sections may not be effective in heavy snowfalls since the pores be-
come clogged and frozen.
On the basis of toxicity tests, only the Petroset was deemed toxic. Other
formulations showed little or no toxicity. The Petroset also showed high
hydrocarbon levels from run-off. ^
Ice and snow removal from the highway is dependent upon many factors. One of
these factors is the type of tire. Of the various types used at the Test
Track, the driving wheel, a garnet impregnated truck tire, "cleared" the
wheel path the most rapidly. The F-32 passenger car tire "cleared" the wheel
path the slowest. Because this aspect of removal is based on interdependent
factors, the data is presented more for information than conclusion.
These conclusions are based on the rather narrow range of winter conditions
encountered at the Test Track in 1976-77. A wider base is anticipated as
further operations occur.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
More testing is required to conclusively confirm the inference of these
results. It is important to know if lower temperatures will change the re-
sults. Comparison with existing methods of snow/ice control should be accom-
plished. Results from additional traffic wear should be obtained.
The formulations to be tested should be reduced to the four best and these
then should be replicated on both portland cement concrete and asphalt con-
crete pavements. The underlying assumption of limiting testing to the four
best formulations is that low temperatures would not significantly improve
the relative performance of the other formulations.
It is recommended that no more testing be continued on the Petroset AT treat-
ments and on the Viscospin asphalt overlays, the former because of their
toxicity and the latter because of its poor performance in these tests. The
Petroset asphalt overlay should continue to be tested on the basis of its
performance.
The rubberized asphalt overlays should continue to be tested to see if low
temperatures will change the results. The amount of rubber additive should
be optimized based on pavement durability, and a wide range of rubber amounts
should be tried. If possible, other overlays, for example, sulfur-asphalt
combinations, should also be tested for snow/ice removal properties.
-------
G. A. RIEDESEL PAVEMENT TESTING FACILITY
Description
The G. A. Riedesel Pavement Testing Facility consists of an apparatus with
three loading arms supporting a water tank. These arms revolve in a circle
on three sets of dual tires. A 60 hp direct current electric motor on each
arm provides the motive power. An eccentric mechanism enables the apparatus
to move so that a specified width of the pavement can be covered by the test
wheels.
The apparatus was extensively modified in 1972 for studded tire research.
The present facility has two sets of passenger tires inside the dual truck
tires running in Wheel Paths #1 and #2, while the dual truck tires run in
Wheel Paths #3 and #4. Two passenger tires are attached to each of the two
arms so as to travel in four separate wheel paths, #5, #6, #7 and #8. A
total of 16 tires are mounted on the apparatus. Each passenger car tire
carries a 1,000 pound load, applied via individual load cells, and each set
of the dual +ruck tires carries 6,600 pounds, except on Arm #3 where the
duals carry 8,600 pounds load.
An overall view of the G. A. Riedesel Pavement Testing Facility is shown in
Figure 1. The observation tower houses the apparatus controls and recorders
(built in 1972).
Tires
A total of 16 tires were used; 6 truck tires, all unstudded, and 10 passenger
winter snow tires, of which 3 were studded. The truck tires used on the
truck track were size 11 X 22.5, inflated to 80 psi air pressure; the inside
tire is the driving tire while the outside tire is free-wheeling. The truck
tires are garnet dust impregnated retreads.
The passenger tires were all size 15 with different widths and snow tread
designs, and consisted of 3 unstudded garnet retread tires size G78-15 in
Wheel Path #1; 3 with 112 controlled protrusion studs, tire size G78-15 in
Wheel Path #2; 1 steel radial tire size GR78-15 in Wheel Path #5; 1 radial
tire size HR70-15 in Wheel Path #6; one regular winter tread tire H78-15 in
Wheel Path #7; and a radial tire with special soft rubber F-32, size GR78-15,
in Wheel Path #8. Each tire was inflated to 32 psi and carried a 1,000 pound
load. All the passenger tires were free-wheeling. Information about all the
tires is given in Table 1. The different tires are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
-------
Figure 1. A view of the present G. A. Riedesel Pavement Testing Facility.
-------
TABLE 1. TYPES OF TIRES USED AT THE WSU TEST TRACK
CO
WHEEL
PATH ]
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
! 8
NUMBER
OF
TIRES
(2)
3
3
33
33
1
1
)
1
TYPE OF
TIRE
(3)
Passenger
Passenger
Truck
Truck
Passenger
Passenger
Passenger
Passenger
TREAD
(4)
Winter
Winter
Regular
Regular
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
SPECIAL
FEATURES
(5)
Garnet Dust
Impregnated Treads
Studded2
Garnet Dust
Impregnated Treads
Garnet Dust
Impregnated Treads
Steel Radial
Radial
' None
i
i
Radial F-32
TIRE SIZE
(6)
G78-15
G78-15
11 x 22.5
11 x 22.5
GR78-15
HR70-15
H78-15
GR78-H5
NUMBER
OF PLYS
(7)
4
4
12
»
4
6
4
4
BRAND NAME
(8)
Martin Retread
Goodyear
Polyglass
Oliver Garnetread
Oliver Garnetread
Goodyear Custom
Steelgard Radial
Goodyear Custom
Wide Tread Radial
Atlas Weathergard
Goodyear All Winter
Radial F-32
TIRE WEIGHT ON
PRESSURE '• TIRE
PSI ' POUNDS
(9) (10)
32 1 ,000
32 1 ,000
70-80 3,300
70-80 3,300
32 1 ,000
32 1 ,000
32 ' 1 ,000
i
32 | 1 ,000
'The wheel paths are numbered consecutively from the inside edge to the outside edge of the track.
2112 studs in each tire - controlled protrusion type.
30n arm #3, the weight on each of the truck tires was 4,300 pounds.
-------
WP 1
WP 2
WP 3, 4
WP 5
WP 6
WP 7
WP 8
Figure 2. Wheel paths (WP) are numbered from' inside to outside
of track. See Table 1 for tire types.
Figure 3. The arrangement of tires on the apparatus,
This photograph shows Wheel Paths #1 to #6.
-------
Instrumentation
Instrumentation of the Test Track was kept to a minimum due to lack of funds.
A Belfort thermograph recorded air and soil temperatures continuously. Sur-
face pavement temperatures were measured using surface thermometers. Measure-
ment of the revolutions and speeds were recorded continuously in the observa-
tion tower. Skid resistance measurements were made by a BBRC technician
using a British Portable Skid Tester. Photographs of the project were taken
by the WSU Engineering Photograph Service.
10
-------
CONSTRUCTION
Overall Concept
The project consists of 30 test sections; each section has an average length
of 8 feet (2.4 m) at the track diameter and an 11-foot (3.3 m) track width.
Four portland cement concrete dividers were placed between sections from
Sections 26 to 30. Two 4-foot (1.2 m) long transitions zones were established
between Sections 1 and 30, and between Sections 10 and 11, using the existing
portland cement concrete. The overall view showing the location of the sec-
tions is shown in Figure 4.
Existing Track Surface
Approximately two-thirds of the existing Test Track pavement (Sections 11-30),
consisting of both asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete, was removed
to depths of 1.5-1.75 inches (3.81-4.45 cm). The remaining pavement surface
was portland cement concrete (Sections 1-10), which was in place and utilized
in this project.
General Preparation Procedure
The exposed subsurface areas were uneven in depth which made it necessary to
level these areas to a prescribed depth. The appearance of these subsurface
areas is shown in Figures 5 and 6. The exposed surface was primed with
asphalt emulsion (SS-1) and leveled to 0.75 inch (1.91 cm) depth with Class
"B" asphalt concrete mix.
Between Sections 26 to 30, four portland cement concrete dividers, average
center length of 3 feet (0.9 m) and 11 feet (3.3 m) wide, were placed to
minimize contamination between the special asphalt concrete overlays. Figure
7 shows two of the four dividers in place between Sections 30 and 29, and
Sections 29 and 28, respectively.
There was no need for any kind of preparation for the existing portland cement
concrete Sections 2 to 10. Figure 8 shows the surface appearance of portland
cement concrete Sections 8 to 10.
General Description of Pavements
All of the asphalt sections were placed in the latter part of October 1976
within a two-week period. The Test Track section identification is shown in
Table 2. The mix designs are shown in Table 3.
11
-------
SCALE-
CONCRETE
DIVIDERS
P. C.C.
G.A. RIEDESEL PAVEMENT TESTING FACILITY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Figure 4. Section location at Test Track.
12
-------
>.
1
Figure 5. Appearance of subsurface, Section 16. 10/19/76
-'
*
-
Figure 6. Appearance of subsurface, Section 23. 10/19/76
13
-------
Figure 7. Appearance of subsurface, Sections 29 and 30,
with dividers in place. 10/19/76
Figure 8. Appearance of in-place port!and cement concrete pavement,
Sections 7-10. 10/19/76
14
-------
TABLE 2. TEST TRACK SECTION IDENTIFICATION
SECTION1 :
(1)
1-10
11-16
17-20
21-23
24-26
29-30
27
28
DATE
PLACED
(1976)
(2)
INTACT
10-27
10-29
10-27
10-18
10-27
10-27
10-29
TYPE OF MATERIAL2
(3)
Portland Cement Concrete
Class "B" Asphalt Concrete Mix'
Class "B" Asphalt Concrete Mix
Open Graded Asphalt Concrete Mix
Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Mix
Viscospin Asphalt Concrete Overlays
Petroset AT Asphalt Concrete Overlays
Petroset AT Asphalt Concrete Overlays
COMMENTS
(4)
No additional surface preparation
1/2" Aggregates, 6.0% AR 4000 W
Second placing of Class "B" A-C
FHUA friction course demonstration project5
Reclaimed rubber from tires6
4%, 8% Viscospin B, respectively7
8.33% Petroset AT
25.0% Petroset AT j
Footnotes:
;If more than one section, designation is inclusive.
2A11 asphalt concrete mixes were hot-mixes.
3Class "B" asphalt concrete mix is the Washington Department of Highways designation, and is deemed to be typical
of northern tier of states.
l*~7See mix designs in Table 2.
-------
TABLE 3. TEST TRACK ASPHALT MIX DESIGNS1
MIX
PARAMETERS
(1)
SECTIONS
Aggregate Size
(pounds)
Lbs Asphalt2
% Asphalt
% Additive
TYPE OF ASPHALT MIX
CLASS "6"
A.C.
(2)
11-20
1/2" - 350
3/8" - 1350
Sand - 1070
Fines- 50
180
6.0
-_.
OPEN-GRADED
A.C.
(3)
21-23
1/2" - 56
3/8" - 1503
#8 - 1049
Fines- 227
165
5.5
---
RUBBERIZED ASPHALT CONCRETED
5%
(4)
24
5/8" - 137
3/8" - 524
Sand - 421
Fines- 18
130
10.0
5.0
102
(5)
25
5/8" - 129
3/8" - 448
Sand - 376
Fines- 17
130
10.0
10.0
5%
(6)
26
5/8" - 513
3/8" - 0
Sand - 572
Fines- 20
130
10.0
5.0
PETROSET A.C.
8.33%
(7)
27
Same as
Class "B"
A.C.
180
6.0
8.33
25.0%
(8)
28
Same as
Class "B"
A.C.
180
6.0
25.0
VISCOSPIN A.C.
4.0%
(9)
29
Same as
Class "B"
A.C.
180
6.0
8.0%
(10)
30
Same as
Class "B"
A.C.
180
6.0
4.0 | 8.0
Footnotes:
'All asphalt mixes were hot-mixed.
2Asphalt used in all mixes was AR 4000 W.
3Gradation of rubber used in Sections 24-26 is:
Screen % Passing
5/8"
1/4"
#6
#10
#40
#80
#200
100
99
94
76
2
1
0.5
-------
The paving contractor, United Paving, Inc., placed all of the asphalt mixes
using standard highway paving procedures as much as possible. Due to the
small amount of mix and the paving areas for some sections, some hand
leveling, tamping and compaction was necessary but was kept to a minimum. The
mixes for the rubberized asphalt concrete sections were prepared at the United
Paving plant but were placed by Yakima County personnel.
Some placing problems occured with the Viscospin asphalt concrete mixes in
Sections 29 and 30. Both mixes had a disagreeable odor and both mixes were
hard to work. Their appearance was dull'and lifeless, similar to cold-asphalt
mixes, with similar handling properties. The 4% Viscospin asphalt mix was
easier to compact.
The Petroset asphalt concrete mix in Section 27 with the lower Petroset
content was very easy to place and compact. In contrast, the 25% Petroset AT
asphalt mix placed in Section 28 had the appearance of a cold mix and was
difficult to place.
Figures 9 to 14 show the placing and the appearance of some asphalt sections.
The placing of asphalt mix in Sections 21-23 using the Blaw-Knox paver is
shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows the reclaimed rubber used in Sections
24-26, and Figure 11 shows the final appearance of Sections 24, 25 and 26
after rolling. Close-up views of Sections 27 and 28 with 8.33% and 25%
Petroset AT additive in the Class "B" asphalt mix, are shown in Figures 12
and 13, respectively. Figure 14 shows the appearance of the 8% Viscospin
asphalt mix placed in Section 30.
17
-------
Figure 9. Placement of asphalt, Sections 21-23. 10/27/76
Figure 10. Reclaimed rubber in bag used in Sections 24, 25, 26. 10/18/76
18
-------
Figure 11. Appearance of rubberized asphalt concrete Sections 26-24
after rolling. 10/19/76
Figure 12. Close-up view of Section 27 with 8.33% Petroset AT,
placed 10/27/76.
19
-------
11 - 9 -76
Figure 13. Close-up view of Section 28 with 25% Petroset AT,
placed 10/29/76.
Figure 14. Close-up view of Section 30 with 8% Viscospin,
placed 10/27/76.
20
-------
Optimization Tests on Formulations
These tests were conducted by Ball Brothers Research Corporation. The
results have been summarized in Tables 4 to 8. These tests were concerned
with (1) applied coating formulations - Table 4, (2) disc contact angles -
Table 5, (3) disc scratch tests - Table 5, (4) environmental test data -
Table 6, (5) plate ice adhesion data - Table 7, and (6) skid test numerical
data and water beading observations for coatings on BBRC asphalt and con-
crete - Table 8. The latter table includes skid test data on the WSU Test
Track. Full descriptions of the tests are given in Reference #9.
From the results obtained from these tests, eight formulations plus Petroset
AT were tested on different pavement surfaces at the WSU Test Track. Table 9
shows the formulations, quantities used, and in what section they were
applied.
Formulation Application
The Test Track apparatus was used to "break in" the pavement. A total of
3,798 revolutions was applied equivalent to 11,394 wheel loads in Wheel Paths
1-4, and 3,798 wheel loads in Wheel Paths 5-8.
Based on previous Ball Brothers Research Corporation tests, the formulations
showing the most promise of success were to be used at the Test Track. These
formulations and their Test Track location is shown in Table 10. The form-
ulations were mixed and sprayed on between the 14th and 20th of January by a
BBRC technician. The pavement surface was swept clean and dried by using a
butane weed burner. The paint formations were then hand-sprayed on a 4-foot
by 12-foot area using an electric hand sprayer. Some problems were encoun-
tered with strong winds which caused some over-spraying. Air temperatures
ranged between 34° and 42°F. during the period. After skid resistance
readings were measured, the pavements were ready for testing.
Sections 2, 4 and 10 were the control sections on the portland cement con-
crete, while Sections 12, 14 and 20 were the control sections on the Class
"B" asphalt concrete.
21
-------
ro
ro
TABLE 4. FORMULATIONS AND COVERAGE RATES
FORMULATION
CODE
(1)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
W
X
Y
Z
PRINCIPAL INGREDIENT
NAME
(2)
LR 81981
LR 86522
DRISIL 73
PETROSET AT
GOODYEAR 533C
GOODYEAR 533B
DOW XR-5013
GOODYEAR VTL
VISCOSPIN B
VISCOSPIN B
VISCOSPIN B
PETROSET AT
PETROSET AT
i
AMOUNT
cm^
(3)
225
205
170
160
515
480
415
365
305
275
250
230
415
100
150
100
20
50
8%
4%
25%
8.33%
OTHER INGREDIENTS & AMOUNTS ; OTHER INFORMATION
DC73T
gms
»*)
22.5
35.8
59.0
72.0
19.3
30.0
51.8
68.4
18.3
35.7
50.0
59.8
__
VMP NAPTHA ISOPROPANOL
cm3 cm3
(5) ! (6)
169
182
216
244
257
276
312
319
198
219
237
253
50
50
95
50
6.0
7.7
14.8
18.0
6.4
9.0
15.5
18.2
6.0
8.2
12.5
13.8
--
OTHER
NAME AMOUNT - cmj ;
(7) (8) (9)
i
i
! i
i
i
i
i
DISTILLED H90 138 I
2 (LR 8652 + IX CLAY)
i (LR 8652)
DISTILLED H,0. 100 SILICONS
XYLENE . 5 i (PAINT BASE)
| (
1 i
% OF BINDER IN AC
! % OF BINDER IN AC
% OF BINDER IN AC
% OF BINDER IN AC
APPLICATION
, RATE
+2 OR AS NOTED
m (10)
0.235
0.232
0.234
0.237
0.461
0.453
0.433 !
0.406
0.302
0.295
0.290
0.289
0.328
POURED ON META
SUBSTRATE
0.510
0.520
SPRAYED ON
SPRAYED ON
OVERLAY
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
*LR 8198 is Akron Paint Mod. TT-P-115 D (without T102).
2LR 8652 is Akron's Resin-Only Version.
-------
TABLE 5. DISC CONTACT ANGLES1 AND TOUGHNESS OBSERVATIONS
COATING
CODE
(1)
CONTROL
A
C
D
E
F
H
I
K
L
N
0
P
Q
B
J
APPEARANCE'
(2)
(no coating)
Even but rough
Even but rough
Even but rough
Even but rough
Uneven & "lumps"
Crazed
Uneven
Uneven
Uneven
Some orange peel
Even
Crazed in center
Very even
(Ref. 9)
(Ref. 9)
WATER CONTACT*
ANGLE-DEGREES
(3)
58, 57, 60
122, 110, 108
106, 106, 105
106, 103, 90
98, 88, 91
87, 85, 93
105, 95, 98
98, 93, 92
94, 91, 91
94, 94, 94
40, 40, 35(W)
85, 92, 90
85, 88, 86
91, 83, 91
119, 115, 116
104, 103, 103
OIL CONTACT
ANGLE-DEGREES
(4)
22
88, 88 (W)r'
66, 50
67, 68 (W)
67, 71 (W)
63, 65
62, 62 (W)
68, 59, 63
37, 63, 59
51, 54
44, 42
25, 30
60
22
TOUGHNESS"
(5)
Medium
Soft
Medium
Hard
Soft
Medium '
Very soft
Very soft
Medium
Medium
Hard
Medium
COMMENTS
May not
rbe full>
cured
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
Note the drastic effect of a small amount of clay (compare N and 0).
All coatings considered usefully hydrophobic except N.
'All coated discs (non-corrosion resistant steel) subjected to70% R.H. at
45°C. for 24 hours before testing. None indicated water vapor penetration
of coating (no rust).
2Appearance must be related to non-porous nature of (steel) substrate.
3No particular trends noted between similar formulations (except A-D).
''Qualitatively judged with steel probe.
5W = coating wetted by fluid.
23
-------
TABLE 6. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST DATA (HOUSER REPT. 76-498)
COATING
CODE
11JL
BLANK H20
SAMPLE
UNCOATED SHEET
A
C
D
E
F
H
I
L
R'
B (Ref. 9)
M (Ref. 9)
UC 732;l
(Ref. 9)
H20
CONTACT
ANGLE-DEGREES
. -JZJ
64, 68, 74
122, 119, 120
108, 93, 105
101, 107, 103
100, 100, 98
103, 99, 104
104, 106, 106
110, 91, 100
93, 102, 102
0
102, 106, 109
0
107, 108, 109
PH
(3}
5.S6
6.66
7.05
7.16
7.09
6.02
5.89
5.97
5.82
5.88
7.65
6.98
6.10
5.90
TOTAL
_DJ.SSOLVE
qms
..14) .
0.0027
0.0074
0.0051
0.0103
0.0115
0.0033
0.0015
0.0026
0.0068
0.0073
0.3420
0.0140
0.0183
0.0023
D SOLIDS
WT. %
OF FILM
..__(!>}__.
1.0
1.4
2.1
?.l
0.8
0.8
0.7
4.3
88.0
0.7
1.3
4.6
BIOLOGICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(BOD)
_.._-<6). __
3
6
11
9
10
4
4
4
6
4
252
5
22
3
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
(7)
11
16
25
25
25
11
11
14
18
13
791
15
84
16
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
]As expected, Viscospin B (Coating R) was poor in these tests.
'Trends appear to be related to DC 732 content.
24
-------
ro
01
TABLE 7. ICE ADHESION DATA (METAL SUBSTRATE) (HOUSER RPT. 76-475)
COATING
(1)
CONTROL PLATE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
0
P
Q
B (Ref . 9)
CONTROL PLATE
(Ref. 9)
J(ON A.C.,
(Raf. Q}
WATER CONTACT
ANGLE,
DEGREE
(2)
71, 76, 71
93, 112, 106
96, 103, 111
82, 88, 98
104, 80, 105
105, 99, 95
98, 103, 99
104, 90, 107
96, 98, 102
90, 96, 98
100, 90, 92
107, 101, 90
101, 101, 98
97, 94, 94
83, 83, 89
100, 96, 98
119, 117, 110
56, 65, 63
AVERAGE ICE
ADHESION:
FORCE - kg/cm2
(3)
9.2
8.3
4.1
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
2.4
3.0
2.5
1.7
7.4
3.4
4.8
2.1
7.6
5.2
RANGE OF
DATA
kg/cm2
U)
5.5
5.0
4.1
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.7
2.3
3.4
1.1
6.4
6.7
3.5
3.3
4.6
4.0
i i
FILM
APPEARANCE
(5)
Fairly smooth
Uneven, rough
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Uneven but smooth
Smooth
Uneven but smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Fairly smooth
Fairly smooth
Smooth but uneven
Fairly smooth
COMMENTS
(6)
85% of coating removed in one spot
70% coating removed
60% coating removed - 3rd release
Large portion of coating removed
( :
30* coating removed - 3rd release
\
Lowest value found for a formulated
coating in prior contract
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
Comments: 1. Coating removal from metal plates is not indicative of pavement performance (where solvent
"binding" occurs on asphalt and mechanical pore locking occurs on concrete).
2. Some trends are evident. C appears about optimum for LR 819JVDC 732. H appears optimum for
LR 8652/DC 732 but coating smoothness variations may dominate. The DRI-SIL 73/DC 732
foundations show an inverted curve and core results are needed to reach any decision.
-------
TABLE 8. ASPHALT AND CONCRETE SKID VALUES AND WATER BEADING1
COATING CODE
(1)
CONTROL, UNCOATED
A
B
C
D
E2
F2
G2
H2
I
J
K
L
M3
0
P
W
X
Y
Z
RUBBERIZED A.C.
OPEN-GRADED A.C.
THREE A.C. SECTIONS
THREE P.C.C. SECTIONS
B (Ref. 9)
J (Ref. 9)
M (Ref. 9)
ASPHALT VALUES
AT BBRC AT
27°C
(2)
70, 72, 72
68, 69, 68
68, 68, 67
68, 68, 70
63, 62, 63
44, 43, 44
49, 50, 49
58, 60, 58
62, 60, 60
73, 73, 73
65, 65, 64
71, 72, 72
67, 67, 68
47, 46, 46
30, 30, 30
53, 52, 53
60, 61, 60, 61
(15°C)
68, 68, 68, 69
(30°C)
65, 65, 67, 67
(40°C)
CONCRETE VALUES
AT BBRC AT
24°C
(3)
78, 78, 79
66, 66, 66
70, 69, 68
70, 70, 69
65, 65, 65
48, 48, 48
54, 53, 55
58, 56, 58
56, 55, 57
74, 74, 75
74, 75, 75
74, 75, 75
78, 78, 78
62, 62, 62
40, 38, 38
56, 58, 57
76, 77, 76, 77
(30°C)
67, 67, 68, 68
(32°C)
63, 63, 63, 63
(30°C)
BFADING AT BBRC
DURING SNOW AT 5°C
ASPHALT
(4)
tone
Dood
Very good
lery good
tery Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
None
None
Very good
Excellent
Fair
Good
CONCRETE
(5)
tone
Some
Some
iood
iood
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Some
Some
Good
iood
None
iood
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
WSU TRACK
SKID VALUES
AT 14°C
(6)
80, 83, 83
88, 88, 87
78, 78, 78
83, 83, 84
72, 73, 74
83, 84, 83
87, 87, 89
77, 74, 73
82, 82, 80
76, 76, 78
89, 90, 90
DO 00 07
DO, OO , O/
BEADING DURING
SKID TESTS
(7)
None
None
Some
None
Some
None
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
JBeading: tendency for water to form droplets on surface with high contact angles.
Unexpected trends (such as E, F, G, H) exist but may be explained by core ice adhesion results.
3'
-------
TABLE 9. FORMULATIONS AND QUANTITIES SPRAYED ON DIFFERENT TRACK SECTIONS
TRACK
SECTION
(1)
19
9
18
8
17
7
16
6
15
5
3
13
22
11
1
FORMULA
(2)
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
L
PRINCIPAL INGREDIENT
NAME
(3)
LR 8198
LR 8652
DRISIL 73
PETROSET AT
AMOUNT
(cm')
(4)
721
655
598
544
1690
1536
1460
1327
1074
880
800
810
810
780
708
OTHER INGREDIENTS - AMOUNTS
DC 732
(gin)
(5)
126
114
207
188
105
95
182
165
64
114
160
210
210
NAPHTHA
BINDER/DC 732
(CM')
(6)
362/278
329/253
299/461
272/419
634/338
576/307
549/549
499/499
535/162
438/262
400/358
404/485
404/485
ISOPROPANOL
(cm')
(7)
27
25
52
47
32
29
54
49
21
26
40
49
49
DISTILLED
H90
(cm')
(8)
1170
1080
QUANTITY PREPARED
TOTAL
VOLUME2
(LITERS)
(9)
2.17
2.17
2.19
2.19
4.23
4.23
4.05
4.05
1.485
1.323
1.296
1.413
1.413
3.108
VOLUME
SPRAYED3
(LITERS)
(10)
1.15
1.04
1.16
1.05
2.24
2.04
2.14
1.95
1.485
1.323
1.305
1.413
1.413
1.624
1.476
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, January 1977.
1Sections 1-10 are portland cement concrete; sections 11-20 are Class "B" asphalt concrete; and Section 22 is
open-graded asphalt concrete.
2Excess quantities were needed for samples for use in environmental tests.
3Area sprayed in section was 4' x 12' or 4.5m2.
-------
TABLE 10
ro
00
TEST TRACK SPRAY
FORMULATION
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
L
Petroset AT
QTY. APPLIED TRACK
LITERS SECTION #
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.04
.15
.05
.16
.04
.24
.95
.14
.48
.32
.30
.41
.41
.62
.48
9
19
8
18
7
17
6
16
15
5
3
13
22 (c)
11
Kd)
DATE
APPLIED
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/18/77
1/18/77
COATING SUMMARY
TIME (a)
APPLIED
1230
1730
1230
1730
1230
1730
1230
1730
1100
1230
1230
1100
1000
1730
1730
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1530
-1930
AIR TEMP.
°C (b)
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
8
6
6
8
6
2
2
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to 5
to -1
TRACK SURFACE
TEMP. °C
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
16
8
8
16
8
4
2
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
Notes:
(a) At 0800, 1/18/77, track was damp and was flame dried. At 1100, 1/18/77,
high winds stopped operations until 1730.
(b) Measured relative humidity was between 80$ and 1001 during all
spraying operations.
(c) Formulation L was selected for the open graded asphalt on section 22
as having the best chance on this very porous surface.
(d) Petroset AT appeared to penetrate poorly on section 1.
-------
TESTING PROCEDURE
Test Track Apparatus Application
The use of the apparatus started in January 1977, before the paint formula-
tions were put on. The purpose of these wheel applications was to try to
simulate a road pavement which had some traffic. This would allow the
application of the ice mitigation formulations on pavement surfaces with some
traffic applications as in the real world. Table 11 summarizes the WSU Test
Track operations.
Before spraying, 3,793 revolutions were accumulated by the apparatus. This
is equivalent to 11,379 and 3,793 wheel traffic applications on Wheel Paths
#1-4 and #5-8, respectively. After spraying, 14,408 revolutions were
accumulated on the apparatus. This is equivalent to 43,224 and 14,408 wheel
traffic applications on Wheel Paths #1-4 and #5-8, respectively.
The amount of time the apparatus was in operation was limited by the weather.
It was planned to operate during and after snow storms. Snow did not materi-
alize in any significant amounts. It was decided to spray the track with
water so that ice would form on the pavements. This met with various success
as the freezing temperatures needed for ice formation had to be below 30°F
and had to last at least two or more hours. Unfortunately, the weather and
air temperatures had started to warm rather prematurely and ice formation on
the pavements proved to be a difficult task showing minimal success. This
limited the operations of the Test Track apparatus. It was then decided to
use the apparatus for determination of traffic durability for the various
paint formulations. Test Track operations ended on April 19, 1977.
Weather Analysis
The most charitable thing that can be said of the weather is that the local
population and area enjoyed a most mild and dry winter. The temperatures
and the precipitation were below normal levels. This area was in a midst of
drought unknown in any records. The climatological data is summarized for
the months of December 1976 to April 1977 in Tables 12 to 16, showing maximum
and minimum daily air and soil temperatures as measured locally. It can be
seen that by the time the paint formulations were applied, most of the cold
periods had passed. The freezing time had also been reduced.
Skid Resistance Measurements
Skid resistance measurements, using the British Portable Skid Resistance
Tester, were taken before testing started on November 9, 1976, before and
after spraying of the formulations on January 17 and 19, 1977 respectively;
and on April 26-27, 1977 after all testing was completed. Due to variations
in pavement surface temperatures during measurements, all skid values were
corrected to 20°C according to accepted procedures. 10
29
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF HSU TEST TRACK OPERATIONS - JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1977
CO
o
rim 1
MONTH
(1)
01
02
03
04
DATES
(2)
12-141
19-31
01-26
01-30
14-19
TOTAL
DAYS
(3)
3
4
8
23
3
BEFORE SPRAYING:
AFTER SPRAYING:
TOTAL
TOTAL TIME APPARATUS
IN OPERATION
MONTH
HOURS
W
13
6
11
40
1
MINUTES
(5)
17
23
57
45
25
ACCUMULATED
HOURS
(6)
13
19
31
72
73
13
60
73
MINUTES
(7)
17
40
37
22
47
17
30
47
AVERAGE
SPEED
MPH
(8)
12
10
10
13
14
12
NUMBER OF
REVOLUTIONS
MONTHLY
(9)
3.793
1,243
2,523
10,250
392
TOTAL
(10)
3,793
5,036
7,559
17,809
18,201
3,793
14,408
18,201
WHEEL APPLICATIONS
WHEEL PATHS
1 - 4
MONTHLY
(ID
11,379
3,729
7,569
30,750
1,176
TOTAL
(12)
11,379
15,108
22,677
53,427
54,603
11,379
43,224
54,603
5 - 3
MONTHLY
(13)
3,793
1,243
2,523
10,250
392
TOTAL
(14)
3,793
5,036
7,559
17,809
18,201
3,793
14,408
18,201
Curing January 17-19, the formulations on all sections had been sprayed.
-------
TABLE 12. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA - DECEMBER 1976 (2400 TO 2400)
DATE
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SUM
AVE
DIFF
AIR TEMPERATURE (°F)
PALOUSE CONSERVATION
FIELD STATION1
MAX
(2)
46
41
38
25
22
36
43
41
37
39
45
42
43
37
41
51
41
43
39
39
40
41
33
30
32
44
44
38
32
26
26
37.9
MIN
(3)
18
16
16
20
20
27
27
33
31
28
28
31
31
29
27
30
32
25
25
23
23
23
22
23
23
38
34
31
25
18
22
25.8
WSU TEST TRAC
MAX
(4)
45
42
41
25
28
37
43
42
40
40
46
44
45
39
it
39
40
43
33
33
35
42
45
40
31
23
25
39.4
MIN
(5)
17
17
16
23
24
27
28
35
28
25
30
30
26
26
4
22
22
26
24
23
26
35
29
32
24
21
21
26.3
K
FREEZINGZ
TIME-HRS
(6)
17
17
18
24
24
18
0
3
7
3
8
8
15
4
18
18
9
20
22
10
0 ,
21
0
20
24
24
348
13.9
SOIL TEMPERATURE
WSU TEST TRACK3
(°F)
MAX
.(7)
32
25
25
20
21
22
28
37
28
25
32
31
37
27
1+
33
28
37
25
22
22
28
42
34
24
20
20
29
MIN
(8)
15
15
9
18
18
21
21
22
21
20
21
21
21
20
i»
21
18
21
22
20
21
22
24
20
20
18
19
20.4
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
(9)
0.03 R
0.22 R
0.19 R
0.14 Snow
0.40
Trace
Trace
0.98
2.745
-1.76
Pullman 2NW - the station is about 9 miles NW of WSU Test Track.
2Freezing time = No. of hours below 32°F.
'Temperature probe is buried 1.5 feet below the surface.
"*Data missing.
5Normal average precipitation for this area.
31
-------
TABLE 13. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA - JANUARY 1977 (2400 TO 2400)
DATE
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SUM
AVE
DIFF
AIR TEMPERATURE (UF)
PALOUSE CONSERVATION
FIELD STATION1
MAX
(2)
25
26
20
20
19
24
24
15
23
19
25
31
32
34
37
39
44
50
40
43
30
30
28
29
26
32
26
30
24
36
31
29.4
MIN
(3)
10
10
16
0
4
10
4
4
1
8
17
20
27
27
27
33
37
38
30
26
28
27
22
22
16
21
15
15
17
17
20
18.4
WSU TEST TRAC
MAX
(4)
25
24
21
19
19
25
25
16
26
22
32
28
31
33
37
40
43.5
50
40
43
29
29
27
30
26
32.5
27
32
24
36
31
29.8
MIN
(5)
10
14
18
0
5
10
4
4
1
5
20
18
23
27
25
32
34
26
24
27
24.5
27
25
20
19
16
19
18
22
16
22
17.9
<
FREEZING2
TIME-HRS
(6)
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
24
24
22
11
0
0
3
14
15
24
24
24
24
24
18
24
22
24
22
24
630
20.3
SOIL TEMPERATURE
WSU TEST TRACK3
(°F)
MAX
(7)
23
20
20
18
18
20
20
14
20
15
19
17
21
21
22
26
29
34
30
34
22
21
21
20
20
25
21
27
20
29
21
22.2
MIN
(8)
10
14
15
9
5
8
8
5
5
3
18
15
17
19
19
21
22
21
20
21
20
20
21
19
18
14
16
15
19
14
20
15.2
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
(9)
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.40
2.671*
-2.27
Pullman 2NW - the station is about 9 miles NW of the WSU Test Track.
freezing Time = No. of hours below 32°F.
3Temperature probe is buried 1.5 feet below the surface.
"•Normal average precipitation for this area.
32
-------
TABLE 14. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA - FEBRUARY 1977 (2400 TO 2400}
DAU
AIR TEMPERATURE (*F)
PALOUSE CONSERVATION
FIELD STATION1
MAX
(1) (2) !
1 27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUM
AVE
DIFF
32
41
31
34
31
45
44
46
54
51
58
49
49
55
56
50
56
59
61
43
43
44
44
37
, " ,
46
42
45.3
MIN
(3)
24
26
28
26
24
26
24
23
28
28
32
32
33
25
36
34
32
32
38
32
34
32
34
19
22
26
30
31
29.0
WSU TEST TRACK
TKETZTfiS7-
~ MAX "
(4)
28
32
41
32
37
31
47
46
47
56
54
59
51
52
59
58
MIN
(5)
25
27
29
27
25
27
25
26
28.5
TIME-MRS
(6)
24
24
18
23
22
24
15
5
12
36 0
30 1
43.5
0
28 8
23 , 10
31 ! 1
32 0
52 . 31 2
58 31 4
62 i 30 i 2
63 37 0
42 i 32 0
45 33 0
44
43
25 14
17
14
38 31 5
42 i 29 i 7
41
SOIL TEMPERATURE
WSU TEST TRACK3
r
MAX
_J!L__
20
21
30
26
28
22
37
31
43
40
45
44
50
46
49
49
38
52
51
45
30
39
41
36
27
33
32.5 0 30
42 34 0
30
235 !
t
46.5 i 29,5 8.4
36.9
F)
MIN
(8)
20
20
21
21
20
21
21
20
21
24
23
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
(9)
0.01
31
28
21
24
27 ! I
25
25 !
26 >
27 ••
25 i 0.11
26
21
; 17
21 0.12
21 0.01
: 23 0.02
25 ; 0.18
0.45
23.0 2.10"
; -1.65
iPullman 2NW - the station is about 9 miles NW of WSU Test Track.
2Freezing Time - No. of hours below 32°F.
3Temperature probe is buried 1.5 feet below the surface.
"•Normal average precipitation for this area.
33
-------
TABLE 15. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA - MARCH 1977 (2400 TO 2400)
DATE
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SUM
AVE
DIFF
AIR TEMPERATURE (SF)
PALOUSE CONSERVATION
FIELD STATION1
MAX
(2)
36
40
40
43
48
54
47
45
42
44
45
43
35
35
42
42
40
42
45
43
48
61
45
58
49
48
40
41
45
52
43
44.6
MIN
(3)
28
28
28
30
34
37
37
31
33
29
28
30
26
20
24
28
26
27
31
28
32
31
38
32
23
31
23
26
25
27
33
29.2
WSU TEST TRAC
MAX
(4)
36
41
40
45
50
55
47
45
43
45
46
43
37
34.5
45
48
40
42
45
43
50
64
49
48
50
49
46
42
46
54
46
45.6
MIN
(5)
30
30
32
28
26
38
38
33
33
28
28
33
23
21
28
32
28
28
28
28
34
29
35
28
22
36
32.5
29
25
24
30
29.6
K
FREEZING2
TIME-MRS
(6)
4
4
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
4
7
0
20
16
15
2
10
8
4
6
0
5
0
3
8
0
0
6
9
7
2
154
5.0
SOIL TEMPERATURE
WSU TEST TRACK3
(°F)
MAX
(7)
29
39
32
42
43
42
32
34
37
44
40
32
26
25
37
38
36
36
38
37
36
55
36
47
49
37
32
37
38
53
38
38.0
MIN
(8)
23
22
24
21
22
28
29
24
24
22
21
24
21
20
20
23
22
21
24
22
25
22
27
24
21
26
23
22
22
21
26
23.1
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
(9)
0.18
0.03
0.30
0.32
0.18
0.10
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.08
1.35
2.121*
-0.77
Pullman 2NW - the station is about 9 miles NW of WSU Test Track.
freezing Time = No. of hours below 32°F.
3Temperature probe is buried 1.5 feet below the surface.
**Normal average precipitation for this area.
34
-------
TABLE 16. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA - APRIL 1977 (2400 TO 2400)
DATE
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SUM
AVE
DIFF
AIR TEMPERATURE (°F)
PALOUSE CONSERVATIOf<
FIELD STATION1
MAX
(2)
45
49
60
65
65
74
77
72
51
55
55
63
52
50
58
52
49
48
48
56
60
78
85
87
82
61
67
74
70
71
62.6
MIN
(3)
28
21
29
36
37
37
44
48
32
24
35
27
41
27
32
39
26
21
. 27
36
36
41
55
58
46
34
30
35
45
38
35.5
WSU TEST TRAC
MAX
(4)
46.5
50
60
66
71
76
80
72
58
61
60
68
54
61
61
52
60
48
57
64
62
82
90
94
90
80
80
85
81
79
68.3
MIN
(5)
26
22
29
32
36
36
44
45
33
28
35
27
37
31
36
32
- 27
24
24
33
39
44
60
56
60
50
52
40
50
43
38.0
K
FREEZING-1
TIME-MRS
(6)
3
8
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
1
0
0
6
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
1.5
SOIL TEMPERATURE
WSU TEST TRACK3
(°F)
MAX
(7)
40
46
54
64
69
74
75
60
57
59
59
67
50
60
50
49
58
45
56
61
55
79
89
93
89
66
79
74
69
73
64.0
MIN
(8)
23
20
25
27
30
31
38
42
30
27
33
27
33
26
31
30
24
22
22
30
36
36
48
49
58
37
41
32
42
34
32.8
TRErmmion
(INCHES)
(9)
0.03
0.19
0.01
T
0.09
0.32
1.491*
-1.17
'Pullman 2NW - the station is about 9 miles NW of WSU Test Track.
freezing Time = No. of hours below 32°F.
3Temperature probe is buried 1.5 feet below the surface.
"•Normal average precipitation for this area.
35
-------
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Skid Resistance Results
The results from the British Portable Skid Tester, taken before testing,
before spraying, after spraying and at completion of testing are summarized
in Tables 17 to 23.
The summarized results from skid resistance data in BPN taken on untrayelled
pavement, and before and after spraying of the formulations are shown in
Table 17. This data is uncorrected for pavement surface temperature varia-
tions. The difference in skid resistance readings taken before and after
spraying indicates the effect of the formulations on pavement skid perfor-
mance. This is shown in Table 18.
It is apparent that the immediate effect of these formulations on both
Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete pavement is to reduce the skid
resistance. These reductions can vary from a high of 35 to a low of 2. The
exception is Petroset AT application which increased skid resistance of both
types of pavements. On the PCC Pavements, formulations C and next J reduced
skid resistance the least. On the basis of increasing reduction of skid
resistance, the ranking of formulations is C, J, K, G, B and F. On the
Class "B" asphalt concrete pavements, formulations C, I and L in that order
caused the least reduction in skid resistance. The ranking based on in-
creasing reduction of skid resistance is C, I, L, B, G and F respectively.
The L formulations on the open-graded asphalt concrete overlay reduced its
skid resistance by only 6 which was superior to any of the Class "B" asphalt
concrete overlays. This is due in part to the open-graded nature of the
pavement.
It is difficult to measure wear of a coating. In this project one criteria
was the use of the change in skid resistance. A Skid Resistance Change Rate
(SRCR) was developed as a measure of skid reisitance change and wear of
coating. Under most circumstances, all pavements suffer a loss in skid
resistance with traffic and time. In this project, an increase in skid
resistance as denoted by a positive SRCR indicates more wear than a negative
SRCR. The reason for this use of skid resistance in such a manner is that
the coatings reduce skid resistance and when they are worn off, the skid
resistance will increase.
Using SRCR as a measure of change in skid resistance, Tables 19-23 were devel-
oped to show the comparisons of skid resistance changes for the different
sections and formulations. The changes in skid resistance for the portland
cement concrete sections are shown in Table 19. The BPN and SRCR show the
following ordering on the basis of decreasing wear: formulations F, B, J, K,
36
-------
G, C, Petroset AT, and the nontreated section. Formulation F had the least
resistance to traffic wear while C had the most.
Wear is also a function of the type of tire. The testing apparatus had
seven different types of tires. The effect of these tires on portland cement
concrete pavements is also shown in Table 19. The garnet tread truck tires
caused the most wear as would be expected, the inside driving tire more than
the free-wheeling tire. Of the two inside passenger tires, the studded tire
caused more wear and a polishing action on the pavement as compared to the
garnet tread tire. The tires in Wheel Paths #5-8 had different treads and
tire construction. In order of the highest SRCR, the tires in Wheel Paths
#7, #5, #6 and #8 are ranked accordingly. The tire with the special compound
F-32 in Wheel Path #8 appears to cause the least wear of any of the outside
passenger tires.
Table 20 shows the skid resistance results for the Class "B" asphalt concrete
sections. The BPN and SRCR show the following ordering on the basis of de-
creasing wear: formulations G, F, B, L, I, C, Petroset AT and the non-
treated sections. The studded passenger wheel tires (Wheel Path #2) in-
creased the skid resistance more than the passenger wheel garnet tread tires
(Wheel Path #1) thus indicating more wear of the formulations. In order of
the highest SRCR, the ranking according to Wheel Paths is #5, #6, #7, and
#8. The tire with F-32 rubber in Wheel Path #8 again caused the least wear.
The skid resistance results for the open-graded asphalt sections are summa-
rized in Table 21. Section 22 with formulation L had less reduction in skid
resistance but the initial skid readings were lower. In the group of asphalt
overlays, the tires in Wheel Paths #6, #5, #7, and #8 caused the most reduc-
tion in SRCR, respectively. The garnet tire lowered the SRCR more than the
studded tire in these asphalt pavement types. The reason is that the garnet
dust acted as an abrasive polishing the aggregates.
Table 23 shows the skid values for the four asphalt overlays. On the basis
of skid resistance reduction, Section 27 with 8.33% Petroset was inferior to
Section 28 with 25%, but the final BPN was still higher for Section 27 than
for Section 28. The 25% Petroset Section 28 had initial lower BPN's. Com-
paring the two Viscospin asphalt overlays, Section 29 with 4% Viscospin had
higher initial BPN's and also lower final BPN's than Section 30 with 8%
Viscospin. In other words for both types of overlays, the overlays with the
most additive had a lower reduction in SRCR. This may indicate that addi-
tives help in lowering the reduction in skid resistance.
Table 23 also shows that the garnet tread passenger tires in Wheel Path #1
caused the greatest loss in BPN, again indicating the abrasive action of the
garnet dust on the aggregates. Of the other passenger tires, the tire in
Wheel Path #8 caused the least loss in BPN, followed by the tire in Wheel
Paths #5, #7 and #6 in that order. It appears that the F-32 rubber passen-
ger tire has the least effect on pavement skid resistance in general.
37
-------
TABLE 17. TRACK SKID DATA SUMMARY-SKID NUMBERS
SECTION
(1)
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
COMPOSITION
(2)
PCC
II
II
II
It
11
II
II
ASPHALT
II
II
II
11
M
II
OPEN-GRADED
II
RUBBERIZED
ASPHALT
II
II
PETROSET
OVERLAY
11
VISCOSPIN
OVERLAY
II
INITIAL
DATA
(3)
89
76
81
74
88
83
73
83
78
88
82
SKID VALUES JUST PRIOR TO SPRAYING
WP1
(4)
95
91
98
95
93
88
92
85
83
WP2
(5)
84
81
80
82
84
70
73
90
90
WP3
(6)
81
95
81
90
87
86
96
76
80
WP4
(7)
89
93
97
95
89
79
87
75
90
WPS
(8)
85
93
94
88
88
93
93
74
90
WP6
(9)
89
98
85
85
92
88
94
76
90
WP7
(10)
95
98
97
94
93
94
91
81
88
WPS
(11)
99
98
85
96
92
96
92
87
88
COATING
(12)
PETROSET
NONE
K
J
G
F
C
B
NONE
L
I
G
F
C
B
L
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
OVERLAY
II
II
it
SPRAYED
VALUES
WP3
(13)
71
69
65
58
77
66
71
73
64
61
78
65
47
76
72
80
74
79
78
78
81
WP4
(14)
72
75
68
56
73
66
68
70
55
64
75
66
75
73
73
75
80.
80
73
77
Notes: HP = wheel path numbered from inside diameter of track.
Initial data temps: Air = 12°C, asphalt = 14°C and concrete = 15°C
Prior spraying temps: Air = 8°C. asphalt = 7°C and concrete = 7°C
Sprayed temps: Air = 6-1/2°C, asphalt = 7°C and concrete = 10"C
The Petroset on Section 1 was not dry enough for testing.
38
-------
TABLE 18. THE EFFECT OF SPRAYING OF FORMULATIONS ON SKID RESISTANCE NUMBERS (BPN)1
TYPE OF
PAVEMENT
MATERIAL
(1)
PCC
CL "B" AC
O.G. AC
SECTION^
(2)
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
22
FORMULATION
(3)
PETROSET AT
K
J
G
F
C
B
PETROSET AT
L
I
G
F
C
B
L
REDUCTION (-) OR INCREASE (+) IN SKID RESISTANCE NUMBERS (BPN)
WHEEL PATHS
#1
(4)
+ 8
-19
-28
-29
-35
-15
-25
- 2
-14
+13
-24
-21
- 7
-18
- 6
#2
(5)
+17
- 9
-10
-16
-26
+ 6
- 6
- 7
-20
-19
-30
-28
-14
-25
- 6
13
(6)
+20
-23
-11
-24
-28
- 8
-29
+ 7
- 7
- 5
-14
-19
- 2
- 5
- 6
#4
(7)
+12
-20
-21
-26
-32
- 5
-20
+ 8
-14
-12
-17
-26
-15
-24
- 6
15
(8)
+16
-20
-18
-19
-24
-15
-26
+ 9
-12
-10
-22
-28
-14
-24
- 6
16
(9)
+12
-20
- 9
-16
-24
-12
-27
+ 7
-13
-11
-23
-28
-14
-24
- 6
#7
(10)
+ 6
-20
-21
-25
-35
-18
-23
+ 2
-15
-13
-25
-26
-12
-22
- 6
#8
(11)
+ 2
-25
- 9
-27
-34
-19
-25
- 4
-17
-15
-27
-26
-12
-22
- 6
!A11 BPN corrected to 20°C.
2The non-treated sections have been excluded.
39
-------
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE
SECTIONS 1-10, IN BPN
VALUES FOR THE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
AND CORRECTED TO 20°C
SECTION
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
FORMULATIONS
(2)
PARAMETERS FOR
SKID RESISTANCE
VALUES
(3)
PETROSET AT AFTER SPRAYING1
AFTER TESTING2
CHANGE
SRCR3
NT1* AFTER SPRAYING
K
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES IN BPN AT 20°C
WHEEL PATHS
UT5
(4)
97
97
—
96
96
—
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
NT
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
J AFTER SPRAYING
; AFTER TESTING
G
86
86
—
—
90
90
—
81
81
CHANGE . ~
SRCR i --
AFTER SPRAYING
66
AFTER TESTING ! 66
CHANGE
SRCR • —
;/i
(5)
97
90
-7
-162
96
88
-8
-185
69
83
+14
+324
90
83
-7
-162
70
72
+2
+46
65
70
+5
+116
#2
(6)
97
79
-18
-416
96
67
-9
-208
69
67
-2
-46
90
69
-21
-486
#3 ! #4
(7)
97
74
-23
-532
96
72
-24
-555
69
75
+6
+139
90
76
-14
-324
70 ! 67
62
-8
-185
65
60
-5
-116
81
+14
+324
63
63
--
—
(8)
97
74
-23
-532
96
72
-24
-555
70
75
+5
+116
90
76
-14
-324
73
81
+8
+185
66
63
-2
-46
#5
(9)
97
87
-10
-694
96
80
-16
-1,111
69
75
+6
+416
90
#6
(10)
97
81
-16
-1,111
96
82
-14
-972
69
73
+4
+278
90
78 83
-12 j -7
-833
70
-486
70
76 ! 73
+6 +3
+416
65
71
+208
65
77
+6 ' +8
+416
+555
#7
(11)
97
81
-16
•1,111
96
79
-17
-1,180
69
75
+6
+416
90
90
~
70
74
+4
+278
65
69
+4
+278
#8
(12)
97
89
-8
-555
96
87
-9
-625
69
69
__
. —
90
94
+4
+278
70
76
+6
+416
65
60
+5
+347
CONTINUED
40
-------
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
SECTION
(1)
7
8
9
10
FORMULATIONS
(2)
F
C
B
NT
PARAMETERS FOR
SKID RESISTANCE
VALUES
(3)
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE •
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES IN BPN AT 20°C
WHEEL PATHS
UT3
(4)
54
54
—
--
78
78
_.
—
81
81
_.
—
88
88
—
--
n
(5)
55
75
+20
+463
74
73
-1
-23
64
71
+7
+162
88
69
-19
-440
12
(6)
55
62
+7
+162
74
64
-10
-231
64
63
-1
-23
88
61
-27
-625
#3
(?)
56
69
+13
+301
76
68
-8
-185
64
74
+10
+231
88
60
-28
-648
#4
(8)
54
69
+15
+347
7T
68
-3
-69
64
74
+10
+231
88
60
-28
-648
#5
(9)
55
76
+11
+763
74
78
+4
+278
64
74
+10
+694
88
75
-13
-902
16
(10)
55
66
+11
+763
74
77
+3
+208
64
73
+9
+625
88
76
-12
-833
#7
(11)
55
72
+17
H ,180
74
79
+5
+347
64
79
+15
H.041
88
79
-9
-625
#8
(12)
55
57
+2
+136
74
67
-7
-486
64
76
+12
+833
88
84
-4
-278
formulations were sprayed on after 3,793 wheel applications, which Is taken as zero
wheel applications.
2There were 43,224 and 14,408 wheel applications put on Wheel Paths 1-4 and 5-8, respectively,
after spraying.
3Skid resistance change ratio (SRCR) = (ABPN/WL) x 10'6
•W = not treated
5UT = untraveiled
41
-------
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE VALUES FOR THE CLASS "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE
SECTIONS 11-20.' IN BPN AND CORRECTED TO 20°C
SECTION
(1)
11
12
13
14
15
16
FORMULATIONS
(2)
PETROSET AT
NT1*
L
NT
I
G
PARAMATERS FOR
SKID RESISTANCE
VALUES
(3)
AFTER SPRAYING1
AFTER TESTING2
CHANGE
SRCR3
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES IN BPN AT 20°C
WHEEL PATHS
UP
(«)
81
81
..
—
81
81
—
—
79
79
._
--
83
83
._
—
87
87
—
—
70
70
—
«
fl
(5)
81
65
-16
-370
81
69
-12
-278
66
67
+1
+23
83
68
-15
-347
67
66
-1
-23
56
67
+11
+254
#2
(6)
81
71
-10
-231
81
81
—
--
66
76
+10
+231
83
79
-4
-93
67
75
+8
+185
56
74
+8
+185
13
(7)
81
68
-13
-301
81
57
-24
-555
67
68
+1
+23
83
62
-21
-486
69
68
-1
-23
60
58
-2
-46
14
(8)
81
68
-13
-310
81
57
-24
-555
64
68
+4
+93
83
62
-21
-486
66
68
+2
+46
51
58
+7
+162
15
(9)
81
62
-19
1319
81
66
-15
1041
66
67
+2
+139
83
64
-19
-1319
67
65
-2
-139
56
65
+9
+625
#6
(10)
81
62
-19
-1319
81
65
-14
-972
66
64
-2
-139
83
68
-15
-1041
67
67
—
—
56
63
+7
+486
#7
(11)
81
78
-3
-208
81
76
-5
-348
66
76
+10
+694
83
72
-11
-763
67
74
+7
+486
56
71
+15
+1041
#8
(12)
81
77
-4
-278
81
78
""J
-208
66
79
+12
+833
83
74
-9
-625
67
74
+7
+486
56
76
+20
+1388
CONTINUED
42
-------
TABLE 20 (CONTINUED)
SECTION
(1)
17
18
19
20
FORMULATIONS
(2)
F
C
B
NT
PARAMETERS FOR
SKID RESISTANCE
VALUES
(3)
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
AFTER SPRAYING
AFTER TESTING
CHANGE
SRCR
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES IN BPN AT 20°C
WHEEL PATHS
UT5
(4)
74
74
__
—
70
70
__
--
71
71
__
—
83
83
—
—
ll
(5)
58
63
+5
+116
72
67
-5
-116
61
67
+6
+139
83
66
-17
-393
#2
(6)
58
76
+18
+416
72
79
+7
+162
61
77
+16
+370
83
85
+2
+46
#3
(7)
57
67
+10
+231
74
65
-9
-208
61
65
+4
-93
83
70
-13
-301
#4
(8)
60
67
+7
+162
71
65
-6
-139
62
65
+3
+69
83
70
-13
-301
#5
(9)
58
72
+14
+972
72
77
+5
+348
61
71
+10
+694
83
72
-11
-763
#6
(10)
58
66
+8
+555
72
72
_.
—
61
75
+14
+972
83
74
-9
-625
#7
(11)
58
69
+11
+763
72
77
+5
+348
61
73
+12
+833
83
75
-8
-555
18
(12)
58
69
+11
+763
72
78
-6
-416
61
76
+15
HJD41
83
79
-4
-278
JThe formulations were sprayed on after 3,793 wheel applications, which is taken as zero
wheel applications.
2There were 43,224 and 14,408 wheel applications put on Wheel Paths 1-4 and 5-8, respectively
after spraying.
3Sk1d resistance change ratio (SRCR) = (ABPN/WL) x 10"6
"NT - not treated
5UT * untravelled
43
-------
TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE VALUES FOR THE THREE OPEN-GRADED ASPHALT
WHEEL
PATHS
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNTRAVELLED
bPEN-GRADED ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAYS
REGULAR
SECTION 21
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(2)
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
AFTER2
(3)
66
79
64
64
66
67
72
73
84
CHANGE
(4)
-15
- 2
-17
-17
-15
-14
- 9
- 8
+ 4
SRCRJ
(5)
-275
- 87
-311
-311
-824
-769
-494
-440
+ 73
POPULATION L
SECTION 22
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1*
(6)
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
AFTER5
(7)
67
82
69
69
71
67
73
74
75
CHANGE
(8)
-8
+7
-6
-6
-4
-8
-2
-1
0
SRCR
(9)
-185
+162
-139
-139
-278
-555
-139
- 69
—
REGULAR
SECTION 23
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(10)
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
AFTER2
(ID
67
83
61
61
64
60
65
74
84
CHANGE
(12)
-14
+ 2
-20
-20
-17
-21
-16
- 7
+ 3
SRCR
(13)
- 256
+ 37
- 366
- 366
- 934
-1.154
- 879
- 385
+ 55
wheel applications.
2After 18,201 wheel applications, 54,603 wheel applications on Wheel Paths 1-4, and 18,201 wheel applications on
Wheel Paths 5-8.
3Sk1d resistance change ratio (SRCR) = ABPN/WL x TO'6
''The formulation was sprayed on after 3,793 wheel applications, which 1s taken as zero wheel applications.
5There were 43,224 and 14,408 wheel applications put on Wheel Paths 1-4 and 5-8, respectively, after spraying.
-------
cn
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE VALUES FOR THE THREE RUBBERIZED ASPHALT
CONCRETE OVERLAYS. SECTIONS 24-26. IN BPN AND CORRECTED TO 20°C
WHEEL
PATHS
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNTRAVELLED"
RUBBERIZED ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAYS
5% RUBBER
SECTION 24
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(2)
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
AFTER*
(3)
71
78
66
66
72
72
72
75
81
CHANGE
(4)
-10
- 3
-15
-15
- 9
- 9
- 9
- 6
0
SRCR*
(5)
-183
- 55
-275
-275
-494
-494
-494
-330
--
10% RUBBER
SECTION 25
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(6)
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
AFTERZ
(7)
72
81
73
73
69
73
73
81
79
CHANGE
(8)
- 7
+ 2
- 6
- 6
-10
- 6
- 6
•f 2
0
SRCR*
(9)
-128
+ '37
-no
-110
-549
-330
-330
+110
--
S% RUBBER
SECTION 26
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(10)
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
AFTER*
(11)
68
74
58
58
79
71
73
81
83
CHANGE
(12)
-15
- 9
-25
-25
- 4
-12
-10
- 2
0
SRCR^
(13)
-275
-165
-453
-458
-220
-659
-549
-110
—
wheel applications.
2After 18,201 wheel applications; 54,603 wheel applications on Wheel Paths 1-4, and 18,201 wheel applications on
Wheel Paths 5-8.
3Skid resistance change ratio (SRCR) = aBPN/WL x 10'6
M0n1y one set of measurements before testing started were taken, and this was in Section 25. The BPN was 71, so the
BPN obtained from the untravelled areas were used for comparison purposes.
-------
TABLE 23, COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE VALUES FOR THE FOUR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAYS,
WHEEL
PATHS
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNTRAVELLED
PETWJSET A.C. OVERLAY
8.33%
SECTION 27
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE1
(2)
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
87
AFTER2
(3)
75
85
65
65
72
73
74
79
89
CHANGE
(4)
- 6
+ 4
-16
-16
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 2
+ 8
SRCR*
(5)
-no
+ 73
-293
-293
-494
-440
-385
-no
+ 15
25.0*
SECTION 28
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE
(6)
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
AFTER
(7)
68
38
66
66
73
70
72
79
88
CHANGE
(8)
- 8
+12
-10
-10
- 3
- 6
- 4
+ 3
+12
SRCR
(9)
-147
+220
-183
-183
-165
-330
-220
-165
+219
VlSCOSPIN A.C. OVERLAY
4%
SECTION 29
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE
(10)
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
AFTER
(11)
69
76
66
66
73
68
73
81
88
CHANGE
(12)
-15
-10
-20
-20
-13
-18
-13
- 7
+ 2
SRCR
(13)
-275
-183
.366
-366
-714
-989
-714
-385
+ 37
8%
SECTION 30
SKID RESISTANCE VALUES
BPN
BEFORE
04)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
AFTER
(15)
70
80
62
62
70
69
76
74
85
CHANGE
0*)
-10
0
-18
-18
-10
-11
-14
-16
+ 5
5RCK
(17)
-183
0
-330
-330
-549
-604
-769
-879
+ 92
'Zero wheel applications.
2After 18,201 wheel applications; 54,603 wheel applications on Wheel Paths 1-4, and 18,201 wheel applications on
Wheel Paths 5-8.
3SRCR « Skid resistance change ratio = (iBPN *WL) x ID'6.
-------
TABLE 24. WEAR RANKING SCALE BASED ON WATER BEADING CRITERIA
(BEAD WEAR RANKING NUMBER)
RANKING
SCALE
(1)
0
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
WATER BEADING CRITERIA
(2)
No beading
Very slight beading
Slight beading
Moderate beading
Good beading
Excellent beading
Superior beading
47
-------
TABLE 25. WEAR RANKING OF WSU TEST TRACK SECTIONS AT END
OF TEST BY HATER BEADING CRITERIA (BWR)1
TYPE OF
MATERIAL
(1)
PCC
CLASS "B" A.C
OPEN-GRADED
A.C.
RUBBERIZED
A.C.
ASPHALT
OVERLAYS
SECTION
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FORMULATION
CODE
(3)
PETROSET AT
NT*
K
NT
J
G
F
C
B
NT
PETROSET AT
NT
L
NT
I
G
F
C
B
NT
NT
L
NT
5%
10%
3%
PETROSET AT
PETROSET AT
VISCOSPIN
VISCOSPIN
WEAR RANKINGS
WHEEL PATHS
UTZ
(4)
1
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
4
1
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
0
4
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
#1
(5)
0
0
2
0
2
1.5
2
2
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
3
1
2
0
0
3
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
#2
(6)
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1.5
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
#3
(n
i
0
3
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
14
(8)
1
0
3
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
#5
(9)
1
0
4
0
3
2
1
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
3
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
16
(10)
1
0
4
0
3
2
1
4
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
4
3
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
#7
(11)
1.5
0
4
0
3
2
2
4
2
0
1
1
3
1
1
4
3
4
2
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
#8
(12)
1.5
0
4
0
3
2
2
4
3
0
1
1
3
1
2
4
3
3
3
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1It will be named Beading Wear Ranking Number or BUR.
2UT = untravelled
NT = not treated
48
-------
TABLE 26. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE CHANGE RATES (SRCR) WITH
BEADING WEAR RANKING (BWR) FOR PCC SECTIONS
SECTION
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FORMULATIONS
(2)
PETROSET AT
NT2
K
NT
J
G
F
C
B
NT
COMPARISON
OF WEAR
RATIOS
(3)
SRCR1
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
WHEEL PATHS
UT3
(4)
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
0
#1
(5)
-162
0
-185
0
+324
2
-162
0
+ 46
2
+116
1.5
+463
2
- 23
2
+162
2
-440
0
#2
(6)
-416
0
-208
0
- 46
1
-486
0
-185
1
-116
1
+162
1
-231
1
- 23
0
-625
0
13
(7)
-532
1
-555
0
+139
3
-324
0
+324
1
0 '
1
+301
1
-185
2
+231
1
-648
0
#4
(8)
-532
1
-555
0
+116
3
- 24
0
+185
1
- 46
1
+347
1
- 69
2
+231
1
-648
0
#5
(9)
- 694
1
-1,111
0
+ 416
4
- 833
0
+ 416
3
+ 416
2
+ 763
1
+ 278
3
+ 694
1
- 902
0
#6
(10)
-1,111
1
- 972
0
+ 278
4
- 486
0
+ 208
3
+ 555
2
+ 763
1
+ 208
4
+ 625
1
- 833
0
#7
(11)
-1,111
1.5
-1,180
0
+ 416
4
0
0
+ 278
3
+ 278
2
+1,180
2
+ 347
4
+1 ,041
2
- 625
0
18
(12)
-555
1.5
-625
0
0
4
+278
0
+416
3
+347
2
+139
2
-486
4
+833
3
-278
0
(Change 1n BPN at 20°C :- Number of Wheel Applications) x 10'6.
2NT = not treated
3UT - untravelled
49
-------
TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE CHANGE RATES (SRCR)
BEADING WEAR RANKING (BWR) FOR CLASS "B" A.C. SECTIONS
WITH
SECTION
(1)
FORMULATIONS
(2)
11 PETROSET AT
!
12 NT2
i
13
L
14 , NT
t
15 ; i
16 G
i
• 17 j F
18 C
19
20
B
NT
COMPARISON
OF WEAR
RATIOS
(3)
SRCR1
BUR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BUR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BUR
SRCR
BUR
SRCR
BUR
SRCR
BUR
SRCR
BUR
WHEEL PATHS
UT3
(«)
0
4
0
1
0
5
0
A
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
1
#1
(5)
-370
3
-278
1
+ 23
2
-347
0
- 23
3
+254
2
+116
3
-116
1
+139
2
-393
0
#2
(6)
-231
1.5
0
0
+231
2
- 93
0
+185
0
+185
1
+416
0
+162
0
+370
0
+ 46
0
13
(7)
-301
1
-555
0
+ 23
1
-486
0
- 23
0
- 46
1
+231
2
-208
2
- 93
1
-301
0
#4
(8)
-301
1
-555
0
+ 93
1
-486
0
+ 46
0
+162
1
+162
2
-139
2
+ 68
1
-301
0
#5
(9)
-1,319
1
-1 ,041
1
+ 139
2
-1,319
0
- 139
1
+ 625
2
+ 972
3
+ 348
4
+ 694
3
- 763
0
#6
(10)
-1,319
1
- 972
1
- 139
2
-1,041
1
0
1
+ 486
3
+ 555
2
0
4
+ 972
3
- 625
0
#7
(11)
- 208
1
- 348
1
+ 694
3
- 763
1
+ 486
1
+1,041
4
+ 763
3
+ 348
4
+ 833
2
- 555
0
#8
(12)
- 278
1
- 208
1
+ 833
3
- 625
1
+ 486
2
+1,388
4
+ 763
3
- 416
3
+1 ,041
3
- 278
0
JSRCR = (Change In BPN at 20°C : Number
2NT = not treated
3UT = untravelled
of Wheel Applications) x 10'6.
50
-------
TABLE 28. COMPARISON OF SKID RESISTANCE CHANGE RATES (SRCR) WITH
BEADING WEAR RANKING (BWR) FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAYS
SECTION
(1)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SECTION DESCRIPTION
OVERLAY
TYPE
(2)
OPEN-GRADED
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
RUBBERIZED
ASPHALT
PETROSET AT
%
OR F1
(3)
NT3
L
NT
5
10
5
8.33
i
25
i
<
i 4
VISCOSPIN
AC
8
COMPARISON OF
WEAR RATIOS
(4)
SRCR-"
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR -
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
SRCR
BWR
WHEEL PATHS
UT"
(5)
+ 73
0
0
4
+ 55
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
11
(6)
-275
0
-185
3
-256
0
-183
1
-128
2
-275
1
+ 15 ! -no
i i
+219 -147
2 ; i
+ 37 -275
1 1
+ 92 -183
0 0
#2
(7)
- 37
0
+162
3
+ 37
0
- 55
2
+ 37
2
-165
1
+ 73
1
+220
0
-183
0,
0
0
#3
(8)
-311
0
-139
3
-366
0
-275
1
-110
1
-458
1
-293
1
-183
1
-366
0
-330
0
#4
(9)
-311
0
-139
3
-366
0
-275
1
-110
1
-458
1
-293
1
-183
1
-366
0
-330
0
#5
(10)
-824
0
-278
3
-434
0
-494
1
-549
1
-220
1
-494
1
-165
2
-714
0
-549
0
#6
(ID
-769
0
-555
3
-1,154
0
-494
1
-330
1
-659
1
-440
1
-330
2
-989
0
-604
i °
#7
(12)
-494
0
-139
3
-879
0
-494
1
-330
1
-549
1
-385
1
-220
2
-714
0
-769
0
#8
(13)
-440
0
- 69
3
-385
0
-330
1
+110
1
-110
1
-110
1
-165
2
-385
0
-879
0
l% or F = Percent or Formulation
2SRCR = (Change in BPN at 20°C : Number of Wheel Applications) x 10-fl.
3NT = not treated
••UT - untravelled
51
-------
Beading/Wear Results
The mild winter resulted in the necessity for utilizing another measure for
the effectiveness of the formulations and the overlays. This measure was
the beading of water.9 Beading is an evidence of the wetting characteristics
of the substrate as the efficacy of the applied formulation changes over
time. The Test Track operation did not include application of either salt
or sand, therefore reduction in beading occurred as traffic wear progressed.
Frequent observations were made on each section, with natural or artificial
application of water to the surface. A wear ranking scale based on observa-
tions of beading was developed.
This scale is shown in Table 24. Ratings are stated in a Bead Wear Ranking
Number (abbreviated BWR). The final results are summarized in Table 25.
Such ranking is entirely subjective. It does, however, provide an indication
of the wear resistance of the hydrophobic substances.
For the portland cement concrete pavements, a ranking of traffic wear resis-
tance can be made. In order of most to least wear resistance, the following
ranking is obtained: K - Section 3, C-Section 8, J - Section 5, G - Section
6, F - Section 7, B - Section 9, and Petroset AT - Section 1, respectively.
Wheel Paths #1-4 showed more wear than Wheel Paths #5-8. This is expected
because there is three times the number of passes per revolution.
On the Class "B" asphalt concrete pavements, the traffic wear resistance in
the order of most to least wear resistance is: C - Section 18, F - Section
17, G - Section 16, B - Section 19, L - Section 13, I - Section 15, and
Petroset AT - Section 11, respectively. Here too, Wheel Paths #1-4 showed
the most wear. The studded tire in Wheel Path #2 caused more wear than the
truck garnet tires or the passenger garnet tire. The single tires in Wheel
Paths #5-8 did not abrade the formulations as rapidly as the inside tires.
On the open-graded asphalt sections, the formulation L appears to be more
resistant than when applied on the Class "B" asphalt - Section 13. Some
beading was noticed on the rubberized and Petroset asphalt overlays, but
almost none on the Viscospin sections. On the basis of BWR, very little
can be concluded as this criteria is not applicable.
A comparison of SRCR with BWR for the different overlays and formulations
has been tabulated in Tables 25-28.
Snow and Ice Removal Properties
These results are based on subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of
the various formulations and overlays in accelerating the removal of snow
and ice from the pavement surfaces. Observations after traffic simulation
operations were made of the snowy-icy conditions of the various pavements
after a snowfall or after the formation of ice. The apparatus was operated
in each case until there were noticeable differences in snow/ice conditions.
The amount of snow/ice removed by traffic was estimated for each section and
wheel path. A ranking was developed for each group of pavements - the
52
-------
Portland cement concrete, the Class "B" asphalt concrete, and the asphalt
overlays. Originally it was planned to use salt and sand-ice combinations to
compare their ice mitigation capabilties.
As mentioned previously, the lack of suitable weather minimized the number
of observations. Although there were many observations, only six were com-
plete with observations obtained on all sections. There was difficulty in
trying to estimate the amount of snow and ice removal. Time was a factor;
it was very important to evaluate conditions before the ambient temperature
increased.
The rankings of the various tests are shown in Table 29 for the Portland
cement concrete sections, Table 30 for the Class "B" asphalt concrete sec-
tions, and Tables 31 and 32 for the various asphalt overlays.
From Table 29, the ranking of the sections in order of "best" snow/ice re-
moval properties are 7, 6, 8, 9, 1, 10, 3, 2, 5 and 10. The best formula-
tions on portland cement concrete were F, G, C, B, Petroset, K and J re-
spectively.
On the Class "B" asphalt concrete pavements, the rankings as shown in Table
30 showed a slightly different ranking of the formulations than that obtained
from portland cement concrete. The section ranking was 16, 17 and 19, 18,
13 and 15, 20, 14, 11 and 12, respectively. The best formulations for snow/
ice removal properties were G, F and B about equal, C, L and I about equal,
and Petroset least.
The rankings of the asphalt overlays are shown in Tables 31 and 32. The
rankings were made between the same materials in Table 31, and between
different materials in Table 32. Sections 27-30 were also compared. The
overall ranking for all overlays shows that the best overlays with respect
to snow/ice removal properties were Sections 25, 26, 27, 24, 22, 28, 21, 30,
23 and 29, respectively. Overall the rubberized asphalt sections performed
the best with the Petroset asphalt sections next. The open-graded sections
did not perform as well as expected but the formulation did some good. The
Viscospin asphalt sections did not perform very well.
One observation noted was that the ice on the sections where formulations
were applied appeared to be softer and had less adhesion than the ice on the
untreated portions. Another observation was as the ice melted, the untreated
sections dried out more quickly than the treated sections. This was an
indication of the beading properties of the materials. On the open-graded
asphalt concrete sections, fine snow had a tendency to filter into the pores
of the mix and took longer to melt. In Section 23, some pumping of the
Palouse silt was noted. Since the pavement was not cracked, the pumping of
the silt was coming through the concrete base from the silt subgrade. This
indicates that this type of overlay should not be used over cracked bases or
used to prevent reflective cracking by itself.
The rubberized asphalt concrete sections were quite successful in acceler:
ating the removal of snow and ice. The flexibility apparently caused fatigue
cracking in the ice and thus weakened the ice bonds. This is shown in
53
-------
Figure 35. One problem with the rubberized asphalt concrete is that exces-
sive rubber will permit raveling which occurred in Section 25. Even though
it was superior to the other two rubberized pavements with respect to snow/
ice removal properties, its surface rapidly showed raveling which would dis-
qualify it for use on roads. This is shown in Figure 28.
Neither of the four asphalt overlays with Petroset AT and Viscospin evidenced
superiority. But one thing is evident, more is not necessarily better be-
cause the pavements with less additive frequently performed better than the
ones with more additive.
Tires do affect snow and ice removal. Table 33 shows the tire ranking
according to the most rapid snow/ice removal properties. The tires in Wheel
Paths #1-4 should be compared separately as these wheel paths had three times
the traffic of Wheel Paths #5-8. In the Wheel Paths #1-4, the ranking using
the wheel path numbering system, is as follows: #3, #1, #4 and #2, respec-
tively. The most effective tire was the inside driving truck garnet tread
truck tire and the least effective being the studded passenger tire in Wheel
Path #2. In Wheel Paths #5-8, the ranking was as follows: #5 and #6 being
about the same, then #7, and finally #8. The two types of passenger tires
were the most effective while the winter tire with F-32 rubber was the least
effective. It should be emphasized that the differences between tires were
not large. Further consideration should be given to the fact that the tires
(and wheels) were restrained in the transverse motion. The wander or
"sweeping" action of tires could affect this rating. It is reported for
information only and was not included in the ranking of the formulations.
Figures 15-36 show the appearance of various sections during various time
periods. These series of figures show the subtle differences between the
various sections, treated and untreated, and between the wheel paths. It
can be seen that there are differences.
Overall Comparison of Test Sections
Using the three criteria developed for ranking the different sections, an
overall ranking was calculated which is shown in Table 34. The three crite-
ria were Skid Resistance Change Rate (SRCR), Beading Wear criteria (BWR),
and Snow/Ice Removal criteria. Each was weighed equally and on that basis
an overall ranking was calculated for each pavement type.
On this basis, for portland cement concrete and in order of the most effec-
tive formulation, the ranking was as follows: formulation F, G and C about
equal, B and K about equal, J, and Petroset last. It can be seen that the
non-treated sections ranked low.
On the Class "B" asphalt concrete section, the formulations in order of most
effectiveness were ranked as follows: G, F, B, C, L, I and Petroset last.
The non-treated sections were ranked lowest.
Of the asphalt overlays, the rubberized asphalt sections and the Petroset
sections on overall ranking were superior to the other two types. It can be
seen that the untreated open-graded asphalt sections did not rank that well.
54
-------
The two Viscospin sections were not as effective and were accordingly ranked
low.
It can be concluded that the formulations on portland cement and asphalt
concrete do have effect on winter pavement conditions and therefore are
useful.
Comparison of Test Results with Laboratory Tests
The rankings obtained from the WSU Test Track were compared with laboratory
rankings based on ice-adhesion force. These are shown in Table 35. It can
be seen that the formulations F and G performed as predicted by laboratory
tests while formulation B exceeded the laboratory performances indicated.
Formulation C results were as predicted on the asphalt concrete with in-
creased performance on the portland cement concrete. In summary, the test
results indicate good conformance with the laboratory results.
Environmental Test Results
Laboratory test results by BBRC indicated that the main concern insofar as
environment and toxicity of the substances is the naptha component. This
is considered to be a solvable problem. (Discussion is included in Appendix
A).
Toxicity tests at the test track were of two types: water leachate from dried
material and leachate from newly applied material. With the exception of
Petroset, materials are not considered to be significantly toxic in either
mode. (Discussion is included in Appendix B).
55
-------
TABLE 29. RANKING OF PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SECTIONS ACCORDING TO
SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
SECTION
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FORMULATION
(2)
PETROSET
NTl
K
NT
J
G
F
C
B
NT
RANKING ACCORDING TO SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
RANKING FROM TESTS
01
(3)
2
4
8
7
9
1
3
6
5
2
#2
(4)
4
6
5
5
5
2
1
3
5
6
#3
(5)
7
10
4
9
6
2
1
3
5
8
#4
(6)
8
6
7
9
10
2
1
4
3
5
#5
(7)
4
8
4
7
4
2
1
3
5
6
16
(8)
1
4
3
5
5
2
1
1
1
4
OVERALL
(9)
5
8
7
10
9
2
1
3
4
6
not treated
TABLE 30. RANKING OF CLASS "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE SECTIONS
ACCORDING TO SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
SECTION
(1)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
FORMULATION
(2)
PETROSET
NT1
L
NT
I
G
F
C
B
NT
RANKING ACCORDING TO SNOW/ ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
RANKING FROM TESTS
#1
(3)
6
3
3
6
7
5
1
3
4
2
#2
(4)
4
5
5
6
6
2
5
1
3
5
#3
(5)
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
#4
(6)
9
8
7
4
3
1
2
5
6
10
#5
(7)
5
9
6
7
6
1
3
8
2
4
#6
(8)
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
OVERALL
(9)
7
8
4
6
4
1
2
3
2
5
*NT = not treated
56
-------
TABLE 31. RANKING OF ASPHALT OVERLAY SECTIONS ACCORDING TO
SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES AND SIMILAR GROUP
PAVEMENT
TYPE
(1)
OPEN-GRADED
AC
RUBBERIZED
AC
PETROSET
AC
VISCOSPIN
AC
SECTION
(2)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FORMULATION
OR AMOUNTS
ADDED
(3)
NT1
L
NT
5%
10%
5%
8.33*
25%
4%
8%
RANKING ACCORDING TO SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
RANKING FROM TESTS
#1
(4)
1
2
3.
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
#2
(5)
_
-
-
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
#3
(6)
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
#4
(7)
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
#5
(8)
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
#6
(9)
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
SIMILAR
GROUP
(10)
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
RANKING
BETWEEN
GROUPS
(11)
1
2
3
4
'NT - not treated
TABLE 32. OVERALL GROUP RANKING OF THE ASPHALT OVERLAYS ACCORDING
TO SNOW/ICE REMOVAL PROPERTIES
ASPHALT
OVERLAY
(1)
OPEN-GRADED
AC
RUBBERIZED
AC
PETROSET
AC
VISCOSPIN
AC
SECTION
(2)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FORMULATION
(3)
NT1
L
NT
5%
10%
5%
8.33%
25%
4%
8%
RANKING FROM TESTS
#1
(4)
2
3
5
4
1
4
1
6
7
8
#2
(5)
-
2
2
1
3
4
6
5
#3
(6)
3
2
3
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
#4
('?)
8
5
9
7
1
2
3
6
10
4
#5
(8)
8
6
7
3
1
2
4
5
10
9
#6
(9)
5
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
4
3
FINAL
(10)
7
5
9
4
1
2
3
6
10
8
JNT = not treated
57
-------
TABLE 33. TIRE RANKING ACCORDING TO MOST RAPID SNOW/ICE REMOVAL
TESTS
(1)
n
12
#3
#4
#5
#6
FROM ALL TESTS
RANKING IN WHEEL PATHS
11
(2)
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
#2
(3)
3
1
4
4
1
1
4
#3
(4)
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
#4
(5)
1
4
3
2
1
1
3
#5
(6)
5
6
8
7
2
2
5
#6
(7)
4
5
7
8
3
3
5
#7
(8)
6
7
6
5
4
4
6
18
(9)
7
8
5
6
5
5
7
Note: Ranking of 1 indicates most rapid snow/ice removal from tire
action. Test did not include wandering effect.
TABLE 35. COMPARISON OF TEST RANKINGS WITH
LABORATORY RESULTS RANKING
FORMULATION
(1)
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
L
RANKING1
BASED ON ICE-
ADHESION FORCE
(2)
8
4
2
1
5
7
6
3
1 OVERALL RANKING
PCC
(3)
3
2
1
2
MA2
4
3
NA
CLASS "B" AC
(4)
3
4
2
1
6
NA
NA
5
Table4, Appendix A
2Not applicable
58
-------
TABLE 34. OVERALL RANKINGS BASED ON THREE CRITERIA
WITH RESPECT TO PAVEMENT TYPE
PAVEMENT
TYPE
(1)
PCC
CLASS "B"
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
OPEN-GRADED
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
RUBBERIZED
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
PETROSET
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
VISCOSPIN
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
SECTION
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FORMULATION
(3)
PETROSET
NT1
K
NT
J
G
F
C
B
NT
PETROSET
NT
L
NT
I
G
F
C
B
NT
NT
L
NT
5%
10%
5%
8.33*
25%
4%
8%
RANKING ACCORDING TO:
SKID RESISTANCE
CHANGE RATE
(4)
9
10
4
7
3
5
1
6
2
8
9
8 -
4
10
5
1
3
6
2
7
7
2
10
5
3
6
4
1
9
8
BEADING WEAR
CRITERIA
(5)
7
NA2
1
NA
3
4
5
2
6
NA
7
NA
5
NA
6
3
2
1
4
NA
NA
2
NA
3
2
1
1
4
NA
NA
SNOW/ ICE
REMOVAL CRITERIA
(6)
5
8
7
10
9
2
1
3
4
6
7
8
4
6
4
1
2
3
2
5
7
5
9
4
1
2
3
6
10
8
OVERALL3
RANKING
(7)
5
7
3
6
4
2
1
2
3
5
8
9
5
9
6
1
2
4
3
7
6
3
8
5
1
3
2
4
8
7
NT = not treated
2NA = not applicable
31 = most effective
59
-------
Figure 15. Section 7, 01/20/77. Note the ice formations,
plastic plug used in run-off sampling and tests.
Figure 16. Section 6, 01/20/77. Note the ice formations
60
-------
Figure 17. Section 19, 01/20/77. Very little ice is visible.
Note color of the treated area.
Figure 18. Section 7, 01/26/77. Note formation of ice
beads and removal in wheel paths.
-------
--
Figure 19. Section 13, 01/26/77. Note ice beading
on the treated area.
Figure 20. Section 16, 01/26/77. Note ice beadii
62
-------
Figure 21. Section 25, 01/26/77. Note slush
outside the wheel paths.
• ..
Figure 22. Section 6, 01/31/77. Note difference
between the treated and untreated areas.
63
-------
Figure 23. 01/31/77. An overall view of Sections 7, 6, and 5.
Note difference between treated and untreated areas and wheel paths
Figure 24. Section 7, 01/31/77. Note difference
between the treated and untreated areas in the wheel paths.
-------
Figure 25. 01/31/77. An overall view of Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27
Note the difference between sections in the wheel paths.
Figure 26. 02/01/77. An overall view of Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20,
Note the subtle difference in ice formation and wear patterns.
65
-------
.
Figure 27. 02/01/77. A view of Sections 6-4 showing wheel paths
3-8 only. Note slush and ice removal by traffic in treated areas,
Figure 28. 02/08/77. Sections 24, 25 and 26.
Note the raveling of the pavement in Section 25,
66
-------
Figure 29. 02/08/77. A comparison of ice bead formations
between Sections 17 to 14.
Figure 30. 02/26/77. Overall view of Sections 8 to i
Note the lack of ice and snow in the wheel paths of the treated areas
67
-------
Figure 31. 02/26/77. Overall appearance of the three
open-graded asphalt Sections 21-23.
Figure 32. 02/26/77. Appearance of the three rubberized
Sections 24-26. Note ice clearance in wheel paths.
68
-------
Figure 33. 02/26/77. Sections 11 to 15 after a
snowfall and testing.
•
Figure 34. 02/26/77. Sections 30 to 27.
69
-------
Figure 35. Section 25, 03/13/77. Note the "fatigue cracking"
of ice in the wheel paths.
Figure 36. 03/13/77. Appearance of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Note the clear areas in the treated Sections 3, 5 and 6.
70
-------
REFERENCES
1. Rosenthal, P., F. R. Haselton, K. D. Bird, and P. J. Joseph. Evaluation
of Studded Tires Performance Data and Pavement Wear Measurement. NCHRP
Report 61. Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1969.
2. Krukar, M., and J. C. Cook. Studded Tire Pavement Wear Reduction and
Repair Phase 1, 2 and 3. WSHD Research Program Reports 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3.
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 1971-1974.
3. Smith, P. and R. Schoenfeld. Thoughts on Tolerable Pavement Wear. M.T.C.
Report No. RR179. Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Ontario,
May 1972, 9 pp.; Studies of Studded Tire Damage and Performance in
Ontario - Winter 1969-70. D.H.O. Report No. RR165. Department of High-
ways, Ontario, Canada, August 1970.
4. Road Surfaces and Studded Tires. Conference. Summary by European Tire
Stud Manufacturers Association "ETSMN". Nancy, France, April 14-15,
1976.
5. Terry, Jr., R. C. Road Salt, Drinking Water, and Safety. Ballinger
Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
6. Blight, G. E. Migration of Subgrade Salts Damage Thin Pavements. Trans-
portation Engineering Journal of ASCE, 102 (TE 4): 779-791, November
1976; Winter Damage to Road Pavements. Report of OECD Road Research
Group, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris,
France, May 1972.
7. One in Six U.S. Highway Bridges is Deficient. Engineering News-Record,
198(10): 18-21, March 10, 1977.
8. Murray, D.M. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact of Highway
Deicing. Paper presented at 56th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., January 1977.
9. Ahlborn, G. H. and H. C. Poehlmann, Jr. Development of a Hydrophobic
Substance to Mitigate Pavement Ice Adhesion. EPA-600/2-76-242, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976, 204 pp.
10. Giles, C. G., B. E. Sabey, and K. H. F. Cardew. Development and Perform-
ance of the Portable Skid-Resistance Tester. Symposium on Skid Resist-
ance. ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 326, 1962, pp. 50-74.
71
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Cook, J. C. Optimization and Testing of Highway Materials to Mitigate Ice
Adhesion. Proposal to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
State University and Ball Brothers Research Corporation, Pullman, Washington,
1976.
r
Murray, D. M. and U. F. W. Ernst. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental
Impacts of Highway Deicing. EPA-600/2-76-105, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
Poehlmann, H. C. and P. F. Scheele. Optimization and Testing of Highway
Materials to Mitigate Ice Adhesion. Proposal 5506-500, Ball Brothers Research
Corporation, Boulder, Colorado, 1976.
Ice Adhesion Tests. Test Report No. 76-569, Mauser Laboratories, Boulder
Colorado, December 1976, 6 pp.
Richardson, D. L., Charles Campbell, Raymond J. Carroll, David I. Hellstrom,
Jane B. Metzger, Philip J. O'Brien, Robert C. Terry. Manual For Deicing
Chemicals: Storage and Handling. EPA-670/2-74-033, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974.
Shaleen, D. G. Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution.
EPA-600/2-75-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
Richardson, D. L., Robert C. Terry, J. B. Metzger, R. J. Carroll. Manual
for Deicing Chemicals: Application Practices. EPA-670/2-74-045, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Amy, Gary and Robert Pitt. Water Quality Management Planning for Urban
Runoff. EPA-440/9-75-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Pitt, Robert and Gary Amy. Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface
Contaminants. EPA-R2-73-283, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
Murray D. M. and Maria R. Eigerman. A Search: New Technology for Pavement
Snow and Ice Control. EPA-R2-72-125, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1972.
Sartor, J. D. and Gail B. Boyd. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
Contaminants. EPA-R2-72-081, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972.
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Cincinnati. Urban Runoff Characteristics,
11024 DQU 10/70, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970.
72
-------
APPENDIX A
OPTIMIZATION AND TESTING OF HIGHWAY MATERIALS
TO MITIGATE ICE ADHESION
Ball Brothers Research Corporation Data Summary
in Support of WSU Project 115-3815-1483
on Contract 5884
73
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction 79
Formulations 80
Application Rates and Costs: Sample Calculations for Coatings . . 80
Application Rates and Costs: Sample Calculations for Overlays . . 84
Conclusion 85
Mixing and Storage Procedures 85
Application Procedures, Techniques, Limitations, Quantities, and
Costs 85
Application Procedures 85
Limitations 86
Application Rates 86
Costs 87
Ball Brothers Research Corporation Laboratory Test Data 92
Coating Contact Angles and Toughness 92
Environmental Contamination Test Data 92
Laboratory Sample Ice Adhesion Tests 92
Conclusion 95
Field Ice-Release Evaluations 95
LR 8198/DC 732 Data 95
LR 8652/DC 732 Data 99
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732 Data 99
Petroset AT (coating) 99
Test Track Overlays 105
Track Formulation Selection 105
LR 8196/DC 732 105
LR 8652/DC 732 105
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732 107
Petroset AT 107
Open-Graded Asphalt Coating 107
Conclusion 107
74
-------
Skid and Beading Data 107
f
Skid Number Discussion 108
Data From BBRC Test Locations 109
Application, Skid and Beading Data Summary for WSU Test Track . . Ill
Conclusion 119
Tentative Recommendations 119
Hauser Test Reports 120
75
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. Ball Brothers Research Corporation Asphalt and Concrete Test
Sites 89
2. Comparative Roughnesses of WSU and BBRC Asphaltic Surfaces ... 90
76
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Formulations and Coverage Rates 81
2. Paint Binder Composition Summary 82
3. Data Required for Application Rate and Cost Computations .... 83
4. Applied Quantities of Coating Materials 88
5. Coating and Application Cost Summary 91
6. Disc Contact Angles and Toughness Observations . 93
7. Environmental Test Data 94
8. Ice Adhesion Data 96
9. Core Ice Adhesion Data 97
s
10. Core Ice Adhesion Data 98
11. Core Ice Adhesion Data 100
12. Core Ice Adhesion Data 101
13. Core Ice Adhesion Data 102
14. Core Ice Adhesion Data 103
15. Core Ice Adhesion Data 104
16. Core Ice Adhesion Data 106
17. Asphalt and Concrete Skid Values and Water Beading 110
18. Effect of Aging on Skid Values and Beading at BBRC 112
19. Test Track Spray Coating Summary 113
20. Final Track Skid Data and Beading Observations Compared to
Reference Data 114
77
-------
TABLES
Number Page
21. Final Track Skid Data and Beading Observations Compared to
Reference Data 115
22. Final Track Skid Data and Beading Observations Compared to
Reference Data 116
78
-------
INTRODUCTION
The subject investigation is a continuation of the work reported in EPA publi-
cation 600/2-76-242, "Development of a Hydrophobic Substance to Mitigate Pave-
ment Ice Adhesion:; G. H. Ahlborn and H., C. Poehlmann, Jr.; EPA Storm and
Combined Sewer Section, Wastewater Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory (Cincinnati); Edison, N.J. 08817. This report will be
frequently referenced in the attached material (as EPA 600) with some data
abstracted for clarity in this presentation.
In order of presentation, data and descriptive material are given on the fol-
lowing topics:
1. A summary of the exact formulation of the mixtures as applied
including the composition of paint-derived formulas.
2. Mixing procedures and cautionary notes used in preparing the
formulations.
3. A discussion of the application procedures and techniques em-
ployed and their limitations. Presented are application rate
data, material costs, mixing and application costs, desirable
application conditions (temperatures, surface precleaning, etc.)
and hazards existing during application (such as flammability and
toxicity considerations).
4. Laboratory data generated at BBRC including fluid contact angles,
coating hardness estimate, coating environmental contamination
ratings and coating ice release stresses.
5. Field (real-life substrates) ice-release-coating data based
on BBRC and a few WSU test track pavement core samples.
6. Skid (slipperiness) data of the coatings on asphaltic and
concrete surfaces. The data are presented as:
a. BBRC site data, used as screening (ranking) factors
and to illustrate aging effects
b. WSU test track data, used to check
initial (unworn) coating skid values
radial and circumferential uniformity of the track surfaces,
comparative natures of BBRC sites and WSU track pavements
and to evaluate coating presence/absence after track
operation (i.e., coating durability)
79
-------
7. Suggestions for improvement of the coating mixtures as here
formulated.
FORMULATIONS
As stated in the basic contract, we were to optimize the more successful
coatings resulting from prior work (EPA 600). We remain of the opinion that
optimization of paint-derived (specifically, from Fed. Spec. TT-P-115D Typell)
binders shows great promise. However, scheduling restrictions in the current
work did not permit a rigorous optimization study. The Akron Paint formula-
tion LR 8652 was merely a "guess" at an improved version of the prior study's
paint binder (same as the LR 8198 used in the present work).
Table 4 (in main report) presents the exact formulation of the mixtures in-
vestigated and the application rates employed. Some materials were experi-
mental and were used only to gain further technical data for possible subse-
quent investigations. The absolute quantities cited for formulations A
through M plus formulation P were those used in coating the 1.7m2 (61 x 3')
asphalt and concrete field screening test sections at BBRC.
Table 2 lists the composition of the paint-derived binder formulations em-
ployed. Table 3 gives material characteristics necessary to compute applica-
tion rates (see Table 4) and total applied material costs (see Table 5).
Application Rates and Costs: Sample Calculations for Coatings
The application rates were computed as described in our earlier
report (EPA 600, pp. 86-88), with slight modification. As an
example, compute the application rate for Formulation G (Table 4,
main report).
LR 8652 = 415 cm3
VMP Naphtha = 312 cm3
Isopropanol = 15.5 cm3
DC 732 = 51.8 gm
We assume that, in mixing, the isopropanol and DC 732 do not signifi-
cantly increase the volume of the mixture and that the paint and
naphtha volumes are additive. From Table 3 data, we assumed the dried
film density of all formulations was p = 1.1 except for Petroset AT
where p = 0.8. The film thickness was assumed to be 0.01 cm except for
the Petroset AT where, this time, a film of 0.02 cm thickness was em-
ployed.
From EPA 600, for a 0.01 cm film:
A = O.lp/P
where A = required application rate, \/m2
p = film density, gm/cm3
P = mixture NVR, kg/t
80
-------
TABLE 4. FORMULATIONS AND COVERAGE RATES
FORMULATION
CODE
(1)
A
B
C
D
I
f
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
w
X
Y
z
PRINCIPAL INGREDIENT OTHER INGREDIENTS 4 AMOUNTS
NAME
(2)
LR 81961
LR 86522
ORISIL 73
PETROSET AT
GOODYEAR 533C
GOODYEAR 533B
DOW XR-5013
GOODYEAR VTL
VISCOSPIN B
VISCOSPIN B
VISCOSPIN B
PETROSET AT
PETROSET AT
AMOUNT
cm3
(3)
225
205
170
160
515
480
415
365
305
275
250
230
415
100
150
100
20
50
8%
M
25%
8.33%
DC732
?ms
4)
22.5
35.8
59.0
72.0
19.3
30.0
51.8
68.4
18.3
35.7
50.0
59.8
__
VMP NAPTHA
cm3
(5)
169
182
216
244
257
276
312
319
198
219
237
253
50
50
95
50
ISOPROPANOL
cm3
(6)
6.0
7.7
14.8
18.0
6.4
9.0
15.5
18.2
6.0
8.2
12.5
13.8
--
OTHER
NAME
(7)
DISTILLED H20
DISTILLED H90
XYLENE i
AMOUNT - cm3
(8)
138
100
5
I
!
[ OTHER INFORMATION
(9)
1
i
(LR 8652 + U CLAY)
(LR 8652)
SILICONS
(PAINT BASE)
% OF BINDER IN AC
% OF BINDER IN AC
% OF BINDER IN AC
% OF BINDER IN AC
APPLICATION
, RATE
•^ OR AS NOTED
m (10)
0.235
0.232
0.234
0.237
0.461
0.453
0.433
0.406
0.302
0.295
0.290
0.289
0.328
POURED ON META
SUBSTRATE
0.510
0.520
SPRAYED ON
SPRAYED ON
OVERLAY
00
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
:LR 8196 is Akron Paint Mod. TT-P-115 D (without Ti02).
2LR 8652 is Akron's Resin-Only Version.
Note: Table 1. Same as Table 4 in body of report.
Repeated here for convenience.
-------
00
INJ
TABLE 2
PAINT BINDER COMPOSITION SUMMARY
Component
Duramite
International X
Celite 110
Mineralite 3X
Bentone 38
Soya Lecithin
Methanol /Water 25/5
Pliolite VTL®
Polyvel G-110
Chlorowax 40
Shell Tolusol 19EC
Akron
LR 8198
220
55
88
60
5
8
2
112
37
37
351
Quantity
Goodyear
BX12J533A
220
55
88
60
5
8
2
112
37
37
355
in lbs./100
Akron
LR 8652
144
48
48
460
Gallons
Goodyear
BX12J533B
141
46
46
449
Goodyear
BX12J533C
10
16
4
211
69
69
349
®Goodyear trademark for vinyl-toluene/butadiene resins
-------
TABLE 3
DATA REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION RATE AND COSTva' COMPUTATIONS
(a)
Material
LR 8198
LR 8652
DRI-SIL 73
DC 732
VMP naphtha
Isopropanol
BX12J533B
BX12J533C
XR-5013
Pliolite VTL
Viscospin B
Petroset AT
C
Cost
in
209
209
316
694
65
211
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental (350?)
— (b)
154
92
P.
Non-Volatile
Content-kg/1
0.72
0.32
0.54
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.48
0.42
Solid = 1.03
1.00
0.65(0.60 vendor)(d)
P.
Estimated Film
Density-gm/cm3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
—
—
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
— (c)
0.8
Notes:
(a) Prices are 1976 values for relatively small quantities (55 gallon
lots or less). Price of LR 8652, especially, would drop for larger
quantities.
(b) Pliolite was used for lab testing only and was not priced.
(c) Viscospin B does not dry to a solid film so film density is not
meaningful.
(d) The non-volatile phase of Petroset AT consists of 18 pbw rubber
to 42 pbw oil (vendor data).
83
-------
For formulation G, and using Table 3:
P = 1.1
p _ 0.0518 + 0.415 (0.32) _ Q 254 ka/
0.413 + 0.312 y/1
AG = 0.1 (1.1)/0.254 = 0.433 t/m2
For cost, we use the formula:
Cost/area = Af/Vj z C-jVi
where Af = application rate, \/m2
Vy = total volume of formulation, t
G.J = cost of component i, t/\
V^ = volume of component i in Vj,^
For the same example:
Af » 0.433 x/m2
VT = 0.415 + 0.312 = 0.727t
0.433 (209 x 0.415 + 65 x 0.312 + 211 x 0.0155
Cost/area = 07727 + 694 x 0.0518)
= 87*/m2
In this case, the paint amounts to 60% of the cost. As mentioned, the
cost of this "paint" would drop greatly (up to 50% or more) in quantity
lots.
Application Rates and Costs: Sample Calculations for Overlays
The last four "formulations" in Table 4 (main report) involve incorpora-
tion of the component in the asphaltic overlay prior to application.
The computations are quite different.
The rates for Viscospin B and Petroset AT were suggested by the vendors
since no theoretical bases for selection existed. Per verbal informa-
tion from WSU:
Overlay density = 2323 kg/m3 (145 lbs./ft.3)
Overlay thickness = 0.038 1m (1.5 inch)
Weight fraction binder =0.06
Binder = 2323 (0.0381) (0.06) = 5.31 kg/m2
Knowing the densities of the as-received materials, namely:
Viscospin B = 0.98 kg/t
Petroset AT = 0.94
we can easily compute the material cost. These are:
Overlay W (8% Viscospin B) = 5.31 (0.08) (0.98)'1 (154)
= 67*/m2
84
-------
Overlay Y (25% Petroset AT) = 5.31 (0.25) (0.94T1 (92)
= 130<£/m2
Conclusion
Detailed formulation descriptions have been presented above. In addition,
the application rate computations and material cost estimates are illus-
trated. It can be seen in Table 4 (main report) that DC 732 concentra-
tions above and below those employed in the EPA 600 preliminary investi-
gation were examined in the current program. Although this does not
represent a definitive optimization study, the various concentrations
investigated seem to bracket the range within which the optimum concen-
tration of DC 732 would fall.
MIXING AND STORAGE PROCEDURES
Some notes on mixing procedures and cautions applicable to the Table 4 (main
report) formulations are presented below.
For the surface coating mixtures, little difficulty has been found in prepar-
ation - whether in liter or multiple gallon quantities. As with any paint,
the LR components should be thoroughly agitated prior to use. This is also
especially true of the Petroset AT (an emulsion). Mixing containers must be
clean and dry.
During preparation of the coating mixes, the naphtha, isopropanol and DC 732
are blended together and then combined with the binder (which has been blend-
ed with about 1/2 the total quantity of naphtha). The complete mix is then
thoroughly stirred and stored in a covered container (at temperatures above
4°C) until it is used. Since VMP naphtha is involved, adequate ventilation
must be provided and spark sources must be eliminated.
During preparation of the Petroset AT coating mix, the water used for dilu-
tion should be slightly acidic (pH = 5 to 7).
APPLICATION PROCEDURES, TECHNIQUES, LIMITATIONS, QUANTITIES AND COSTS
In this section are summarized the application procedures and techniques as
actually used, comments on their limitations, the actual quantities employed
in this investigation and the costs involved (material, preparation and ap-
plication).
Application Procedures
In applying any mixture, agitation just prior to spraying is advis-
able. As discussed in EPA 600, airless spraying (whether electric
or compressor powered) is the preferred method. Any other technique
(air suction spraying, painting, etc.) results in excessive evapora-
tion or loss of solvent with consequent poor penetration of either
substrate and poor adhesion to asphalt. In this work, Burgess Model
85
-------
VS-860 electric, airless, spray units were used for all operations
including test discs and plates, BBRC field tests and test track
coating applications.
For the test track, use of these rather small volumetric capacity units
resulted in longer application times, (meaning high costs) and more
difficulties with wind-distorted spray patterns than would occur with
higher-rate sprays. For the overlays, the required quantities were
incorporated during binder/filler dispersion.
Limitations
In this investigation and our EPA 600 work, the following conditions
have been found to be optimum during application:
Substrate Temperature: 5C to 15C
Lower temperatures result in poor penetration and slow cure rates
while higher temperatures result in poor adhesion (from solvent
evaporation) and increased f1ammabi1ity hazards.
Flammability
The VMP naphtha does, of course, create a potential flammability
problem.
Toxicity
The toxicity of the materials themselves is rather low. However,
as mentioned before, the VMP naphtha remains a minor toxicity
(and environmental) problem. The basic consideration on the part
of BBRC is that high-solid-content or water-borne equivalents of
these formulations are currently available (or are in final develop-
ment). Thus, these problem areas can be largely eliminated in the
near future.
Substrate Condition
In none of the field tests performed 2 years ago was any surface
preparation performed (cleaning, drying, etc.). In the current
work, the BBRC field tests were performed with no precleaning. At
WSU, the test track was swept but was rather damp during some appli-
cation sequences.
Wind
Above about 15 kpm, poor application has occurred. However, with
higher velocity spraying, this limitation can be reduced.
Application Rates
The application rates cited in Table 4 (main report) were used, for the
86
-------
most part, in applying the coatings to the BBRC asphalt and concrete
sections (1.7m2) and to the test track sections at WSU (4.5m2) treated.
The track asphalt was so rough that the application rate was increased
10% on these sections. The quantities applied are summarized in
Table 4.
In using this Table, the specific application locations are cited. This
is necessary in order to relate outside vendor test reports (on adhesion
of ice to core samples) and our own skid data to formulation codes.
In Figure 1, photographs illustrate:
a. A portion of the BBRC asphalt test area with the coatings applied.
b. A view of the BBRC sidewalk used as our concrete substrate.
Figure 2 illustrates the comparative roughnesses of different asphalt
surfaces. The left hand core is typical of the surface of the WSU
asphalt, while the right hand core with formulation J (from section N)
is typical of BBRC asphaltic surfaces. The differences in surface
roughness are evident.
Costs
Material costs are coded to the formulations and rates listed in Table
4 (main report). Sample computations have been given above based on
data presented in Table 3. We again emphasize that these costs are, as
of 1976, on the high side since actual program purchase costs for small
quantities were used in the calculations. The amount by which these
material costs could be reduced by volume purchasing is somewhere be-
tween 20 and 40 percent.
The mixing and application costs are estimated in two ways:
1. Small quantities as prepared for, and applied to, the test track.
2. Medium quantities such as might be used for treatment of a bridge
deck or all approaches of a hazardous intersection.
For the overlays, a flat 5
-------
co
CO
TABLE 4
Applied Quantities of Coating Materials
Formulation*
A
B
C
D
E
P
G
H
I
.1
K
1,
M***
0
P
W
X
Y
Z
BBRC (1.7m
Asphalt
Qty. Applied
(liters)
0.394
0.387
0.386
0.404
0.772
0.7S6
0.727
0.684
0.503
0.494
0.487
0.483
0.553
0.840
O.S80
Section
C
D
E
!;
G
tl
I
J
M
N
0
P
K
B
L
1 areas)
Concrete
Qty. Applied
(liters)
0 . 394
0.387
0.386
0.404
0.772
0.756
0.727
0.684
0.503
0.494
0.487
0.483
0.553
0.840
0.580
Section
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
11
2
12
Application rates a're given in Table 1
and discussed in Section 2.2
ii M H H it H
M ti H H H H
WSU Test Trt
Asphalt
Qty. Applied
(liters)
1.15
1.16
2.24
2.14
1.485
1.413
1.413
1.624
Section
19
18
17
16
15
13
22
11
30
29
28
27
ick (4.5m2 areas)**
Concrete
Qty. Applied
(liters)
1.04
1.05
2.04
1,95
1.323
1.305
1.476
Section
9
8
7
6
5
3
1
*Per Table 1
**As selected per discussion in Section 7
***For the Petroset AT, as applied to the track sections, the formulation was changed
(as discussed in paragraph 6.6.4) to:
o Asphalt section 11: 780 cm' Petroset/1170cm3 water
o Concrete section 1: 708 cm3 Petroset/1060 cm3 water
-------
la Asphalt
Ib Concrete
FIGURE 1
BBRC Asphalt and Concrete Test
Sites
89
-------
WSU Surface
BBRC Surface
FIGURE 2
Comparative Roughnesses of
WSU and BBRC Asphaltic Surfaces
90
-------
TABLE 5
COATING AND APPLICATION COST SUMMARY
Material Mixing-
-------
Further refinement of formulations, (e.g., water-borne materials) would
cost considerably less and reduce further the toxicity and flammability
problems associated with the majority of the formulations used in this
work.
BBRC LABORATORY TEST DATA
BBRC laboratory test results, together with a few comments, are summarized
in this section.
Coating Contact Angles and Toughness
The coating contact angles were measured as described and illustrated
in pp. 37-50 of EPA 600. Basically, the coatings were applied to the
surfaces of 52100 steel discs and subjected to high humidity (see
Table 6), after which the contact angles of water and oil droplets on
the coatings were measured with a Bausch and Lomb stereo microscope
using a Unitron goniometer (angle calibration) eyepiece.
The toughness ratings were qualitatively judged with a steel probe.
As discussed later, toughness has little to do with wear life on
real substrates.
These data are presented in Table 6. As cited in that table, all the
coatings except N indicate useful hydrophobicity (high contact angles).
Coating P, being a water-borne product, illustrates the remark made
earlier that such coatings with satisfactory properties (high contact
angle and good mechanical properties) currently exist, even though
for this application they are still regarded as experimental. In
Table 6, the coatings wetted by the oil are not necessarily to be
down-graded since this may indicate good adhesion to asphaltic surfaces.
Environmental Contamination Test Data
Environmental contamination tests were performed exactly as described
in pp. 77-79 of EPA 600. The remarks made in that report still are
applicable to these new data as presented in Table 6 (in main report).
The coatings were applied to aluminum plates, cured and tested per USEPA
methods. As pointed out in EPA 600, the test method gives pessimistic
values compared to what would be expected in real-life road-coating run-
off water (due to the small volume of water employed in the laboratory
evaluations). As expected, only the water-borne systems, Sample M
(Petroset) and Sample R (Viscospin), indicate any significant degree of
environmental hazard.
Laboratory Sample Ice Adhesion Tests
These laboratory evaluations were performed exactly as described for
series 1 and 2, pp. 51 and 55 of EPA 600. The coatings were applied
to steel plates, cured, and subjected to ice release (in shear) stress
measurements.
92
-------
TA15LL 0
Disc Contact Angles'1'
and Toughness Observations
Coating Code Vfater Contact '3l
and Appearance <2) Angle-Degrees
i
Control (no coating,)
A even but rough j
c !
|^ II " it
E j
I' uneven § "lumps"
H crazed
I uneven
K
L
N some orange peel
0 even
P crared ir. center '
Q very ever. j
K (Rpt. EPA 600)
J (Rpt. EPA 600)
58,57,60
122,110,108
106,106,105
100,103,90
98,33,91
87,85,93
Oil Contact
Angle -i'egrees
22
88,88(w) (*]
Toughness *•'
Comments
medium
66,50 soft
67,68 (w)
67,71 (w)
63,65
105,95,98 j b2,62 (w)
98,93,92 68,50,65
94,91,91 57,63,39
94,94,94 51,54
40,40,35. (w)(s)t7^ j 44,42'M
very soft
medium
hard
soft
medium ] fmaybe
very soft! not
very soft! ! ^J^
medium L
S5,92,90rt| 25,30i6) medium
85, S3, 86 ; 60
91,85,91
1 22
hard
medium
119,115,116
104,103,103
.Jtes: !A11 coated discs (non-corrosion resistant steel) subject to
70* R.H. at 45C for 24 hours before testing. None indicated
water vapor penetration of coating (no rust).
2Appearance must be related to non-porous nature of (steel) substrate.
3No particular trends noted between similar formulations (except A,C,D
"Qualitatively judged with steel probe.
5w = coating wetted by fluid.
5Note the drastic effect of a small amount of clay (compare N and 0).
7A11 coatings are considered usefully hyJrophobic except N.
93
-------
TABLE 6. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST DATA (HOUSER REPT. 76-498)
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
'As expected, Viscospin B (Coating R) was poor in these tests.
?Trends appear to be related to DC 732 content.
Note: Table 7. Same as Table 6 in body of report.
for convenience.
COATING
CODE
(1)
BLANK H20
SAMPLE
UNCOATED SHEET
A
C
0
E
F
H
I
L
R1
B(RPT. F75-18)
M(RPT. F75-18)
DC 732;'
(RPT. F75-18)
H n
CONTACT
ANGLE-DEGREES
LZJL . ...
64-, 68, 74
122, 119, 120
108, 93, 105
101, 107, 103
100, 100, 98
103, 99, 104
104, 106, 106
110, 91. 100
93, 102, 102
0
102, 106, 109
0
107, 108, 109
PH
. .(31..
5.86
6.66
7.05
7.16
7.09
6.02
5.89
5.97
5.82
5.88
7.65
6.98
6.10
5.90
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
gms
00
0.0027
0.0074
0.0051
0.0103
0.0115
0.0033
0.0015
0.0026
0.0068
0.0073
0.3420
0.0140
0.0183
0.0023
WT. %
OF FILM
_i5!
1.0
1.4
2.1
2.1
0.8
0.8
0.7
4.3
8«.0
0.7
1.3
4.6
BIOLOGICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(BOD)
(6)
3
6
11
9
10
4
4
4
6
4
252
5
22
3
CONSUMABLE
OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
(7)
11
16
25
25
25
n
11
14
18
13
791
15
84
16
Repeated here
94
-------
These data are presented in Table 7 (in main report). The notes at the
bottom of this table present the more important conclusions. In addition,
note that:
a. The coatings showing extensive removal (even though, per
note 1, that is perhaps not indicative of real life) are
the only ones containing clay in the binder (see note 6
at the bottom of Table 6).
b. Per the comment for Sample B, some of the coatings show
considerable improvement over the formulations investigated
previously (EPA 600) for identical test methods.
c. Graphical analysis at BBRC indicates no correlation of
contact angle with ice release force. This is not surprising
since tetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) shows a very high water
contact angle yet is poor in ice release as is discussed in
Section 2 of EPA 600.
Conclusion
Results of laboratory testing, i.e., real-life substrates not being
used in the current program have been summarized above. It is
emphasized that such testing is intended to:
a. Define the coatings.
b. Indicate possible trends with composition changes.
c. Eliminate obviously inferior materials, such as those showing
very low (less than 70°) contact angles.
d. Provide baseline data for new materials such as formulation P
not planned for immediate real-life tests.
FIELD ICE-RELEASE EVALUATIONS
This section presents the ice-adhesion data for the coatings applied to
asphaltic and concrete surfaces at BBRC and for selected cores (primarily
the overlays - formulations W, X, Y, and Z as listed in Table 4 (main text))
from the WSU test track. The 10 cm (4 inch) diameter cores at BBRC were
taken about 3 weeks after coating application. The WSU cores were obtained
about 3 weeks after application of the overlays and other asphaltic surfaces
to the WSU test track. A photo of two typical cores has been given in
Figure 2.
The ice-adhesion data were obtained exactly as detailed for test series 3
and 4, pp. 51-55, Report EPA 600, except that more combinations of tempera-
ture and strain rate were employed (see following tables). We consider the
data obtained at -5C and 0.5 cm sec T most representative of highway tempera-
tures and loading rates.
LR 8198/DC 732 Data
These data are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
95
-------
TABLE 7. ICE ADHESION DATA (METAL SUBSTRATE) (HOUSER RPT. 76-475)
ID
COATING
(1)
CONTROL PLATE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
0
P
Q
B(RPT. 75-18)
CONTROL PLATE
(RPT. 75-18)
J(ON A.C.,
RPT. 75-18)
WATEft CONTACT
ANGLE,
DEGREE
(2)
71, 76, 71
93, 112, 106
96, 103, 111
82, 88, 98
104, 80, 105
105, 99, 95
98, 103, 99
104, 90, 107
96, 98, 102
90, 96, 98
100, 90, 92
107, 101, 90
101, 101, 98
97, 94, 94
83, 83, 89
100, 96, 98
119, 117, 110
56, 65, 63
AVERAGE ICE
ADHESION:
FORCE - kg/cm2
(3)
9.2
8.3
4.1
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
2.4
3.0
2.5
1.7
7.4
3.4
4.8
2.1
7.6
5.2
RANGE OF
DATA
kg/cm2
(4)
5.5
5.0
4.1
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.7
2.3
3.4
1.1
6.4
6.7
3.5
3.3
4.6
4.0
FILM
APPEARANCE
(5)
Fairly smooth
Uneven, rough
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Uneven but smooth
Smooth
Uneven but smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Fairly smooth
Fairly smooth
Smooth but uneven
Fairly smooth
COMMENTS
(6)
85$ of coating removed in one spot
70% coating removed
60% coating removed - 3rd release
Large portion of coating removed
30* coating removed ^ 3rd release
Lowest value found for a formulated
coating in prior contract
Source: Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 1976.
Comments: 1. Coating removal from metal plates is not indicative of pavement performance (where solvent
"binding" occurs on asphalt and mechanical pore locking occurs on concrete).
2. Some trends are evident. C appears about optimum for LR 8196/DC 732. H appears optimum for
LR 8652/DC 732 but coating smoothness variations may dominate. The DRI-SIL 73/DC 732
foundations show an Inverted curve and core results are needed to reach any decision.
Note: Table 8. Same as Table
convenience.
7 in body of report. Repeated here for
-------
BASIC SUBSTRATE Asphalt
TABLE 9
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
MAUSER I.AB, REPORT 76-569
All Values in leg cm"2
COATING CATEGORY
8198/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
A No coating, control
C A
D B
E C
F D
REFERENCE DATA
Table 8
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control
A
B
C
D
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE Rpt. EPA 600
B (metal substrate)
Control (asphalt)
B (asphalt core)
-5C, Scm/sec
X
14.55
M2.09
*12.60
M0.92
Ml. 93
12.35
7.30
fweathi
£ronL h j
R
6.68
11.47
8.15
12.14
6.33
4.01
9.28
red cores
ghwayj
-12C, 0. Bern/sec
X
•12.67
7.24
13.59
* 9.91
*11.90
9.2
* 8.3
* 4.1
* 1.9
* 2.1
2.1
13.45
9.6
R
8.08
3.16
8.08
1.91
2.74
5.5
5.0
4.1
0.6
0.8
3.3
5.09
3.6
-5C, 0.05cm/sec
X
14.66
* 5.88
A 8.43
6.14
•10.16
R
6.26
0,72
3.78
4.86
9.56
-12C, 0.05cm/sec
X
15.47
*10.81
12.40
* 7.98
* 8.55
R
5.06
4.85
8.23
3.93
10.31
X«numeric average of data
R=range (spread, max-min) of data
* « portion of coating removed with ice
-------
00
TABLE 10
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
MAUSER LAD, REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"2
BASIC SUBSTRATE
Concrete
COATINO CATEGORY
LR 8198/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
1 Control, no coatinp
3 A
4 B
5 C
6 D
REFERENCE DATA
Table 8
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control
A
B
C
n
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE Rpt, Hl'A 600
Control (concrete)
B (concrete substrate)
-5C, Scm/sec
X
13.15
M3.37
*10.47
8.36
* 7.40
R
3.94
7.24
9.77
12.68
8.21
-12C, 0. Scm/sec
X
11,17
6.38
7.58
9.85
6. OS
9.2
* 8.3
* 4.1
* 1.9
* 2.1
12.95
7.6
R
6.4Z
4.46
8.08
7.44
8.95
5.5
5.0
4.1
0.6
0.8
3.48
7.7
-SC, O.OScm/sec
X
14.7tf
* 7.59
* 6.60
* 6.93
4.56
R
0 .70
7.26
1.08
2.14
2.43
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.33
*10.74
* 9.77
* 9.58
* 5.54
R
Z.BT
11.54
11.86
9.29
5.64
X»numeric average of data
R-range (spread, max-min) of data
•* portion of coating removed with ice
-------
Table 9 presents data on asphalt cores. The spread in the data are
rather wide and the adhesion reduction effected by the coatings is not
impressive. For this particular paint, partial removal seems to be a
fact of life - whether on roadway material or metal substrates. However,
the older data, (from Report EPA 600), indicate that either aging or
real highway use changes the coating to a more cohesive condition.
Table 10 presents similar data for the formulations applied to concrete.
Trends with composition are more obvious and agreement with older data
is better than for the asphalt substrate. Removal is still a problem.
BBRC has developed an hypothesis on how this removal might be entirely
prevented. However, no proof is currently available due to the elimi-
nation of the paint optimization phase of the current program.
LR 8652/DC 732 Data
These data are presented in Tables 11 and 12. Trends are much more
pronounced and the reduction in adhesion is much more impressive. As
in Table 9 and 10, substrate smoothness (cores versus metal) appears
to have a drastic effect on shear adhesive strength of ice.
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732 Data
These data are presented in Tables 13 and 14.
In Table 13 an inverted trend is indicated (at -5C and 0.5 cm/sec)
with formulation 1 (least DC 732) and formulation L (most DC 732)
showing the lowest adhesion. As in the case of most other data, sub-
strate smoothness has a drastic effect and weathering (aging) appears
to improve the coating.
For concrete in Table 14, the trend line is somewhat more normal and
the adhesive strength reduction is slightly more than for asphalt with
this coating.
Petroset AT (Coating) Data
These data are presented in Table 15. Taken as a whole (all four
conditions), the current tests indicate that the Petroset has little
effect on concrete. Petroset on asphalt does indicate some benefit.
The older data indicate that the 3X application rate used in the cur-
rent series (compared to that used in 1974) is too high and that
about the same benefit (under the -12C, 0.5 cm/sec condition) can be
obtained on asphalt and concrete at the lower rate. Statistically, we
can make no judgment regarding the -5C, 0.5 cm/sec data.
The overlay data (see Test Track Overlays) corroborate the above. The
high concentration overlay is equivalent to 1.33 kg of Petroset/m2.
The track cores appeared to have many closely spaced voids of about
0.5 cm (0.2 inch) diameter each. Thus,, the whole top 0.2 inch thick
porous layer of the overlay surface can be considered to be exposed.
99
-------
o
o
BASIC SUBSTRATE Asphalt
TABLE 11
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
HAUSER LAB, REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"2
COATING CATEGORY
LR 8652/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
A Control, no coating
G E
H F
I G
J 1!
REFERENCE DATA
' Table tt
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control
E
F
G
H
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE
-SC, 5cm/sec
X
14.55
5.56
3.88
3.70
5,68
R
6.68
0.59
3.11
1.43
7.25
-12C, O.Scm/sec
X
12.67
4.41
5.12
3.70
5.65
9.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
R
8.08
4,65
2.00
0.79
4.61
5.5
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.4
-SC, O.OScm/sec
X
14.66
5.21
4.20
3.27
4.21
R
6.26
2.43
1.43
1.50
0.90
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.47
6.02
4.59
3.13
4.43
R
5.06
2.65
1.22
1.69
2.40
X-numeric average of data
R-range (spread, max-min) of data
-------
BASIC SUBSTRATE
Concrete
TABLE 12
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
MAUSER LAB. REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"2
COATING CATEGORY
LR 8652/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
1 Control, no coating
7 E
8 F
9 G
10 H
REFERENCE DATA
Table 8
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control
E
F
G
H
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE
-5C, 5cm/sec
X
13.15
7.72
6.71
5.24
4.86
R
3.94
6.76
1.72
1.08
1.54
-12C, O.Scm/sec
X
11.17
6.27
4.57
3.75
4.48
9.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
R
6.42
3.47
3.73
2.86
2.90
5.5
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.4
-5C, O.OScm/sec
X
14 .78
6.46
5.05
4.56
3.70
R
0.70
2.15
2.15
1.55
0.79
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.33
7.89
S.25
5.77
6.17
R
2.81
1.91
1.39
1.80
1.47
X°nuineric average of data
R=range (spread, max-min) of data
-------
o
ro
BASIC SUBSTRATE Asphalt
TABLE 13
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
HAUSHR LAI). REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"2
COATING CATEGORY
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
A Control, no coating
M I
N J
0 K
P L
REFERENCE DATA
Table 8
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control plate
I
J
K
L
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE Jlpt. EPA 600
Control, no coating
J
-5C, Scm/sec
X
14.55
8.95
12.65
10.56
8.46
(weatht
12.35
4.53
R
6.68
11.64
6.96
4.43
8.18
red cores
4.01
4.99
-12C, 0. Scm/sec
X
12.67
8.11
9.01
11.53
8.49
9.2
2.4
3.0
2.5
1.7
)
13.45
5.2
R
8.08
3.47
10.91
4.92
10.83
5.5
0.7
2.3
3.4
1.1
5.09
4.0
-5C, O.OScm/sec
X
14.66
9.92
8.93
9.56
7.18
R
6.26
7.70
9.19
1.34
2.77
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.47
9.35
10.33
6.53
9.39
R
5.06
4. SO
6.75
3.92
3.16
X«numeric average of data
R*range (spread, max-min) of data
-------
o
GO
BASIC SUBSTRATE Concrete
TABLE 14
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
MAUSER l.AB. REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm*2
COATING CATEGORY
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
1 Control, no coating
13 I
14 J
15 K
16 L
REFERENCE DATA
lable 8
SOURCE Metal Substrate
Control plate
I
J
K
L
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE Rpt. EPA 600
Control, no coating
-5C, Scm/sec
X
13.15
10.67
10.56
7.72
8.98
R
3.94
8.42
14.15
4.50
3.54
-12C. 0. Scm/sec
X
11.17
11.79
13.97
5.38
6.15
9.2
2 .4
3.0
2.5
1.7
12.95
R
6.42
3.02
4.36
1.65
4.39
5.5
0.7
2,3
3.4
1.1
3.48
-5C, O.OScm/sec
X
14.78
7.86
7.13
6.99
6.09
R
0.70
4.36
1.57
4.33
1.25
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.33
12.16
12.74
8.87
12.27
R
2.81
8.79
5.41
4.88
6.47
X=numeric average of data
R-range (spread, max-min) of data
-------
BASIC SUBSTRATE Noted below
TABLE 15
CORE ICF. ADHESION DATA
MAUSER LAB, REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"2
COATING CATEGORY
Petroset AT
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
A Asphalt control
K M(Petroset on asphalt)
1 Concrete control
11 M(Petroset on concrete
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE Rpt. EPA 600
Asphalt control
Petroset on asphalt
(1/3 application rate abc
Concrete control
Petroset on concrete
(1/3 application rate abc
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCH
)
ve)
ve)
-SC, Bern/sec
X
14.55
11.65
13.15
12.32
12.35
12.00
R
6.68
4.78
3.94
4..01
4.01
4.71
-12C, O.Scm/sec
X
12.67
11.60
11.17
14.18
13.45
10.6
12.95
10.1
R
8.08
6.61
6.42
3.52
5.09
4.5
3.48
6.9
-SC, O.OScm/sec
X
14.66
10.14
14.78
14.38
R
6.26
5.98
0.70
3.94
-12C, O.OScm/sec
X
15.47
13.41
15.33
15.78
R
5.06
2.67
2.81
4.36
X«numeric average of data
R=range (spread, max-min) of data
-------
For a 1.5 inch thick overlay, this results in a 0.2/1.5 fraction of the
total quantity of Petroset being exposed, which is equivalent to 1.33
(0.2/1.5) or 0.18 kg Petroset/m5. This is quite close to the 0.24 kg
Petroset/m2 used as a coating in the current tests.
Test Track Overlays
These data are given in Table 16. Surprisingly, the lower concentra-
tions of Petroset and Viscospin show the most improvement. For the
extremely rough surface of the track overlays, the results for Z and
X are impressive - especially when compared to the absolute values
shown for some of the other coatings. The values for Z and Y confirm
the observations from Table 15 regarding excess Petroset quantities.
No comparative values are available for asphalt surfaces as rough as
the test track A.C. substrate (roughness was confirmed by the skid
slipperiness values cited in the following section). The track
asphalt also appears to be poorly compacted since these were the only
cores from which substrate material was removed during ice adhesion
tests.
TRACK FORMULATION SELECTION
From the above data and the data presented below, the specific formulations
to be evaluated on the test track were selected. The selection procedure
and rationale are presented below.
LR 8196/DC 732
Asphalt: Formulations B and C
Concrete: Formulations B and C
From Tables 9 and 10, formulations C and D are indicated from core
data. However, from the metal substrate data, D is higher in adhesion
than C. Also, from Table 6, D is considerably softer (and presumably
less abrasion resistant) than. C. Formulations B and C appear to
represent the best compromise between minimum ice adhesion, reasonable
abrasion resistance, and minimum contamination potential (Table 7).
LR 8652/DC 732
Asphalt: Formulations F and G
Concrete: Formulations F and G
The formulations for use on asphalt are straight-forward selections of
the best formulations from the core ice adhesion data.' On concrete, H
is suggested from core data. However, from Table 6 you can see that H
is soft and crazed (cracked) when applied to the contact angle discs.
Both F and G are marginal in skid resistance as tested here but would
be more satisfactory on the rougher test track.
105
-------
o
en
BASIC SUBSTRATE _Asnlialt
TABLE 16
CORE ICE ADHESION DATA
HAUSLR LAB, REPORT 76-569
All Values in kg cm"*
COATING CATEGORY Test Track Doped Overlays
Table 4 Table 1
Section Formulation
Identification Code
25 Rubberized A.C.
27 Z(8,l/3* Petroset)
28 Y(2 «5t Petroset)
29 X(4t Viscospin B)
30 W(B4 Viscospin B)
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE
REFERENCE DATA
SOURCE
-5C, Sen/sec
A
*10.49
9,00
13.74
6.95
10.30
R
6.05
3,02
6.26
8.97
4.64
-12C, 0 , Scm/sec
X
8.89
11.16
14.29
*11.81
10.15
R
8.71
13,01
4.99
3.80
2.67
-SC, 0.05cm/sec
X
8.42
12,86
12.99
9.20
14.06
R
3,92
1,90
7.24
9.76
5.06
-12C, 0.05cm/sec
X
* 9.21
12.32
15.84
14,68
16.24
R
2.32
4.64
3.59
2.46
1.69
X-nutneric average of data
R-range (spread, max-min) of data
* » core material removed with ice
-------
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732
Asphalt: Formulations I and L
Concrete: Formulations J and K
The asphalt selection is a straight-forward matter from the core ad-
hesion data. Why the minimum and maximum DC 732 concentrations should
appear optimum on asphalt is not clear. Solvent action on the asphalt
binder combined with partial separation of the components may be an
explanation.
For the concrete, the selection of J in preference to L may not be
apparent. However, L is much softer than J and more expensive. L is
quite soft (and would be more readily destroyed by the quite abrasive
concrete debris) and nearly equal to J in ice release under three of
the four test conditions. Finally, J (specifically on concrete) has
held up very well in a light traffic location for nearly three years.
Petroset AT
This material was applied to one section each of asphalt and concrete
in an amount of Petroset AT per area that was 1/3 that used in Table 1.
The dilution rate in the present application was also changed to one
part Petroset AT to 1-1/2 parts water. This duplicates the applica-
tion rate for the reference data of Table 15, where at least a slight
improvement in ice release was noted.
Open-Graded Asphalt Coating
It was desired to apply one coating to the open-graded asphalt (track
sections 21,22, and 23). Formulation L was selected on the bases of
its superior ice release ability (Table 13) and the fact that, for
this highly porous substrate, penetration would make its softness
(Table 6) relatively unimportant.
Conclusion
"Real life" substrate ice release data have been summarized above.
These data were the primary criteria used in selecting the formula-
tions evaluated on the WSU track. Although they are (presented in
this report) somewhat out of chronological order, the formulation/track
location positions as finally selected per this Section have been in-
cluded earlier in Table 4 in order to present all applicaiton rate data
in one place. Assuming counterclockwise rotation of the tire arms rela-
tive to the track, the positioning and spacing of the formulations were
such as to minimize tracking of chemicals from one treated section to
another. Observed tracking and cure time data from EPA 600 were used
to make these judgments.
SKID AND BEADING DATA
Quantitative skid (slipperiness) measurements and qualitative beading (the
107
-------
tendency for water to form high contact angle droplets on surfaces) observa-
tions are summarized in this section. The first subsection, Skid Number
Discussion, presents our statistical analysis method for the skid data (i.e.,
do the recorded data represent real differences?). It also presents the
real-life significance of the skid numbers. The second subsection, Data
from BBRC Test Locations, summarizes the skid/beading data obtained from
the BBRC test areas (Figures la and Ib) used primarily for screening test
decision making. The third subsection presents skid/beading data from the
WSU test track surfaces. Judgments on coating wear life (durability) and
degree of coating penetration into the pavements (also indicative of effective
life) are inferred in some cases from the track data.
Skid values can be employed to infer the presence of the coating. Beading
observations serve a similar function.
Skid Number Discussion
Skid numbers are proportional to the frictional loss of energy as a rub-
ber "shoe" quickly slides across the pavement surface. Thus, the higher
the numbers the higher the frictional loss and the less slippery (i.e.,
less danger of automotive skids) the surface. The apparatus is shown
in Figure 4-14 of EPA 600. As an approximate guide, values of critical
interest are:
Skid value > 65: satisfactory for all driving conditions
Skid value < 45: unsatisfactory for most driving conditions
Skid value of 9 to 17: typical of ice near its melting point.
The value of 45 thus represents a considerable improvement over ice-
coated roads. The value of 65, however, is regarded as nearly manda-
tory by most state highway departments.
In our programs, three duplicate measurements are made for every aver-
age quoted in our presentation. We need to know the statistical varia-
tion in these measurements (i.e., what is the relationship between the
measured average and the true average should, say, 100 measurements be
made?). From the literature (Applied Statistics for Engineers; W. Volk;
McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1958.), we can estimate from the range of the three
sample measurements the range of values which will include the true
average. For the measurements at BBRC, the range of the three numbers
is about 2 and for the test track the range is about 3 in most cases.
Thus:
BBRC: 20 = 2.4
Track: 2a = 3.6
Simply put, if we run an infinite number of groups of three averaged
measurements each at one location, each average will be:
BBRC: average = true ±2.4
Track: average = true +3.6
108
-------
96% of the time. Finally, this means that, in comparing two average
skid values, we can say (with 96% confidence) that they are truly differ-
ent if the absolute value of their difference is:
For BBRC data > 4.8
For track data > 7.2
Data From BBRC Test Locations
Table 17 gives a sampling of data from BBRC obtained during the recent
optimization, initial test track values (not reported in subsection 3)
and a few values for comparison from EPA 600. From this table, note
that:
a. As would be expected from Figure 2, the skid values confirm that
the test track pavement surfaces are far rougher than corres-
ponding substrates at BBRC. Compare an average BBRC value of
71 for asphalt with an average of over 81 at WSU. This is
approaching twice the difference required for significance given
in subsection 1. The difference in concrete values of 78 to 85
also indicates significant difference. This means that we can-
not compare BBRC data with WSU data due to differences in
pavement roughness.
b. While it is discussed in more detail in subsection 3, note
that the track pavement varies significantly from section to
section (75 to 88 for asphalt and 77 to nearly 90 for concrete).
This means that we cannot assume constancy of roughness around
the track for a given pavement type.
c. From the BBRC site data, it is apparent that beading and skid
values shown.no correlation. Coating and substrate interact
differently to affect each parameter.
d. The effect of DC 732 in the formulations is quite unexpected.
This material, by itself, exhibited a value of about 44 on
asphalt in our EPA 600 work. No particular trend is apparent
with increasing concentration of DC 732 in Dri-Sil 73 (Formu-
lations I, J, K and L). However, in LR 8652, DC 732 appears
to increase skid resistance with increasing concentration (E,
F, G and H). These observations merely illustrate that formula-
tion component/substrate interactions are extremely complex and
not a matter of additive property contributions.
e. The majority of the formulations do not create a severe skid
hazard. Formulation 0, the Goodyear version of Akron LR 8652,
was checked only for information. The Petroset AT (Formulation
M) values on asphalt seem to contradict the earlier data.
However, the concentration was three times that used in the
EPA 600 work. As discussed earlier, too high a concentration
of this material is harmful to both ice release and skid resis-
tance and the application rate was cut back for coating track
109
-------
TABLE 17
Asphalt and Concrete Skid Values
and Water Beading'
Coating Code
Control .uncoated
A
B
C
D
E3
F3
G3
H3
I
J
Asphalt Values
at BBRC at
27C .iiys/76
70,72,72
68,69,68
68,68,67
68,68,70
63,62,63
44,43,44
49,50,49
58,60,58
62,60,60
73,73,73
65,65,64
K ' 71,72,72
L , 67,67,68
M"
0
i 47,46,46
30,50,30
P ' 53,52,53
Concrete Values
at BBRC at
240^11/5/76
78,78,79
66,66,66
70,69,68
70,70,69
65,65,65
48,48,48
54,53,55
Beading at BBRC
During Snow at 5C
Asphalt
none
good
v.good
v.good
v.good
ex'lent
ex'lent
58,56,58 tx'lent
56,55,57 iex'lent
74,74,75 tex'lent
74,75,75 'ex'lent
i '
74,75,75 ex'lent
! 78,78,78 ex'lent
; 62,62,62 hone
40,38,58 'none
56,58,57 v.good
Concrete
none
some
some
good
good
ex'lent
ex'lent
ex'lent
ex'lent
some
some
good
Skid Values
at WSU
Track2at 14C
/leading during
Skid Tests
x~J.l/?/76
good ;
none
good
ex'lent
w ; i
Y
•" f
I
Rubberised A.C.
Open-graded A.C.
Three AC sections
Three P.C.C.
sections
B(Rpt. EPA 600)
J(Rpt. EPA 600)
M(Rpt. EPA 600) '
60,61,60,61
(ISC)
68,63,68,69
C30C)
65,65,67,67
C40C)
76,77,76,77
C30C)
ex'lent
67,67,68,68 [fair
(32C) 1
63,63,63,63
(30C)
good
•:83,83,83/none
:88,88,87/none
;78,78,78/some
i83,83,84/none
!72,73,74/some
^83,84,83/none
J87,87,89
'77,74,73
j82.82.80
76,76,78
89,90,90
88,88,87
ex'lent
ex'lent
fair
Notes: 'Beading: tendency for water to form droplets on surface with high
contact angles.
2Extremely rough surfaces on test track confirmed by high skid values.
'Unexpected trends (such as E,F,G,H)exist but are similar to core
ice adhesion results (TabLes J.1 and 12).
"Petroset AT" applied at 3 times tne applicatioa rate as in prior work.
110
-------
Sections 1 and 11.
Table 18 illustrates the effect of two months environmental exposure of
the coatings on skid resistance and beading (water resistance). Expo-
sure to air and sunlight appear to have no effect on water resistance.
This agrees with the EPA 600 observations. The change in skid resis-
tance is more complex, a) The skid resistances of the Dri-Sil 73/DC 732
mixtures (Formulations I, J, K, L) as a group improve with age and the
initially slippery Petroset AT improves dramatically. This latter ob-
servation indicates that the need for caution in driving on surfaces
treated with Petroset AT (high concentration) exists for at most
two months, b) The skid resistances of the LR 8652/DC 732 formulations
(E, F, G, H) appear nearly unchanged (for the lower DC 732 concentra-
tions) or slightly improved. The greatest improvement is on concrete
where the acetic acid liberated by the DC 732 would be immediately
neutralized. This neutralization would accelerate cure, c) The LR
8196/DC 732 formulations (A, B, C, D) remain essentially unchanged on
concrete but perhaps degrade on asphalt. Long term migration of a
component in the LR 8196 to the surface may be responsible.
Application, Skid and Beading Data Summary for WSU Test Track
For the record, Table 10 (in main report) presents the specific weather
conditions and the time phasing present during application of the coat-
ints to the 4.5m2 (4 ft. x 12 ft.) areas of each treated section on the
track. The 12 foot dimension of the test sections spanned the entire
radial width of the track pavement.
The position of the treated area within each section was adjusted so
as to include the holes in which the runoff water contamination samples
were collected.
Assumptions and General Observations
Tables 20, 21, and 22 summarize the test track skid and beading data
at three points in time for each section:
a. Late April after 18,000 track revolutions
b. Mid-January just after coating application per Table 10 (main
report)
c. Mid-January just prior to coating application with 4000 track
revolutions on the newly applied asphalt and overlays.
As pointed out previously, the track roughness (for a given type
of pavement varies so much in a circumferential direction that
general section-to-section comparisons cannot be made. However, it
does appear that:
In the same wheel path on the same substrate, the roughness is
comparable from section to section judging from the before-
coating skid values. A few exceptions to this rule exist (see
Table 20, sections 9 and 10, W.P. 2; Table 21, sections 12 and
18, W.P. 5 and 6).
Ill
-------
Effect of Aging on
TABLE 18
Skid Values and Beading at BBRC
Asphalt
10/22/76
COATING CODE 20C
Skid
Values
Uncoated Control 72
A 69
B 70
C 69
D 69
E 45
F 48
G 46
H 53
I 74
J 65
K 66
L 64
M 44
0 30
P 48
Beading
(0)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
C5)
(5)
(5)
(S)
CO)
CO)
C4)
Asphalt
12/29/76
18C
bkid
Values
77
63
68
63
63
40
47
S3
60
73
73
74
70
63
31
56
beading
(0)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(S)
(5)
(S)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(0)
(0)
(4)
Concrete
10/22/76
15C
bkid
Values
83
68
68
68
65
48
52
46
55
80
79
77
74
56
40
56
Beading
CO)
C2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
CO)
(3)
(5)
Concrete
12/29/76
15C
Skid
Values
90
68
65
68
68
48
58
58
62
85
82
78
79
68
39
59
Beading
(0)
(2)
C2)
(3)
(3)
(S)
(S)
(S)
CS)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
CO)
(3)
(S)
a) value are averages of three readings with a maximum range of 2 units.
b) beading code: 0 - none
1 * very little
2 - some
3 = good
4 = very good
5 - excellent
112
-------
TABLE 10
TEST
FORMULATION QTY. APPLIED TRACK
LITERS SECTION
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
L
Petroset AT
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.04
.15
.05
.16
.04
.24
.95
.14
.48
.32
.30
.41
.41
.62
.48
9
19
8
18
7
17
6
16
15
5
3
13
22[c)
11
l(d)
TRACK SPRAY COATING SUMMARY
DATE
# APPLIED
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/18/77
1/17/77
1/17/77
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/18/77
1/18/77
TIME (a)
APPLIED
1230
1730
1230
1730
1230
1730
1230
1730
1100
1230
1230
1100
1000
1730
1730
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1930
-1530
-1530
-1930
AIR TEMP.
°C (b)
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
8
6
6
8
6
2
2
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to -1
to 5
to 5
to -1
TRACK SURFACE
TEMP. °C
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
16
8
8
16
8
4
2
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
Notes: (a) At 0800, 1/18/77, track was damp and was flame dried. At 1100, 1/18/77,
high winds stopped operations until 1730.
(b) Measured relative humidity was between 80% and 100% during all
spraying operations.
(c) Formulation L was selected for the open graded asphalt on section 22
as having the best chance on this very porous surface.
(d) Petroset AT appeared to penetrate poorly on section 1.
Note: Table 19. Same as Table 10 in body of report. Repeated here for
convenience.
-------
TABLE 20
FINAL TRACK SKID DATA AND BEADING OBSERVATIONS^COMPARED TO REFERENCE DATAfbJ
TRACK
SECTION TYPE/TREAT.
1 PCc}Petroset
2 PCC/None
3 PCC/K
4 PCC/None
5 PCC/J
6 PCC/G
7 PCC/F
8 PCC/C
y PCC/B
10 PCC/None
GARNET
SNOW
91(0)
95
89(0)
84(2)
91 .
84(0)
73(2)
98
72(1.5)
95
76(2)
93
74(2)
72(2)
92
69(0)
W.P.2
STUDDED
SNOW
80(0)
D4
68(0)
68(1)
at
69(0)
63(1)
92
61(1)
63(1)
84
64(1)
64(0)
61(0)
NO
TRAVEL
98(1)
97(0)
87(5)
91(0)
82(5)
JS .,
67(5)
55(5)
78(5)
76
82(5)
89(0)
W.P.354
GARNET
TRUCK
75(1)
73(0)
76(3)
'1 to 72
15 to 93
77(0)
82(1)
>9 to 75
64(1)
;5 to 68
>0 to 95
70(1)
58 to 5
87 to 8.
69(2)
77 to 7
86 to 7
74(1)
66 & 66
60(0)
W.P.5 W.P.6
"SOFT" ,CAR, WINTER
88(1) 82(1)
85 S.S ,
81(0) 83(0)
76(4) 74(4)
93 SS.
80(0) 84(0)
77(3) 74(3)
94 85
72(2) 78(2)
99 95
77(1) 67(1)
99 92
79(3) 78(4)
93 88
75(1) 74(1)
93 94
75(0) 76(0)
W.P.7 W.P.8
STD. .WINTER CAR
82(1.5) 91(1.5
gfi 99
80(0) 88(0)
76(4) 70(4)
98 _^?9
91(0) 95(0)
75(3) 77(3)
97 85
70(2) 61(2)
94 96
73(2) 58(2)
93 92
80(4) "" 68(4)"
94 96
80(2) 77(3)
91 92
79(0) 84(0)
SURFACE TEMPS
COMMENTS
)
16C
' ' 18C ' '
(a) Numbers in ( ) indicate beading code: 0 - zero beading, 1 « very slight beading, 2
3 - good beading, 4 - good to excellent beading, 5 - excellent beading
(b) Top line in each section: 4/26-4/27/77 data (temperature indicated at right)
2nd line " " " : 1/19/77 data just after coating application (concrete IOC, asphalt
3rd line " " " : 1/17/77 data just prior to coating (surface - 7C)
(c) W.P. » wheel path numbered from inside of track
(d) PCC • Portland Cement Concrete
fair beading,
7C)
-------
TABLE 21 (a) (b)
FINAL TRACK SKID DATA AND BEADING OBSERVATIONS COMPARED TO REFERENCE DATA
TRACK
SECTION TYPE/TREAT.
11 AcH*etroset
li AC/None
13 AC/L
14 AC/None
IS AC/I
16 AC/C
17 AC/F
18 AC/C
13 AC/B
20 AC/None
w.p.ic)
GARNET
SNOW
63(3)
67(0)
85
-~&>~&1
66(0)
64(3)
64(2)
61(3)
65(1)
83
n$4 "(2)
•"6370)
W.P.2
STUDDEr
SNOW
69(1.5)
79(0)
90
74 (2]
77(0)
73(0)
72(1)
74(0)
77(0)
90
76(0)
82"(6)
NO
TRAVEL
79(4)
79(1)
81
77755
81(1)
84(5)
?4.
67(5)
71(5)
68(5)
68(5)
88
-62TTJ-
88
W.P.354
CARNKT
TRUCK
66(1)
55(0*)
'6 to ?5
66(1) '
'1 to 68
60(0)
65(0)
f3 to 70
1 56(1)
>4 to 55
615(2)"
>1 to 64
63(2)
7B to 75
10 to 90
63 (1)
>5 to 66
"68(0)"
W.P.5 W.P.6
"SOFT", CAR, WINTER
60(1) 60(1)
64(1) 63(1)
74 7B
65(2) 62(2)
62(0) 66(1)
63(1) 65(1)
63(2) 61(3)
W) " " "64T2T
75(4) 70(4)
90 90
"76T3) 7"3C3)"
ToToy ~"72~(o7
W.P.7 W.P.8
STD. .WINTER CAR
76(1) 75(1)
73(1) 78(1)
81 87
74(3) 77(3)
70(1) 74(1)
72(1) 72(2)
69(4) 74(4)
67(3) ' 67[3)
75(4) 76(3)
88 88
71T2) 75 (3 J
T4'(o) "7?'(OT
SURFACE TEMPS
COMMENTS
7§8 much rougher
28C
34C
34C
(a) Numbers in ( ) indicate beading code: 0 * zero beading, 1 • very slight beading, 2 - fair beading,
3 » good, beading, 4 » good to excellent beading, 5 = excellent beading
(b) Top line in each section: 4/26 - 4/27/77 data (temperature indicated at right)
2nd line " " " : 1/19/77 data just after coating application (concrete IOC, asphalt • 7C)
3rd line " " " : 1/17/77 data just prior to coating (surface - 7C)
(c) W.P. » wheel path numbered from inside of track
(d) AC • asphaltic concrete
-------
TABLE 22 (a) (b)
FINAL TRACK SKID DATA AND BEADING OBSERVATIONS COMPARED TO REFERENCE DATA
TRACK
SECTION TYPE/TREAT.
21 Open AC/None
Graded
22 Open AC/L
23 Open At/None
24 RubberizedTCTNone
25 Rubberized AC/None
26 Rubberized AC?None
27 Overlay ./8 -l/3Pet,
28 Overlay /25 >et.
i$ Overlay /4 Vised
30 Overlay '/8 Visco
w.p.ic]
GARNET
SNOW
67(0}
6T(3r
6ti(uy
7firr
72(2)
68(1)
73(1)
emy
oTffuT'
69TOT
W.P.2
STUPDEE
SNOW
80(0)
83T3) ""
TRW-
iwr-
81(2)
74(1)
84(1)
gfT&T
"Wr
79(6)
NO
TRAVE
85(0)
76(4)
83
-reroj
83
-8TC2J
79(2)
.2L
83(1)
88(1)
P .
87(2)
?a
87(0)
J?«
84(0)
82
W.P.3S4
, GARNET
TRUCK
64(0)
'"76|3)
47 to ?
~ 5100""
76 to 75
• excellent beading
(b) Top line in each section
2nd line " "
3rd line " "
(c) W.P. * wheel path numbered from inside of track
4/26 - 4/27/77 data (temperature indicated at right)
1/19/77 data just after coating application (concrete IOC, asphalt - 7C)
1/17/77 data just prior to coating (surface * 7C)
-------
The radial direction uniformity is quite poor - again judging
from the before-coating data. We cannot, therefore, judge coat-
ing/tire-type effects from skid data.
We can assume that the degree of beading is indicative of the
presence of the coating.
Beading on untraveled sections can be used as a baseline for
at least some coating remaining - compared to untreated beading
and final beading observations.
Where reasonable beading remains and skid value has changed
significantly, good pavement penetration is indicated.
Portland Cement Data
Table 20 summarizes the Portland Concrete pavement data. Our
conclusions are as follows:
Petroset AT:
1. Material appears to protect substrate from the severe wear
caused by the studded snow tires noted on virtually every
other section.
2. Penetration, in general, looks good.
3. Dri-Sil 73/DC 732 (Sections 3 and 5):
For wear resistance and penetration, Formulation K appears
slightly better than J.
LR 8652/DC 732 (Sections 6 and 7)
1. Formulation G is equal or superior to F in most cases.
LR 8198/DC 732 (Sections 8 and 9)
1. Based on beading observations, Formulation C is clearly
superior to B.
2. Both of these formulations appear better than F and G -
somewhat of a surprise based on our tests. Wear resis-
tance obviously can only be evaluated by real-life testing.
Asphaltic Concrete Data
Table 21 summarizes the data on Asphaltic Concrete. Our conclu-
sions are as follows:
Petroset AT (Section 11):
Comparing Sections 11 and 12, no specific trends are evident.
The "no travel" data do again suggest the tendency for this
material to become more effective with exposure.
117
-------
Dri-Sil 73/DC 732 (Sections 13 and 15):
1. Based on beading observations, Formulation L is superior to
Formulation I with no significant difference in skid resis-
tance.
2. From the "no travel" data, skid resistance does not deterio-
rate with time.
LR 8652/DC 732 (Sections 16 and 17):
1. Based on beading, Formulations F and G are about the same.
2. Formulation G may present a slightly greater skid hazard
but significance here is limited to the garnet truck tire
wear path.
LR 8198/DC 732 (Sections 18 and 19):
1. Based on beading, Formulation C is marginally better than B.
2. No significant difference in skid hazard exists in skid
measurements for the two formulations.
3. Penetration is poor, based on the studded snow tire data.
Overlay and Other Track Section Data
Table 22 summarizes the data for the remaining sections and the
overlays. Our conclusions are as follows:
Formulation L on open graded asphalt (Section 22):
1. As would be expected, excellent penetration is indicated.
2. Virtually no change in beading occurred with wear.
3. Though not statistically significant, skid resistance is not
degraded by this particular formulation/pavement-type com-
bination.
Petroset AT Overlays (Sections 27 and 28):
1. On a skid basis, no difference exists between the two over-
lay concentrations.
2. Based on beading data, we must rank the higher concentration
superior. This contradicts ice release data (Table 16).
Viscospin B Overlays (Sections 29 and 30):
1. Since Viscospin B remains water soluble for extended periods
(the reason it is not used for coating purposes), no judg-
ment can be made from beading observations.
2. No significant difference exists in skid values for the two
concentrations.
118
-------
Track Data Conclusion
Test track skid and beading data have been presented. In most cases,
differences in the characteristics of similar formulations (same com-
ponents) can be detected. It remains to determine what, if any,
correlation exists between these differences and the snow/ice adhesion
observations made by WSU personnel.
TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Whether the WSU pavement is abnormally rough or not, longer duration
tests are required (perhaps with intermittent coring and ice-adhesion tests)
to determine the real-life durability of the coatings and overlays.
2. We feel that one further modification of the LR 8198 paint could produce
impressive results.
3. More investigation of the overlay incorporation technique is indicated.
119
-------
HAUSER TEST REPORTS
H
LABORATORIES
MM CMfUI.Ml M.MII MKMH.CMHUM Mltl'fH IN-Wl-WU
October 27, 1976
Test Report No. 76-475
CLIENT;
MATERIALS:
TEST:
RESULTS:
Ball Brothers Research Corporation
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Attention: George Ahlbom
P.O. No. 15585
Sixteen coated steel plates supplied and identified by client.
Ice Adhesion in Shear. Two teflon rings 0.50 inch I .D. by 0.25 inch high
were located on each plate, filled with water, then frozen. These speci-
mens were allowed sixteen hours temperature soak at approximately 10°F.
Specimens were tested by attaching a 0.025 inch diameter, nylon jacketed,
steel cable to the upper or fixed crosshead member of a tensile test machine.
The cable was looped around the teflon ring. Then the specimen plate
attached to the moveable crosshead member was pulled away at a crosshead
rate of 0.50 cm/seconds (11.8 inch/minute). Load was measured by a 500
pound load cell with electronic readout to an X-Y recorder. Tests were con-
ducted at precisely -12° + 1°C. This procedure was repeated with three tests
at each location.
Remarks
Coating
No.
A 1
A3
A4
Force Shear Strength
Sequence IBs. psi
la
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3o
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
22.1
26.0
33.2
27.9
27.0
17.6
14.7
12.3
16.5
16.6
30.1
28.9
16.6
7.75
16.3
15.0
17.0
7.25
113
133
169
142
138
89.8
75.0
62.8
84.2
84.7
154
147
84.7
39.5
83.2
76.5
86.7
37.0
rust severely under coating on test side
rust severely under coating on test side
RESULTS FROM DESIGN AND RESEARCH
120
-------
76-475
Coating
No.
A6
A9
A 11
A 12
A 15
A 16
Sequence
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
So-
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
Force
Ibs.
4.90
6.15
4.00
6.55
13.3
22.5
3.65
3.00
2.40
1.45
2.65
1.95
14.7
17.8
12.8
9.95
. 6.40
7.50
8.00
5.60
7.05
6.00
11.8
12.1
14.7
19.0
28.7
23.0
27.8
26.0
5.65
6.10
5.85
5.95
4.70
4.40
Page 2
Shear Strength
25.0
31.4
20.4
33.4
67.9
115
18.6
15.3
12.2
7.40
13.4
9.95
75.0
90.8
65.3
50.8
32.7
38.3
40.8
28.6
36.0
30.6
60.2
61.7
75.0
96.9
146
117
142
133
28.8
31.1
29.8
30.4
24.0
22.4
October 27, 1976
Remarks
30% coating removed, 15% damaged *
20% coating removed, 10% damaged "
coating marked but not
coating marked but not
70% coating amoved,
40% coating removed,
85% coating removed,
60% coating removed,
10% coating
80% coating
20% coating
85% coating
55% coating
20% coating
25% coating
30% coating
45% coating
45% coating
60% coating
removed, 20%
removed, 80%
5% damaged
20% damaged
5% damaged
5% damaged
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
removed,
30% damaged
5% damaged
10% damaged
5% damaged
15% damaged
5% damaged
5% damaged
10% damaged
5% damaged
5% damaged
5% damaged
121
-------
Test Report No. 76^*75 Page 3 October 27, 1976
Force Shear Strength
Sequence Ibs. psi Remarks
A 17 la 7.10 36.2 40% coating removed, 2% damaged
lb 4.95 25.3 25% coating removed, 10% damaged
2a 5.65 28.8 50% coating removed, 10% damaged
2b 5.60 28.6 60% coating removed, 5% damaged
3a 6.10 31.1 55% coating removed, 5% damaged
OL 5.20 26.5 65% coating removed, 5% damaged
3b
A 18 la 2.20 11.2
lb 2.50 12.8
2a 3.00 15.3
2b 3.15 16.1
3a 4.50 22.9
3b 4.55 23.2
A 19
la
lb
2a
2b
3a
3b
3.40
2.35
3.55
1.75
6.35
3.25
17.3
12.0
18.1
8.93
32.4
16.6
A 20 la 1.30 6.63
lb 1.90 9.69
2a 1.50 7.65
2b 2.45 12.5
3a 1.95 9.95
3b 2.50 12.8 20% coating damaged but not removed
A 21 la 7.75 39.5
lb 6.05 30.9
2a 5.75 29.3
2b 5.90 30.1
3a 7.70 39.3
3b 7.10 36.2
A 22 la 5.05 25.8
lb 2.90 14.8
2a 6.55 33.4 15% coating removed, 10% damaged
2b 4.10 20.9
3a 12.5 63.8 35% coating removed, 5% damaged
3b 10.9 55.6
122
-------
Test Report No. 76-475 Page* October 27, 1976
Remarks
Coating
No.
A 23
Force Shear Strength
Sequence Ibs . psi
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
4.35
3.40
4.35
4.15
6.55
•6.10
22.2
17.3
22.2
21.2
33.4
31.1
*
Coating peeling in areas other than test area.
Tests Supervised and Certified By:
_
Dr. Ray L. (Mauser, Research Director
123
-------
H
LABORATORIES
Novembers, 1976
Test Report No. 76-498
III CilTMlAVt. P.O.MIC. MUlOt«.COigUDO IHfl•». Ill-44].» II
CLIENT: Ball Brothers Research Coiporation
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Attention: George Ahlbo n P.O. No. 15584
MATERIAL: Ten 3 inch by 6 inch coaWd coupons, E prefix *1, E #7-15.
TESTS: pH, Total Solids, BOD, and COD.
METHOD: Per US EPA.
RESULTS: Samples were soaked 48 hours in 800 ml distilled water per sample. Tests
were performed on portions of the water solutions. Blank was treated in a
manner identical to the samples. pH of Blank was less than 7.0 due to ab-
sorbed
Total Solids —
rng/l i te r
— --
Blank
E 1
E7
E8
E9
E 10
E 11
E 12
E 13
E 14
E 15
5.86
6.66
7.05
7.16
7.09
6.02
5.89
5.97
5.82
5.88
7.65
0.0027
0.0074
0.0051
0.0103
0.0115
0.0033
<0.0015
0.0026
0.0068
0.0073
0.342
>D (5 day at 20°)
3
6
11
9
10
4
4
4
6
4
252
COD
11
16
25
25
25
n
11
14
18
13
791
Tests Supervised By:
Dr. T. D. Ziebarth, Chief Chemist
RESULTS FROM DESIGN AND RESEARCH
124
-------
H
CLIENT:
MATERIALS:
TESTS:
RESULTS:
\LJ S
LABORATORIES
December 14, 1976
No. 76-569
Ball Brothers Research Corporation
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Attention: George Ahlborn
P.O. No. 15655
Fourteen concrete and nineteen asphalt pavement cores, supplied and
identified by client.
Ice Adhesion Shear Tests were devised to duplicate as nearly as possible the
test conditions in previous tests of adhesion to coatings on pavement cores.
(Test Report No. 74-343)
After cooling cores to proper temperature, two teflon rings 0.50 inch I .D.
by 0.25 inch high were located on each core, filled with distilled water,
and then frozen. The cores were allowed approximately 16 hours tempera-
ture soak at proper temperature . Specimens were tested by attaching a 1/16
inch diameter steel cable to the fixed cross head member of a tensile machine.
The cable was looped around the teflon ring where upon the core, attached
to the movable crosshead member, was pulled away at the prescribed rate.
The load was measured by a 500 pound bytrex load cell with electronic readout
to an X-Y Recorder. Tests were conducted at the four following prescribed
conditions:
(1) -5°C at 0.5 cm/sec.
(2) -12°C at 0.5 cm/sec,
(3) -5°C at 0.05 cm/sec.
(4) -12°C at 0.05 cm/sec.
New test locations were used for each of the four conditions.
Data are listed on the attached tables; failure modes are abbreviated as follows:
A - Adhesive
S - Shear through the ice
A/S - Combination of adhesive and shear failures in which the greater part
was adhesive
S/A - Combination with more shear
Number eg. 25 - Test in which coating was removed from core, number indicates
estimated percentage of test area from which the coating was removed
R - Tests in which part of the core was removed, number indicates percentage
of test area from which the core was removed.
Testing Supervised and Certified By:
Dr. IJay L. Hauser, Research Director
RESULTS FROM DESIGN AND RESEARCH
125
-------
ro
Care Test
1.0. Position
1 1
2
3 1
2
4 1
2
5 1
2
6 1
2
7 1
2
8 1
2
-5°C
Load
Ibs.
36.8
40.7
39.9
29.7
47.3
27.1
44.7
30.2
47.3
24.9
24.7
20.0
9.1
37.0
6.0
41.5
30.7
23.9
7.7
20.6
24.6
18.5
31.0
12,2
17.0
21.9
19.0
17.2
af 0.5c
Shear
Strength
psi
187
207
203
151
241
138
228
154
241
127
126
102
46.3
188
30.6
211
156
121
39.2
105
125
94.2
158
61.9
86.6
111
96.8
87. 3
m/sec.
Failure
Mode
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S, 15
A/S,20
A/S ,25
A/S,35
A/S, 50
A/S,50
A
S/A,30
A
S/A,60
A
S
A,30
A,60
A
A,5
A/S
A
A/S
A
A
A/S
A
A/S
-12°
Load
Ibs.
35.2
36.8
18.8
34.1
15.0
20.8
11.5
23.9
14.0
27.2
10.4
32.9
18.3
28.0
24.5
39.1
8.0
33.0
10.5
16.1
12.7
17.5
22.3
17.5
6.3
16.7
16.1
12.0
C atO.5
Shear
Strength
psi
179
187
95.7
174
76.4
106
58.6
122
71.3
139
53.0
168
93.2
143
125
199
40.7
168
53.5
82.0
64.7
89.1
114
89.1
32.1
85.1
82.0
61.1
cm/sec.
Failure
Mode
A
A
A
A
A
A, 10
A
A
A
A, 20
A
A
A
A/S,5
A/S
A,5
A
A,15
A
A/S-,15
S
A
A/S
A
A
A
A
A
-5°C
Load
Ibs.
41.1
40.4
42.4
41.2
22.5
12.9
33.1
15.9
17.1
20.1
17.0
19.7
20.5
19.0
21.9
16.0
14.5
15.2
12.9
8.4
18.3
15.2
21.3
17.5
17.0
13.4
15.0
11.0
at 0.05
Shear
Strength
psi
209
206
216
210
116
65.7
169
81.0
87.1
102
86.6
100
104
96.8
112
81.5
73.8
77.4
65.7
42.8
93.2
77.4
108
89.1
86.6
68.2
76.4
56.0
cm/sec .
Failure
Mode
A
A/S
A
A/S
A,5
A,20
A
A, 15
A
A,90
A
A,25
A
A, 10
A
A, 10
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-12°C
Load
Ibi.
45.9
42.4
38.1
44.7
15.1
28.8
47.3
28.6
19.0
47.5
14.4
37.8
25.1
26.2
14.9
40.9
13.1
24.3
8.6
15.9
24.5
20.4
23.9
19.2
16.5
16.1
12.6
13.5
at 0.05
Shear
Strength
•
234
216
194
228
76.9
147
241
146
96.8
242
73.3
193
128
133
75.9
208
66.7
124
43.8
81.0
125
104
122
97.8
84.0
82.0
64.2
68.8
cm/sec .
Failure
Mode
S
S
S
S
A
A,5
A, 15
A, 90
A
A/S,20
A/S
S/A,10
A/S,20
A,25
A,10
A, 75
A, 10
A,50
A,5
A, 15
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
-5°C at 0.5 cm/sec.
-12°C at 0.5 cm/sec. -5°C at 0.05 cm/sec. -12°C at 0.05 cm/sec.
ro
--j
Core
I.D.
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
Test
Position
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Load
Ibi.
15.4
15.2
15.5
12.5
11.9
13.3
16.2
13.0
29.8
41.0
36.8
30.0
38.1
18.7
42.1
20.7
47.3
7.8
30.8
32.0
20.5
26.1
26.1
13.6
26.4
28.6
27.1
18.8
Shear
Strength
psi
78.4
77.4
78.7
63.4
60.4
67.5
82.3
66.2
152
209
187
153
194
94.2
214
105
241
39.7
157
163
104
133
133
69.0
131
146
138
95.7
Failure
Mode
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A
A
A
A
A/S
A
A/S
A
S/A
A/S
S/A
VA
A/S
A/S
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A
S
A
A/S
Load
Ibs.
5.1
12.1
11.6
13.1
11.8
18.0
9.9
10.3
36.0
44.7
34.9
42.9
34.8
31.7
37.0
28.5
37.7
47.4
35.2
36.0
17.6
13.0
15.7
13.8
17.6
14.7
24.4
12.1
Shear
Strength
psi
26.0
61.6
59.1
66.7
60.1
91.7
50.4
52.5
183
228
178
218
177
161
188
145
192
241
179
183
89.6
66.2
79.9
70.3
89.6
74.9
124
61.6
Failure
Mode
A,5
A, 10
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A
A/S
A/S
S/A
Vs
A
Vs
A
A
A
A/S
A
A/S
A
A/S, 5
Load
Ibs.
10.5
13.5
12.0
14.9
9.0
11.0
10.5
11.2
46.9
36.0
40.0
37.7
24.0
28.1
15.9
19.9
18.4
19.2
19.3
22.8
18.2
27.2
17.4
15.2
18.7
18.2
15.2
15.9
Shear
Strength
psi
53.8
68.8
61.1
75.9
45.8
56.0
53.9
•57.0
239
183
204
192
122
143
81.0
101
93.7
97.8
98.3
116
92.7
139
88.6
77.4
95.2
92.7
77.4
81.0
Failure
Mode
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/S
A
A
A/S
A
Load
Ibs.
15.7
18.9
13.1
17.5
19.6
17.5
15.5
16.3
35.4
46.0
47.5
47.5
29.7
48.0
23.3
34.9
32.2
32.9
31.0
46.2
23.0
31.1
17.4
27.6
25.7
43.8
27.4
40.0
Shear
Strength
psi
80.0
92.3
66.7
89.1
99.8
89.1
78.9
83.0
180
234
242
242
151
244
119
178
164
168
158
235
117
158
88.6
141
131
223
140
204
Failure
Mode
A/S
Vs
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/S
A
Vs
A
A/S
Vs
A
VS
Vs
S/A
A/S
S/A
A
Vs
A
A
A
S/A
A
A/S
-------
-5°C at0.5 cm/sec.
-12°C at 0.5 cm/sec. -5°C at 0.05 cm/sec. -12°C
ro
oo
Com Test
1.0. Position
25 1
2
27 1
2
28 1
2
29 1
2
30 1
2
A 1
2
C 1
2
Load
Ibs.
23.5
36.9
36.9
20.0
28.6
25.8
20.0
26.3
31.1
45.3
29.9
47.4
11.0
34.5
9.5
22.5
23.6
36.5
30.8
24.1
42.0
28.6
47.4
44.7
15.3
39.8
47.4
32.6
Shear
Strength
psi
119
188
188
102
145
131
102
134
158
231
152
241
56.0
176
48.4
115
120
186
157
123
214
146
241
227
77.9
203
241
166
Failure
Mode
100R
S
S
S/A,15R
S/A
S/A
S/A
S/A
S/A
S
A/S
S
S
S/A
S
S/A
S/A
S/A
S
A/S
S
S
S
A/S
A/S
S/A
S/A
A/S,5
Load
Ibs.
21.0
11.6
30.9
36.0
36.3
11.0
47.4
29.6
33.5
38.5
47.5
40.0
34.2
39.1
30.3
28.4
45.5
40.0
47.3
47.5
33.4
25.6
48.2
34.5
24.4
15.7
16.8
24.5
Shear
Strength
psi
107
59.1
157
183
187
56.0
241
151
171
196
242
204
174
199
154
145
232
204
241
242
170
130
245
176
124
80.0
85.6
125
Failure
Mode
S
S/A
S/A
S/A,40R
A
S/A
S
S/A
S/A
A
A
A/S
S/A
S/A
S/A
S/AJ5R
S
S
S
S/A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
Load
Ibs.
30.0
19.1
19.9
25.2
34.5
33.5
36.8
39.0
25.7
45.1
46.0
28.2
39.1
11.8
35.5
16.4
41.0
33.2
47.3
35.5
36.4
32.5
50.0
44.7
17.9
15.9
16.0
15.9
Shear
Strength
psi
153
97.3
101
128
176
171
187
198
131
230
234
144
199
60.1
181
83.5
209
169
241
181
185
166
255
228
91.2
81.0
81.5
81.0
Failure
Mode
A/S
S
S
S
A/S
S
A/S
S
S
S
S/A
S
S/A
S/A
S
S/A
S
S
S/A
S
S/A
S/A
A/S
A/S
A
A,5
A,15
A, 30
Load
Ibs.
28.5
24.2
22.0
28.2
35.3
42.6
29.6
30.1
43.5
46.4
48.5
38.4
44.2
40.5
42.4
37.2
42.7
44.2
47.3
47.3
40.5
35.6
49.7
47.2
24.5
24.7
33.4
38.0
Shear
Strength
pti
145
123
112
144
160
217
151
153
222
236
247
196
224
206
216
189
217
225
241
241
206
181
253
240
125
126
170
194
Failure
Mode
A/S
S/A
A/S,20R
S/A
S/A
A/S
S/A
A/S
S
A/S
S
A/S
S
S
S
S
S
A/S
S
A/S
A
A
A
A/S
A
S/A
A/S
S/A ,5
-------
-5°C at 0.5 cm/sec.
-12°C atO.5 cm/sec.
-5°C
at 0.05 cm/sec. -12°C at 0.05 cm/tec.
ro
Cora
I.D.
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
Test
Position
t
2
1
2
1 .
2
1
2
]
2
1
2
1
2
Load
Ibs.
45.0
26.4
46.2
23.5
43.9
20.6
45.6
11.7
33.0
33.3
42.4
24.7
15.1
15.5
16.6
15.0
8.50
8,15
16.9
9,80
11.0
11.3
11.6
7.6
18.9
4.7
25.0
14.9
Shear
Strength
psi
229
134
235
119
224
106
232
59.3
168
169
216
126
76.9
78.9
84.5
76.1
43.3
41.5
85.8
49.9
56.0
57.3
58.8
38.5
96.3
23.8
127
75.9
Failure
Mode
S
5,15
S
S,50
S/A
A, 10
S/A
A, 15
S/A
S/A ,5
S/A
S/A, 25
A/S
A
A/S
A
A
A/S
A
A/S
A/S
A
A/S
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
Load
Ibs.
36.0
25.0
43.4
47.5
30.0
27.2
28.6
24.8
36.0
28.3
33.0
35.7
6.0
7.3
16.9
19.0
17.5
12.7
15.1
11.9
9.3
9.5
11.5
11.0
9.5
15.9
22.3
15.3
Shear
Strength
psi
183
127
221
242
153
139
146
126
183
144
168
182
30.6
37.2
86.1
96.8
89.1
64.7
76.9
60.6
47.4
48.4
58.6
56.0
48.4
81.0
114
77.9
Failure
Mode
A/S
S/A ,5
A/S
S
A,5
S/A,5
S/A
A/S, 10
S/A, 5
A,20
A/S, 10
S/A, 10
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/S
A
A
Vs
A
A/S
A
Load
Ibs.
28.1
18.1
28.6
19.3
19.3
17,3
22.7
9.2
23.5
20.7
47.4
22.0
15.8
12.0
18.6
11.8
12.5
13.4
11.6
9.4
9.6
11.7
7.7
7.5
12.6
12.0
10.1
12.3
Shear
Strength
psi
143
92.2
146
98.3
98.3
88.1
116
.46.9
120
105
241
112
80.5
61.1
94.7
60.1
63.7
68.2
59.1
47.9
48.9
59.6
39.2
38.2
64.2
61.1
51.4
62.6
Failure
Mode
A,20
A,20
A,40
A,45
VS
A
A/S
A
A/S
A, 15
S/A
A,5
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Load
Ibs.
47.5
24.6
47.5
24.6
28.7
17.7
21.8
21.0
31.4
10.1
38.9
15.1
14.7
14.0
21.4
17.2
11.2
13.0
12.5
14.6
9.1
9.4
5.9
10.6
13.0
15.0
13.2
8.3
Shear
Strength
Psi
242
125
242
125
146
90.1
111
107
160
51.4
198
76.9
74.9
71.3
109
87.6
57.0
66.2
63.7
74.4
46.3
47.9
30.0
54.0
66.2
76.4
67.2
42.3
Failure
Mode
S/A
A,5
A/S
A
A,5
A, 10
A,5
A, 20
S
A,35
S
A,5
A
A
Vs
Vs
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
CO
O
-5°C at 0.5 cm/sec.
Con
1.0.
K
M
N
O
P
Twt
Position
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Shear
Load Strength
Ibi. pii
31.4
37.1
24.2
37.6
42.1
19.6
28.9
9.5
44.4
33.9
38.2
25.0
31.7
24.9
36.9
24.6
34.6
20.0
11.7
28,3
160
189
123
191
214
99.8
147
48.4
226
172
195
127
161
127
188
125
176
102
59.6
144
Failure
Mode
VS
A/S
A/S
A/S
S/A
S/A
A/S
A/S
A/S
S/A
A/S
A/S
S/A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
-12°C at 0.5 cm/iec.
Shear
Load Strength
Ibs. psi
22.8
37.5
41.2
28.1
22.9
27.0
23.2
17.4
28.6
44.2
13.7
14.8
25.3
39.0
31.4
33.0
41.0
15.9
27.0
10.8
116
191
210
143
117
138
118
88.6
146
225
69.8
75.4
129
199
160
168
209
80.9
138
55.0
Failure
Mode
S/A
A/S
A
A
A/S
A
A/S
A
S/A
S/A
S/A ,1 OR
S,10R
A
A
A
S
Vs
A/S
A/S
A
-5°C at0.05cm/jec.
Shear
Load Strength
24.7
38.6
27.8
22.0
37.9
23.1
33.4
16.4
39.8
20.4
25.4
14.2
27.6
24' .8
28.5
25.9
17.5
24.5
21.5
16.8
126
197
142
112
193
118
170
83.5
203
104
129
72.3
141
126
145
132
89.1
125
109
85.6
Failure
Mode
A/S
A
A/S
Vs
A/S
Vs
S/A
A/S
Vs
A/S
Vs
A/S
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A
A
A
A
-12°C at 0.05 em/sec.
Load
Ibs.
37.1
38.5
33.3
40.8
20.8
33.3
24.6
25.8
23.9
39.2
20.4
31.9
24.1
13.2
14.8
20.9
30.0
21.3
27.0
26.5
Shear
Strength
189
196
170
208
153
108
Failure
Mode
VS
A
A
A
106 A/S
170 A/S
125 A/S
131 A
122 S/A
200 A/S
104 A/S
162 A
123 A/S
67.2 A/S
75.4 A
106 A
A
A
138 A
135 A/S
-------
APPENDIX B
TOXICITY OF NINE EXPERIMENTAL
ROAD SURFACING MATERIALS
TO DAPHNIA PULEX
Gary C. Bailey
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
131
-------
INTRODUCTION
The acute toxicity of eight hydrophobia and one non-hydrophobic road surfac-
ing materials were tested with Daphnia pulex, a common aquatic crustacean.
The test materials are experimental compounds formulated to prevent ice ad-
hesion to road surfaces. The formulation of the hydrophobic compounds desig-
nated as formula B, C, F, G, I, J, K and L are given in Table 1. The non-
hydrophobic test material was Petroset AT (Phillips Petroleum).
The assays were designed to simulate two possible toxic modes.
The materials in use will be spread as a thin layer on a road surface and
the material is formulated for rapid drying time. The toxicity of a water
leachate from contact with the dried material is of greatest concern.
The toxicity of a leachate from undried compounds simulate runoff from
freshly applied material.
The assay objectives were to define relative short-term toxicity.
METHODS
The test organism was Daghnja pulex. Our laboratory culture has been cloned
three times from a wild stock colTected in Medical Lake, Washington.
Daphnia pulex is cultured in aquaria at room temperature (20°to 24°C), under
16 hour artificial daylength (approximately 100 ft. candles). The feed is
a mixture of Selanastrum capricornutum and Carteria quadrata which is batch
cultured. The algae media is carbon filtered tap water (see below) with
addition of nitrogen, phosphorus and manure extract.
The water used for culturing Daphnia pulex, as a base for the algae media,
and for preparing leachates is carbon filtered well water. The chemical
characteristics of this water are given in Table 2.
Leachates of dried materials were prepared by drying the materials in
beakers for 24 hours at room temperature under a hood. The beakers were
rotated at approximately 200 rpm to prevent a surface film from developing.
The beakers were then placed in a 100°C oven for 48 hours. Although formu-
las B through L dry rapidly when spread in a thin layer (
-------
ground. Dried Petroset AT has the consistency of light tar so water was
added to this material without blending. The water and ground materials were
placed in a stoppered flask and rotated at 300 rpm for 2 days at room tem-
perature. The leachate water was then filtered with a Whatman #2 filter
which had been rinsed with distilled water.
Wet leachates were prepared from formulas B through L by simply adding an
equal volume of water to the surfacing compound. The reagent bottle con-
tainers were placed on a shaker table and the speed adjusted to move the
materials in the bottles but not to break down the boundary layer. Although
the materials are hydrophobic they will emulsify with water with strong
enough agitation. The materials were rotated for 2 days, then the water
(wet leachate) was aspirated and collected.
Both dry and wet leachates were stored at 4°C until used for testing.
Test dilutions of leachates were prepared 8 to 16 hours before the assays
were begun.
Wet Petroset AT solutions were made as simple water dilutions of the raw
material. Fresh solutions were made for each test.
All glassware used in the assays were cleaned with detergent, rinsed with
distilled water, rinsed with 1:1 HCL, .and then rinsed twice with distilled
water.
Assays were conducted in 50 ml beakers with aluminum foil caps to retard
evaporation. Test volumes were 20 or 40 ml. Daphnia pulex were taken
from cultures using a zooplankton bucket with a #10 mesh screen. Young
Daphnia pulex {estimated one or two days old) were placed in test beakers
with an eyedropper. Ten organisms were used in each test container. Carry-
over of culture water to test beakers was approximately 0.5 ml. Two control
beakers containing 20 and 40 ml of diluent water and 10 Daphnia pulex were
used for each test. The test animals were fed 3 drops of algea culture on
day 2 of the assay.
The assays were run at room temperature (20-21 °C). Occasionally when the
daytime laboratory temperature rose above 21 °C, the assay beakers were
moved to a 20°C (+ .5) temperature controlled room.
The beakers were examined for mortalities by scanning with a 20x dissecting
microscope. Death was counted and the organisms removed when all feeding
and swimming motions ceased and the animal made no response to the eye-
dropper used to remove it. Assays were terminated at 96 hours.
s were estimated by plotting the data on log-probit paper and drawing
the line by visual best fit. The LC5Q was read from the fitted line.
133
-------
CO
Table 1. Formulation of Surfacing Compounds
Mix Quantity/liter
Formula LR81981 (cm3)
B 476
C 370
F
G
I
J
K
L
LR86521 (cm3) Drisil 732 (cm3)
604
523
579
512
455
413
DC7323 (gin)
83
128
37
65
34
66
91
107
naptha(cm3)
423
470
348
394
375
407
431
453
isopropanol (cm3)
18
32
11
19
11
15
23
25
'Akron Paint and Varnish Company
2Texas Solvents and Chemicals Company
3 Dow Corning Company
-------
TABLE 2
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE AND DILUTION WATER
total hardness (mg/£
120
Ca(mg/a) Mg (mg/ a)
21.9 15.7
nitrate nitrogen (mg/£)
0.005
ammonia nitrogen (mg/ft)
0.18
residual chlorine (mg/A)
<0.04
alkalinity (mg/ 1 CaC03)
169
Specific conductance (pmhos/cm)
265
nitrite nitrogen (mg/ SL)
0.028
8.3 - 8.5
135
-------
Table 3. Percentage mortality of Daphnia pulex in
Formule
B
C
F
G1
G2
J
L
leachates of dried surfacing materials.
Percent solution of dry leachates
i 100 75 67 56 50 42 32 18 10 :
100 — 100 100 91 ~ 100 0 0
100 — 100 100 89 0 0 00
, 100 — 90 100 78 — 33 25 30
88 — 25 — 30
100 -- -- — 100 100
0__ __ _ _ __ _ _ __
11 __ — — o
0__ __ _ __ __ _— _— — _
100 85 90 0 10 0 0
estimated
LC50 (96 hr)
24
49
40
70
sl flfi
si fifi
60
'Test track preparation
laboratory preparation
136
-------
U>
Formula
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
L
18
100
(7.9)1
100
(8.0)
100
(5.5)
—
100
(5.2)
—
—
— —
Table 4.
Percentage
leachates
mortality
of undried
(%) of Daphnia
surfacing mate
Percentage solution of undried leachate
14 10 7.5 5.6 3
60
(8.3)
100
(8.1)
5
(7.7)
—
40
(7.6)
—
—
——
70
(8.3)
30
(8.0)
0
(7.9)
100
(5.2)
0
(7.8)
100
(7.8)
100
(4.9)
100
(4.6)
40
(8.4)
20
(8.0)
14
(8.1)
40
(7.7)
0
(8.1)
0
(8.0)
100
(6.8)
— —
22
(8.4)
—
0
(8.1)
30
(8.0)
pulex in
rials.
.2 1.8
0
—
—
10 0
(8.4)
000
(7.8) (8.2) (8.3)
0
(7.7) (8
100
(7.3) (8
0 ' 0
.1) (8.3)
15 0
.1) (8.1)
estimated
LC50 (96 hr)
8
9.4
13
5.8
14
8.6
6.4
3.4
'pH of test solution
-------
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE MORTALITY OF DAPHNIA PULEX
IN WATER DILUTIONS AND DRY LEACHATE
OF PETROSET AT
Petroset AT dilution ul/i
estimated
0.32 0.18 0.10 0.056 LC50 (96 hr)
100 100 33 0 0.11 ol/A
Dried Petroset AT leachate u!/£ 6.0 ul/A
17.8 10 5.6 3.2 1.8
100 90 30 8 0
138
-------
RESULTS
The estimated LCgn's of the dry leachates varied from 24 percent to greater
than 100 percent (Table 3).
The toxicity would probably be slightly higher if softer water were used for
leaching the dried materials but even a moderate increase in toxicity would
not alter the conclusion that this material qualifies as "practically not
toxic" as defined in Cairns (1973).
Some change in the toxicity of formula G was noted for the material made at
the test track and the material made in the laboratory.
The wet leachates are approximately 7 times more toxic than the dry leachates
and the estimates of LCso's range from 3.4 to 14 percent (Table 4). These
leachates are also of low toxicity. Low pH probably contributes to the
toxicity of wet leachates F, G, I, K and L.
Petroset AT and the leachate of dried Petroset AT are very toxic with es-
timated LCso's of 0.11 ul/fcand 6.0 ul/Jl respectively. This material mixes
readily with water and drys slowly which means it is more susceptible to
leaching into surface waters.
CONCLUSION
The hydrophobic materials (B-L) were tested under laboratory conditions de-
signed to extract the maximum amount of toxic material into the water leach-
ate. Both wet and dry leachates of these materials are practically non-
toxic.
Petroset AT mixes readily with water. The dry leachate and water mixture
is toxic to very toxic.
139
-------
REFERENCES
Cairns, John Hr., and K. S. Dickson, (ed.) 1973, Biological Methods for
the Assessment of Water Quality. ASTM Special Technical Publication 528.
140
-------
APPENDIX C
INFRARED ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF
TEST TRACK RUNOFF
James R. Skrinde
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
141
-------
INTRODUCTION
Analysis of runoff, natural and artificial, from the USU Test Track was
carried out by infrared analysis to determine the amount of leaching from
the experimental surfacing compounds and to correlate the runoff with the
toxicity assays.
The materials of interest are components of experimental compounds formulated
to prevent ice adhesion to road surfaces. These compounds are named LR 8198,
LR 8652, Drisil 73, Petroset AT, and Viscospin B. By examining the spectra
of the pure compound, wavelengths were found at which absorption was con-
siderably greater than for other compounds present in samples. A comparison
between sample spectra and the reference spectra allowed determination of
the concentration of a compound within the sample.
An assumption was made for analysis that the binder in the mixtures (LR 8198,
LR 8652, Drisil 73) would be the only part of the compounds to leach.
Petroset was analyzed as Petroset.
METHODS
Because of extremely low precipitation during the test period (Winter 1976-
1977), natural runoff was augmented by flooding the test track with well
water. The well water is approximately the same chemical composition as
given in Table 2 of the toxicity assays.
The identification of a compound in runoff waters required initial concen-
tration of the samples. Samples from test holes at the track were dried
in evaporation dishes, and the residue was weighed. The dried solids were
dissolved in carbon tetrachloride solvent, and the sample was analyzed for
pavement additive by infrared absorption spectrophotometry. The device uti-
lized was a Beckman IR 8 infrared spectrophotomer. By comparison with a
reference spectra, the percentage of additive within each sample was deter-
mined. Multiplication of the concentration of total solids by the percen-
tage of additive contained yielded the concentration of additive contained
within each sample.
Dry leachates from the toxicity assays were run by direct analysis of the
aqueous solution for LR analysis.
142
-------
RESULTS
The analysis of the runoff from 14 track sections on February 16, 1977
(Table 1) showed seven were below the detection limits of 0.5 percent.
Concentrations above detectable limits ranged from four to thirty mg/1.
The analysis of runoff in test shows 1, 4, 7, and 9 on March 9, 1977
showed a decline in concentration from previous runoff samples analyzed on
February 16, 1977. Four runoff samples were above detectable limits in the
series of samples run on March 9, 1977.
The analysis of the aqueous leachates used for the toxicity assays by direct
analysis gave results that were obviously much too high (Table 2) consid-
ering the limited solubility of these materials. Apparently, the aqueous
solutions attenuated the absorptivity and gave erroneously high peaks.
CONCLUSIONS
The concentrations of road surfacing materials in the runoff samples was
generally small. Analysis of runoff approximately three weeks apart indi-
cated a decline in concentration. The analysis of water leachates gave
concentrations that were obviously too high.
143
-------
Table 1. Analysis of Test Track Runoff
by Infrared Spectrophotometry.
DATA
Date of Samples: 2/16/77
Test
Hole
No.
1
2
4
7
8
9
14
15
17
18
19
27
28
29
Total Solids
(mg/1 )
420
444
240
250
100
160
360
60
190
170
260
130
340
240
Compound
Petroset AT
Petroset AT
Drisil
LR 8652
LR 8198
LR 8198
Drisil
Drisil
LR 8652
LR 8198
LR 8198
Petroset AT
Petroset AT
Viscospin B
% Compound
7.1
<0.5
1.9
6.4
<0.5
5.5
3.9
<0.5
7.7
<0.5
1.4
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Cone. Compound
(mg/1 )
30
< 3
5
16
<0.5
9
14
<0.3
15
< 1
4
< 1
< 2
< 2
Date of Samples: 3/9/77
Test
Hole
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
16
20
21
22
23
28
29
Total Solids
(mg/1 )
922
592
300
362
462
516
743
266
300
246
583
334
1,404
185
238
292
414
296
Compound
Petroset AT
Petroset AT
Drisil
Drisil
Drisil
LR 8652
LR 8652
LR 8198
LR 8198
Petroset AT
Drisil
LR 8652
LR 8198
LR 8198
LR 8198
Blank
Petroset AT
Viscospin B
% Compound
1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1.8
5.5
2.3
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Cone. Compound
(mg/1 )
9
< 3
< 2
< 2
< 3
< 3
< 4
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 3
< 2
26
10
5
< 2
< 2
144
-------
Table 2. Compound Concentration in the Dry Leachates
used for Toxicity Essays.
Formula
(1)
B
C
F
G
I
J
K
Petroset
Compound
(2)
LR 8198
LR 8198
LR 8652
LR 8652
Drisil 73
Drisil 73
Drisil 73
Petroset
Dry Leachate
Concentration (%)
(3)
76.4
18.2
71.8
66.7
36.8
18.4
65.8
157
145
*US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Of FICE: 1978 260-880/61 1-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-035
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
OPTIMIZATION AND TESTING OF HIGHWAY MATERIALS
TO MITIGATE ICE ADHESION
Interim Report
5. REPORT DATE
March 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
M. Krukar and J. C. Cook
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99163
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611:SOS 2; Task: 05
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-804660
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
[J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim 10/76 - 4/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
P.O. Hugh E. Masters (201) 321-6678 FTS 340-6678
16. ABSTRACT This project optimized and evaluated hydrophobia materials developed by EPA
research in 1974. Laboratory optimizing of materials was accomplished by Ball Brothers
Research Corporation (BBRC) under contract with Washington State University (WSU).
Field tests at the WSU Pavement Test Facility augment BBRC laboratory tests with
comparative results. Factors of concern included pavement type, tire type, environment
and toxicity, wear, ice/snow adhesion and asphalt overlays which included the substances
as a component of the mix.
Although the winter conditions were mild, the limited amount of tests and data did
allow a ranking based on skid resistance change, water beading, and snow/ice removal
aroperties of the different formulations. The most effective formulations were com-
jinations of modified traffic paints and room-temperature-curing silicone rubber.
Of the formulations tested only one was deemed toxic. Other formulations showed
little or no toxicity.
Routine application (including purchase cost) to medium-sized areas of the optimize
nixtures is expected to cost $0.50/m^ to $1.00/m2.
Although definitive results were obtained in the study, unusually mild winter con-
iitions in eastern Washington in 1976-1977 restricted completion of the desired opera-
:ional parameters. In order to obtain research fulfillment, a repeat of the test pro-
iram is planned during the winter of 1977-1978. Iteration will also increase the
statistical validit of the results dispngspH -tn t-h-ic T-nor-f
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
)eicers, Ice control, Ice breakup, Water
sollution, Pavements, Economic analysis
Environmental impact,
Hydrophobic materials,
Pavement deicers, Water/
ice phobicity, Test track
facility
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE UNLIMITED
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21, NO. OF PAGES
156
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
146
------- |