United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-90-007
January 1990
Air
Guidance Document for
Selecting Antiskid Materials
Applied to Ice- and
Snow-Covered Roadways
-------
EPA-450/3-90-007
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR SELECTING ANTISKID MATERIALS
APPLIED TO ICE- AND SNOW-COVERED ROADWAYS
FINAL REPORT
By
J. S. Kinsey, C. Cowherd, and K. Connery
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4395
Work Assignment 31
MRI Project No. 8987-31
William L. Elmore, Project Officer
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
January 1990
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is
not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available
through the Libraty Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under EPA
Contract No. 68—02-4395, Assignment No. 31. Mr. Larry Elmore was the
requestor of this work. The report was prepared by Mr. John S. Kinsey,
Dr. Chatten Cowherd, and Ms. Karen Cannery of Midwest Research Institute.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Chatten Cowherd, Director
Environmental Systems Department
January 22, 1990
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i I
Figures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . vi
Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Executive Summary[[[ xl
1. tntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
2. CurrentPracticesforSkldControl........................... 2—1
2.1 Antiskid materlals.............,................... 2—1
2.2 Application rates and procedures....... ..... . ...... 2—13
2.3 Removal techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—24
3. Measurement Methods for Physical Properties.................. 3—1
3.1 Silt measurement methods................. . .. 1 ... . .. 3—1
3.2 Durabilitymeasurementniethods,................... 3—2
3.3 Analysis methods for other properties.............,. 3—6
3.4 Measurement methods for deicing chemicals.......... 3—10
4. AlternativeSkidControlMeasures................,.,......... 4—1
4.1 Alternative materlals............. .... ............ 4—1
4.2 Other techniques.............................,.. ... -4—4
5. Selection Criteria.. .......... 5—1
5.1 Potential for dust emissiorts.............,..,...... 5—1
5.2 Effectiveness of antiskid materials...... . . ........ 5—9
5.3 MaterIal durability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5—17
5.4 Cost effectiveness...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—22
5.5 AcceptabilIty criteria...................,........ 5—26
6. Conclusions and Reconinendations.. . .. .. . ........ .. . ........... 6—1
6.1 Conclusions........................................ 6—1
6.2 Recommendations...............,........,........... 6—2
7. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7—1
Appendices
A. Survey procedures.........,.......,.................,........ A—I
B. Bibliography......................................,...... ... .. B—I
C. ASTM silt analysis nethods.............. ......... .......... .. C—i
0. ASTM method for the Los Angeles abrasion test............... 0—1
-------
F IGURES
Number Page
1—1 Total particulate emission factor vs. average silt
loading for an artificially loaded paved road............... 1—2
1-2 Diagram of street surface/atmospheric exchange of
particulate matter.......................................... 1—4
2—1 Standard U.S. screen scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—7
4—1 FamIly tree of snow removal equipment....................... 4—5
5—1 SIeve analysis data of antiskid material in Helena
park I ng lot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—2
5—2 Total loading and silt loading vs. number of vehicle
passes for artificially loaded paved road................... 5—4
5—3 Exposure profiles of total particulate concentration
forartif lciallyloadedpavedroad.......................... 5—5
5—4 Increase in total surface loading vs. time after
application of salt or sand................................. 5—6
5-5 Increase in silt loading vs. time after application
of salt or sand............................................. 5—7
5—6 TSP air quality impact of salt and sand application
over time....................................... .. .... .. .... 5—8
5-7 Coefficient of friction (f) vs. number of wheel passes
for four antiskid materials compared on an equal volume
b as i s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—10
5—8 Skid resistance or limestone material vs. percent +200
mesh silica (Furbush, 1972)................................. 5—12
5-9 Average British portable skid number vs. rate of
aggregate application for various antiskid materials
(30F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—14
5-10 Average British portable skid number vs. rate of
aggregate application for various antiskid materials
( ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—15
vi
-------
FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Page
5—11 Average stopping distances determined on an ice track
forvar lousantiskidmaterials.............................. 5—16
5—12 Mineral wear rate vs. Vicker’s hardness for Si0 2
abrasive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—20
5—13 Decision “tree” for antiskid material selection............. 5—28
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2—1 Results of surveys of antiskid measures..................... 2—2
2—2 Standard U.S. screen scales (Sheehy, 1968).................. 2-6
2-3 Desirable characteristics of abrasives (Schneider, 1959).... 2—7
2-4 Composition of water insolubles in rock salt (percent
by welght)................................,...........,..... 2—10
2-5 Composition of water insolubles in rock salt (percent
by weight)...................................,......,....... 2—10
2-6 Qualitative evaluation of chemicals and abrasives
used in snow and ice control (Keyser, 1981)................ 2—12
2-7 Chemical and sand use (Transportation Research Board,
1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—14
2-8 State snow and ice control materials use (Salt Institute,
1984) . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—18
2-g Highway salt sales by. U.S. members of the Salt Institute
(1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—22
2-10 Stormfighting guidlines of the Salt tnstltute............... 2—23
2-11 Guidelines for chemical application rates (AASHTO, 1976).... 2-25
3—1 Sun nary of instrumental methods of particle size analysis... 3—3
3—2 Suimnary of test methods related to antiskid materials. 1 ..... 3—7
4—1 Alternative deicing chemicals (Iowa, 1980)...... ............ 4—3
4—2 Mechanical devices for snow removal and ice control
(EPA, 1972)................................................. 4—6
4-3 Rating of concepts for alternative physical deicing
methods (Blackburn, 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ •. . . . . . . . . . . 4—8
5—1 Results of impact tests........ ••*•• . ........•.. .... ........ 5—11
viii
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
Number Page
5—2 Material specifications for Alaska tests.................... 5—13
5—3 Average mineral wear for different abrasive types........... 5—19
5—4 Costdatafordelcingchemlcals.................. ... .. ..... 5—23
5—5 Relative capital cost of alternative deicing chemicals...... 5—24
5-6 Relative capital cost. of alternative snow/ice removal
methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. * . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 5—24
5—7 Recent estimates of corrosion and environmental costs
due to. cheini cal. •use . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • •.• • • U • • • 5—26
5—8 Acceptability criteria for antiskid mater,als....... ....... 5—27
-------
EXECUTIVE SUI44ARY
PM 10 emissions generated by traffic resuspension of dry paved surface
materials vary directly with the road surface silt loading (particles < 75 m
physical diameter). The application of antiskid materials to snow— and ice—
covered roadways causes a substantial increase in. silt loading and thus PM 10
emissions.
This document provides air pollution control agencies with information on
physical properties of antiskid materials that, determine their potential for
increasing road surface silt loading, particularly...the initial silt content
and durability ,of abrasive materialS”. Durability is defined as the resistance
ofán antiskid abrasive to-generate,silt..sized particles. The Los Angeles
abrasion test is recomniended as an appropriate measurement of overall ággrè—
gate durability. A dry sieving procedure is described to measure silt
content.
The effectiveness of an abrasive materjal t’o increase vehicle skid resis-
tance on snow or ice is a function of particle size, shape, hardness, and
durability. Durability is also shown to be, related to particle sue, shape,
and hardness. - A high ‘quartz C> 90%) , coarse gralned (> 16 mesh), hard’
(Vickers hardness ? 1,000 kg/mm2) material with low silt content (< 1% and a
high .degrée of angularity (> 50% void. fraction) is’ appropriate for antiskid
application and is expected to contribute the least to- PM 10 , emissions. A good
quality, washed’construction aggrégaté (e.g., sand) is ,often the best choice.
There •is a significant potential ‘for PM 10 emissions from rock salt, but
basic inforination is lacking;.on the dried ..mäterial’s (NaC1 and’ impurities) that
are available for resuspension by traffic. Most of the soluble salt is
believed to. wash off the . ,roadway with.. the melting snow and ice. Only salts
that have a’ small amount, ( 2%). of insoluble matter should be used because
that portion is likely to donsist. of very srna1 1’ particles in the silt sized
fraction.
This study also presents a review of current sanding and salting prac-
tices. based on information from selected - state’ and municipal” transportation
agencies. It was determined that ‘excessive silt loading (and thus PM 10
emissions) are likely because of overappiication of antiskid materials and
from noncompliance with recommended silt ‘and durability specifications.
Finally, ‘information is supplied’ on, how’ to. utilize material physical
properties to select an antiskid rnaterial that potentially will produce less
PM 10 emissions, and. yet assure safe’ streets and - highways during- winter
months. A decision “tree” has been developed for material selection. The
first step is to define the road, traffic, and icing conditions. From that
point, candidate materials can be chosen based on silt generation potential,
cost, and availability.
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Several areas of the country which are in violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 10 (airborne particles of diameter less
than or equal to 10 umA) have conducted studies to Identify the sources of
these emissions. One source of PM 10 emissions that has been identif led In
several of these studies is the resuspension of antiskid material applied to
active roadways.
Antiskid materials may consist of sand, stone, cinders, or similar
materials applied to the road surface to Improve traction on snow— and ice—
covered roadways. Delcers serve to restore the traction associated with the
road surface itself.
Prior research has established a direct relationship between the loading
of fines on a paved roadway and the PM 10 emissions generated by vehicular
traffic. In the initial study, a salt/sand spreader was used to load a test
road with (a) pulverized top soil for one test series and (b) limestone gravel
fines for a second test series (Cowherd et al., 1977). Exposure profiling was
used to quantify emissions over periods of 30 to 6b mm under controlled traf-
fic conditions. The resulting relationship (Figure 1—1), between silt loading
and the total particulate emission factor represents conditions that closely
parallel the application and resuspension of antiskid materials consisting of
Insoluble abrasives.
The relationship between silt loading and PM 10 emissions is reflected in
the EPA -recommended PM 10 emission factors for paved urban roads. This
relationship was developed from a data base encompassing the results of tests
conducted at eight sites ranging from a freeway to a rural town road.
According to AP—42, the quantity of dust emissions from vehicle traffic on a
paved roadway per vehicle kilometer of travel may be estimated using the
following empirical expression (USEPA, 1985):
sL 0.$
e — 2.28 (1-1)
where: e a PM 10 emission factor (g/VKT)
L — total road surface dust loading (g/m 2 )
S a surface silt content, fraction of particles < 75 m
diameter (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1984)
1—1
-------
0 10 20
FIgure 1—1.
90 100 110 120
Average Silt Loading (gm/rn 2 ) Excluding Curbs
Total particulate emission factor vs. average silt loading
for an artificially loaded paved road.
Site: StiHwell Avenue
Run 7
Run 8
t ’)
-c
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Run 9
Typical
Range for
Anti-Skid
Abrasives
Run 11
Run 12
30 40 50 60 70 80
-------
The total loading (excluding litter) is measured by sweeping and vacuuming
lateral strips of known area from each active travel lane. The silt fraction
is determined by measuring the proportion of loose dry road dust that passes a
200 mesh screen, using the ASTM—C—136 method. Silt loading is the product of
total loading and silt content.
Recently, In the absence of specific emission test results for antiskid
materials, PM 10 emission factors from sanding and salting were estimated as a
gap filling exercise (Grelinger et al., 1988). The emission factor for
sanding assumed that all of the PM 10 content of typical road sand would be
suspended. In the case of salting, the emission factor was based on the
assumption that, (a.) 5% of the salt takes the form of a dried film on the
pavement, and (b) 10% of the film is liberated as PM 10 particles. Because of
the uncertainties in these underlying assumptions, a low quality rating (E)
was applied to the estimated emission factors.
It is clear from Equation (1—1) that techniques for controlling PM 10
emissions resulting from antiskid materials should be aimed at minimizing silt
loading on the traveled portion of the roadway (Figure 1-2). Specifically,
reduced silt loadings may be expected to result from control programs that
encompass improvements in three potential areas: the properties of antiskid
materials applied; the application protocols and procedures; and the proce-
dures for removal of the antiskid material from roadways. For example, emis-
sion reductions may result from: substitution of different deicing materials
for salt and the use of antiskid materials that have been tested for durabil-
ity and silt content; lower application rates; and application of material to
fewer roadways. Removal methods focus on the following roadway cleaning pro-
cedures: broom sweeping (wet or dry), vacuuming, or water flushing. Water
flushing followed by broom sweeping has proven to be most effective in
capturing silt—sized particles present in paved road surface material.
Local, state, and regional air pollution control agencies have requested
information on how to identify an appropriate antiskid material that is both
durable and effective and which produces fewer PM 10 emissions. Thus the pri-
mary purpose of this study is to provide guidance on methods to determine:
(a) the durability and initial silt content of antiskid material selected for
use on ice— and snow—covered roadways; and (b) criteria for defining the ele-
ments of an effective PM 10 emission control strategy associated with use of
antiskid materials.
Two survey methods were used In this study to gather the information
needed to meet the study objectives. First, an extensive literature survey
was performed by on—line accession of computerized informational data bases.
Then a direct telephone survey of target states and municipalities especially
concerned with antiskid control was performed. The methodologies for these
surveys are described in detail in Appendix A.
For the purpose of describing abrasive materials, the following
definitions will apply:
1. Antjskj material: materials such as sand, stone, cinders, etc.,
spread on an ice or snow—covered roadway to improve traction.
1—3
-------
PARTICULATE ENTRAINMENT FROM URBAN STREETS
Figure 1-2. Diagram of street surface/atmospheric
exchange of particulate matter.
Local
Vehicles
Ground— Level
(Exhaust)
Urban
Seurces—-
(h Om)
Conventional
& Fugitive
DEPOSITION
Sanding,
ENTRAINMENT
(By Wind & Vehicle Motion)
ng,
Spills
Areas, Tire Wear, Ofl,etc.)
Runoff. Mechanical Removal
(Sewers) (Street Cleaners)
1-4
-------
2. Delcing chemical: salts or similar compounds that control snow and
ice by preventing the formation of ice films, weakening the bond
between snow and the road surface, and/or by melting snow.
3. Antiskld abrasive: solid aggregate materials such as natural sand,
manufactured sand, or cinders applied to a road surface to provide
an limuedlate increase in skid resistance.
4. Sand: shall mean either “fine aggregate° or “manufactured sand,”
following American Society for Testing and Materials definitions.
5. Fine aggregate: aggregate passing the three eighths (3/8) inch
sieve and almost entirely passing the No. 4 (4.75 millimeter [ mm])
sieve and predominantly retained on the Number 200 (75 m) sieve.
6. Manufactured sand: the fine material resulting from the crushing
and classification by screening, or otherwise, of rock, gravel, or
blast furnace slag.
The organization of this document by section is as follows:
• Section 2 describes current practices for skid control.
• Section 3 evaluates the measurement methods for the physical
properties of antiskid materials.
• Section 4 reviews alternative skid control measures.
• Section 5 develops the rationale for selection of effective antiskid
materials.
• Section 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations derived from
this study.
1—5
-------
SECTION 2
CURRENT PRACTICES FOR SKID CONTROL
Abrasives and deicirpg chemicals are the most commonly used antiskld
materials. These materials prevent formation of ice, melt ice that has
formed, prevent buildup of snowpack, or create a higher coefficient of
friction for vehicle tires.
Example abrasives include sand and cinders which provide a gritty surface
for traction on snow and Ice-covered roadways. Deicing chemicals are freezing
point depressants that melt ice and snow to achieve a wet surface to be main-
tained until drying occurs. The two most commonly used deicing chemicals are
rock salt (94% to 99% sodium chloride) and calcium chloride.
Eleven states and municipalities were questioned by telephone (some with
multiple contacts) to gather Information on current practices for skid con-
trol, especially as related to impact on dust production. In addition, a
comprehensive literature review was performed to document the use and effec-
tiveness of abrasives, chemicals and other antiskid materials, and methods.
The survey procedures used In the program are outlined in Appendix A with a
bibliography of documents reviewed but not actually cited in this report
contained in Appendix B.
This section documents results from the literature review, a current and
relevant survey by the South Dakota Department of Transportation and the
telephone survey. In this section the word usaltil applies only to rock salt;
other chemical salts such as calcium chloride are referred to by their chemi-
cal name.
2.1. ANTISKID MATERIALS
2.1.1 Survey Results
Table 2—1 presents a summary of the antiskid materials used by the two
cities and 26 states who were surveyed by telephone and by the South Dakota
questionnaire. Almost all agencies used rock salt and sand. One state, New
Jersey, used rock salt exclusively, stating that It was required f or motorist
safety and that sand clogged drainage inlets. Many states mixed sand and salt
in various proportions. Sand was never used exclusively. Higher proportions
of salt to sand were used in urban areas while lower proportions were applied
In rural areas where ,traff I C Intensities are less. Agencies typically
reported their selection of antiskid materials was based on what was avail-
able, presumably at reasonable cost.
2—1
-------
TABLE 2-I. RESULTS OF SURVEYS OF ANTISKID MEASURES
Abras I yes
Types
(maximum
%
State/city of material Cost ($) < 200 mesh) Sieving method Comments
Indianapolis Salt 27.05/ton salt MS Indiana DOT Salt/sand is used in outlying areas only; only
CaCI 2 (32%) 0.38/gal CaCI 2 SectIon 903 of salt applied to city roads since sand clogs
Sand 2.00/ton sand highway manual sewers.
Minneapolis Salt 25.00/ton salt 2 ASTI4 C136 Washed sand must drain 12 h; sand must be free
Portland cement of organic impurities and cotorpiate < No. 2;
Sand maximum 2,5% shale, strength ratio of 1.00$
as measured by ASTM C87—83.
I ; ’ ,
Alaska Salt, sand, urea, MS 2 MS Durability——based on shaker test from
“Qulcksait, Washington state.
Crushed stone
Connecticut Salt 34.79/ton salt 5 AASHTO 1—li “Clean, hard, and durable” send.
Cad 2 98.04/ton CaCI 2 No clay, dirt, loam, or frozen lumps.
Screened pit 8.43/yd 3 sand Washed sand must sit for 24 h.
Crushed quarry
Washed stone sand
Delaware Washed concrete sand MS 4 MS
Idaho Screened pit MS No specif ice— MS
t Ion
Crushed pit MS
Crushed quarry MS
Screened cinders MS
Quarry cinders MS
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-I (Continued)
Abrasives
Types
(maximum
%
State/city of material Cost (5) ( 200 mesh) Sieving method Co ents
Indiana Sand MS 3, 6, or 7, MS
Slag NS dependent on
Cinders MS sand class
Colorado Salt MS Mo specifica— MS
Sand NS tion
Iowa Screened pit NS 3 NS No crushed material used.
Maine Screened pit MS Mo specli ice— NS
Crushed pit MS tion
Massachusetts Screened pit NS 3 MS
Washed pit NS
Michigan Screened pit MS 3 MS No crushed stone; < 7% loss by washing;
Screened/washed pit NS similar to 2 NS materials in aggregate
table. Fineness modulus 2.50 to 3.35.
Minnesota Screened pit send MS MS MS
Montana Pit run MS 10 < 100 mesh MS Unit weight tested for, but no
Screened pit NS — specifications.
Crushed pit MS
Maintenance MS 10
aggregate C> 1/2”)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2—i (Continued)
Abrasives
Types
(maximum
%
State/city of material Cost ($) < 200 mesh) Sieving method Comments
Nebraska Screened pit US 6 MS No crushed material.
Boiler slag
Nevada Screened pit 8 KS
New Hampshire Screened pit US 12 < 4 mesh MS Must be washed; sharp “feel” desirable.
Washed sand US
1 ; . )
New Jersey Salt No sand used because of clogging of inlets
and drainage, and motorist safety.
New York Pit run 4.25/ton sand 5 New York DOT
Screened pit KS 703— IP Must be free of too .uch clay, loam, etc.;
Crushed pit US 703—2? particles must not degrade in service and
must visually contrast with ice/snow.
Crushed quarry US
Iron ore tall legs US
Crushed slag US
Crushed cinders US
Ohio Screened pit MS 30 < 50 mesh US
Crushed quarry MS
Cinders MS
Blast furnace agg MS
Slag MS
Oregon Crushed quarry 1 OSHD 101 Cubical aggregate specif led.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-I (Concluded)
I ; . ,
(S I
State/city
Types
of materiel
Cost
($)
Abrasives
(maximum S
< 200 mesh)
Sieving
method
Coseents
Utah
NS
NS
10 or 15
AASHTO
1-I I
Portion through No. 40 sIeve shall be non-
plastic by MSHTO 1110 1—90; send equivalent
80. (UDOT 8-938); AASHTO 1-19 loose weight.
Vermont
Screened pit
Crushed quarry
Pit run
MS
MS
MS
to
MS
--
Washington
Crushed pit
Crushed quarry
Pit run
Screened pit
MS
MS
MS
NS
4 or 5
MS
Minimum of I face for aggregate.
Low fines present fewer problems with water
retention and plugging.
West Virginia
Crushed stone
Boiled slag
MS
MS
8 < 100 mesh
5 < 100 mesh
MS
MS
——
Wisconsin
Pit run
Screened pit
MS
MS
5
MS
—-
Wyoming
Screened pIt
Crushed pit
MS
MS
15
MS
Plastic Index < 6.
Free of organic materiel.
MS Not specified.
-------
2.1.2 Abrasive Usage and Specification
As stated in Section 1, the potential for dust emissions from abrasives
can be estimated from the silt fraction (i.e., percentage that passes a
No. 200 mesh or < 74 m diameter). Table 2-2 compares U.S. standard mesh
sizes and gives the nominal aperture widths. The entire PM 10 fraction con-
tained in the silt of the applied abrasive can be assumed to become air-
borne. Ratios of PM 10 /PM 75 for comon abrasives have not been reported in the
literature. However, an analysis of naturally—occurring, western sandy soils
produces an average ratio of 0.0026. This ratio times the silt fraction times
the quantity of sand applied gives an estimated 7.5 g/metric ton
(0.018 lb/ton) emission factor for road sanding developed by Grelinger (1988).
TABLE 2—2. STANDARD U.S. SCREEN SCALES (SHEEHY, 1968)
Nominal Aperture Width
U.S.
Standard
Nominal Aperture Width
U.S.
Standard
Microns
Inches
Microns
Inches
1
.00004
12500
297
.0117
50
2.5
.0001
5000
350
.0138
45
5
.0002
2500
420
.0165
40
10
.0004
1250
500
.0197
35
20
.0008
625
590
.0232
30
37
.0014
400
710
.0280
25
44
.0017
325
840
.0331
20
53
.0021
270
1000
.0394
18
62
.0024
230
1190
.0469
16
74
.0029
200
1410
.0555
14
88
.0035
170
1680
.0661
12
105
.0041
140
2000
.0787
10
125
.0049
120
2380
.0937
8
149
.0059
100
2830
.111
7
177
.0070
80
3360
.132
6
210
.0083
70
4000
.157
5
250
.0098
60
4760
.187
4
Another measure of dust potential Is the hardness or durability of the
abrasive material. Soft particles tend to crumble as they are abraded between
vehicle tires and pavement, while hard, angular particles tend to remain
integral.
Sand is the most comon abrasive applied to roadways. It is a cheap com-
modity that is taken from pits, quarries, rivers and beaches. Sand sources
are often close to roadways, reducing transportation costs. Some states main-
tain their own sources for road sand. Abrasives such as sand not only produce
initial surface friction, but also break up ice or packed snow as vehicles
travel over the roads.
2-6
-------
“Good” abrasives are described by Keyser (1973) as having “resistance to
degradation, angular shape, dark color and uniform grain size.” He also con-
cludes that fines passing a No. 50 sIeve contributes almost nothing to skid
resistance. Tests reported by Hegmon and Meyer (1968) indicate that the
highest coefficients of friction are produced by particles between the No. 8
and the No. 16 sizes, and that a slight improvement in skid resistance is
realized when the fines are removed. Fines are described as those particles
passing a No. 50 sieve. Table 2—3 provIdes desirable characteristics of anti-
skid abrasives (Schneider, 1959).
TABLE 2-3. DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF ABRASIVES
(SCHNEIDER, 1959)
Characteri stic Rationale
Great resistance to compression, Resist degradation under the action
crushing, impact, and grinding of traffic; could be recovered in
spring
Angular shape Greater stability; prevent Its being
blown away
Darkish color Absorbs heat to melt itself into the
surface of Ice
Uniform grain size Uniform spreading pattern; less
likely to damage equipment
Most agencies specify a top size of 3/8 in diameter for abrasives, but
the maximum fine particle (passing a 200 mesh or < 75 urn diameter) specifica-
tion for sand ranges from 2% to 15%. Some agencies reported that no specif I-
cations for fines are used, but sometimes the sand must be washed.
Certain agencies specify “clean, hard, and durable” material with a
“sharp” feel, but most do not have quantitative specifications for hardness,
durability, or number of faces. One state reported the use of the Los Angeles
abrasion test by cities, and said the same pits tested also supply sand for
both local and state highways. Occasionally sand rejected for use In concrete
or mortar is used for road antiskid material.
Cinders (steel and silver slag; boiler bottom ash) are used by several
agencies. One state commented that cinders are the best abrasive since they
are black and fine, and absorb sunlight to melt Ice and snow. But one agency
said they are not able to use copper slag because of heavy metal content.
Another said that if citizens can “see” the deposited material, they credit
the highway department with “doing their job.” An additional comment was that
2—7
-------
this precludes the use of “whit&’ limestone that cannot be seen on snow and
ice.
A study done by Eck (1986) reported that four tested abrasives——boiler
house cinders, coke cinders, sand and stone——are essentially the same in
effectiveness and that selection should be based on cost factors. Eck also
reported that one state used sawdust as an antiskid material and New York
reported using iron ore tailings. Montana reported they did not reuse
reclaimed sand from roads because of the size gradation requirement, but
another state said that up to 10% of reclaimed sand can be used.
Objections to abrasive use found In the literature search include:
1. CInders are quite bulky and frequently nonuniform In size, causing
problems with delivery systems.
2. Cinders are usually acidic and can cause corrosion.
3. Cinders are easily blown away because’of their light weight.
4. Cinders often contain significant levels of toxic heavy metals.
5. Both cinders and sand are deposited in catch basins and drain
conduits, requiring laborious efforts to remove them.
6. Coarse sand (> 3/8 in) can break windshields by being thrown into
the air by tires.
7. Sand smothers roadside vegetation.
8. Sand causes silt buildup in ponds and lakes.
9. All abrasives form a thick ice mat that will melt near warm spots
such as manholes, causing deep holes and ruts that are traffic
hazards.
10. All abrasives require heavy application amounts (in comparison with
deicing chemicals) to achieve good skid resistance.
Li. All abrasives should be cleaned from roadways after storm periods.
2.1.3 Deicing Chemicals
The potential for dust emissions from deicing chemicals Is based on the
amount and type of chemical that can be suspended by tire and wind action.
Deicing chemicals become liquid as ice is melted. Much of this water/chemical
solution will run off the roadway, but some will be sprayed Into the air by
traffic. Evaporated droplets may constitute a source of airborne particu-
lates, but a larger source is likely to be the film of solid material left on
the pavement surface upon evaporation of any remaining water/chemical solu-
tion. This dry film residue will be a source of suspended particulate upon
contact with vehicle tires and wind.
2—8
-------
Rock salt, the most commonly used deicing chemical, achieves good skid
control results with far less quantity than abrasives. It Is also the
cheapest deicing chemical available, but does cause corrosion of vehicles and
metal structures. Major rock salt deposits are found in New York, Michigan,
Kansas, Texas, and Louisiana. Solar salt ponds on the Great Salt Lake also
Supply some road deicing salt. Salt used in the coastal state of Maine,
however, comes from Spain and Canada. Salt used in Alaska is shipped from
Seattle.
Much of the sodium chloride In rock salt is believed to wash off the
roadway since salt Is very soluble in water. Even some suspended impurities
In rock salt are likely to run of f with the melted snow/ice. However, some
fraction of sodium chloride and the insoluble Impurities In rock salt are
likely to be deposited on the pavement upon roadway drying, to be suspended
later by tire or wind action. Little data were found in the literature
concerning quantities of sodium chloride or insoluble matter left on roadways
after deposition of rock salt, or the size fraction of this material when
suspended. One study (Keyser, 1981) claimed that an advantage of rock salt
was that It “freezes dry on pavement surface.”
An estimate of PM 10 emissions from the sodium chloride in rock salt has
been reported as 10 lb/ton of salt applied, based on an estimate of 5% of the
salt remaining as a dried film on the road pavement, and 10% of this film
being suspended as PM 10 (Grelinger, 1988). No field data were available for
validation of this estimate.
The sodium chloride content of rock salt Is about 99% for salt mined in
Louisiana, 98% for New York and Michigan, and 94% to 98% for Kansas salt.
Proportions of the remaining natural impurities found in rock salt are shown
in Table 2—4. Table 2-5 shows that small particles of rock salt are purer
than larger particles.
Kaufman (1968) noted that anhydrite bonds in rock salt deposits are
“tougher, harder, or have a stronger crystal intergrowth than the purer salt
between the bonds. The net result Is that the purest salt gravitates toward
the finer sizes, although the tendency may reverse in the very finest screen-
ings, which contain relatively large concentrations of anhydrite grains.”
Anhydrite (calcium sulfate), the major impurity, is present as small lath—like
crystals or crystal fragments of 100 urn average length which are slowly and
difficultly soluble. Highly dissolved sulfate occurs with fine grinding and
long dissolving time (> 30 mm) of rock salt (Kaufman, 1968). Both of these
conditions are satisfied with salting of roadways.
Other impurities in rock salt, including silica, alumina, ferric iron,
and dolomite, are not water soluble. Many quartz grains are very small
(< 10 Urn in diameter). It is possible that only the truly insoluble Impuri-
ties left on roadways after runoff and evaporation will constitute a signifi-
cant source of suspended particulate. Table 2-5 shows how the purity of rock
salt Is dependent on its source.
2-9
-------
0
TABLE 2-4.
COMPOSITION OF WATER INSOLUBLES IN ROCK SALT
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
Avery Island,
Louisiana
Detroit,
Michigan
Retsof,
New York
Kansas
Quartz (silica), Sb,
Iron oxide, Fe ,0 3
2.56
0.12
3.06
0.73
8.61
3.04
1.4
0.7
Magnesium carbonate, 1 49C C ) 3
Calcium carbonate, CaCO 3
Calcium sulfate, CaSO
0.61
Trace
96.66
1.71
6.37
86.85
4.14
2.50
81.16
--
2.4
94.5
Other
1.0
Total
100
100
100
100
Reference:
Kaufman (1968)
TABLE 2-5. ANNUAL AVERAGE PURITY OF ROCK SALT, DRY BASIS (PERCENT BY WEIGHT)a
Sizeb
Detroit, Michigan
(12-year average)
Retsof, New York
(14—year average)
Avery Island,
(representative
Louisiana
composite)
No.
2
96.705
97.658
99.073
No.
1
97.388
98.101
99.094
CC
FC
98.193
98.212
98.320
98.325
99.144 (A
99.227 (C
size
size
a Reference: Kaufman (1968)
b No. 2 = 0.42-0.50 in; No. 1 = 0.285-0.42 In; CC = 0.075-0.285 In; FC = < 0.075 In.
-------
Additional impurities are added by salt mines for anticaking proper-
ties. Chromates, phosphates, and similar compounds may also be added to rock
salt as possible corrosion inhibitors.
Calcium chloride is the second most common deicing chemical. It is often
mixed with sand and rock salt, either as a pellet or as a liquid, to produce a
more effective deicing mixture at low ambient temperatures. The eutectic
temperature of calcium chloride is —55°C (—67°F), considerably lower than that
of sodium chloride. Connecticut reported that calcium chloride is applied
only in watershed areas as three parts salt and one part calcium chloride.
Indianapolis reported 5% of calcium chloride is mixed with 95% salt for appli-
cation to city streets.
One report noted that calcium chloride added to rock salt produced less
visible salt residue both on the pavement and shoulders. The Legislative
Research Council of Massachusetts (1965) stated that “this salt residue is
apparent on the pavement for several days after a storm; it was, as late as
spring, still obvious on the shoulders and mall along the pavement edge in the
other two sections. It is assumed that it was because of the use of calcium
chloride that very little of this salt recrystallization was noted in the
chemical mix test section.”
Prilled urea and Quicksalt (a reduced corrosion deicer) were the other
two chemicals found to be used by agencies during the telephone survey. Both
were used in Alaska for specialized purposes. The urea was obtained from a
plant on the Kenai peninsula and shipping costs were presumably less than the
shipping costs of salt from Seattle. The literature produced names of other
chemicals used for roadway deicing, and these included liquid chemicals such
as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and alcohols which would not produce any
particulate emissions. These are discussed further in Section 4.
Objections to common chloride salt deicing chemicals include:
1. Vehicle bodies and bridges are corroded.
2. Concrete surfaces deteriorate.
3. Vegetation is damaged.
4. Water supplies are contaminated.
2.1.4 Mixtures of Abrasives and Chemicals
The most common deicing mixtures are those of rock salt, sand, and
calcium chloride. Table 2—6 presents a qualitative evaluation of chemicals
and abrasives used for snow and ice control (Keyser, 1981). Sand is almost
never applied by itself, but is mixed with a minimum of 5% rock salt to keep
moisture in the sand from freezing. If melting action is desired, higher
concentrations of salt are used. Salt and sand are usually premixed before a
particular storm is forecast and left to set and cure for “better” action.
During the winter of 1988/1989, a 10% salt/90% sand mixture was tried in
Denver, Colorado area, but the telephone responder said this mixture did not
give good performance, so they have returned to an 18% salt/82% sand mix-
ture. In Maine, 30 to 110 lb of rock salt are mixed per cubic yard of sand.
2—11
-------
INDU 2-4. Qt*LflAT1W (VALUAIION (N C1DICALS AND ANRASIVES USID IN SNOW MO ICI CONffi)I. (KEYS 1R. 19D 1)
Material Main pwpose Suitibility (or use Principal advantages Principal disadvantages
Sodia chloride (rock salt),
to melt snow and ice.
Very effective when the t. .rahwe is
above -3.$t; effective between -3.4’
-Ls’c; marginal between -9.S and
- 12.3C; and not effective below
-12. 3 ’C.
Provides tanadiate traction.
Salt particles bore, penetrate, and
undercut the ice layir.
freezes ó-y an pavement surface.
Low cost.
Low rate of solution
Ineffective at very low teeperatures.
Calcium ddoride, Cad 2
To .elt snow and Ice.
Normally used when the temperature is
below -12.3 ’C: effective down to
-29.l’C; margInal between -29.1’ and
-34.7 ’C; and not effective below
-34. rc.
High rate of solution.
Liberates heat on going Into solution.
Iffectlve at low temperatures.
High cost.
Melting action could take place at the
ic. surf ace.
Pave.eats re.ain wet.
Kiiitsres of MaCI and CaCl 2
to melt snow and ice.
In cold weathers down to -11.9C
when snow and ice enst be .eltad In a
short ti.
High rate of solution.
£ffsctlve at low temperatures.
Chemical sore stable on the road.
High cost.
Paveaent stays wet longer than with
Ca d 2 .
Nlzt.res of abrasives
and salt: abrasives treated
with salt
To Increase the
slidin friction
i..edlately.
In very cold weather, when salt ii not
effective or where clean ploughing
Is impossible if iediate Protection
Is necessary.
Free - having material.
No freezing of stockpiles
rasives more stable on the road.
Quick anchoring of abrasive to the road.
Improve skid resistance immediately.
Creates spring cleanup problems.
floes ot remove ice or snow which
causes slipperiness.
May damage vehicles travelling at high
speed.
Abrasives
Increase sliding
friction Immediately.
Improve skid resistance ia.ediately.
As listed for other abrasives.
(asHy brushed off the road by tires.
-------
In Connecticut, 300 lb of salt are mixed with 1,264 lb of sand for a 2-lane
mile application on multilane systems. Eck (1986) reported, “the overall mean
quantity of chemical used per cubic yard of abrasive Is 225 lb...”
Salt cannot be used in very cold temperatures because its eutectic
temperature is —21.1°C (—5.8°F). Addition of calcium chloride with a much
lower eutectic temperature of —55°C (-67°F) makes a mixture able to melt Snow
and ice at lower temperatures and is also believed to make the mixture “stick
better” to pavement. The residue of calcium chloride has been reported to
provide “sufficient concentration to prevent Ice bonding for up to 6 days
after treatment” (Transportation Research Board, 1974 and 1984).
2.2 APPLICATION RATES AND PROCEDURES
The U.S. Transportation Research Board (TRB) has twice printed the manual
on “Minimizing Deicing Chemical Use” (1974 and 1984) that acknowledges that
application rates are highly dependent on several factors. These include:
1. Level of service required.
2. Weather conditions and their change with time.
3. State and characteristics of chemicals used.
4. TIme of application.
5. Traffic density at time of, and subsequent to, chemical application.
6. Topography and the type of road surface.
Table 2-7 presents a summary of chemical and sand use and application
rates for 27 states, four Canadian provinces, and certain toll roads, coun-
ties, and cities published in 1974. The most comprehensive survey of deicing
chemical and abrasive usage in the U.S. was collected by the Salt Institute
(1984) for two winters in the early 1980s. Data collected in this survey are
summarized in Table2-8. Finally, highway salt sales by members of the Salt
Institute are presented for 12 yr in Table 2—9 (Salt Institute, 1989).
Rock salt is applied routinely in cities with high traffic volumes, on
icy spots such as hills and entrances to intersections, or where storm sewers
are located. The telephone survey found application rates of 350 lb/lane-mile
for Maine and 432 lb/2-lane mile in Connecticut for multilane systems with
high traffic intensity.
A salt/sand mixture (18% rock salt, 88% sand by volume) applied at
300 lb/lane-mile is recommended in the Denver, Colorado area, but Colorado
sand trucks do not have control levers for measured application intensities.
Table 2—10 illustrates the recommended salting/sanding rates of the Salt
Institute (1986).
2-13
-------
TABLE 2—7. CHEMICAL AND SAND USE (TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, 1974)
Annual
totals
MaCI
Ca d 2
Sand
Tons/
Agency Year (tons)
(tons)
(tons) Other lane
mile Application rates
.
States
California 69/70 22,000 400—600 Ib/mil. on
72/73 31000 Ic. and compacted
5110W
Connecticut 72/73 87,600
Idaho 8,000 400 lb/2—lan. mile
Illinois 69/70 309,900 5,480 500 lb/2—lan. mile
70/71 256,411 3,380
71/72 280,930 3,390
Kansas 500—1,000 lb/2—iane
usH• of 3:1 Ned—
CaCI 2 ; abrasives
with 10% to 15% salt
at 1,500 lb/mIle
Maine 69/70 74,846 194
70/71 88,817 23.0
71/72 85,692 22.2
Massachusetts 70/71 172,000 208,000 36,000
71/72 196,000 195,000 36,000
72/73 127,000 116,000 26,000
MInnesota 69/70 172,720 2,906 600—800 lb/lane mile
70/71 148,712 2,367 4.27 sand—salt; 400 to
71/72 116,664 1,381 283552 10.38 500 lb/lan. mile salt
MissourI 69/70 76,765 5,942 400 Ib/2 lane site
70/71 60,709 5,069 (maximum)
71/72 68,837 4,456
Montana 2,850 45 100-300 lb/lane mile
(cant inuid)
2-14
-------
TABLE 2—7 (Continued)
Annual
totals
NaC I
Ca d 2
Sand
Tons/
Ag.ncy Year (tons)
(tons)
(tons) Other lane
mile Application rates
Nebraska 72/73 18,000 800 200—500 lb/2—lane
mile
Nevada 0.5 yd 3 /2—Iane mile
New Hampshire 69/60 153,742 19.5
70/71 144,982 18.3
71/72 157,238 19.8
72/73 96,983 12.2
New Jersey 35,000 8,000 150—500 lb/lane mile
New York 69/70 192,384 2,285 200—600 lb/2-lane
70/71 205,744 2,535 mile
71/72 315,000 4,920 9.0
North Dakota 70 4,800 1,000 32,000
71 4,100 1,375 17,000
72 4,000 650 174,000
Ohio 69/70 510,000 2,600 12.7
70/71 470,000 2,300 11.7
71/72 424,000 3000 10.6
Oregon 6970 810 180
70/71 710 260
71/72 720 None
Pennsylvania 69/70 565,750 26,500 400 lb/lane mile max.
70/71 738,800 31,100 60—80 lb/Type 1
71/72 652500 29,550 CaCt 2 /ton sand
South Dakota 71 1,536 323 40,507 300—500 b/2—lane
72 1,890 368 43,400 mile
73 2,804 380 46,400
Vermont 69/70 110,000 21.1 300—800 lb/2—lane
70/71 88,000 16.3 mile; 546 lb/2—lane
71/72 97,000 17.6 mile (average)
72/73 88,260 16.0
(continusd)
2—15
-------
TABLE 2—7 (Continued)
Annual
totals
NeCI
CaC I 2
Sand
Tons!
Agency Year (tons)
(tons)
(tons) Other lane
mite Application r.t.s
Virginia 69/70 56,091 22,211 252,568
70/71 66,243 18,987 223,028
71/72 44,518 9,151 1)2,573
Washington 70/71 7,051 25-32F: 200—
71/72 15,251 250 lb/lane mile
72/73 16,665 NaCI; 10’—25’F: 250—
300 lb/lane nIle 3:1
NaCI—CaC1 2 ; < 10F:
350—450 lb/lane mite
Cad 2 flake or 300—
373 tb/lane tntl•
CaCL 2 pellet
West Virginia 69/70 152,453 10,045 500—600 lb/mi l
70/71 148570 7,325
71/72 112,244 2,380
Wyoming 2,000 lb sand—salt
pr 2—lan. mite
Provinces
Alb.rta 69/70 16,494 324 500 lb/2—lene nile
70/71 26,9)0 240 Ned max.
71/72 23,461 50
B.C. 45,000 100—300 lb/lane mile
(U)
.s. 69/70 59,448 7.1 300—600 lb/2—lane
70/71 121,328 13.9 mile; 70/71 ave.: 49 O
71/72 145,755 15.4 71/72 eve.: 450
Ontario 70/71 363,264 Sand: 2,000 lb/
71/72 419,137 2—lane mile; salt:
72/73 336,959 450 Ib/2—len. miIi
(continued)
2—16
-------
TABLE 2—7 (Concluded)
Annual
totals
Ned
CaC I 2
Sand
Tons/
Agency Year (tons)
(tons)
(tons) Other lane
mile Application rates
Toll Roads
Illinois State 44,000 691 7,740 500—600 lb/lane m’le
Toll Highway
Authority
New York 69/70 107,958 37.2
Thruway 70/71 120,486 41.6
71/72 121,904 42.3
Ohio Turnpike 69/70 26,645 1,335 400 lb/mile for snow
70/71 27,162 1.363 29,498 200 lb/mile of 2:1
71/72 24,638 837 NaCI—CaCl 2 for
freezing rain
County
Nennepin 70/71 11,252 250 lb/lane mile max.
•(Minnesote) 71/72 7,541
72/73 5,260
Cl ties
Milwaukee 69/70 39,951 100—450 lb/lane mile
70/71 43,257
71/72 38,940
New York CIty 70/71 128,928 2 oz/yd 2 (salt Only)
71/72 129,946
72/73 30,300
Sattle 69/70 27 19 600 lb/2—lane mile
70/71 2,320 3
71/72 4,120 44
Toronto 70/71 65,570 700 lb/lane mile
71/72 66,141
72/73 38,000
2—17
-------
1AL 2-8. STATE $1109 Mill I a CONTROL NATE*IM.S USC (SALT INSTIWTE, 1984)
Total
Rare
Winter
1981-1982
Winter
1982-1983
Calcium
chloride
Calcium
chloride
lane
pavanent
Salt
Dry
Liquid
Abrasives
S 1t
Dry
Liquid
Abrasives
Sttt* alias
.iles
(tons)
(tons)
(gal)
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
(gal)
(tons)
A laska 1 .020 900 450 300 250,000 18,225 355 250 200.000 18.225’
Arizona 16,550 0 394 44 0 56,714 413 25 0 56,000
Arkansas 34.852 0 2.510 518 0 16,597 856 246 0 9,155
Califoralo 53.000 12,900 13.600 25 0 200.000
f;’3
Colorado 32,000 32,000 22,460 0 0 351,519 10.856 0 0 434 831
Coimecticut 10.160 0 103,201 600 0 380,641’ 51,934 600 0 I80 ,598
Delaware 9 ,971 2,543 8.913 0 0 18,000 7,055 0 0 1,714
Florida
Georgia 41,809 13.900 18.500 400 0 12.200 1,200 60 0 7,800
Idaho 11,512 0 11.000 0 0 228,000 11,000 0 0 192,000
IllInois 36,515 304,184 280 228.500 206,000 520 115,150
Indiana 31,036 *4,559 313,365 204 88,252 278.193 116,650 44 90 108.619
(continued)
-------
lADLE 2-8 (Coat inued)
Total
Iar.
Winter
1981- 1982
Winter
1982-1983
Lucius
chloride
C ,lcha
chloride
lane
pavnesnt
Salt
Dry
Liquid
Abrasives
Salt
Dry
Liquid
Abrasives
Stat. •iln
.tles
(tons)
(tons)
(gal)
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
(gel)
(tons)
Iowa 24,300 0 64.000 2.260 24.000 145,000 60.400 2,225 9,500 116.000
kansas 22,371 5,688 35,490 0 0 31,630 0 0 65,000
kentucky 53 , 846 b 4 , 966 b 13,275 550 0 32.964 101 0
Loulsiasa 38.191 0 821 0 0 0 23 0 0 0
Main. 1,877 1,118 51,616 600 519.750 49,2 (12 535 412,500’
Maryland 14600 0 *55,158 1.914 1 1,400 82,499 918 30,859
Massachusetts 12,000 262,000 3,800 0 184,000 178,500 2,842 0 95,000
NId,igne 13 .667 4,685 397,000 210 0 17,000 229.000 267 0 10,000
Nineesota 21.124 4.162 118,587 310 0 291.204 121,951 280 0 288.893
Mississi i 23,391 0 332 285
Missouri 69,664 90,963 4,615 0 75,111 3,373 0
Montana 18 .190 18,190 2,811 16 0 160,000 3,245 28 0 200,000
Nebraska 22,000 22,221 464 34642 84.811 24.899 556 25,974 86,734
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-B (Continued)
fotal
Bare
WInter
1981-1982
Winter
1982-1983
Catcie.di orlde
talcie
chloride
lane
pava.ent
Salt
tIry
liquid
Abrasives
Salt
Pry
Liquid
Abrasives
st.t. slips
s ilas
(toni)
(tons)
(9$))
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
(qal)
(tons)
t ’3
0
Nevada
12,608
11.340
8.500
0 0
51.000
9,831 0
0
51 ,1Km
New Hanpshirs
8,630
8.406
138,692
253 0
210.135
93.813 228
0
151.322
New Jersey
10,366
10.366
54.500
950 213.000
12.400
35.700 500
228.000
4,200
New N.*lco
21.450
20.000
16.000
0 0
64.000
23.000 0
0
80.000
New York
29,180
29.180
443.000
800 0
899,000
300,000 300
0
460.000
North Caroline
112,513
23.342
45.264
192 0
36.573 160
0
North Oakota
15,800
8,222
0 69 , 580 b
35.000
8,719 217 , 500 b
o
is.ooo
Ohio
42.192
0
401.285
1.115 224,014
239,081
184,341 195
113.291
128,916
Okiahons
25,935
0
9,300
0
36.000
18,170 0
72.000
ibegon
11,585
0
0 449,016
456
424,968
Pennsylvania
11,000
500.000
5.000 0
1.200,000
231,000 5.000
0
655.000
Iliode Island
3.015
3,016
56,250
55 0
86.094
29,291 132
0
45,000
South Carolina
84,450
3,450
1,958
.358 0
10.000
587 286
0
4.750
-------
tAStE 2-8 (Concluded)
I ’ .)
I-a
a Cidsic yards of dbrasives converted to tans on the basis of I yd 3 equals 2 .700 lb--for calculation purposes only.
b Includes paritways.
total
Sari
Winter
1981-1982
Winter
1982-1983
CaIclu.
chloride
Calciwa
chloride
line
piveonnt
Salt
Dry
Liquid
Ab.astves
Salt
Dry
Liquid
Abrasives
State
•iles
•$les
(tons)
(tons)
(gal)
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
(gal)
(tons)
Soath Dakota
15.216
4,345
7
0
52.920
3.697
5
0
45.002
Teonesse.
25,081
25.081
51.000
140
0
51.000
0
Utah
22.000
79.540
0
0
125.000
79.120
0
0
125,000
Veronnt
6,019
8.019
71.904
0
0
154.648 1
55,647
0
0
lOS,SS 4
VIrginia
1 12.814
11,350
178,500
2.000
0
400.000
95.000
1,000
0
255.000
Washington
16.178
0
10.000
0
0
360,445
7.500
0
0
203.531
West VirginIa
10.000
21.000
90.636
1.009
0
239.655
52.109
314
0
178,642
WisconsIn
25,714
25,774
236,190
155
70.000
26,585
229,803
649
40000
2S ,9l3
Wyo.iag
15.743
0
5.000
0
0
113.000
6,340
0
0
121.000
-------
TABLE 2—9. HIGHWAY SALT SALES BY U.S. MEMBERS
OF THE SALT INSTITUTE (1989)
Quantity sold
Year of record (103 tons)
7/77—6/78 10,927
7/78—6/79 11,323
7/79—6/80 8,108
7/80—6/81 7,240
7/81—6/82 9,787
7/82—6/83 7,267
7/83—6/84 10,329
7/84—6/85 10,730
7/85—6/86 11,057
7/86—6/87 9,462
7/87—6/88 11,147
7/88—6/89 10,181
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-10.
STORMFIGHTING GUIDELINES OF THE SALT INSTITUTE
Environmental condition
Reconvnended application
CONDITION 1:
Temperature
Near 30
Precipitation
Snow, sleet, or freezing rain
Road Surface
Wet
CONDITION 2:
Temperature
Below 30 or falling
Precipitation
Snow, sleet, or freezing rain
Road Surface
Wet or sticky
CONDITION 3:
Temperature
Below 20 and falling
Precipitation
Dry snow
Road Surface
Dry
CONDITION 4:
Temperature
Below 20
Precipitation
Snow, sleet, or freezing rain
Road Surface
Wet
CONDITION 5:
Temperature
Below 1.0
Precip1t tion
Snow or freezing rain
Road Surface
Accumulation of packed snow or Ice
If snow or sleet, apply salt at 500 lb
per two—lane mile. If snow or sleet
continues and accumulates, plow and
salt simultaneously. If freezing
rain, apply salt at 200 lb per two—
lane mile. If rain continues to
freeze, reapply salt at 200 lb per
two-lane mile.
Apply salt at 300—800 lb per two—lane
mile, depending on accumulation rate.
As snowfall continues and accumulates,
plow and repeat salt application. If
freezing rain, apply salt at 200—400
lb per two—lane mile.
Plow as soon as possible. Do not
apply salt. Continue to plow and
patrol to check for wet, packed, or
icy spots; treat them with heavy salt
applications.
Apply salt at 600—800 lb per two-lane
mile, as required. If snow or sleet
continues and accumulates, plow and
salt simultaneously. If temperature
starts to rise, apply salt at 500—600
lb per two—lane mile, wait for salt to
react before plowing. Continue until
safe pavement is obtained.
Apply salt at rate of 800 lb per two-
lane mile or salt—treated abrasives
at rate of 1500 to 2000 lb per two—
lane mile. When snow or Ice becomes
mealy or slushy, plow. Repeat
application and plowing as necessary.
NOTE: The light, 200—lb application called for in Conditions 1 and 2 must be
repeated often for the duration of the condition.
2-23
-------
Reconvnended rates of sand application found in the literature and phone
survey ranged from .5 to 2 ton/lane mile. Maine applies a mostly sand mixture
(30 to 110 lb of salt/i yd3 of sand) at 1 yd 3 /lane mile. Connecticut reported
the application of 300 lb of salt mixed with 1,264 lb of sand for a 2—lane
mile application on multilane systems. Eck (1986) reported that the overall
mean quantity of chemical used per cubic yard of abrasives is 225 ib, with
Canadian usage appreciably higher at a mean of 335 lb. The chemicals used for
these means were not given. [ The conversion factor from cubic yards of sand
to tons is approximately 1.3.1 Finally, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials have published guidelines on the use of
antiskid materials based on road and environmental conditions. These are
shown in Table 2-11 (AASHTO, 1976).
To minimize deicing chemical use for environmental reasons, the Trans.-
portation Research Board (1974 and 1984) reports that agencies use liquid
chemicals such as calcium chloride applied to rock salt, control application
rates using calibrated spreaders, use abrasives mixed with lower proportions
of salt, and use alternatives to chloride salts. However, highway maintenance
personnel know that if they do not apply sufficient salt In time, a compacted
snow mass builds up that may take 3 to 5 days to remove by “laborious, costly,
time—consuming, and marginally ineffective methods.” Consequently, minimizing
deicing chemical use Is often considered not a good idea for safety and cost
reasons.
Tailgate sanding trucks conm only spread antiskid materials. The most
popular truck is reported as a five-ton, two—axle, heavy-duty truck. These
rear—dump trucks can have spinning disks or a roller extending the width of
the truck tailgate that cast the sand/salt out over two lanes of traffic, or
may simply discharge the mixture straight down upon the narrow traffic path
being travelled, often only 1 to 3 ft wide. Often snowplowing and saltlng/
sanding operations are done with the same truck during the same pass. How-
ever, front-dump spreaders are used In Maine so that the truck itself has
traction on the newly sanded/salted covered surface.
2.3 REMOVAL TECHNIQUES
Dust generation potential can be reduced if the fine materials left on
roadways after pavement drying are cleaned up promptly and without further
spreading and resuspension of the material. Regular cleaning also keeps
abrasives from being ground into small particles by road traffic or freeze/
thawing. Quick cleanup may not be mandated, however, if a new snowstorm Is
likely.
Helmers (1986) and Oeberg (1985) reported that salted roads were dirtier
than sanded ones. Glass plates attached to the rear bumpers of cars were used
to collect samples. After exposure of the glass plates while driving on wet
roadways, light transmission through the plates was measured to give a semi-
quantitative estimate of the comparative dirtiness of the roads.
2—24
-------
TABLE 2-Il. GUIDELINES FOR CHEMICAL APPLICATION RATES (MSHTO, 1976)
Weather conditions
Application
rate (pounds of material
per
mile
of 2—lane road
or 2-lanes of
divided)
Pavement
Low— and high—speed Two— and three—lane
Temperature conditions
Precipitation
multilane
divided
primary
Two—lane
secondary
Instructions
30F and Wet Snow 300 salt 300 salt 300 salt — Wait at least 0.5 h
above before plowing
Sleet or 200 salt 200 salt 200 salt — Reapply as necessary
freezing rain
25—3 0F Wet Snow or sleet InitIal at 400 salt Initial at 400 salt Initial at 400 salt — Wait at least 0.5 h
repeat at 200 salt repeat at 200 salt repeat at 200 salt before plowing; repeat
Freezing rain Initial at 300 salt Initial at 300 salt initial at 300 salt — Repeat as necessary
repeat at 200 salt repent at 200 salt repeat at 200 salt
20—25W Wet Snow or sleet Initial at 500 salt Initial at 500 salt 1,200 of 5;1 sand/ Wait about 0.15 h
repeat at 250 salt repeat at 250 salt salt; repeat same before plowing; repeat
Freezing rain Initial at 400 salt InitIal at 400 salt — Repeat as necessary
repent at 300 salt repeat at 300 salt
15—20F Dry Dry snow Plow Plow Plow — Treat hazardous areas
with 1,200 of 20:1
sand/salt
Wet Wet snow or 500 of 3:1 salt/ 500 of 3:1 salt/ 1,200 of 5:1 sand — Waif about 1 h before
sleet calcium chloride calcium chloride plowing; continue
plowing until storm
ends; then repeat
application
Below 15F Dry Dry snow Plow Plow Plow — Treat hazardous area
wIth 1,200 of 20:1
sand/salt
-------
Many agencies contacted by phone stated that they clean up abrasives
applied to roadways, mostly during the spring, following the end of the snow
season. Montana cleans only their urban roads with vacuum sweepers. Their
cleanup operations begin in late February to keep strong spring winds from
picking up the remaining sand on roadways causing a sandblast.lng action.
Wyoming, however, responded that they clean roadways whenever the weather
permits if there is a heavy buildup of sand. In rural areas of Wyoming, sand
is swept to the side of the road, while in urban areas, sand is picked up by
street cleaners. In season, Colorado cleans their highways at night (In the
Denver maintenance area) using broom sweepers. Missouri MroutinelyH cleans up
their highways.
One major reason for cleanup operations In cities Is to prevent abrasives
from being deposited into catch basins or sewers. Catch basins are emptied at
considerable expense. Abrasives may plug combination storm/sanitary sewer
systems If there are no catch basins and streets are not cleaned. Cleanup
operations in Maine and Minneapolis also Include the washing of bridges with
pressure hoses.
2—26
-------
SEC ION 3
MEASUREMENT METHODS FOR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
As stated in Section 1, the amount of PM 10 generated from paved roadways
is directly related to the silt loading of the surface material available for
reentrajnment by passing vehicles. Abrasives and deicing chemicals add
temporary, but substantial, amounts of silt-size particles to the road which,
if not removed, will increase PM 10 emissions and their associated air quality
impact. These fine particles are either applied directly to the road surface
with the abrasive or chemical during Initial treatment or are created through
attrition, dissolution, etc., while on the road surface.
The potential of a particular material to provide additional silt loading
on a road surface (and thus PM 10 ) is directly related to its physical (or
chemical) properties. In this section, varIous methods for measuring the
properties of antiskid materials are presented. These methods can be divided
into three general categories which include: silt measurement methods; dura-
bility measurement methods; and measurement of other applicable properties.
Although this discussion will be directed mainly to abrasives, some discussion
of delcing chemicals will also be provided in Section 3.4.
3.1 SILT MEASUREMENT METHODS
In general, there are two basic techniques for measuring the silt content
(% less than 200 mesh or 75 M) of a material: mechanical classification and
instrumental methods. Each will be discussed as related to current practice.
3.1.1 Mechanical Classification Methods
The most widely used technique for determination of silt content is
through a combination of wet and dry sieving according to American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods C 136 and C 117 (ASTM, 1984a and 1987).
These methods correspond to American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO) Methods T-27 and T-11, respectively (AASHTO,
1984; AASHTO, 1985a). Copies of the ASTM methods are included in Appendix C.
In the standard ASTM and AASHTO methods, an aggregate sample is first
washed through a 200mesh sieve to determine the amount of material less than
75 pM In physical diameter. The remaining sample is then dry-sieved to deter-
mine the gradation of particles In the larger size ranges as well as any
residual material passing the 200 mesh screen. The weight of the < 200 mesh
material determined by washing is added to that collected during dry sieving
to determine the total silt content of the original sample. (Note that the
method used by MRI in the development of the PM 10 emission factor equation
3-1
-------
uses only dry sieving to determine silt content.) The approximate 1989 cost
of the two ASTM analyses at a local laboratory in Kansas City is $35.
The above technique is used by most transportation agencies for determin-
Ing the gradation of aggregate materials, including those used for skid con-
trol. Size gradation specifications are normally developed for aggregates
used In portland cement concrete mixes for road paving which rely heavily on
the ASTM or AASHTO methods.
3.1.2 Enstrumental Methods for Silt Determination
Although not as cotmnonly used, various Instrumental methods are available
for the determination of the silt content of finely divided particulate mat-
ter. In general these methods include: microscopy, sensing zone Instruments,
elutriation and centrifugal classification, mercury intrusion, gravity sedi-
mentation, centrifugal sedimentation, hydrodynamic chromatography, and mercury
porosimetry. Table 3—1 provides a further classification of Instruments
falling Into each of the above categories as well as examples of coimnercially
available equipment.
Although specifications vary from device to device, the above fnstruments
are limited to measurement of particles < — 200 urn in diameter. These
Instruments can, however, offer the advantage of automatic operation (thus
reducing analytical error) as well as providing data on particle size distri-
bution, surface area, etc., which may be useful in material selection. In
general, instrumental analysis methods are relatively expensive and thus are
not widely used by transportation agencies.
3.2 DURABILITY MEASUREMENT METHODS
In general, there are four basic methods which can be used for determin-
ing the durability of an aggregate material. These include: abrasion and
impact tests; wet aggregate durability tests; freeze-thaw tests; and petro-
graphic methods. Although these tests were originally developed to measure
the durability of aggregates used in concrete mixes for road paving, they are
also useful In the evaluation of skid control abrasives (see Section 5). The
following describes the various methods included In the above categories.
3.2.1 Abrasion and Impact Tests
One measure of aggregate durability is its ability to withstand abrasion
and impact in service. There are three methods which fall Into the category
of abrasion/Impact tests. These are: the Los Angeles abrasion test, the
aggregate impact test, and the aggregate crushing test. Each is described
below.
The Los Angeles Abrasion Test is outlined In ASTM Method C 131 and AASHTO
Method T—96 for small—size coarse aggregate (ASTM, 1981; AASHTO, 1983). The
Los Angeles test Is intended to measure the degradation of washed mineral
aggregates of specific particle size (e.g.. 4.75 to 2.36 ian) due to a combina-
tion of abrasion (or attrition), Impact, and grinding In a rotating ball
mill. Each graded material sample is sieved after milling to determine the
3—2
-------
TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF INSTRUMENTAL METHODS OF
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
* Microscopic methods:
- optical microscopy
- electron microscopy (TEM and SEM)
- automated Image analysis (e.g., LaMont Analyzer)
* Sensing zone methods:
- electrical resistance (e.g., Coulter Counter)
- optical (Including laser)
- photoextinction (e.g., HIAC PA 720)
- forward and right—angle scattering (e.g., L&N Microtrac)
- acoustic
* Elutriation and centrifugal classification methods:
- laminar flow (e.g., Roller analyzer)
- cyclone—elutriators (e.g.., Cyclosizer)
— centrifugal classifiers (e.g., Bahco Micro—Particle Classifier)
* Gravity sedimentation methods:
— turbidimetry (e.g., Wagner Turbidimeter)
- sedimentation balances (e.g., Micromerograph)
— X—ray (e.g., SediGraph 50000)
— photoextinction (e.g., SediGraph—L)
* Centrifugal sedimentation methods:
- mass accumulation (e.g., MSA)
— photoextinction (e.g., Joyce—Loebi Disc Centrifuge)
- X—ray
* Hydrodynainic chromatography
* Mercury porosimetry
3—3
-------
amount of fines generated by the process. The number of balls used in the
mill depends on the original gradation of the test sample analyzed.
A copy of the Los Angeles abrasion test has been included in Appen-
dix 0. The approximate 1989 cost of an ASTM Method 131 or AASHTO Method 1-96
analysis is $50 at a local laboratory in Kansas City.
The Aggregate Impact Test is given in British Standard 812 and also used
in the United States for research purposes (Woodside and Peden, 1983; I4egmon
and Meyer, 1968). In this test, a small aggregate sample is placed in an
instrument where a standard weight is repeatedly dropped onto the material
thus attenuating the sample. Degradation is determined by differences in
gradation before and after impact (Hegmon and Meyer, 1968).
The Aggregate Crushing Test is also given In British Standard 812
(Woodside and Peden, 1983). In this test, an aggregate sample is crushed at a
constant rate so that the compressive force at the end of the 10-mm test
period is 40 tonnes (44 tons). The method gives rise to the formation of a
cushioning layer formed from the matrix composed of weaker crushed material,
which effectively dampens the effect of loading on the enclosed sample. Both
the aggregate crushing test and aggregate Impact test are used extensively in
Europe to determine the durability of aggregate used in road pavement
(Woodside and Peden, 1983; Anon, 1979).
The values obtained from the above tests were correlated with one another
by Woodside and Peden (1983) using experimental data for 13 different aggre-
gate materials used in paving mixes. The correlation of the aggregate crush-.
Ing value (ACV) with the Los Angeles abrasion value (LAAV) Is given by the
following equation (Woodside and Peden, 1983):
ACV 0.8013 LAAV + 3.5853 (3-1)
The correlation coefficient (r2) for the above relationship Is 0.9042.
Using the same data set, the correlation of aggregate impact value (AIV)
with the Los Angeles abrasion value (LAAV) was determined by MRI to be:
AIV 0.6535 LAAV + 3.1778 (3-2)
The correlation coefficient (rZ) for the above relationship Is 0.9723. As
shown by Equations (3—1) and (3—2), the results of the three abrasion/Impact
tests are intercorrelated with one another. This intercorrelation will be
discussed in more detail later in this report.
3.2.2 Wet Aggregate Durability Tests
All wet aggregate durability tests are based on the basic techniques
outlined in AASHTO Method 1-210 and ASIM Method 0 3744 for fine aggregate
3—4
-------
material (AASHTO, 1964; ASTM, 1979). Variations of these methods have been
developed by Maine, Washington (Method 113A), Oregon, and Alaska (Method
1-13). The purpose of this method is to determine the durability of an
aggregate material based on its relative resistance to the production of
detrimental, claylike fines when subjected to mechanical agitation in water.
In the basic method, a dry graded sample is placed in a closed vessel
along with 1000 mL of distilled (or deionized) water and agitated on a sieve
shaker for 2 mm. After agitation, the degraded material Is washed through a
200 mesh screen and the material > 200 mesh Is dried and dry—sieved to obtain
the size distribution. After sieving, the individual separates are recom-
bined, a calcium chloride solution added to a subsample of the material, and
the material reshaken and allowed to settle. The “clay” layer and “sand”
layer is then measured with the “durability index” calculated from the values
obtained.
A number of variations to the above method have been developed by state
transportation agencies. These variations include changes in both methodology
or in the calculation procedure. Copies of the various state—generated wet
durability test methods are Included in Appendix E.
The specification of a minimum durability value for paving aggregates
using the above tests will vary from state to state. For example, Washington
specifies a minimum degradation value of 50 (using its particular test method)
as compared to Maine which specifies a minimum value of 40 (using its method)
(Norburg, 1981). It would be expected that these specifications may also be
used as general guidelines for the selection of antiskid abrasives as well.
3.2.3 Freeze—Thaw Tests
Another measure of aggregate durability is its susceptibility to fracture
during freeze—thaw cycles. This is referred to as “soundness” and is deter-
mined using the sodium/magnesium sulfate test specified in ASTM C 88 and
AASHTO T—104 (ASTM, 1983; AASHTO, 1985b). The 1989 cost of analysis for
either the ASTM or AASHTO methods is approximately $65 at a local laboratory
in Kansas City.
The above methods estimate the soundness of individual aggregate size
separates by repeated lnmterslon in a saturated salt solution followed by oven
drying to partially (or completely) dehydrate the salt precipitate In the
permeable pore spaces. The internal expansive force, derived from the
rehydration of the salt upon reinuiersion, simulates the expansion of water on
freezing. After the final inmiersion/drying cycle, degradation is determined
by sieving the sample over the same sieve on which it was retained before the
test to determine the percent loss. Since most abrasives used for skid con-
trol are mixed with salt either before or after application, this test may be
of particular interest in determining the durability of such materials in
service.
3—5
-------
3.2.4 Petrographic Methods
The final durability measurement techniques to be discussed are petro—
graphic methods which evaluate the mineral composition of fine aggregate
materials. The nomenclature used to describe the constituents of mineral
aggregates is provided in ASTM Method C 294 with the petrographic examination
of this material described in ASTM Method C-295 (ASTM, 1969; ASTM 1985a). The
approximate cost of analysis for ASTM C -295 Is $2,000 for a laboratory located
in Chicago.
The above ASTM methods are only intended to determine the mineral content
of •a particular material and thus do not attempt to relate mineralogy to
durability. However, the Petrographic Number Method has been developed in
Canada for such a determination (Hudec, 1984). This method is basically a
subjective method of classifying crushed rock particles into four discrete
categories of good, fair, poor, and bad (deleterious) aggregate (1 — good; 3 —
faIr; 6 poor; 10 * bad).
Hudec (1984) related the petrographic number (PM) determined by the above
method to various other measured parameters by step—wise multiple linear
regression. The results of this analysis obtained the following relationship:
PN a 4.406 + 0.144 Ab + 1.805 Ad - 0.165 Gr - (3—3)
(2.014 Ad/VAd) - 1.004 Hd
where: PN — petrographic number (dimensionless)
Ab a low intensity abrasion value for - 6.7 mm material
(dimensionless)
Ad a adsorbed water (%)
Gr a grain size (mm)
VAd a vacuum water adsorption (%), by boiling method
Hd a hardness
As shown by the above relationship, the durability (as determined by
petrography) of an aggregate decreases with Its susceptibility to abrasion and
water absorption and increases with grain size and hardness of the particles.
3.3 ANALYSIS METHODS FOR OTHER PROPERTIES
En addition to the above, there is a wide variety of other properties
related to the durability and fines—generating potential of abrasives used In
ice and snow control. These are too numerous to describe in detail here.
However, Table 3—2 provides a summary of the various methods and the basis for
their applicability to skid control abrasives.
3—6
-------
TABLE 3-2. SLH4ARY OF TEST METHODS RELATED TO ANTISKID MATERIALS
Method
designation
Title of
test method Summary of
Significance of test
test method to antiskid materials
Approximate
cost
analysisa
Reference
No.b
A standard metal cup is sequentially filled with
aggregate and repeatedly tamped with a rod. The
weight of the aggregate In the cup Is than mea-
sured with the percent voids calculated based on
the dry bulk density of the aggregate and the
equivalent weight of water occupying the cup
volume.
The aggregate to be tested is immersed in water
for a period of 24 h alter which time it is
partially air—dried such that it no longer holds
a cylindrical shape. A 500—g sample of this
material is then introduced into a pycnometer
and filled with water. The pycnometer is
weighed both with th. aggregate sample/water
mixture and with an equivalent volume of water.
The sample is removed from the pycnometer,
oven-dried, end the total moisture determined
by gravimetrlc analysis. ihe bulk specific
gravity and water absorption is then calculated
fro, the test results.
A dry—sieved (Method C 117) aggregate sample
(> 1.18 mm) is immersed in water for a period
of 24 h after which the lumps and friable
particles are individually broken by hand. The
material is then wet—sieved and dried to deter-
mine the percent of the original sample consist—
ing of lumps or friable particles.
A small aggregate sample containing particles
ranging from 150—300 us is immersed in a
heated (8O C), 1.0 N solution of MaCH for a
period of 24 Ii. At the end of this period,
the solution containing dissolved $102 is
filtered from the aggregate, digested with con-
centrated HC1, and the solid $10, repeatedly
filtered from the reacted solutibn. The percent
$10, is calculated from the results of gravi—
metric analysis.
The void fraction of an
aggregate is related to
the angularity of the
particles. Highly angular
particles are desired for
good skid control.
Bulk specific gravity is
needed for Method C 29
above. In addition, since
application of abrasives
is normally metered accord-
ing to volume, bulk spe-
cific gravity can be used
to determine the applica-
tIon rate on a weight basis.
Finally, water absorption
is related to soundness of
an aggregate to withstand
freeze—thaw cycles.
Clay lumps and friable
particles contained in skid
control abrasives have a
greater potential for the
generation of fines when
applied to a road surface.
The silica ($10 ) content
of a fine aggr4ate used
for skid control has been
determined to be one of the
most important factors In
durability with high silica
particles being most
durable.
ASIM C 29
(AASI 1TO-T— 19)
AS1M C 128
ASTM C 142
ASTM C 289
Unit Weight and
Voids In
Aggregate
Specific Gravity
and Absorption
of Fine
Aggregate
Cloy Lumps and
Friable Par-
ticles in
Aggregates
Potential Reac-
tivity of Aggre-
gates (Chemical
Method)
$50
$25
$25
$150
1, 2
1
1
I
-------
TABLE 3—2 (contInued)
Method
designation
Title of
test method Summary of
SIgnificance
test method to antiskid
of test
materials
Approximate
cost of
onalysisa
Reference
No.b
in this method, concrete specimens are exposed
to a 4% solutIon of Cad (or other delcers) and
repeatedly frozen and thawed for 16-18 h. The
scaling of the specimen is determined visually
over the desired number of cycles and a rating
assigned from 0—5 (0 a no scaling) every
5 cycles (or every 25 cycles after 25 cycles
have been made).
Grab sampling procedures are outlined for static
and dynamic conditions.
A sample of aggregate is placed In a cylindrical
mold of known volume and repeatedly ta.ped with
a rod of standard weight. The weight of mate-
rial Is determined after 10 and 50 drops of the
rod to calculate the particle index.
Pavement (bituminous or concrete) specimens are
mounted on a track, over which four smooth,
pneumatic tires are continuously run. A polish-
ing curve is obtained over a period of - 8 h
or until friction measurements show no substan-
tial decrease with continued polishing. (Note
(Note that although pavement specimens are
normally used, an immobilized aggregate sample
could also be evaluated by the above method.)
The ability of a road pave-
ment to withstand the
application of deicing
chemicals Is related to
pavement breakup (i.e.,
scaling) and thus the pro-
duction of additional fine
particles for suspension.
This tests Is not directly
related to aggregate dura-
bility, however.
Collection of a representa- Variabie
tive sample of antiskid
materials.
Particle shape (high degree
of angularity) and texture
(coarse) are Important In
skid resistance. This
method is an indirect
measure of these two
properties.
The resistance of a skid
controi material to wear
and polishing by the action
of rotating tires is the
most direct measure of
durability currently
available.
$600
(50 cycles)
AS1M C 672 Scaling Resis-
tance of Con-
crete Sur faces
Exposed to
Deic lng
Chemicals
AS1M 1) 75 Sampling of
(AASHTO T-2) Aggregates
ASTM 0 3398 index of Aggre-
gate Particle
Shape and
Texture
ASTM F 660 Accelerated
Polishing of
Aggregates or
Pavement Sur-
faces Using a
Seal i-Wheel,
Circular Track
Polishing Machine
1, 2
1
$560 (7
fractions)
Unknown
-------
TABLE 3—2 (contInued)
Method
designation
Title of
test method
SuvAmary of test method
Significance of test
to antiskid materials
Approx mate
cost of
analysisa
Reference
No
AASHTO 1—248
(ASTM C 702)
Reducing Field
Samples of
Aggregate to
Testing Size
Sample splitting using a riffle and
quartering are described.
coning and
Collection of a repre—
sentative sample of anti—
skid material for further
analysis.
Variable
1,
2
None
Moh Hardness
Surface scratch hardness relative to
scale,
empirical
Material hardness is directly
related to durability as
measured by other methods.
$50
—
a Based on 1989 prices of an independent materials testing laboratory located in either Kansas City or Chicago.
b Reference I 1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , American Society of Testing and Materials, Phi ladeiphia, Pennsylvania, 1985.
Reference 2 - Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing Part ii Methods of Sampling
and Testing , 14th EdItion, Merican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, &ashington, D.C.,
August 1986.
-------
Analysis cost estimates are also provided in Table 3—2 based on a laboratory
located in either Kansas City or Chicago.
Like those described above, most of the methods described in Table 3—2
are related to the selection of aggregates for use in portland cement concrete
mixtures. A standard specification for concrete aggregates is published in
ASTM Method C 33 whIch can be used as a general guide for material selection
(ASTM, 1985b). Please note, however, that some transportation agencies use
rejected concrete aggregate (e.g., sand) as a skid control abrasive. The
significance of this should be obvious.
3.4 MEASUREMENT METHODS FOR DEICING CHEMICALS
Rock salt used for road deicing purposes Is comprised mostly of NaCl
which does not remain on the road surface In any substantial amount after the
storm. The NaC1 is either washed away with the storm runoff, entrained by
passed vehicles, or temporarily retained by the pavement itself. However,
rock salt contains appreciable quantities (up to 6% for Kansas salt) of water-
insoluble mineral matter which can remain on the road surface for extended
periods (Kaufmann, 1968). ThIs insoluble mineral matter consists of very fine
particles of CaSO ,, silica, alumina, ferric oxide, and dolomite. Therefore,
in addition to gradation (see Section 3.1 above), the percent Insoluble matter
in rock salt is important in the generation of surface silt loading and thus
PM 10 .
To determine the percent Insoluble material in rock salt, 50 g of sample
is placed In 200 mL of water and stirred for a period of 5 mm (Kaufmann,
1968). After stirring, the mixture is wet filtered to obtain the percent
insoluble matter by gravimetric analysis. General specifications for sodium
chloride are provided in ASTh Method 0 632 (ASTM, 1984b).
3-10
-------
SECT ION 4
ALTERNATIVE SKID CONTROL MEASURES
Essentially all roadway ice and snow control measures in the United
States consist of the long—established methods of plowing, sanding nd
salting. Alternative measures to remove snow and ice from roadways have been
extensively studied in the literature, particularly to identify methods that
will reduce environmental damage resulting from the application of chloride
salts. These alternative measures Include other deicing chemicals as well as
pavement coatings to prevent ice adhesion, resistance heating, mechanical ice
removal methods, and new tire and vehicle design. The following sections
describe studies of many of these alternative methods.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS
The Federal Highway Administration has conducted an extensive search
(Dunn, 1980) to find road deicing chemicals to replace sodium chloride.
Criteria for selection Included a decrease in water solubility and freezing
point, corrosivity, toxicity, relative cost (or cost potential), effect on
Soils, plants and water supplies, and flamability. The chemicals analyzed
for deicing effectiveness consisted of both inorganic salts and organic
Compounds.
Inorganic salts (ionic compounds) are sodium—containing salts, salts
Containing chloride, nitrate or sulfate, sodium salts, carbonic and phosphoric
acids, potassium salts of carbonic acid, potassium salts of phosphoric acid,
tetrapotasslum pyrophosphate, aniinonium salts of phosphoric acid and ammonium
Salts of carbonic acid. Metal organic salts were also studied, as was
glycine.
Nonlonic deicers that were investigated by Dunn (1980) included methanol,
ethanol and isopropanol, acetone, urea, formamide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)
and ethyl carbamate (urethane). Two chemicals, calcium magnesium acetate (CMA)
and methanol, were also field tested on a road, highway, sidewalk and parking
ramp.
CMA and methanol were found to be as effective as sodium chloride, but
Without its drawbacks. Methanol reacts almost immediately to melt snow and
Ice, but i less persistent than sodium chloride. The eutectic temperature of
methanol (-120°C or —184°F) is much lower than that of sodium chloride, and
thus methanol works well at low ambient temperatures (i.e., below -7°C or
20°F) when the melting efficiency of sodium chloride diminishes.
4-1
-------
The application of methanol to roadways would not create a source of
particulate emissions, but would be a source of short term volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) to persons applying the chemical because of Its relatively
high evaporation rate. For workers exposed to methanol vapors, the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration has established an 8—h permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of 200 ppm and a 15-mm short term exposure limit (STEL)
of 250 ppm. Also methanol can be absorbed by skin contact and has been found
to be toxic to some animal species. This chemical is also very flammable
during storage, but once applied to a road, will not ignite even when puddled
on a snow covered road (Dunn, 1980).
The other candidate deicer, cMA, acts at about the same rate as sodium
chloride in the temperature range of common activity and shows about the same
persistence. CMA has other advantages:
1. Braking traction and skidding friction are about the same as NaC1.
2. Corrosion Is retarded.
3. Soils are not affected.
4. Drinking water supplies are not harmed.
5. Unpurif led CMA grains can be dark in color to enhance insolation and
accelerate melting.
Dunn’s study also reported that the acetate gradually decomposes to yield
carbon dioxide and water, whereas the calcium and magnesium are reconverted to
limestone, which would potentially be a source of fugitive particulate emis-
sions. The unpurified CMA reaction product also contains calcium and mag-
nesium carbonates (and some oxalates) as the insoluble impurities. However no
data were found to indicate the particle sizes of these impuritIes or of the
limestone residue of CMA. CMA is mildly basic, and some respiratory protec-
tion against dust would be desirable for workers handling the chemical.
Chollar (1984) noted that according to theoretical considerations, the
weight ratio of CMA to sodium chloride to obtain equal deicing capabilities Is
1.7 to 1.0. Because of the significantly higher cost of CMA compared to rock
salt, Chollar foresaw future use of CMA only in certain areas, such as bridge
decks, in urban areas of high traffic volume, and In areas of possible
contamination of water supplies by sodium.
Table 4—1 presents a summary of alternative deicing chemicals prepared by
the Lowa Department of Transportation (1980). The Iowa report discussed
advantages and disadvantages of each chemical based on effectiveness, cost,
toxicity, and corrosiveness. Only five chemical alternatives are proposed,
since Iowa stated that other alternative deicing chemicals had been tested and
were not recommended because of problems with safety, availability, economy
and/or ecology.” The nonrecoimnended chemicals Included: aimnonium acetate;
anm onium nitrate; aimnonium sulfate; alcohols; glycols; sodium forniate or
calcium formate; and amnonium carbamate.
4—2
-------
TA8LE 4-1. ALTERNATIVE DEICING CHEMICALS (IOWA, 1960)
Alternative chemical Advantages Disadvantages and e 5 t 5 a
Urea
letrapotass i urn
Dyrophosphate
(TKPP)
Formam i de—urea-water
(75%) (20%) (5%)
(liquid)
Tripotessiurn
Phosphate...formam ide
(75%) (25%)
(pellet)
Noncor roe vs
Relatively nonslippery on
pavement
Nontoxic unless biod.graded
Effsctiv. for use in automatic
ice prevention systems
Noncorros vs
Nonconduct vs
Toxicity no greeter
Harmful, ecological effects no
gr.at.r
At very low temperatures out
perf ores salts
Considerably less corrosive
NonPoxic if not blodegraded
Effective for automatic ice
prevention systems
Can be applied with existing
equipment
Will melt ic• at —10F (—23.3’C)
Effective at lower temperatures
at reduced rate
Corrosive effects acceptable
Nontoxic
Has higher freezing point
10 to 15 times more costly
Less effective
1—1/2 to 2 times as much required
f or same effect
5 to 10 times as costly
Can be toxic
Acceptable deiclng chemical only
above 15’F (—9’C)
Runoff must be controlled, or
only use In areas where runoff
will not enter critical waterways
Corrosive effect on vehicular
steel
15+ times as costly
Costs 10+ times as much
Minor scaling of concrete may
resui t
May promote vegetation growth
Costs 10 to 15 times as much
a Cost comparisons relative to rock salt.
4—3
-------
The Iowa report also identified two pavement coating formulas to reduce
the adherence of Ice on pavements without compromising pavement skid resis-
tance qualities. These included a modified traffic paint containing silicone
rubber and a waterproofing compound combined with silicone rubber. Applica-
tions of these two pavement coatings were reported to have an estimated
effective wear life of only one to two months on tested roads (150,000 to
300,000 vehicles passes). Another reported drawback is the release of
flammable vapors Into the atmosphere during application of these pavement
coatings.
4.2 OTHER TECHNIQUES
According to Eck (1986), a properly designed snowplow can remove about
95% of a 2—in snowfall, with the remaining 5% removable with a small amount of
rock salt. Seattle was reported to reduce chemical use by early plowing,
under conditions of moderate to heavy snowfall (TRB, 1974). Wyoming (19 4)
also reported that wet snow usually requires Inmiediate plowing and sanding,
but dry snowfall should be allowed to build up to 1 to 2 in before plowing.
Mechanical devices for snow/ice removal have been extensively studied as shown
in Figure 4-1 from Minsk (1981) and in Table 4—2 from EPA (1972).
The Iowa Department of Transportation (1980) studied alternative deicing
measures to reduce corrosion. These Included bridge heating (including mobile
thermal units), and application of ultrasonic (vibrational) and
e 1 ectromagnet Ic energy.
Wood (1983) also suggested a number of alternative methods to remove (or
prevent the buildup of) snow and ice on roadways. These included electrically
heated pavements, earth—heated pavements and geo—thermal heating, urethane
foam and styrofoam insulation, air jet plows, Infrared heat lamps and
underbody—blade trucks. Ralnlero (1988) and others have also investigated the
use of pavement incorporating encapsulated pellets of calcium chloride. This
material, referred to as Verglimit, has been tested in the United States,
Canada, and Europe, with some success.
There have been a number of experiments with heated pavements, especially
in England. According to EPA (1972), there are two types of road heaters:
fluid circulating systems and electrical resistance heaters. Fluid
circulating systems usually consist of pipes embedded In pavement that carry a
heated, low—freezing point liquid. Pipes are closely spaced (about 1 to
1.5 ft apart) at the time the pavement Is laid. Electrical pavement heaters
Include high voltage, insulated cable systems; low voltage systems using
uninsulated metal mesh; and electrically conductive pavements.
Other alternative approaches have entailed the use of vibrational and
electromagnetic energy. Both methods are very inefficient because the energy
requirements are too great.
4—4
-------
Displacement Plows
I I
Sicle .mounted (wings) Front.mounted Underbody Trailing
I _____
I I
V blade Orie.way. Truck. Drags
I mounted
Reversible Fixed
Swivel Rollover
(a) Displacement plows
Rotary Plows
I I
Two.element Single .element
I I
I I
Auger Cutter
I I Scoop wheel Drum
I— Horizontal axis I
I— Vertical rHdlt
L Swept.back axis L Horizontal
(b) Rotary plows
Specialized Equipment
1
Pure blowers Power brooms Hybrid machines Ice removal devices
Combination blade Wobble w4,eel
— Compressor fed and impeller
(compressed air jot) Combination blade Spiral rolls
and cutter
L Combusti:n jet Combination broom Scantier (serrated blade)
and blower
Hammers
Combination blade
and blower
(C) Specialized equipment
Figure 4—1. Family tree of snow removal equipment (Minsk, 1981).
4—5
-------
TABLE 4—2. MECHANICAL DEVICES FOR SNOW REMOVAL AND
ICE CONTROL (EPA, 1972)
1. Blade or Displacement Plows
1.1 Front Mounted
One—way Blade
Fixed Position (right or left cast)
Reversible (swivel or roll—over)
V-Blade
1.2 Underbody
Road Grader
Truck Mounted
1.3 Side Mounted (wings)
1.4 Trailing
2. Rotary Snow Blowers
2.1 Two—element (impeller)
Auger
Horizontal Axis
Vertical Axis
Swept—back Axis
Cutters
Helical
Horizontal Breakers (rakes)
2.2 Single-element (no impeller)
Scoop Wheel
Drum
3. Pure Blowers
3.1 Compressed Air Jet (compressor fed)
3.2 Combustion Jet (jet engine)
4. Power Brooms (rotary brush)
5. SpecIalized Ice Removing Equipment
5.1 Ice Crushing Rollers (pressure cutting edges)
Wobble Wheel
Spiral Rolls
Serrated Blade
5.2 Ice Melting Machines
6. Combination Equipment
6.1 Blade and Impeller
6.2 Blade and Cutter
6.3 Blade and Compressed Air
6.4 Broom and Blower
6.5 Burner and Blower
6.6 Burner, Broom, and Vacuum
4—6
-------
A comprehensive study led by Blackburn (1978) produced the document,
“Physical Alternatives to Chemicals for Highway Deicing.” This U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation document reported on practical and economical alter-
native means of highway deicing. Twenty—one deicing concepts were identified
and evaluated for their potential usefulness. The selection of concepts was
guided by a consideration of three separate steps that are generally required
of any successful method to remove snow and Ice from roadways:
1. Prevent, reduce, or eliminate the bond between the pavement and the
Ice/ snow.
2. Break and dislodge the Ice/snow.
3. Remove the Ice/snow fragments from the traveled way.
A rating scheme was developed by Blackburn (1978) to compare the
different physical alternatives to deicing chemicals and to select the most
feasible methods for further study. A five—category rating scheme was used:
1. Technical feasibility.
2. Operational feasibility——maintenance operations.
3. Operational feasibility——traffic operations and safety.
4. Economic acceptability.
5. Environmental acceptability.
This rating scheme was applied to the identified alternative physical deicing
methods and the results are sununarized in Table 4—3. Unadjusted, or raw,
ratings “are the best available measures of the feasibility! acceptability of
a concept, based on the rating for each category, arrived at upon objective
Consideration of many factors.” Adjusted ratings incorporate a measure of
Uncertainty to Include the reliability (or certainty) of the ratings. A
rating of 10 is best, whereas a rating of 0 is the least desirable rating.
About 75% of the investigated alternatives have low ratings resulting
from excessive power requirements, size and bulk of the equipment required,
low efficiency, high costs, safetyfactors, and potential damage to the envi-
ronment (Including pavement). Unadjusted overall ratings of less than 5.5
identify concepts considered unacceptable. Four candidate concepts had rat-
ings between 5.5 and 6.0 and were noted as deserving additional considera-
tion. These included release agents In the surface course (e.g., Verglimit-
modified asphalt), mechanical waves (ultrasonics), rotary blowers, and plow
blades with air jets.
Four closely related concepts had unadjusted ratings abàve 6 and were
evaluated as the most promising alternative deicing methods: release agents on
the pavement surface, gas—releasing agents in the surface course, mechanical
deicing methods producing steady or impact stresses, and blade action.
4—7
-------
14811 4-3. RAJJNG 01 CONCIPIS FOil MILIIIAIIVE IIIYSICPL IWICING MIlIEUS ( NKHtMM. 1978)
Categor, rating
valuesa
Operational
Operational
feesfbility
Overall
technical
feasibility
•aint.nancs
traffic
operations
Iconosic
Inviraneantal
rating
values’
Concept feasibility
operations
and safety
acceptability
acceptability
(average)
Step 1; , ig .rnd tten. or glieteation of
i es lye bond of Ice to paveenet
• kese agents o pawsent surface
• Gas releasing agents In surface course
• illease agents In surf ace course
• leuporary ..lting at interfac, with energy
delivered by;
--Currant in surfac. course
--Visual range slectro.agnetic radiation
--Microwave el.ctro.agn.tfc radiation
-- Induced current at the interfic.
- - Induced current In surface course
• Gas fornatton at the interface by
electrolysis
Step 2: irukipg an dislodging of the icp/ now
lower
.
9.25
1.45
68?
3.90
3.67
1.18
6.16
0.66
8.40
3.40
6.06
3.44
800
4.23
6.56
3.16
4.33
0.43
2.48
0.16
7.60
£48
6.79
2.01
6.50
3.88
6.21
3.16
3.61
0.56
6.16
0.15
7.20
2.64
5.95
2.20
3.75
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.30
1.05
0.96
0.40
0.58
5.57
5.24
4.92
4.68
4.60
1.82
0.52
0.57
0.48
0.40
4.33.
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.33
0.83
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
4.78
4.15
3.13
4.90
4.69
0.48
0.41
0.37
0.48
0.61
1.80
6.88
6.80
6.40
6.40
0.88
0.61
0.61
0.14
0.14
5.45
4.80
4.56
4.56
4.52
128
0.62
0.60
0.50
0.55
2.50
0.26
6.10
0.63
4.33
0.43
4.99
0.50
8.80
0.88
5.34
0.54
Mechanical devices producing steady or
i.pact stresses
8.25
6.08
5.11
2.61
5.56
169
4.46
0.44
7.20
0.12
5.24
2.71
•
Nechaiica waves (ultrasonic)
5.25
1.13
5.86
0.65
7.14
0.17
2.61
0.26
1.00
0.68
5.66
0.10
•
Stresses under tire passages
5.50
1.05
5.23
1.65
3.54
1.58
1.01
0.12
6.00
2.40
5.41
1.48
.
V.ri le electroongnetic fields
3.00
0.36
4.63
0.41
6.16
0.67
1.78
0.38
6.80
0.68
4.59
0.41
•
Gas tornat ions by electrolysis at
ice/snow-to-paveaent interface
2.15
0.43
4.35
0. 45
6.16
0.67
1. 18
0.18
6.80
0.68
4.49
0.48
•
Heated plow blades
3.00
0.36
3.91
0.53
5.74
0.91
1.89
0.21
6.80
0.68
4.27
0.54
•
Jets of gas or liquli driven by
coepressors end pueps
3.00
0.46
3.48 0.43
(continued)
4.30
0.87
2.68
0.21
5.60
0.56
3.01
0.5?
-------
TA&1 4-3 (coot hwed)
f.
Concept
Category rattog
valuesa
Technical
feasibility
Operational
fusibility
ca l ntenlce
operations
Operational
feasibility
traffic
operaUons
and safely
Icononic
acceptability
Fnvlrcn.enlal
acceptability
Overall
rating
values 1
(average)
Step 3:
Ree eI .1 Uie k.Jsx.on fm. the
traveind y
• Slade action
6.50 1.06
5.58 4.20
5.18 3.99
6.14 552
7.60 1.60
6.92 6.01
• tary blowert
1.50 1.25
5.25 4.50
5.74 4.59
3.46 2.41
7.20 1.20
5.83 5.22
• Pt blads with air Jets
1.00 3.30
5.58 0.81
4.64 0.93
4.89 0.49
6.20 0.62
5.66 1.24
• Iraffic action
5.54) 1.06
5.23 1.65
3.54 1.68
1.07 0.12
6.00 2.40
5.47 1.48
• Sweeper action
5.51) 4.10
4.92 3.44
5.56 3.34
4.53 1.50
6.40 4.12
5.30 3.42
a lueben .4peartng i. left coluen of each category are unadjusted rating values; adjusted rating values pew hi rl it coluon of each category.
-------
One of the most promising concepts was actually tested by Blackburn——
mechanical devices (rotating metal discs) that put steady stresses on the
Ice/snow pavement bond. Various disc configurations, an array of two discs,
and a simulated plow blade were laboratory tested. Results from these tests
were mixed, but suggested that ice was difficult to remove completely by
mechanical devices producing steady stresses. The adhesive bond of ice to
some materials can exceed the cohesive strength In the Ice Itself, and may be
supplemented by mechanical interlocking to pavement surface asperities. Discs
need to penetrate through to the ice—pavement interf ace, but disc depth proved
difficult to control. This problem could possibly cause more than superficial
pavement damage by field equipment.
4—10
-------
SECTION 5
SELECTION CRITERIA
In this section, criteria for selecting appropriate materials for use in
ice and snow control will be presented as a guide to regulatory personnel.
The following sections discuss the potential of antiskid materials to gener-
ated PM 1 , ,, Its effectiveness and durability in service, and applicable cost
data related to both traditional abrasives and deicers as well as alternative
skid control measures (e.g., embedded pipe pavement heating). Finally,
minimum acceptability criteria for material selection will be provided in the
form of a decision tree.
5.1 POTENTIAL FOR DUST EMISSIONS
As stated elsewhere in this document, the amount of PM 10 emitted per
vehicle—mile traveled Is a direct function of the silt loading on the road
surface. Under normal conditions, barring other loading increases such as
mud-dirt carryout, a type of loading “equilibrium” is established on the road
surface where the amount of new material deposited is balanced with the amount
of fines being resuspended as dust. This equilibrium Is disturbed, however,
when antiskid materials are applied which provide temporary but substantial
increases in silt loading and resuspended dust. In this section, applicable
data related to silt loading increases and associated ambient air quality
impact, due to antiskid materials will be presented.
As determined from available literature, only limited data exist on the
air quality impact associated with the application of antiskid materials to
paved roadways. Three studies were identified which relate to this topic.
One additional study (conducted in Denver during the winter of 1988—1989) was
also found, but the report of that particular study had not as yet been issued
at the time of this analysis.
The first study of interest was conducted in a parking lot In Helena,
Montana (Brant, 1972). In this study, a surface sample of sand applied to the
parking lot at the end of the winter snow season was collected. The gradation
of this sample was compared to that of the original stockpiled material. The
results are shown in Figure 5—1.
5—1
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 5—1. Sieve analysis data of antiskid material
in Helena parking lot.
0
C l )
w
a,
C
1/2” 3/8” 4M 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 200
Sieve Size
5—2
-------
As can be seen from Figure 5—1, the percentage of material less than
200 mesh increased from approximately 2% to approximately 13% over the course
of the winter. In addition, the material applied to the parking lot was
reported to contain a high percentage of quartz which would indicate good
durability characteristics. These results would indicate that even relatively
hard, durable material can produce substantial increases in silt loading as a
result of vehicular traffic. It should be considered, however, that the
traffic volume in a parking lot is much lower and traveling at lower speeds
than would be the case for a paved city street. Therefore, the increase In
silt content observed could be even greater than that reported for the parking
lot studied.
The second program considered was a portion of the original MRI paved
road study performed in 1977 (Cowherd et al., 1977). In this study, a truck-
mounted spreader (similar to that used for winter sanding) was used to
artificially load a paved city street with a fine limestone aggregate. The
loading and gradation of the surface material were measured for the four
exposure profiling tests conducted during the program. Plots of total loading
and silt loading vs. number of vehicle passes are presented in Figure 5-2 with
the exposure profiling results for total particulate shown in Figure 5—3.
As shown by Figure 5—2, both total loading and silt loading on the road
decrease monotonically with vehicle passes after application of limestone
gravel fines. This trend is also indicated by the dust concentrations shown
In the exposure profiles in Figure 5—3.
The final data set located during the literature search is from the orig-
inal salting and sanding demonstration study performed in Denver during the
winter of 1980—1981 (PEDCo, 1981). In this study, two study areas were
used. The first study area, located in Lakewood, evaluated the application of
salt as compared to the application of sand along 20th Avenue. The second
study area evaluated the sanding of two sections of Morrison Road in Denver
both with and without poststorm street cleaning. Application rates or
properties of the antiskid materials used in the study were not specified.
From a review of the data collected during the Denver program, it was
determined that neither data set showed much correlation of air quality mea-
surements with either the application of different antiskid materials or for
poststorin cleaning. However, the data from the Lakewood study area were found
to be somewhat useful In defining general trends for the current program.
Figure 5—4 provides a plot of the Increase in total surface loading (as
related to “basel1ne conditions) vs. time after application of sand or salt
as calculated by MRI from the raw data. Figure 5—5 shows a similar plot for
silt loading. Finally, Figure 5—6 provides air quality measurements for TSP
as 1etermined at the near—street monitoring site.
As indicated by these figures, the data show a high degree of scatter
indicating the influence of outside factors not associated with application of
the antiskid materials. However, for sand application there is some evidence
of air quality improvement that can be associated with an apparent decay in
silt loading during the period following sand application.
5—3
-------
6-
30
1—
0—
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vehicle Passes (102)
I I I I I I __ I I I
25
20
U
15a
10
0
5
0
Figure 5-2.
Total loading and silt loading vs. number of vehicle
passes for artificially loaded paved road.
5
4-
c .
0
-J
(I ,
I
3-
2—
I Total Loading
S Silt Loading
5-4
-------
SITE: Stiliwell Avenue
SURFACE LOADING; Gravel Rnes
Silt
5 L di
Jn%/m 2 )
0 Run 11 94,2
a Run 12 86.4
4 laO Run 13 76.4
V Run 14 30.5
u
v
I
I
I N
0- I i I I I
0 10 20 30
ISOKINETIC PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (mnJm 3 ) odjustE to 250 v.hlcle pouu, 4 w,ur
Figure 5-3. Exposure profiles of total particulate concentration
for artificially loaded paved road.
-------
.
U
a
a
a S
.
.
U
I I I I I
0 10
20
Time (Days) After Application
Figure 5—4.
vs. time after
• Sanding
I Salting
12
10
8—
6
4—
2—
0
Increase in total surface loading
application of salt or sand,
5—6
-------
30 T
.
• Sanding
S Salting
I
I
I
0 I I_
0 10 20
TIme (Days) After Application
Figure 5—5. Increase in silt loading vs. time after
application of salt or sand.
5 —7
-------
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days Since Application of Salt or Sand
Figure 5—6. TSP air quality impact of salt and sand application over time.
120
, 90
C
0
C
30
8 9
5—8
-------
5.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTISKID MATERIALS
The main purpose of applying abrasives to ice and snow covered roadways
is to improve traction or the skid resistance of the surface. The degree to
which traction Is Improved Is directly related to the type and properties of
the antiskid material and the amount of material applied per unit surface
area. In this section, the effectiveness of various antiskid materials will
be discussed as related to the generation of PM 10 .
Skid resistance is the force developed between the tire and pavement sur-
face during braking and is a function of: speed; tire temperature, design,
and pressure; pavement surface texture; and surface wetness. Frictional force
is coimuonly associated with skid resistance and is mathematically defined as:
FafxP (5—1)
where: F Frictional force
f — The coefficient of friction
P — The load perpendicular to the tire/surface interface
Since skid resistance is a function of several independent variables,
simple models cannot be used for its measurement. Therefore, most transporta-
tion agencies have adopted. ASIM Method E 274 which slides a standard locked
tire along an artificially wetted (or ice/snow covered) pavement at aconstant
speed (usually 40 mile/hr). The measurements are reported in terms of skid
number (SN) which is computed as follows:
SN 100 f — 100 If/L (5—2)
where: SN — Skid number at 40 mph
1; a Tension force to pull the locked tire across the pavement (ib)
(. — Load (weight) on the tire (ib)
A measure of surface frictional properties can also be determined using
the British pendulum tester per ASTM Method E 303. The British pendulum
tester is a dynamic pendulum Impact-type tester used to measure the energy
loss when a rubber slider is propelled over a test Surface. The values
measured (British Pendulum Number or 8PM) represent the frictional properties
of the surface not related to other slipperiness measuring equipment.
A number of studies have investigated the ability of various antiskid
materials to increase skid resistance or the friction coefficient. Regina ,, and
Meyer (1968)’ compared the coefficient of friction of four antiskjd abrasives
as tested on a circular test track in a cold room. The abrasives tested
were: boiler house cinders (0.9% < 200 mesh); coke cinders (0.4% < 200 mesh);
5—9
-------
natural sand (2.6% < 200 mesh); and crushed limestone (0% < 200 mesh). Each
material was also subjected to an impact (drop) test of 8,650 ft lb/ft2. The
test results for the friction measurements conducted are shown in Figure 5—7
(on an equivalent volume basis) and the results of impact tests shown in
Table 5—1.
C
0
U-
0
C
I
0
Figure 5—7. Coefficient of friction (f) vs. number of wheel passes for
four antiskid materials compared on an equal volume basis.
As shown by the above data, sand has the overall highest coefficient of
friction and the highest breakdown strength under applied load. Limestone is
the second best material with respect to both friction and breakdown strength
with cinders being least acceptable. This study also found that the highest
friction coefficients were obtained for materials with gradations between 4
and 16 mesh with finer (i.e., -50 mesh) particles being substantially less
effécti ye.
In another study performed by Furbush et al. (1972), pavement skid resis-
tance (no Ice or snow) was related to both aggregate mineralogy and particle
size. These investigators found. that medium to coarse grain sandstones with
high levels of quartz exhibited the highest skid numbers (i.e., 65—70 at
40 mph) and soft aggregates such as limestone polish rapidly and exhibit poor
skid resistance. These results are illustrated in Figure 5—8 whIch show the
skid resistance of limestone material containing various quantities of
+200 mesh silica. As shown by these data, the skid resistance increases
substantially with increasing silica content. The report also concludes that
a Moh Hardness of 5—7 is desirable for good skid resistance.
8 16 24 32
Number of Wheel Passes
40
5—10
-------
TABLE 5-1. RESULTS OF IMPACT TESTS
Type of material Percent breakdown*
Boiler cinders
5,3
Coke cinders
3.9
Natural sand
0.7
Limestone
0.8
* Breakdown is defined as the percent
change in the sum of the cumulative
percentages retained on each of the
following sieve sizes before and after
impact: 3/4 in; 3/8 in; No. 4; No. 8;
No. 16; No. 30; No. 50; and No. 100.
5— U
-------
.
E
z
Q
‘I)
U)
2
C,,
S
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‘I
• 5 I I
0 I I
—
3
I Projected Intervals
Road Friction Tester Numbers are Corrected to a Temperature Base
of 700 F. (Temperature Gradient: 3 SN/I 0° F.)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of PIus 200 Sieve Size Silica
Figure 5—8. Skid resistance of limestone material vs.
percent +200 mesh silica (Furbush, 1972).
5—12
-------
The final study found in the literature was performed by the State of
Alaska (Connor and Gaff i, 1982) to determine optimum specifications for sand
used In skid control. This study determined the 8PM of different gradations
of four types of aggregate material as determined using the British Pendulum
Test at various temperatures in a cold room. Vehicle stopping distances on an
outdoor ice track were also determined for the same materials. The materials
tested were: fractured stone, pit—run stone, concrete aggregate, and coal
cinders. The specifications for this material are provided in Table 5—2.
Representative data for these tests are shown in Figures 5—9, 5—10, and 5—11
for the cold room and vehicular tests, respectively, at various application
rates.
TABLE 5—2. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALASKA TESTS
Type of material
Percent fracture Percent <
200
mesh
Fractured Stone
(Alaska maintenance)
87
1
Pit-run stone
50
0
Concrete aggregate
65
1
•
Coal ash
—
As shown by Figures 5—9, 5—10, and 5—11, the use of coal ash had the
highest skid resistance and shortest stopping distance of all the materials
tested with concrete sand being a good second choice. Also, the data show
that materials tn the range of about 16 mesh provided the best skid resistance
as compared to coarser materials. Finally, it was also found that angular
particles (high percentage of fracture) were more effective than rounded
aggregate (e.g., fractured stone vs. pit run).
It should be noted that the coal ash used in the above tests contained a
high percentage of —200 mesh material which would indicate a high potential
for PM 10 production in service. Thus, from an emissions standpoint, coal ash
would not be suitable for use in NAAQS nonattainment areas. The above results
would indicate, therefore, that a good quality, washed construction aggregate
(e.g., sand) would be the best choice with respect to both maximum
effectiveness and minimum PM 10 production of the materials tested.
5—13
-------
70
0 ,
Z50•
Co
w
-I
I C
C
=
40
‘I ..
ASPHALT SHEET BPN
TEMPERATURE
-
100
309:
,
I
I
0 01 0.2 0.3 0.4
RATE OF APPLICATION (LB/PT 2 )
Figure 5—9. Average British portable skid number vs. rate of
aggregate application for various antiskid
materials (30’F).
CLEAR ICE
30
5—14
-------
70
0.2
APPLI CAl l ON
0.3 0.4
(LB/PT 2 )
FIgure 5—10. Average British portable skid number
vs. rate of aggregate application for
various antiskid materials (O’F).
,0•
a,
Z50
Cr,
w
C
0.
=
4O
30
/
/
/
/
ASPHALT SHEET BPN
TEMPERATURE
0
93
0.P
0.1
RATE OF
5—1.5
-------
1 2 3 4 5 6
STOPS
Figure 5—11. Average stopping distances determined on
an ice track for various antiskid materials.
260
240
220
180
L .
LU
C.,
z
Co
C,
z
0
a,
160
140
120
100
MAINT. SAND
O 3/8—14 PIT RUN
3/8—+4 CRUSHED
+ +4—110 PIT RUN
80
+4—110 CURSHED
z CONCRETE SAND
COAL ASH
a IC!
5—16
-------
From all of the above data it can be seen that the effectiveness of a
particular material to increase skid resistance is a function of particle
size, shape, hardness, and durability. These results would indicate that a
coarse grained (16 to 50 mesh), hard (Moh Hardness 5—7) material with a high
degree of angularity (80+% fracture) and durability (< 0.7% impact degrada-
tion) would be most appropriate for skid control on ice and snow covered
roadways. Particle size, shape, and hardness are also related to durability
as will be discussed below.
5.3 MATERIAL DURABILITY
As mentioned previously, there were no data located in either the litera-
ture search or the telephone survey which relate silt generation (and the
associated PM 10 emissions) with the durability of antiskid materials. All
work in this area has focused on construction aggregates used in bituminous
and concrete paving mixtures. Although not directly applicable to antiskid
abrasives per Se, these data can be used to provide guidance in proper mate-
rial selection. The following discusses the physical and mineral properties
of antiskid materials as related to their ability to resist abrasion, impact,
and crushing.
5.3.1 Aggregate Physical Properties
The three most important physical properties for good aggregate durabil-
ity are hardness, particle shape, and part1 le size. Each is discussed below.
Material hardness is probably the single most important factor in aggre-
gate durability. If a material is very hard it is capable of resisting abra-
sion, impact, and crushing under applied mechanical loads. Hardness is, of
course, a direct function of particle mineralogy as will be presented later.
To determine the effect of hardness on abrasion resistance, controlled
experiments were performed by Stiffler (1969) where a mineral surface was wear
tested with a coninercial abrasive (e.g., Sb 2 ) through the action of a rolling
loaded wheel applied to the specimen. In these tests, Stiff ler found that the
volume of mineral removed from the surface can be reasonably predicted based
on Vicker 1 s hardness. For minerals softer than the abrasive, this relation-
ship was:
ES
d>VT — Hv (5-3)
where: d z Diameter of the wear particle (or volume removed)
E Modulus of elasticity (psi)
S a Surface energy of the formed particle
Ys • Mineral yield stress (psi)
Hv • Vicker’s hardness (kg/ninz)
5—17
-------
For minerals harder than the abrasive the relationship is:
1/3
d > (5—4)
S
where the terms are as defined above. The average data collected in the study
are shown in Table 5—3.
As shown by the data in Table 5—3, the amount of wear is inversely pro-
portional to the hardness of the mineral. This is Illustrated in Figure 5—12
for different minerals abraded with S W 2 . These data would suggest that an
antiskid abrasive with a Vickers hardness > — 1,000 kg/nin2 should be accept-
able for good durability. [ Note that the study performed by Furbush et al.
(1972) recoianended a Moh Hardness of 5—7 for good skid resistance and the
study by Hudec (1984) showed durability increasing with hardness.J
With respect to particle shape , highly angular particles are almost
universally reconanended for good durability In all applications tested (Ohir
et ii., 1971; Furbush et al., 1972; Brent, 1972; Anon., 1979; Havens and
Newberry, 1982; Connor and Gaff i, 1982). Without detailed petrographic
examination, the determination of particle shape is difficult, however.
Havens and Newberry (1982) determined that the shape of aggregate par-
ticles can be determined indirectly from the measurement of void fraction
using a version of A5114 Method C-29 (see SectIon 3.3). They found that a void
fraction > 50% indicates a greater degree of disorder In particle shape and/or
texture and thus Is indicative of angular particles. Also, Connor and Gaff I
(1982) found that a minimum fracture of 80% on one face for the material
retained on the No. 10 sieve should be adequate for good skid resistance.
The final physical property of importance In aggregate durability Is
particle size . As stated in Section 3, Hudec (1984) determined that the dura-
bility of an aggregate material (as determined by petrography) decreases with
grain size. This is Illustrated by the relationship provided in Equa-
tion (3—3). When effectiveness is also considered (see Section 5.2 above),
particle sizes In the range of about 16 mesh seem to be exhibit the highest
skid resistance. It would seem that this specification would also be appli-
cable to good durability as well.
5.3.2 Particle Mineralogy
The hardness of an aggregate material is directly related to Its mineral-
ogy. Numerous studies have investigated particle mineralogy with respect to
durability In paving mtxtur;s (Ohir et al., 1971; Furbush et al. , 1972; Anon.,
1979; Woodslde and Peden, 1983; Hudec, 1984; Goswami, 1984; Oubberke and
Marks, 1985). These studies have shown that aggregates containing high per-
centages of siliceous minerals such as quartz, granite, chart, greywacke,
etc., show the highest durability with respect to abrasion, impact, and crush-
ing (Stiff ler, 1969; Anon., 1979; Hudec, 1984; Goswarni, 1984).
5—18
-------
TABLE 5—3. AVERAGE MINERAL WEAR FOR DIFFERENT ABRASIVE TYPES
Vicker’s
Melt te.p.
Mineral (C)
Modulus
(psi x 10’)
Yield stress
(psi x 10 ”)
Specific
gravity
hardness
(kg/mm2)
(sn3
wear
A1 2 0 2
x
5 °2
14g0
CdCO (C)a 825 2.70 460 42.2 30.7 13.5
CaCO 3 (i)b 825 2.70 400 38.0 40.9 12.5
Slag 1400 2.70 620 24.0 16.3 9.4
S10 2 (f)c 1700 6 2.10 1100 11.0 11.0 2.6
MullIte 1810 21 0.9 2.95 1720 11.0 6.5 3.1
Si0 2 (c)d 1700 7 0.7 2.65 2000 7.7 6.5 1.7
MgO 2620 42 1.5 3.60 1240 3.4 1.3 0.2
Zr0 2 2650 21 2.0 5.70 1700 2.4 0.6 0.2
SIC 2200 50 5.0 3.00 4500+ 0.7 0.4 0.07
A 1 2 0 3 2000 45 4.0 4.00 3300 0.3 0.7 0.03
a Crystal—like with cleavage planes.
b Limestone chips.
C Clear fused-quartz rod.
d Glass-like lump.
-------
50
.1O
E
C
1
.5
10000
Vlckers Hardness (kg/mm 2 )
Figure 5.42. Mineral wear rate vs. Vicker’s hardness for Sb 2 abraSive.
To produce durable pavement mixtures, many transportation agencies have
adopted standards for aggregates which include minimum contents of various
minerals. For example, the State of Kentucky has specified a minimum quartz
content of sand to be 90% by visual count (e.g., ASTM Method C-295) or 94% by
chemical analysis (Havens and Newberry, 1982). Also, the U.S. Transportation
Research Board (TRB) has established a durability classification system for
aggregates used in pavement mixtures with respect to skid resistance. These
classifications are as follows (Anon., 1979):
• Group 1——Outstanding Polish Resistance . Aggregates in this group
are heterogeneous combinations of hard minerals with a coarse-
grained microstructure of hard particles bonded together with a
slightly softer matrix. Examples include emery or industrial
abrasives which are normally too expensive for use in road pavement
mixtures.
• Group tI——Above Averaae Polish Resistance . This group comprises a
minority of aggregate types used for highway paving, including blast
furnace slags, expanded shales, and crushed sedimentary rocks such
as sandstone, arkose, greywacke, and quartzite. Recommended for use
on high traffic volume roads.
100 1000
5—20
-------
Group Itt——Average Polish Resistance . This group consists of aggre-
gates currently used in pavement construction, including crushed,
dense igneous and metamorphic rocks of the granite, granite gneiss,
and diorite types. Exhibits satisfactory skid resistance for all
but the most severe conditions.
Group tV-—Below Average Polish Resistance . All remaining aggregate
mineral types, except for Group V. Acceptable for use on low volume
pavement surfaces and where skid resistance requirements are below
normal.
Group V——Low Polish Resistance . Typical of this group are the
carbonate minerals containing low levels of siliceous materials and
uncru shed gravel s.
Based on the above information, it can be concluded that aggregates used
for skid control purposes should be at least a Group III material (according
to the TRB classification) with a silica content of around 90%. These speci-
fications should assure a highly durable material with a low tendency for
fines generation when exposed to vehicular traffic. (Note, however, that some
transportation agencies use aggregate rejected for use in pavement as antiskid
materials.)
5.3.3 Rest stance to Abrasion, Impact, and Crushing
The ability of an aggregate to withstand the effects of abrasion, impact,
and crushing is a function of the material properties discussed above. There-
fore, as a measure of resistance to these effects, a number of standard tests
have been developed as discussed previously in Section 3. Based on MRI 1 s
analysis of the available literature, it was found that the Los Angeles test
is probably the best overall indicator of aggregate durability for antiskid
abrasives. This is illustrated below.
With respect to overall durability of construction aggregates, the work
performed by Woodside and Peden (1983) contains the most comprehensive com-
parison of aggregate properties found in the literature. In this work,
13 aggregate samples were evaluated for 10 different strength parameters.
Using this data set, MRI performed a multiple linear regression analysis of
selected parameters to determine their relationship to the applicable
Los Angeles abrasion value. Using an IBM compatible computer and LOTUS soft-
ware, the regression equation determined was:
LAAV 11.9 + 0.611 ACV + 1.10 MV + 0.0209 S - 0.0837 F — 0.481 W - 6.06 SG ( -5)
where: LAAV a Los Angeles abrasion value (per ASTM C 131)
ACV — Aggregate crushing value, % (per British Standard 812)
AIV a Aggregate Impact value, S (per British Standard 812)
S — Soundness, S (per ASTM C 88)
F — Flakiness, S (per British Standard 812)
W — Water absorption, S (per British Standard 812)
SG — Specific gravity (per British Standard 812)
5—21
-------
The correlation coefficient for the above regression is 0.990 which would
indicate that all six strength parameters are highly intercorrelated with the
LOS Angeles abrasion value. Thus, these data would indicate that a single
test can be used as the overall measure of aggregate durability which con-
siders impact, crushing, soundness (i.e., freeze/thaw resistance), flakiness,
water absorption, and specific gravity. It Is therefore recommended that any
future field sampling of antiskid materials include the determination of dura-
bility using the Los Angeles Abrasion Method and that the results of this test
be used to compare different aggregate samples as related to silt generation.
5.4 COST EFFECTIVENESS
5.4.1 Purchase Costs
The cost of a deicing material is dependent on availability, abundance,
and amount needed. The most readily available and widely used are rock salt
and abrasives treated as necessary with calcium chloride. A comparison of
cost relating these to other materials can be seen in Table 5—4.
Due to increased costs, alternative methods to salt and abrasives are
often avoided. Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) Is a favorable alternative to
salt with regard to Its noncorrosive effects and high solubility, yet the
purchase price is approximately 34 times that of salt. This would suggest the
limited use of the product for areas such as bridge decks where corrosion is a
severe problem. Other chemicals that are inhibited by cost are aluminum chlo-
ride and lithium chloride costing 20 and 333 times that of salt, respectively.
5.4.2 Application and Cleanup Costs
Purchase price is not the only consideration when implementing an ice and
snow control program. The application of salts has been estimated at
$200 million a year (Iowa Department of Transportation Planning and Research
Division, 1980). This includes the purchase of equipment and labor costs.
Abrasives also require spring cleaning, estimated at an annual $4 million
(Anonymous, 1988). A favorable alternative method would be one that was inex-
pensive to Implement, yet required no cleanup.
Many of the alternative methods under consideration require large initial
investments and continued maintenance, thus not competing with the present
salt/abrasive system. Tables 5—5 and 5—6 show relative costs of some
alternative deicing chemicals and snow/ice removal methods, respectively.
Embedded pipes, for example, cost approximately $4.00 per square foot for a
completely self-contained system. Annual operational costs vary due to the
heat source used. If purchased steam power is •used, one could expect a cost
in excess of $0.133 per square foot (Jorgensen, 1964). Escalated costs would
also result from repairs that require stripping of pavement.
5—22
-------
TABLE 5-4. COST DATA FOR DEICING CHEMICALS
RelatiXe
Material cost
Representative
cost (S/ton) Reference
Sodium chloride ix 25-34.79 Wood (1983); phone survey
Potassium chloride 4X 30.00 Wood (1983); Welch (1976)
Mmonlu. sulfate 4X 31.00 Wood (1983); Welch (1976)
Calcium chloride ax 98.04 Wood (1983); phone survey
Methanol 8X Wood (1983)
Urea iix 9.00 Wood (1983); Welch (1976)
Urea:Ca formate (2:1) 14X Wood (1983)
l .) Magnesium chloride 14X 67.00 Wood (1983); Anonymous (1988)
Fertilizer 19X Wood (1983)
Aluminum chloride 20X 320.00 Wood (1983); Welch (1976)
Ethylene glycol 27X 0.72/gal Wood (1983); TransportatIon Research
Board (1984)
Urea:calclum formate:formaajgje (1:1:1) 27X Wood (1983)
Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) 34X 600.00 Wood (1983); McElroy (1988)
Tetrapotasslum pyrophosphate 41X Wood (1983)
Propylene glycol 50X Wood (1983)
Lithium chloride 333X 174000 Wood (1983); Welch (1976)
Sand 2-4.25 Phone survey
Aggregate 6.10 Welch (1976)
Aggregate lIme 4.76 Welch (1976)
Compared to sodium chloride (rock salt).
-------
TABLE 5-5. RELATIVE CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE
DEICING CHEMICALS
Relative
Chemical cost (S/lb)a
Methanol O.7X
Ethanol 2X
Isopropanol 1.6X
Acetone 1.9X
Urea l x
Formemide 4.4X
Dimethyl sulfoxide 5.9X
Ethyl carbonate (urethane) 4X
Verglimit-modified asphalt O.5X
a Cost relative to urea (1979
TABLE 5-6. RELATIVE CAPITAL
SNOW/ICE REMOVAL
dollars).
COST OF ALTERNATIVE
METHODS
Method
Relative
cost ($/ftz)a
Modified traffic paint
Waterproofing compound (with
silicone rubber)
O.04X
O.06X
UCAR
O.12X
Infrared generator
Embedded pipes
Embedded electrical elements
Conductive asphalt
.
3.1X
IX
1.4X
o. 4 xb
Cost relative to embedded pipes.
b Cost will also include the purchase of a
protective coating.
5—24
-------
5.4.3 Corrosion Costs
Damage due to chemicals has been observed in automobiles, bridges, and in
the roadside environment. Corrosion to automobiles has been a widely
researched topic, yet, it is still hard to pinpoint in exact dollar figures
the amount of damage (much of which is vehicle depreciation). The following
quotation describes the corrosion process, “After a road salt spray, the
automobile owner will observe a white salt film during the low humidity hours,
as the humidity Increases it disappears, forming a corrosive liquid” (Baboian,
1988). This process continues from day to night, and is accelerated with
warmer temperatures. It has been estimated that $200 to $300 in damage Is
done per vehicle each year due to road salt (EPA, 1972).
Damage to bridge decks results from: scaling (due to chloride concentra-
tions that causes the freezing point of layers to be different and thus freeze
at different times); reinforcing steel corrosion (from chlorine ion concentra,-
tion); dealimentation (cracks resulting from pressure since the volume of iron
oxide is larger than that of the original steel); and spalling (occurring over
reinforcing steel with portions of concrete removed) of pavement (Welch,
1976). Another corrosive effect can be seen in the deterioration of road
markings such as paints, plastic, and tape (Slick, 1988). As an example,
Brown (1988) estimated an average repair cost of $40 per square yard (not
including traffic control) for bridge decks.
Other than fugitive dust, it is difficult to assess the cost of
environmental damage due to deicing chemicals. Damage can be observed in
roadside vegetation and water. Damage to trees and vegetation has been
estimated at $50 million a year (Wood, 1983). Water pollution costs weigh
most heavily in the contamination of wells that require replacing and also
medical bills, not to mention court costs. Table 5—7 illustrates approximate
costs of corrosion and environmental damages due to delcing salts.
5.4.4 General Cost Considerations
As can be observed by comparing Tables 5—5 and 5—6, the capital cost of
alternative ice and snow control methods place their possibility for use in
the distant future. Favorable aspects, such as flOnCorrosjve and nonpolluting
characteristics, have not as yet outweighed the need for an economically
feasible method of snow and ice control. However, the unfavorable affects of
salt and abrasives will promote the continued search for more favorable cost-
effective alternatives.
For now, it can be surmised that the most cost—effective ice/snow control
method is the continued use of rock salt and abrasives. it is advisable that
calcium chloride be used only when conditions warrant. The use of a substi-
tute chemical (e.g., CMA) may be necessary on limited areas such as bridge
decks to inhibit the corrosive effects that result from the use of salts and
chlorides.
5—25
-------
TABLE 5—7. RECENT ESTIMATES OF CORROSION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS DUE TO ChEMICAL USEa
Auto
corrosion
(S10 /yr)
Infrastructure
damage
(S lOe/yr)
Environmental
damage
($106/yr)
2,000
500
210
643
160
12 d
70 , 0 b
200 C
a 1976—1981 dollars.
b McDonald, 1981.
C Murray & Ernst, 1976.
d Iowa DOT, 1980.
5.5 ACCEPTABILIT( CRITERIA
Based on the evaluation of information obtained in this study, general
selection criteria have been developed for antiskid materials that have a low
target potential for silt generation In service. For example, these criteria
can be met by washed construction aggregates (sand). Selection of less
durable abrasives because of cost/availability considerations would entail
higher PM 10 emissions unless mitigated by more extensive cleanup procedures.
These criteria are provided only as guidelines pending further laboratory and
field evalUations (see Section 6.2). The acceptability criteria derived from
available data are shown in Table 5-8.
5—26
-------
TABLE 5—8.. ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR ANTISKID MATERIALS
Type of
material
Material or
application parameter
Reco
mmended value
Abrasives
General gradation
Silt content as applied
Moh hardness
Vicker’s hardness
Fracture
Void fraction
Quartz content
>
<
>
>
>
>
16 mesh
1%
5—7
1,000 kg/mm 2
80%
50%
90%
Salts
Percent insoluble matter
<
2%
Development of comprehensive selection criteria for deicing compounds
(salts) requires further investigation of emissions potential for such
compounds. Although the temperature ranges for effective use of these com-
pounds are known, basic information is lacking on the portions (soluble and
insoluble) which are available for resuspension from the roadway surface
exposed to traffic.
As a further guide to regulatory and transportation personnel, a decision
“treed has been developed for material selection as shown in FIgure 5—13. As
a starting point In this analysis, the service conditions must first be
defined. These conditions take Into account road surface characteristics
(e.g., slope, pavement composition, presence of curbs/shoulders), traffic
parameters (e.g., volume, route speed, acceleration/deceleration), and
meteorological conditions surrounding snow/ice events (e.g., temperature,
evaporation rates). The service conditions will also vary from location to
location within a particular geographical area.
From that point, candidate materials can be evaluated based on silt
generation potential, cost, availability, etc., and the most promising
material(s) selected for field study. The above analysis of the acceptability
of candidate materials is highly dependent on local conditions and should be
performed on a case—by-case basis. The criteria shown In Table 5-8 and the
decision tree shown in Figure 5—13 should assist In the overall selection
process.
5—27
-------
IDENTIFY
SERVICE
CONDITIONS
I
Particle Size
• Particle Morphology
• Hardness
• Durability
• % Insoluable Matter
Others
FOR EACH CANDIDATE MATERIAL
I
I
Define Clean-up and
Other Mitigation Procedures
(or Reducing Silt Loading
1
• Clean-up Frequency and Ttme After Storm
Type of Equipment Used
Monitoring of Clean-up Effectiveness
Select Material (or
Field Study and Evaluation
8921 SEVkinsgr JII VB9
Level of Antiskid
Control Required
t
Temperature and
Conditions
r
“3
cn
Define Material
Specifications to
Reduce Silt Loadings
Define Application Levels
and Procedures to Reduce Silt Loadings
I
• Application Rate of Abrasives
Application Rate of Salts
Equipment Calibration/Maintenance
• Development of Protocol and
Documentation for
Equipment Operators
• Monitoring of Compliance
w/Specifications
Finur f —1 flerlcinn tr ’ fnr nt1 leid m t ri 1 c 1petinn
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of conclusions and recoamiendations were developed in the prepa-
ration of this guidance document. These are presented in the following
subsections.
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were reached as part of this study:
1. The application of antiskid materials causes a temporary, but sub-
stantial Increase In surface silt loading on paved roads.
2. The level of P 7 4 10 emissions generated by traffic resuspension of
(dry) roadway surface dust is directly dependent on the surface silt
loading.
3. The tendency for an antiskid abrasive to generate silt—sized par-
ticles is a function of its durability.
4. Particles smaller than 50 mesh (approxImately 300 pm in physical
diameter) are relatively ineffective In increasing the coefficient
of friction on paved roads.
5. Of all the durability test methods surveyed, the Los Angeles abra-
sion test seems to be the most appropriate for the measurement of
overall aggregate durability.
6. A good quality, washed construction aggregate (e.g., sand) is the
best choice with respect to maximum effectiveness as an antiskid
abrasive with low silt generation potential.
7. Salt is effective as an antiskid material above about 20F with
minimal cleanup requirements but with significant (but poorly known)
potential for P M 10 emissions as well as other adverse environmental
effects such as corrosivity and ecological stress.
8. Antlskid materials are frequently applied at loadings well above
recoimiended levels because of public perception that effectiveness
is proportional to the visible amount of surface loading.
9. Excess silt loadings (and thus PM 10 emissions) associated with anti—
skid materials result primarily from over application and non—
6—1
-------
compliance with recommended fines and durability specifications for
antiskid abrasives.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on study results, the following recommendations for further invest-
igation were developed:
1. A modified Los Angeles abrasion test method should be developed to
determine the slit generation potential of antiskid abrasives.
2. The current method for measurement of silt loading should be sub-
jected to collaborative testing under wintertime snow/ice control
conditions to determine existing method reproducibility and any
needed modifications to improve reproducibility.
3. Mdltional study of surface loading dynamics following the applica-
tion of antiskid materials Is needed In order to better Understand
the PM 10 emission impacts associated with various antiskid program
scenarios.
4. Further study of the fate and transport of salt(s) applied for anti—
skid control Is needed to determine the salt forms (soluble and
insoluble) contributing to PM 10 emissions.
5. Common poststorm cleanup practices should be Studied to determine
the net air quality benefits of cleanup at various points after
application as. a function of antiskid material specifications.
6—2
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Off iclals (1964).
Standard Method of Test for Production of Plastic Fines in Aggregates.
Method 1-210-64, in Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Part H: Methods of Sampling and Testing, Fourteenth Edi -
tion, Washington, D.C., August 1986.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1976).
AASHTO Maintenance Manual. 1st Edition, Washington, D.C., February.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1983).
Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Abrasion of Small Size Coarse Aggre-
gate by Use of the Los Angeles Machine. Method 1 96—83, in Standard Specifica-
tions for Trans port ation Materials and Methods of SampLing and Testing, Part LI:
Methods of Sampling and Testing, Fourteenth Edition, Washington, D.C., August
1986.
American Association of State Hfghway and Transportation Offiètals (1984).
Standard Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
Method 1 27-84, in Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Part II: Methods of Sampling and Testing, Fourteenth Edi-
tion, Washington, D.C., August 1986.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1985a).
Standard Method of Amount of Material Finer than 75 m Sieve in Aggregate.
Method 1 11-85, in Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of SampLing and Testing, Part H: Methods of SampLing and Tasting, Fourteenth Edi-
tion, Washington, D.C., August 1986.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1985b).
Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or
Magnesium Sulfate. Method 1-104, In Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Tasting, Part II: Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Fourteenth Edition, Washington, D.C., August 1986.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subcommittee C09.02.06 (1969).
Standard Descriptive Nomenclature of Constituents of Natural Mir eral
Aggregates. Method C 294—69, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subcommittee 004.51 (1979).
Standard Test Method for Aggregate Durability. Method 0 3744—79,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7—1
-------
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subconmiittee C09.03.05 (1981).
Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse
Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact In the Los Angeles Machine. Method C 131-81,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subconmtittee C09.03.05 (1983).
Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or
Magnesium Sulfate. Method C 88—83, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subconinittee CO9.O3.05 (1984a).
Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates,
Method C 136—84a, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subcouinittee 004.31 (1984b).
Standard Specification for Sodium Chloride. Method 0 632—84, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subconvnittee COg.02.06 (1985a).
Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Aggregates for Concrete.
Method C 295—85, PhiladelphIa, Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subcoimnittee C09.0305 (1985b).
Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. Method C 33-85, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Subconmiittee CO9.03.35 (1987).
Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75 (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral
Aggregates by Washing. Method C 117-87, Philadelphia, Pennsylvanj
Anonymous (1979). Aggregates for Road Pavements. Hwys. Pub. Wks., 47:1835,
16-19, October. —
Anonymous (1988). “How Highway Departments Deal with Nature’s Forces,” Better
Roads, 58:1, 19—21, January.
Baboian, R. (1988). The Automotive Environment. Automotive Corrosion by Deic—
ing Salts, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Blackburn, R. R., et al. 1978. “PhysIcal Alternatives to Chemicals for High-
way Oeicing,° U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Acjmjnjstra...
tion, Washington, D.C.
Brant, L. A. (1972). Winter Sanding Operations and Air POll tj . PubLic
Works, 103:9, 94—7, September.
Brown, M. G. (1988). Corrosion of Highway Appurtenances Due to Deicing
Salts. Automotive Corrosion Due to Deiclng Salts, National Assocq atj of Corro-
sion Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Chollar, B. H. (1984). Federal Highway Administration Research On Calcium
Magnesium Acetate—-An Alternative Deicer. Public Roads, :4, 113—118.
7-2
-------
Connor, P. E., and R. Gaff 1 (1982). OptImum Sand Specifications for Roadway
Ice Control. State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facili-
ties, Fairbanks, Alaska, June.
Cowherd, Chatten, et al. (1977). Quantification of Oust Entrainment from
Paved Roadways. EPA—450/3—77-027, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July.
Ohir, R. K., et al. (1971). Study of the Aggregate Impact and Crushing Value
Tests. Hwy. Engr., 18:11, 17—27, November.
Oubberke, W., and V. J. Marks (1985). The Effect of Deicing Salt on Aggregate
Durability. Transportation Research Record, 1031:27—34 .
Dunn, S. A., and R. U. Schenk (1980). Alternatives to Sodium Chloride for
Highway Deicing. Transportation Research Record 776, 12-15.
Eck, R. W., et al. (1986). Natural Brine as an Additive to Abrasive Materials
and Deicing Salts. WVDOH Research Project 75, West Virginia Department of
Highways, May.
Furbush, M. A. (1972). Relationship of Skid Resistance to Petrography of
Aggregates. P8—220 071, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
July.
Goswami, S. C. (1984). Influence of Geological Factors on Soundness and Abra-
sion Resistance of Road Surl’ace Aggregates: A Case Study. Bull. Inter. Asan.
Eng. Gaol., 30, 59—61, December.
Grelinger, M. A., et al. (1988). Gap Filling PM 10 Emission Factors for
Selected Open Area Dust Sources. Final Report, EPA Contract No, 68—02-4395,
Work Assignment 6, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri,
February 9.
Havens, J. If., and 0. C. Newberry (1982). Aggregate Shape and Skid Resis-
tance. UKTRP-82—1, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, Kentucky,
January.
Hegmon, R. R., and W. E. Meyer (1968). The Effectiveness of Antiskid Mate-
rials. Hlghw. Res. Rec. 227, Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC, 50—56.
Helmers, G., and U. Ytterbom (1986). Effects of Salt on the State of Dirti-
ness of the Road. NTIS No. P886—201167, Statens Vaeg—och Trafikinstitut,
Sweden.
Hudec, P. P. (1984). Quantitative Petrographic nalysis of Aggregate. BULL.
Inter. Assn. Eng. Geol., 29, 381—385, June.
Iowa Department of Transportation (1980). Deicing Practices in Iowa: An
Overview of Social, Economic, and Environmental Implications. Report
No. 17—T68PP/9:0368, Planning and Research Division, Office of Project Plan-
ning Highway Division, Office of Maintenance, for the Iowa General Assembly
House of Representatives, Des Moines, Iowa, January.
7—3
-------
Jorgensen, R., et al. (1964). Nonchemical Methods of Snow and Ice Control on
Highway Structures. Report No 4, National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, 0. W. (1968). Sodium Chloride—The Production and Properties of Salt and
Brine, American Chemical Society, Hafner Publishing Company, New York.
Keyser, J. H. (1973). Deicing Chemicals and Abrasives: State of the Art.
Htghw. Res. Rec. 425, Highway Research Board, 36—51.
Legislative Research Council (1965). The Use and Effects of Highway Deicing
Salts, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, January.
McDonald, R. 0. (1981). Automotive Underbody Corrosion Testing.
McElroy, A. 0., et al. (1988). Comparative Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium
Acetate and Rock Salt, Transportation ResearchRecord 1157, 12-19.
Minsk, 0. L. (1981). Snow Removal Equipment. in Handbook of Snow-Principals,
Processes, Management, and Use. Pergamon Press, New York.
Murray, Donald M., and Ii. F. W. Ernst (1976). An Economic Analysis of the
Environmental Impact of Highway Delcing. EPA—600/2—76—105, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, May.
Norburg, C. H. (198.1). The Washington Degradation Test Maine Variation.
Technical Paper 81-9, Materials Research Division, Maine Department of Trans-
portation, Augusta, Maine.
Oeberg, G., et al. (1985). Experiments With Unsalted Roads. NTIS
No. P886—177409, Statens Veag.-och Trafikinstitut, Sweden.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. (1981). Denver Demonstration Study. Colorado Divi-
sion of Air Pollution Control, Denver, Colorado, October.
Rainiero, J. 14. (1988). Investigation of the Ice—Retardant Characteristics of
Verglimlt-Modif led Asphalt. Transportation Research Board, 1157 , 44—53.
Salt Institute (1984). Survey of Salt, Calcium Chloride, andAbrasive Use In
the United States and Canada. Alexandria, Virginia.
Salt Institute (1986). TheSnowflghter’s Handbook. Alexandria, Virginia.
Salt Institute (1989). Salt Institute Statistical Report Analysis, Total
Sales by United States Members. Alexandria, Virginia.
Schneider, 1. R. (1959). Schneeverwehungen und Winterglatte. tnterner
Bericht Mr. 302. Eidgenossisches Institut fur Schnee-und Lawlnenforschung.
Schneider, T. R. (1960). The Calculation of the Amount of Salt Required to
Melt Ice and Snow on Highways. National Research Council of Canada, Technical
Translation No. 1004.
7-4
-------
Sheehy, J. P., et al. (1968). Handbook of Air Pollution. 999—AP-44, US.
Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
Slick, D. 5. (1988). Effects of Calcium Magnesium Acetate Ofl Pavements and
Motor Vehicles. TransportatloriResearchRecordll57, 27-30.
Sttffler, A. K. (1969). Relation Between Wear and Physical Properties of
Roadstone. Hwy. Res. Board Special Reports, 101, 56-68.
Transportation Research Board (1974 and 1984). Minimizing Deicing Chemical
Use. N24 Final Report, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1972). A Search: New Technology for
Pavement Snow and Ice Control. EPA—R2-72-125, Office of Research and Moni-
toring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985). Co ilaticn of Air Pollution
Emission Factors, AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Welch, Bob H., et al. (1976). Economic Impact of Highway Snow and Ice Con-
trol——State of the Art. Report No. FHWA-RD—77—20, Utah Department of Trans-
portation Research and Development Section, September.
Wood, F. (1983). Noncorrosive Winter Maintenance Workshop, Frank Wood of Salt
Institute. Method 10—26—83, in Proceedings of the Northstar Workshop on Noncorro-
give Winter Maintenance, FHWA/MN/RD—84/03, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., October.
Wood, F. (1983). Proceedings of the Northstar Workshop on Noncorrosive Winter
Maintenance (Technical Presentations). Report No. FHWA/Mtl/RD...84/03 Minnesota
Department of Transportation, 56—67, October.
Woodside, A. R., and R. A. Peden (1983). Durability Characteristics of Road—
stone. QuaryMgt.Prod., .!Q:8, 493-494/497-498, August.
Wyoming Highway Department Maintenance ManuaL. (1984). Wyoming Department
of Transportation.
7—5
-------
APPENOIX A
SURVEY PROCEDURES
A-I
-------
The following sections outline the literature search and telephone survey
performed during the study.
A.1 LITERATURE SEARCH
The results of three literature searches were examined for references
pertinent to the current study. From a previous program, MRI had compiled a
data base of abstracts and citations on: ice disbonding; laboratory studies
on Ice; salt effects on soils, pavements, steel corrosion, and plants; and the
properties and uses of deicing chemicals. The abstracts had been compiled
from the 5Th CA file, NTIS, and IRIS data bases. The most recent references
in the MRI data. base were published in 1987.
Additional literature searches were done in August and September 1989 on
the hardness and tendency of antiskid materials to produce fines. The more
extensive online search in August focused on the IRIS data base, although a
few retrievals were made from the NTIS data base. The strategy combined the
concept of the materials (key words: antiskid or abrasives or sand or stone
or cinders or slag) used for highway/road/street snow or Ice removal (control-
ling or deicing or deicers or salt or melt) with key words for the following
concepts:
• Skid resistance (including coefficient of friction and traction).
• Application/spreading rates or costs.
• The dustiness concept (key words: attrition or fines or dusts or
silt or gradation or grade or size or sizing or sieve or sieving or
screening or grain size or granulometry or durability or stability
or petrography or degradation).
• Cleaning or flushing the materials.
• Alternatives or substitutes.
The strategy, of course, allowed for appropriate truncation and proximity
operators for the key word relationships.
In September, the data bases Compendex Plus (Engineering Abstracts and
Engineering Meetings), IRIS, IHS International Standards and Specifications,
and Standa ds and Specifications were searched for reviews on aggregate hard-
ness testing procedures. The search combined the following three sets of key
words with the key word review:
1. Road/highway/street use of aggregate.
2. Test or standard or specification.
3. Hardness or Mohs or Knoop or scieroscopy or crush resistance or wear
resistance or abrasion resistance.
A—2
-------
From the above search 121. documents were identified, collected, and
reviewed for pertinent data. The documents collected are listed under refer-
ences in Section 7 or in the bibliography in Appendix Be
A.2 TELEPHONE SURVEY
Nine states and two municipalities were surveyed by telephone (some with
multiple contacts) to gather information on current ice and snow control prac-
tices, especially as related to the impact of antiskid materials on dust
production. The telephone survey was based on the questionnaire found in
Figure A—i. This six—page form permitted the recording of comprehensive
information on types of deicing chemicals and abrasives, factors associated
with selection of particular antiskid measures, application methods and rates,
and cleanup operations. Often the state or municipal official surveyed had
partial information, so only the appropriate sections of the questionnaire
were completed. Several states also submitted specifications for purchase of
antiskid materials.
Early In the program It was determined that the South Dakota Department
of Transportation was accumulating information on abrasives. Over 20 states
had responded with Information on specifications for particle size distribu-
tions and other physical characteristics of abrasives. The questionnaire used
In this effort appears In Figure A—2.
The purpose of the South Dakota survey was to develop background informa-
tion for a new specification for antiskid aggregates based on reducing the
number of broken windshield complaints and achieving high skid resistance.
The sand in the South Dakota survey was classified Into five categories: pit
run sand, screened pit run sand, crushed pit run aggregate, crushed quarry
aggregate, and other. Also, some respondents provided their particular mate-
rial specifications as attachments. The results of the telephone and South
Dakota surveys are provided in Section 2.1 of the main report.
A—3
-------
TELEPHONE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Selection and Usage of Anti-Skid MaterIals for Ice and Snow Control
Agency Surveyed:____________________________________ Date:______
Person Contacted:_______________________________ Tele. No. (
Mailing Address of Agency:
1. What types and amounts of delcing chemicals and abrasives have you used in
each of the last 3 years? How many lane-miles of road were treated by each type
of chemical and abrasive? What is the cost of these materials and the “nomInal”
application rate (lbs/lane-mile)?
UNIT COST
(S/TON) OR NOMINAL
QUANTITY TOTAL APPLICATiON
MATERIAL (TONS OR LANE-MILES ANNUAL RATE (LBS/
YEAR TYPE GALLONS) TREATED COST ( 5K) LANE-MILE)
Figure A—i. Telephone survey questionnaire.
A—4
-------
2. Are chemicals and abrasives mixed prior to application and, if so, in what
proportions?
3. What factors (e.g., cost, availability, effectiveness, etc.) are used to select a
particular abrasive or chemical for use in Ice and snow control?
a. Cost Considerations:
• Abrasives:______________________________________________________
• Chemicals:____________________________________________________
b. Availability Considerations: What are the sources of the materials currently
used?
• Abrasives:_____________________________________________________
c. Driving Improvement EffectIveness:
MATERIAL TYPE ROAD CONDITION EFFECTIVENESS
How do you define effectiveness?_______
Figure A—i (Continued)
A—S
-------
d. Dust Generation Potential:
e. Other Considerations (e.g., durability; temperature; corrosivity; environmental
conditions; etc.):
4. What materials, other than those currently being used, have been considered for
use in Ice and snow control?___________________________________________
Why were these rejected?
5. Do you have specifications (e.g., gradation, durability, etc.) and standard test
methods for the abrasives and chemicals used for ice & snow control? ______
If so, what do they generally consist of? ________________________________
6. Could you send a copy of the above specifications and test methods by first class
mall? _______
7. What Is the basis for a particular road being treated (traffic volume, rural vs. urban
routes, school route, public demand, accident rates, etc.)? _________________
8. Are abrasives/chemicals applied at different rates? ________ If so, what is the
basis for selecting the application rate? _________________________________
Figure A—i (Continued)
A-6
-------
9. Have directives been published and distributed to operating personnel regarding
the current policy on the use of abrasives and chemicals for ice and snow control?
________ If so, could you send a copy by first class mail? ________
10. Do you require detailed reports by equipment operators on the quantity of
abrasives and chemicals used? _________ If so, Is this information correlated
with temperature, traffic, snowfall, humidity, or other factors effecting the quantities
used?
11. Whet type of distribution equipment Is used to apply abrasives/chemicals to
different road types?
MATERIALS
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
EQUIPMENT
a. State Highways (rural areas):
b. Expressways:
c. City Streets:
d. Major Intersections/Bridges:
e. Other
12. How are the application rates and spreading pattern set on the above equipment?
13. Is abrasive/chemical use and durability checked after the storm to determine the
effectiveness of treatment, adherence to application rate specifications, generation
of fines, etc.? ________ If so, how is this performed? ___________________
Could you send a copy of the above method(s) by first class mail?
Figure A—1 (Continued)
A- 7
-------
14. What specific type of equipment (e.g. broom sweeping, flushing, vacuuming) is
used to clean up the abrasive/chemical residue from the roads after the storm?
How soon is clean-up started after the storm? How often does the clean-up
equipment operate over the same route after the storm?
TiME
REMOVAL AFTER REMOVAL
EQUIPMENT STORM FREQUENCY
a. State Highways (rural areas):
b. Expressways:
c. City Streets: ___________
d. Major lntersectlons/Br ” ___________
e. Other _______________ ___________ ___________
15. Is the cleanliness of the road surface checked after post-storm (or spring) clean-
up is completed? ________ If so, how is this performed? _______________
16. Considering variations in storm frequency from year-to-year, do you believe that
your annual use of abrasives/chemicals Is rising, falling, or staying about the
same? _______ If your consumption is falling, what specific practices have you
used to minimize anti-skid material usage?
Figure A—i (Continued)
A-8
-------
OThER COMMENTS
MATERIALS TO BE SENT TO MRI:
Person Completing Questionnaire: Date:_________
FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION:
Person Performing Follow-Up:
Date of Follow-Up: ________
Figure A—i (Concluded)
(9/8/89)
A-9
-------
SD : DOT
Sanoing Materiais QuestLonaire Ageacy:
(1) Cnec cne cypes of ateriaLs used ror incer Operations £auain ;
_____ Pit Run Sano _____ Crushed Pit (un
_____ Screenei Pit Run Sane _____ Crusned Quarry Agg.
_____ Otners (Specify) ________________________
(2) Jni.cn of tnose checiea provi.ees cne oesc s ia resistance?
(3) Provide speeLfications ror niacerial. y.au purcnase froni co merci.ai.
sources.
Sieve % Passing
(4) Provide specifications ror niaterial. you produce (crusa/sereen) wito
your own rorces — U screen.Lng/crusnin is not necessary, unat is
normal naximt particle size.
Sieve Z Passing
(5) Do you nave a significant number of broken w.ndsAiela co pLai.nts witn
cne materials you use?
(6) U you use botti natural (round) or crushed materials is tflere a
diEXerence in u ber ot bro au winci*hield complaints between the two? Yes.
Complaints more common uicn unicn material? ___________________________
(7) Do your specifications include requ1.r ents for Unit Weight? - I to.
(8) Do your specifications ror crusned pit run or quarry aggregate require
a sziaimi percentage ox tracturen faces? No Mini.mt ______% Fracture
on ____________ face(s) for material retained on tne ____________
on.—cwo—more) (sieve.s i z .a)
sieve.
Mane: _________________________ Title: - -
Address: ________________________ Phone; __________
Figure A—2. Sanding materials questionnaire.
A- 10
-------
APPENDIX B
B I BLIOGRAPHY
B—i
-------
Tremayne, J. E. 1938. “Calcium Chloride Treatment of Abrasives Used in Ice
Control,” Can. Engr., 75:8—10, November 15.
Schneider, 1. R. 1952. “Snowdrifts and Winter Ice on Roads,” NRC TT-1038,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Technical Translation of original
report from the Eidgenossissches Institut fur Schnee-und Lawinenforschung,
Interner Bericht KR. 302, 141, 1959.
Highway Research Board. 1954. “Reconriended Practice for Snow Removal and
Treatment of Icy Pavements,” Current Road Problems, No. 9, 3rd Rev., Dept.
Maint., Comm. Snow and Ice Control, Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC,
Washington, D.C.
Nichols, R. J., and W. I. J. Price. 1956. “Salt Treatment for Clearing Snow
and Ice,” The Surveyor, 115:886-888.
Wirshing, R. J. 1957. “Effect of Delcing Salts on Corrosion of Automobiles,”
BuLl. 150, Highway Research Board, HAS—NRC, Washington, D.C.
Brohm, D. R, and H. R. Edwards. 1960. “Use of Chemicals and Abrasives in
Snow and Ice Removal From Highways,” Ras. BUZZ. 252, Highway Research Board,
HAS—NRC Pubi. 761, WashIngton, D.C.
Webster, H. A. 1961. “Automobile Body Corrosion Problems,” Corrosion, 17:8,
9—12.
Highway Research Board. 1962. “Current Practices for Highway Snow and Ice
Control,” Currant Road Problem,, No. 9, 4th Rev., Highway Research Board, NAS—
NRC, Washington, D.C.
Hinmielman, B. F. 1963. “Ice Removal on Highways and Outdoor Storage of
Chloride Salts,” Hlgttw. Ras. Rec. 11, Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC,
Washington, D.C.
Solvay Technical and Engineering Service. 1963. Calcium Ctloride, 3rd Edi-
tion, Bulletin No. 16.
Jorgensen, R., et al. 1964. “Nonchemical Methods of Snow and Ice Control on
Highway Structures,” Report No. 4, National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Lang, C. H., and W. E. Dickinson. 1964. “Snow and Ice Control with Chemical
Mixtures and Abrasives,” Highw. Re. . Rae. 81, Highway Research Board, HAS-NRC,
Washington, D.C., pp. 14—18.
Fronmi, H. J. 1967. “The Corrosion of Autobody Steel and the Effects on
Inhibited Deicing Salts,” Rep. No. RRI3S, Department of Highways, Toronto,
Ontario.
National Research Council. 1967. “Manual on Snow Removal and Ice Control in
Urban Areas,” Tec?t. Memo. No. 93, NRC 9904, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
8—2
-------
Minsk, D. L. 1968. “Electrically Conductive Asphalt for Control of Snow and
Ice Accumulation,” Hlghw. Res. Rae., No. 227, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C., pp. 57-63.
Road Research Laboratory. 1968. “Salt Treatment of Snow and Ice on Roads,”
Road Note No. 18, Dept. Science and Industrial Research, 2nd Ed., Her
Majesty’s Stationery Off., London.
Dunnery, 0. A. 1970. “Chemical Melting of Ice and Snow on Paved Surfaces,”
Highway Research Board Special Reports No. 115, 172-176.
Speliman, 0. L., and R. F. Stratfull. 1970. “Chlorides and Bridge Deck
Deterioration,” Highw. Res. Rec. 328, Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC,
Washington, D.C.
Byrd, Tallamy, et al. 1971. “Snow Removal and Ice Control Techniques at
Interchanges,” High’,,. Res. Rec. 127, Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC,
Washington, D.C.
Stewart, C. 1971. “Deterioration in Salted Bridge Decks,” Special Report 116,
Highway Research Board, NAS—NRC, Washington, D.C.
Struzeski, E. 1971. “Envir ental Impact of Highway Deicing,” Final Report
11040 GKK, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, New Jersey, June.
Anon. 1973. “Rècycl Winter Sand Tested in Connecticut,” Rural and Urban
Roads, 11:2, 51, February.
Murray, 0. M., and M. R. Elgerman. 1973. “A Search: New Technology for
Pavement Snow and Ice Control,” EPA—R2-72—125, UeS, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., December.
Richardson, 0. L., et al. 1974. “Manual for Deicing Chemicals: Application
Practices,” EPA-67012-74—045, National Environmental Research Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, December.
NACE Group Conmiittee 1—3. 1975. “Deicing Salts, Their Use and Effects,”
Matls. P.rf., 14:9-14, April.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1976.
“MSHTO Maintenance Manual,” First Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
February.
Welch, B. H., et al. 1976. “Economic Impact of Highway Snow and Ice
Control——State—of—the—Art,” Report No. FHWA—RD—7720, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Offices of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
McBride, J. C., et al. 1977. “Economic Impact of Highway Snow and Ice Con-
trol ESIC-—User’s Manual,” Report No. FHWA—RO—77—96, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Offices of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
8—3
-------
Dunn, S. A., and R. U. Schenk. 1979. “Alternative Highway Deicing Chemi-
cals,” in Snow Control and rce Control Research, Special Report 185, Transporta-
tion Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Hu, A. C. 1979. “The Effect of Chloride Concentration on Automobile Stopping
Distance,” in Snow Control and ice Control Research, Special Report 185, Trans .-
portatlon Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Dunn, S. A., and R. U. Schenk. 1980. “Alternate Highway Deicing Chemicals,”
FHWA—RD-79—108, Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and Devel-
opment, Washington, D.C., March.
Baboian, R. 1981. “The Automotive Environment,” in Automotive Corrosion by
Deicing Salts, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Brown, N. G. 1981. “Corrosion of Highway Appurtenances Due to Deicing
Salts,” in Automotive Corrosion by Deiclng Salts, National Association of Corro-
sion Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Cook, A. R. 1981. Oeicing Salts and the Longevity of Reinforced Concrete,”
in Automotive Corrosion by Deiclng Salts, National Association of Corrosion Engi-
neers, Houston, Texas.
From, H. J. 1981. “Winter Maintenance Practice and Research in Ontario,” in
Automotive Corrosion by Deicing Salts, National Association of Corrosion Engi-
neers, Houston, Texas.
Gray, 0. M., and 0. H. Male, Editors. 1981. Handbook of Snow—Principles, Pro-
cesses, Managernertt, and Use, Pergamon Press, New York.
McDonald, R. 0. 1981. ‘Automotive Underbody Corrosion Testing,” in Automo-
tive Corrosion by Deicing Salts, National Association Cf Corrosion Engineers,
Houston, Texas.
Passaglia, E., and R. A. Haines. 1981. “The National Cost of Automobile
Corrosion,” in Automotive Corrosion by Deicing Salts, National Association of
Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Wood, F. 0. 1981. “Survey of Salt Use for Oeicing Purposes,” in Automotive
Corrosion by Delcirtg Salts, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston,
Texas.
Minsk, 0. L. 1982. “Optimizing Oeicing Chemical Application Rates,” CREEL
Report 82—18, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., August.
Zaman, N. S., et al. 1982. ‘Prediction of Deterioration of Concrete Due to
Freezing and Thawing and to Deicing Chemical Use,” American Concrete institute
JournaL, 79:1, 56—58, January-February.
Zaman, N. S., et al. 1982. “Prediction of Deterioration of Concrete Due to
Freezing and Thawing and to Deicing Chemical Use,” American Concrete institute
Journal, 6:502-504, November-December.
B-4
-------
Eck, R. W., et al. 1983. “Evaluation of the Effect of Natural Brine Deicing
Agents on Pavement Materials,” Transportation Research Record, g3,3:24—31.
Huisman, C. L. 1983. “Cost Effective Roadway Deicing Using: Abrasives,
Salt, and Calcium Chloride,” Presented at Iowa Snow Conference, Ames, Iowa.
Connecticut Department of Transportation. 1984. “Snow and Ice Control
Policy,” State of Connecticut Bureau of Highways.
Anderson, R. W. 1985. “Safety Restoration During Snow Removal: Problems and
Corrective Guidelines for Post Snow Storm Cleanup Operations,” Trrinsafety
Reporter, 3:12, 4—5, December.
Saarela, A. 1985. “Future Views on Road Maintenance,” Tie Ia LUkenne, 55:8,
329-331.
Venermo, V., et al. 1985. “Katujen liukkaudentorjunta (Antiskid Treatment of
Streets) , Tie Ia Lilkenne, 55:8, 332-335.
Eck, R. W., et al. 1987. “Natural Brine as an Additive to Abrasive Materials
and Deicing Salts,” Transportation Research Record 1127, 16—26.
Pitt, J. M., et al. 1987. “Sulfate Impurities Front Deicing Salt and Durabil-
ity of Portland Cement Mortar,” Transportation Research Record 1110, 16—23.
Anonymous 1988. “WInter Maintenance——Learning Finland’s Methods,” Better
Roads, 58:6, 22-26, June.
Hiatt, G. F. S., et al. 1988. “Calciul Magnesium Acetate: Comparative
Toxicity Tests and an Industrial Hygiene Site Investigation,” Transportation
Research Record 1157, 20—26.
Jokinen, M. 1988. iCatupolün Vahentamista Tutkittu Turussa (Decreasing
Street Dust Problems——A Study in Turku),” TIe fa Lilkenne, 58:6, 22—24.
McElroy, A. 0., et al. 1988. “ComparatIve Study of Chemical Deicers,” Trans—
pàrtatlon Research Record 1157, 1-11.
McElroy, A. 0., et al. 1988. “Study on Wetting Salt and Sand Stockpiles with
Liquid Calcium Chloride,” Transportation Research Record 1157, 38—43.
Nadezhdin, A., 0. A. Mason, B. Malric, 0. F. Lawless, and J. P. Fedosoff.
1988. “The Effect of Deicing Chemicals on Reinforced Concrete,” Transportation
Research Record 1157, 31—37.
Rainiero, J. N. 1988. ‘Investigation of the Ice—Retardant Characteristics of
Verglimit- 1odified Asphalt,” Transportation Research Record 1157, 44-53.
Slick, 0. S. 1988. “Effects of Calcium Magnesium Acetate on Pavements and
Motor Vehicles,” Transportation Research Record 1157, 27-30.
Anderson, R. C., and C. Auster. “Costs and Benefits of Road Salting,”
Environ. AffaIrs, 3:1, 129-144.
8—5
-------
APPENDIX C
ASTh SILT ANALYSIS METHODS
C—’
-------
4gn
Designation: C 117 — 87
Standard Test Method for
Materials Finer than 75-jim (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral
Aggregates by Washing 1
This stsndasd is issued under the fixed desiinauon C Ill; the number immediately (ouowiog the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revisron, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses i’ ” the year of last eapproval. A
superscript epsilon (.) an editorial change since the last revision àr reapprov.L
This zest method has kerr app,ovedflw use by agencies of the DepaflJ wnS of Deft rise and for tiszin in the DoD Index of SpecIficazzos s
and Standards.
1. Scope
.1 This test method covers determination of the amount
of material finer than a 75-JLm (No. 200) sieve in aggregate
by washing. Clay particles and other aggregate particles that
ar dispersed by the wash water, as well as water-soluble
materials, will be removed from the aggregate during the test.
1.2 Two procedures are included, one using only water for
the washing operation, and the other including a wetting
agent to assist the loosening of the material finer than the
75-jun (No. 200) sieve from the coarser material. Unless
otherwise specified, Procedure A (water only) shall be used.
1.3 The values stated in acceptable metric units are to be
regarded as the standard. -
1.4 This standard may involve hazardous materials, oper-
ations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to
address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is
the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish
appropriate safety and health practices and determine the
applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
C 136 Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates2
C 670 Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias State-
ments for Test Methods for Construction Materials 2
C 702 Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to
Testing Size 2
D 75 Practice for Sampling Aggregates 3
E 11 Specification for Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing
Purposes’
2.2 AASHTO Standard:
T 11 Method of Test forAmount of Material Finer than
0,075-mm Sieve in Aggregate 5
‘a test method is under thu jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C.9 on
Concrete and Concrete AWeptes and is the direct , .ootibility o(Subconunittee
C 09.03.05 on Methods o(Tes*ing afld Spi aea (or Physical Cha* tCflItICS
O(Concrit. A rep*es.
C ,uyen; edition approved Feb. 9, 1987. Published Much 1987. Originally
publis 51 Ill -35 1’. L.asi previous edition C Ill - 84.
An alternative procedure that allows she sue of a waning agent was added to the
O*tr n edition of this lest method.
2 f 57 ’3f Standards. Vol 04.02.
4nmaal Book of 437M Standards. Vole 04.02 and 04.03.
Annuai Bocic of ASTM Standards. Vols 04.02 and 14.02.
‘Available (torn the Amencan Association o( Stare Highway and Transporta.
toUt Ofllciajs, 444 N. Capitol Sr.. NW. Suite 225, Washington. DC 20001.
3. Summary of Method
3.1 Asampleoftheaggregateiswashedinaprescribcd
manner, using either plain water or water containing a
wetting agent, as specified. The decanted wash water, con-
taining suspended and dissolved material, is passed through a
75-jim (No. 200) sieve. The loss in mass resulting from the
wash treatment is calculated as mass percent of the original
sample and is reported as the percentage of material finer
than a 75-jim (No. 200) sieve by washing.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 Material finer than the 75-p.m (No. 200) sieve can be
separated from larger particles much more efficiently and
completely by wet sieving than through the tise of dry
sieving. Therefore, when accurate determinations’of material
finer than 75 p.m in tine or coarse aggregate are desired, this
test method is used on the sample prior to dry sieving in
accordance with Method C 136. The results of this test
method are included in the calculation in Method C 136,
and the total amount of material finer than 75 p.m by
washing, plus that obtained by dry sieving the same sample,
is reported with the results of Method C 136. Usually the
additional amount of material finer than 75 p.m obtained in
the dry sieving process is a small amount. If it is large, the
efficiency of the washing operation should be checked. It
could, also, be an indication of degradation of the aggregate.
4.2 Plain water is adequate to separate the material finer
than 75 pm from the coarser material with most aggregates.
In some cases, the finer material is adhering to the larger
particles, such as some clay coatings and coatings on
aggregates that have been extracted from bituminous mix-
tures. In these cases, the fine material will be separated more
readily with a wetting agent in the water.
5. Apparatus and Materials
5.1 Balance—A balance or scale readable and accurate to
0.1 g or’ 0.1 % of the test load, whichever is greater, at any
point within the range of use.
5.2 Sieves—A nest of two sieves, the lower being a 75-jim
(No. 200) sieve and the upper a 1.18-mm (No. 16) sieve,
both conforming to the requirements of Specification E 11.
5.3 Conzainer— A pan or vessel of a size sufficient to
contain the sample covered with water and to permit
vigorous agitation without loss of any part of the sample or
water.
5.4 Oven—An oven of sufficient size, capable of main-
taining a uniform temperature of 110 t 5C (230 ± 9F).
C- 2
-------
€1 C 117
5.5 Wetting Agent—Any dispersing agent, such as liquid
dishwashing detergents, that will promote separation of the
fine materials.
NOT! 1—The use of a mechanical apparatus to perform the washing
operation is not precluded, provided the resulu are consistent with those
obtained using manual operations. The use of some mechanical washing
equipment with some samples may cause degradation of the sample.
6. SamplIng
6.1 Sample the a gregate in accordance with PractIce
D75. If the same test sample is to be tested for sieve analysis
according to Method C 136, comply with the applicable
requirements of that method.
6.2 Thoroughly mix the sample of aggregate to be tested
and reduce the quantity to an amount suitable for testing
using the applicable methods described in Methods C 702. If
the same test sample is to be tested according to Method
C 136, the minimum mass shall be as described in the
applicable sections of that method. Otherwise, the mass of
the test sample, after drying, shall conform with the foi .
lowing
Nominal Maximum Size
2.36 mm (No.8)
4.75 mm No. 4)
9.5 mm (¾ in.)
19,0 mm (¾ in.)
37.3 mm(Wz in.) or larger
The test sample shall be the end result of the reduction.
Reduction to an exact predetermined mass shall not be
permitted.
7. Selection of Procedure
7.1 Procedure A shall be used, unless otherwise specified
by the Specification with which the test results are to be
compared, or when directed by the agency for which the
work is performed.
8. Procedure A—Washing with Plain Water
8.1 Dry the test sample to constant mass at a temperature
of 110 ± s.c (230 ± 9’F). Determine the mass to the nearest
0.1 % of the mass of the test sample.
8.2 If the applicable specification requires that the
amount passing the 75-tim (No. 200) sieve shall be deter-
mined on a portion of the sample passing a sieve smaller
than the nominal maximum size of the aggregate, separate
the sample on the designated sieve and determine the mass
of the material passing the designated sieve to 0.1 % of the
mass of this portion of the test sample. Use this mass as the
original dry mass of the test sample in 10.1.
Noil 2—Some specifications for aggregates with a nominal mu-
imuin size of 50 mm or greater, for example, provide a limit for material
passing the 75 jim (No. 200) sieve determined on that portion of the
sample passing the 25.0-mm sieve. Such procedures are necessary since
it is impractical to wash samples of the size required when the same test
sample is to be used for sieve analysis by Method C 136.
8.3 After drying and determining the mass, place the test
sample in the container and add sufficient water to cover it.
No detergent, dispersing agent, or other substance shall be
added to the water. Agitate the sample with sufficient vigor
to result in complete separation of all particles finer than the
75- .tm (No. 200) sieve from the coarser particles, and to
bring the fine material into suspension. Immediately pour
the wash water containing the suspended and dissolved solids
over the nested sieves, arranged with the coarser sieve on tcp.
Take care to avoid, as much as feasible, the decantation of
coarser particles of the sample.
8.4 Add a second charge of water to the sample in the
container, agitate, and decant as before. Repeat this opera-
tion until the wash water is clear.
Nors 3—If mechanical washing equipment is used, the charging of
water, agitating, and decanting may be a continuous operation.
8.5 Return all material retained on the nested sieves by
flushing to the washed sample. Dry the washed aggregate to
constant mass at a temperature 0(110 ± S’C (230 ± 9’F) and
determine the mass to the nearest 0.1 % of the original mass
of the sample.
9. Procedure B—Washing Using a Wetting Agent
9.1 Prepare the sample in the same manner as for
Procedure A.
9.2 After drying and determining the mass, place the test
sample in the container. Add sufficient water to cover the
sample, and add wetting agent to the water (Note 4). Agitate
the sample with sufficient vigor to result in complete sepa-
ration of all particles finer than the 75-tim (No. 200) sieve
from the coarser particles, and to bring the fine material into
suspension. Immediately pour the wash water containing the
suspended and dissolved solids over the nested sieves,
arranged with the coarser sieve on’ top. Take care to avoid, as
much as feasible, the decantasion of coarser particles of the
sample.
Nors 4—These should be enough wetting agent to produce a small
amount of suds when the sample is agitated. The quantity will depend
on the hardness of the water and the quality of the detergent Excessive
suds may overflow the sieves and carry some material with them.
9 3 Add a second charge of water (without wetting agent)
to the sample in the container, agitate, and decant as before.
Repeat this operation until the wash water is clear.
9.4 Complete the test as for Procedure A.
10. Calculation
10.1 Calculate the amount of material passing a 75-jun
(No. 200) sieve by washing as follows:
A — ((B — C)/BJ x 100
where
A — percentage of material finer than a 75-jim (No. 200)
sieve by washing,
B —originaidry mass of sample, g, and
C - dry mass of sample after washing, g.
11. Report
11.1 Report the percentage of material finer than. the
75-jim (No. 200) sieve by washing to the nearest 0.1 %,
except if the result is 10 % or more, report the percentage to
the nearest whole number.
11.2 Include a statement as to which procedure was used.
12. Precision and BIas
12.1 The estimates of precision of this test method listed
in Table I are based on results from the AASHTO Materials
Reference Laboratory Reference Sample Program, with
testing conducted by this test method and AASHTO Method
Minimum Meat. g
100
500
l000
2300
5000
C— 3
-------
•
TABLE I Precision
Standard
Qy Øfl( $)A%
Acceptable flange
of two Results
(O2S)’ .%
Coarse AggrurJs
Skiglu.Operatcr Prsdaion
0.10
0.26
Mulboratoly Prsdelon
Pine A.c
0.22
0.62
Slng*Op.rator Precision
0.15
0.43
Multliikoratory Pr. hsion
0.29
0.82
Am... numb.,, represent the QS) and (025) llmfta as daawlbid In Practice
C 670.
PrI AaIQn sstintatss vs based on ag sgatss ha lng a nominal masimisn size
of 19.0 nWTI (16 In.) with las than 1.5% mwr than the 75.g&m (No. 200) sIeve.
C Precision estimates are based on line aggregates having 1.0 to 3.0% fIns
than the 75 m (No. 200) sIeve.
T 11. The significant differences between the methods at the
time the data were acquired is that Method T 11 required,
and Method C 117 prohibited, the use of a wetting agent
The data are based on the analyses of more than 100 paired
test results from 40 to 100 laboratories.
12.2 Bias—Since there is no accepted reference material
suitable for determining the bias for the procedure in this test
method, no statement on bias is made.
The Am a ilcan Sockey for Testing and Materials takes no position ,aspsctIl,g the If alduty 01 any patsvv rights assailed in connection
wh any lam mentioned in the standard. Lisaja of stai aJd are expressly advised that datsnrdnatlcn of fit. v.HdHy c i any such
plant . ; --- a fl .ik of injWl9amJnf of 5 j fl .ioJi am ntfrely thik osm? reeponslbiilfy.
This standard Is aub lect to revision stacy tIne by the r.spcnalWe technical acirenifta. and must be reviewed every five yeats and
Inot ravls.d. .11w reaporoved or withdrawn. Volt ccaaneru at. Invi t adalt Iw r .vls fl of this standard or ic r additional standards
and should be a wsa.d to ASIM Heudquwtws. Yøst canansnf a wIN racikie careful ccnsidlition V a meet kig ci the responsible
technical coim,attee . which you may attend. N you 1w that yoir c . .a lwlal1s hive not received a 1* hearing you should mike yoir
views sho w s to the ASTM Conm’klui on Statdw* 1916 Race St., P adsla, PA 19103.
C-4
-------
Designation: C 136 — 84a
Standard Method for
Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates 1
This standard is lamed under the fixed designation C 136; the number immediately foIlowin the designation indicates the year of
onjinal adoption or. in the eeee of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses j 4 ”’es the year of last reapprovaj, A
epailon ( ) iiid r a edjto ,jaj change since the last revision or reapprovaL
77ijg method ha, bee ,, approved /br use by agencies of the Depairmens of DefEnse and for listing in i/wOoD Index of Specij2caiio.u and
&aRdw tü.
1. Scope
1.1 This method covers the determination of the particle
size distribution of fine and coarse aggregates by sieving.
1.2 Some specifications for aggregates which reference this
method contain grading requirements including both coarse
and fine fractions. Instructions are included for sieve analysis
of such aggregates.
1.3 The values stated in acceptable metric units (SI units
and units specifically approved in ASTM E 380 for use with
SI units) are to be regarded as the standard. The values in
parentheses are provided for information purposes only.
1.4 This standard may involve hazardous materials, oper-
ations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to
address all of the safety problems associated with Its use. It is
the responsibility of whoever uses this standard to consult and
establish appropriate safety and health practices and deter-
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
C 117 Test Method for Materials Finer Than 75- &m (No.
200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Wa.shing 2
C 670 Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias State-
ments for Test Methods for Construction Materials 2
C 702 Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to
Testing Size 3
D 75 Practice for Sampling Aggregat&
E 11 Specification for Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing Pur-
poses 2
E 380 Metric Practice 4
2.2 AASHTQ Standarth
AASHTO No. T 27 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates 3
3. Summary of Method
3.1 A weighed sample of dry aggregate is separated
through a series of sieves of progressively smaller openings
‘This method is under the jutisdiction of ASTM Committee C.9 on Concrete
and Concrete Aggreptes and is the direct reaponsabiuty o( Subcommittee
C09.03.o5 o( ng and Specification. for Physical Characteristics of
Concrete A repna.
Curretit editio, approved Oct. 26, 1954. Published December 1984. Originally
Published as C 136-38 T. Last previous edition C 136 -53.
1 Annual Book of AST.W Suzndarde. VoIs 04.02 and 04.03.
3 4nnuai i f is .i Standards. Vol 04.02.
4 4 u ,ua1 Book ofASTM Standards. Vol 14.02. Excerpts in all volumes.
Available from American Association of State Highway and Transporution
Olflci.ii, 444 North Capitol St. NW.. Suite 225. Washington, DC 20001.
for determination of particle size distribution.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 This method is used primarily to determine the
grading of materials proposed for use as aggregates or being
used as aggregates. The results are used to determine compli-
ance of the particle size distribution with applicable specifi-
cation requirements and to provide necessary data for con-
trol of the production of various aggregate products and
mixtures containing aggregates. The data may also be useful
in developing relationships concerning porosity and packing.
4.2 Accurate determination of material finer than the
75 j.&m (No. 200) sieve cannot be achieved by use of this
method alone. Test Method C 117 for material finer than
75-j un sieve by washing should be employed.
5. Apparatus
5.1 Balances—Balances or scales used in testing fine and
coarse aggregate shall have readability and accuracy as fol-
lows:
5.1.1 For fine aggregate, readable to 0.1 g and accurate to
0.1 g or 0.1 % of the test load, whichever is greater, at any
point within the range of use.
5.1.2 For coarse aggregate, or mixtures of fine and coarse
aggregate, readable and accurate to 0.5 g or 0.1 % of the test
load, whichever is greater, at any point within the range of
use.
5.2 Sieves—The sieves shall be mounted on substantial
frames constructed in a manner that will prevent loss of
material during sieving. The sieves shall conform to Specifi-
cation E 11. Sieves with openings larger than 125 mm (Sin.)
shall have a permissible variation in average opening of
±2 % and shall have a nominal wire diameter of 8.0 mm
(5/16 in.) or larger.
Nois 1—ft is recommended that sieves mounted in frames larger
than standard 203-mm (Sin.) diameter fames be used for tesung coarse
aggre gate
5.3 Mechanical Sieve Shaker—A mechanical sieve
shaker, if used, shall impart a vertical, or lateral and vertical,
motion to the sieve, causing the particles thereon to bounce
and turn so as to present different orientations to the sieving
suthce. The sieving action shall be such that the criterion for
adequacy of sieving described in is met in a reasonable
time period.
Non 2—Use of a mechanical sieve shaker is recommended when
the size of the sample is 20 kg or greater, and may be used for smaller
samples, including fine aggregate. Excessive time (more than approxi-
mately 10 mitt) to achieve adequate sieving may result in degradation of
the sample. The same mechanical sieve shaker may not be practical for
C.- S
-------
4R’ C136
all sizes of samples, since the large sieving area needed for practical
sieving of a large nominal size coarse aggregate very likely could result in
loss of a portion of the sample if used for a small sample of coarse
aggregate or fine aggregate.
5.4 Oven—An oven of appropriate size capable of main-
taining a uniform temperature of 110 ± 5C (230 t 9F).
6. Sampling
6.1 Sample the aggregate in accordance with Practice
D 75. The weight of the field sample shall be the weight
shown in Practice D 75 or four times the weight required in
6.4 and 6.5 (except as modified in 6.6), whichever is greater.
6.2 Thoroughly. mix the sample and reduce it to an
amount suitable for testing using the applicable procedures
described in Methods C 702. The sample for test shall be
approximately of the weight desired when dry and shall be
the end result of the reduction. Reduction to an exact
predetermined weight shall not be permitted.
Non 3—Where sieve analysis, including determination of material
finer than the 75. un sieve, is the only testing proposed, the size of the
sample may be reduced in the field to avoid shipping excessive
quantities of extra material to the laboratory.
6.3 Fine Aggregate—The test sample of fine aggregate
shall weigh, after drying, approximately the following
amount
A regale with at least 95 % passns a 136-mm (No.8) sieve
Aggregate withal least 85 % passing a 4.75-mm (No.4) sieve
and more than 5 % retained on a 2.36-mm (Nob 8) sieve
6.4 Coarse Aggregate—The weight of the test sample of
coarse aggregate shall conform with the following:
6.5 Coarse and Fine Aggregate Mixtures—The weight of
the test sample of coarse and tine aggregate mixtures shall be
the same as for coarse aggregate in 6.4.
6.6 The size of sample required for aggregates with large
nominal maximum size is such as to preclude testing except
with large mechanical sieve shakers. However, the intent of
this method will be satisfied for samples of aggregate larger
than 50 mm nominal maximum size if a smaller weight of
sample is used, provided that the criterion for acceptance or
rejection of the material is based on the average of results of
several samples, such that the sample size used times the
number of samples averaged equals the minimum weight of
sample shown in 6.4.
6.7 In the event that the amount of material finer than the
75-tim (No. 200) sieve is to be determined by Test Method
C 117, proceed as follows:
6.7.1 For aggregates with a nominal maximum size of
12.5 mm (1/2 in.) or less, use the same test sample for testing
by Test Method C 117 and this method. First test the sample
in accordance with Test Method C 117 through the final
drying operation, then dry sieve the sample as stipulated in
7.2 through 7.7 of this method.
6.7.2 For aggregates with a nominal maximum size
greater than 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), a single test sample may be
used as described in 6.7.1, or separate test samples may be
used for Test Method C 117 and this method.
6.7.3 Where the specifications require determination of
the total amount of material finer than the 75- tm sieve by
washing and dry sieving, use the procedure described in
6.7.1.
7. Procedure
7.1 Dry the sample to constant weight at a temperature of
110 ± 5C (230 ± 9T).
Mon 4—For control purposes, particularly where rapid results are
desired, it is generally not necessary to dry coarse aggregate for the sieve
analysis test. The results are little affected by the moisture content
unless (I) the nominal maximum size is smaller than about 12.5 mm
(½ in.); (2) the coarse aggregate contains appreciable material finer than
4.75 mm (No. 4); or (3) the coarse aggregate is highly absorptive (a
lightweight aggregate, for example). Also, samples may be dried at the
higher temperatures associated with the use of hot plates without
affecting results, provided steam escapes without generating pressures
sufficient to fracture the particles, and temperatures are not so great as to
cause chemical breakdown of the aggregate.
7.2 Suitable sieve sizes shall be selected to furnish the
information required by the specifications covering the
material to be tested. The use of additional sieves may be
desirable to provide other information, such as fineness
modulus, or to regulate the amount of material on a sieve.
Nest the sieves in order of decreasing size of opening from
top to bottom and place the sample on the top sieve. Agitate
the sieves by hand or by mechanical apparatus for a
sufficient period, established by trial or checked by measure-
ment on the actual test sample, to meet the criterion for
adequacy or sieving described in 7.4.
7.3 Limit the quantity of material on a given sieve so that
all particles have opportunity to reach sieve openings a
number of times during the sieving operation. For sieves
with openings smaller than 4.75-mm (No. 4), the weight
retaihed on any sieve at the completion of the sieving
operation shall not exceed 6 kg/rn 2 (4 gun. 2 ) of sieving
surface. For sieves with openings 4.75 mm (No. 4) and
larger, the weight in kg/rn 2 of sieving surface shall not exceed
the product of 2.5 X (sieve opening in mm). In no case shall
the weight be so great as to cause permanent deformation of
the sieve cloth.
Non 5—Th. 6 kg/rn 1 amounts to 194 g for the usual 203-mm (8
in.) diameter sieve. The amount of material retained on a sieve may be
regulated by (1) the introduction of a sieve with larger openings
immediately above the even sieve or (2) testing the sample in a number
of increments.
7.4 Continue sieving for a sufficient period and in such
manner that, after completion, not more than 1 weight % of
the residue on any individual sieve will pass that sieve during
I mm of continuous hand sieving performed as follows:
Hold the individual sieve, provided with a snug-fitting pan
and cover, in a slightly inclined position in one hand. Strike
the side of the sieve sharply and with an upward motion
against the heel of the other hand at the rate of about 150
Nominal Maximum Size,
Square Openings. mm (in.)
9.5 (½)
12.5 (½)
19.0 (¾)
25.0(1)
37.5 (1½).
50(2)
63 (2½)
75(3)
90(3½)
100(4)
Ill (4½)
125 (5)
150(6)
Minimum Weight
ofTen Sample, kg (Ib)
1(2)
2 (4)
5(11)
10(22)
IS (33)
20(44)
35 (77) •
60(130)
100(220)
150(330)
200(440)
300(660)
500 (ItCO)
C -6
-------
4S! i C 136
times per minute, turn the sieve about one sixth of a
revolution at intervals of about 25 strokes. In determining
sufficiency of sieving for sizes larger than the 4.75-mm (No.
4) sieve, limit the material on the sieve to a single layer of
particles. If the size of the mounted testing sieves makes the
described sieving motion impractical, use 203-mm (8 in.)
diameter sieves to verify the sufficiency of sieving.
7.5 In the case of coarse and fine aggregate mixtures, the
portion of the sample finer than the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve
may be distributed among two or more sets of sieves to
prevent overloading of individual sieves.
7.5.1 Alternatively, the portion finer than the 4.75-mm
(No. 4) sieve may be redticed in size using a mechanical
splitter according to Methods C 702. If this procedure is
followed, compute the weight of each size increment of the
original sample as follows:
w
A — — x B
w 2
where:
A — weight of size increment on total sample basis,
— weight of fraction finer than 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve in
total sample,
— weight of reduced portion of material finer than
4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve actually sieved, and
B — weight of size increment in reduced portion sieved.
7.6 Unless a mechanical sieve shaker is used, hand sieve
particles larger than 75 mm (3 in.) by determining the
smallest sieve opening through which each particle will pass.
Start the test on the smallest sieve to be used. Rotate the
particles, if necessary, in order to determine whether they
will pass through a particular opening; however do not force
particles to pass through an opening.
7.7 Determine the weight of each size increment by
weighing on a scale or balance conforming to the require.
inents specified in 5.1 to the nearest 0.1 % of the total
original dry sample weight The total weight of the material
after sieving should check closely with original weight of
sample placed on the sieves. If the amounts differ by more
than 0.3 %, based on the original dry sample weight, the
results should not be used for acceptance purposes.
7.8 If the sample has previously been tested by Test
Method C 117, add the weight finer than the 75- i.m (No.
200) sieve determined by that method to the weight passing
the 75- tm (No. 200) sieve by dry sieving of the same sample
in this method.
8. Calculation
8.1 Calculate percentages passing, total percentages re-
tamed, or percentages in various size fractions to the nearest
0.1 % on the basis of the total weight of the initial dry
sample. If the same test sample was first tested by Test
Method C 117, include the weight of material finer than the
75-jtm (No. 200) size by washing in the sieve analysis calcu-
lation; and use the total dry sample weight prior to washing
in Test Method C 117 as the basis for calculating all the
percentages.
8.2 Calculate the fineness modulus, when required, by
adding the total percentages of material in the sample that is
coarser than each of the following sieves (cumulative per-
centages retained), and dividing the sum by 100: 150-j .tm
(No. 100), 300-am (No. 50), 600-jun (No. 30), 1.18-mm
(No. 16), 2 ,36-rnm (No. 8), 4.75-mm (No. 4), 9.5-mm
(3/8-in.), 19.0-mni (3/4-in..), 37.5-mm (1 ‘/2-in.), and larger,
increasingintheratjoof2to 1.
9. Report
9.1 Depending upon the form of the specifications for use
of the material under test, the report shall include the
following;
9.1.1 Total percentage of material passing each sieve, or
9.1.2 Total percentage of material retained on each sieve,
or
9.1.3 Percentage of material retained between consecutive
sieves.
9.2 Report percentages to the nearest whole number,
except if the percentage passing the 75- tm (No. 200) sieve is
less than 10 %, it shall be reported to the nearest 0.1 %.
9.3 Report the fineness modulus, when required, to the
nearest 0.01.
10. PrecIsion
10.1 The estimates of precision of this method listed in
Table I are based on results from the AASHTO Materials
Reference Laboratory Reference Sample Program, with
testing conducted by this method and AASHTO Method
T 27. While there are differences in the minimum weight of
the test sample required for other nominal maximum sizes of
aggregate, no differences entered into the testing to affect the
determination of these precision indices. The data are based
on the analyses of more than 100 paired test results from 40
to 100 laboratories. The values in the table are given for
different ranges of percentage of aggregate passing one sieve
and retained on the next finer sieve.
C-. 7
-------
11$ C 136
TABLE 1 Prsc a4on
S of Size Fraction
Between Cons.astlv.
S i i vS i
Co.fflc ioin of
Variation
(1SS)%
Standard
Deviation
(1$).%
‘ caPt S
R.anQS
of lest RSSUfl*
n g a
%of Avg.
(02S).’%
Cowu 4ggr.gaias . 0
S lng*Opur,tor
Oto3
300
850
Pr sUa . ,
31010
lOto2O
20 1o50
...
1.4w
0.95
1.38
‘
...
4.00
2.7
Miit 5sbcrs tory
Oto3
35°
99°
3•9
Ps iJ. lu n
3tolO
10to20
201030
30to40
4OtoSO
•
...
1.06
1.66
2.01
2.44
3.18
•••
3.0
4.7
5.7
8.9
¾
9.0
S1rçIe.O vstcr
0 1o3
0.14
Precision
3to10
lOto2O
201030
30to40
401050
0.43
0.60
0.64
0.71
0.4
1.2
1.7
1.8
2.0
M it8.bcrstory
Oto3
...
0.21
...
Precision
StolO
l Oto2O
201030
301040
401 *50
0.57
0.96
1.24
1.41
...
0.6
1.6
2.7
3.5
4.0
Ames. nimbi,, rs rsssm respectively, the (18) and (02$) 9v110 as deaci1 ed W i Praclioi C 670.
• These nimbirs represent, respectively, the (18%) end (028%) toI ls as daeat.d In PrWlcs C 670.
C The predelon estimates are based on cosis ag regatus with non*isi mmdmisn size of 19.0 mm ( In).
o These veluue vs from precision Wdces Wit ided Method C 138- 77. Other Irdcss were developed In 1982 from mar. recant USHTO Mataflals Rsferunce
Laboratory p4 data, which not provide aiAfld4 &mtiaon to revise the vaAas $0 noted.
Th.Amwican S*chiy hi’ Testing and Material, take no position rupicting the vsitdity of any petwe rights asserted In connection
with any stan, mentioned hi this standard. Users of this standald us expressly athsisad ibm of the validity o f any such
patent rights. anti the i7sk of hfvingania,g of such ,ighti, us erWfrs ’ thel’ own (UpOnslbatty.
This at&, ..4 11 subject to revision many thus by the reaponelbis technical convnmee and muir 0. reviewed evy live yws and
if nor revised, eitlwrupproved ar withdrawn. Yaw comments we invitid .Aha , f ar revision c i this stsn d ar hi addltlanaista,st
and shoi%d be ad&esud to ASIM Hsadquarte ,& Yotv commanta wit recM’. cwuM c /J.ratiw , ate meeting ci the responsibi
technical which you may stand. Ii you feat that yow cmnms.ws hive not recalv.d a 1W heating , should make yo ur
views known to the ASTM Committee as Staridants, 1918 Race St., Phll.dstphia, PA 19103.
c-a
-------
APPENDIX 0
ASTM METHOD FOR THE LOS ANGELES ABRASION TEST
0-. ].
-------
4gn ,
Designation: C 131 — 81 (Reapproved 1987)
Standard Test Method for
Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate
by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine 1
ThAi standard is issued under the fixed deii naZion C 131; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case o(mvision. the year o(la* revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superictipt epsilon (e) di ’. an editorial cftangn since the last revision or reappeovaL
Thu method has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense and for ILWItI in the DoD index of Specifications and
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for testing sizes of
coarse aggregate smaller than 1½ in. (37.5 mm) for resist-
ance to degradation using the Los Angeles testing machine.
NoTE I—A procedure for tesling coarse agpepte Izr er than ¾ in.
(19 mm) is covered in Test Method C 53g.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
C 136 Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates 2
C 535 Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of
Large-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in
the Los Angeles Machine 2
C 670 Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias State-
meets for Test Methods for Construction Materials 2
C 702 Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to
Testing Size2
D 75 Practice for Sampling Aggregat&
E 11 Specification for Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing
Purposes 4
3. Summary of Method
3.1 The Los Angeles test is a measure of degradation of
mineral• aggregates of standard gradings resulting from a
combination of actions including abrasion or attrition,
impact, and grinding in a rotating steel drum containing a
specified number of steel spheres, the number depending
upon the grading of the test sample. As the drum rotates, a
shelf plate picks up the sample and the steel spheres, carrying
them around until they are dropped to the opposite side of
the drum, creating an impact-crushing effect. The contents
then roll within the drum with an abrading and grinding
action until the shelf plate impacts and the cycle is repeated.
After the prescribed number of revolutions, the contents are
removed from the drum and the aggregate portion is sieved
to measure the degradation as percent loss.
‘This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Cosemittee C.9 on
COSCT,t, and Coneret. AUregate, and is the direct responsibility o(Subcommittee
C09.03.05 on Methods of Testing and Specifications for Physical Characteristics of
Concrie. AWS,aleI.
Cunent edition approved April 24. 195$. Published Jun. 19*1. Originally
PubIishsdasC l3I -37T. Last previouseditsonC 131 -76.
4iuauai Book of 1S7M Standards. ¶IoIs 04.02 and 04.03.
.lnnual Book of 4STM Standards. Vol 0402.
4 , .tnnuoj Book of AS? 1.1 Standards, VoL 14.02.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 The Los Angeles test has been widely used as an
indicator of the relative quality or competence of various
sources of aggregate having similar mineral compositions.
The results do not automatically permit valid comparisons to
be made between sources distinctly different in origin,
composition, or structure. Specification limits based on this
test should be assigned with extreme care in consideration of
available aggregate types and their performance history in
specific end uses.
5. Apparatus
5.1 Los Angeles Machine—The Lo Angeles testing ma-
chine, conforming in all its essential characteristics to the
design shown in Fig. 1, shall be used. The machine shall
consist of a hollow steel cylinder, closed at both ends, having
an inside diameter of 28 ± 0.2 in. (711 ± 5 mm), and an
inside length of 20 ± 0.2 in. (508 ± 5 mm). The cylinder
shall be mounted on stub shafts attached to the ends of the
cylinder but not entering it, and shall be mounted in such a
manner that it may be rotated with the axis in a horizontal
position within a tolerance in slope of 1 in 100. An opening
in the cylinder shall be provided for the introduction of the
test sample. A suitable, dust-tight cover shall be provided for
the opening with means for bolting the cover in place. The
cover shall be so designed as to maintain the cylindrical
contour of the interior surface unless the shelf is so located
that the charge will not fall on the cover, or come in contact
with it during the test. A removable steel shelf extending the
full length of the cyLinder and projecting inward 3.5 ± 0.1 in.
(89 ± 2 ‘mm) shall be mounted on the interior cylindrical
surface of the cylinder, in such a way that a plane centered
between the large faces coincides with an axial plane. The
shelf shall be of such thickness and so mounted, by bolts or
other suitable means, as to be firm and rigid. The position of
the shelf shall be such that the distance from the shelf to the
opening, measured along the outside circumference of the
cylinder in the direction of rotation, shall be not less than 50
in. (1.27 m).
Nars 2—The use of a shelf of wear-resistant steel, rectangular in
cross section and mounted independently of the cover, is preferred.
However, a shelf consisting of a section of rolled angle, properly
mounted on the inside of the cover plate, may be used provided the
direction of rotation is such that the charge will be caught on the outside
face of the angle. If the shelf becomes distorted from its origtnal shape to
such an extent that the requirements given in Xl.2 of the Appendix to
this tnethod are not met, the shelf shall either be repaired or replaced
before additional tests are made.
D-2
-------
C 131
‘Yr Q RECT ON
/ or ROTATION
‘i”
fl -GAS)ET
J; r FULER Ps.A1E or SAME
C)u4155 or GASYET
ANG..E S48LF
-if L. PI.ATE COVER
ALTERNATE DESIGN
OFANGLE 4CLF
•1
•, —-GASKET
-FILLER PI.AIt THIO(t(SS
THICKNESS or GASKET
PLATE C3’ .’ER
i.
¼
t k
1
3½
Mills £qulvelsnts
4
5
7½
20
28
50
mm
8.4
12.7
25.4
89
102
152
190
508
711
1270
FIG. I Los Angel.. Testing Machine
5.1.1 The machine shall be so driven and so counterbal-
anced as to maintain a substantially uniform peripheral
speed (Note 3). If an angle is used as the sbelf the direction
of rotation shall be such that the charge is caught on the
outside surface of the angle.
NoTE 3—Bsck-luh or slip in the driving mechanism is very likely to
fujnjsh test results which are not duplicated by other Los Angeles
machines producing constant peripheral speed.
5.2 Sieves, conforming to Specification E 11.
5.3 Balance—A balance or scale accurate within 0.1 % of
test load over the range required for this test.
5.4 Charge—The charge shall consist of steel spheres
averaging approximately 127/32 in. (46.8 nun) in diameter
and each weighing between 390 and 445 g.
5.4.1 The charge, depending upon the grading of the test
sample as described in Section 7, shall be as follows:
Weight of
5000*25
4584*2 5
3330*20
2300± IS
NoTE 4—Steel ball bearings 1U/io in. (46.0 mm) and l’/. in. (41.6
mm) in diameter, weighing approximateLy 400 and 440 $ each,
Grading
A
a
C
0
Number of
S er
12
I I
8
6
respectively, are readily available. Steel spheres 1 27 /i: in. (46.8 mm) in
diameter weighing approzirnately 420 g may also be obtainable. The
charge may consist of a mixture of these sizes conforming to the wetght
tolerancc of 5.4 and 5.4.1.
6. SamplIng
6.1 The field sample shall be obtained in accordance with
Practice D 75 and reduced to test portion size in accordance
with Methods C 702.
7. Test Sample
7.! The test sample shall be washed and oven-dried at 221
to 230P (105 to 1 10’C) to substantially constant weight
(Note 5), separated into individual size fractions, and recom-
bined to the grading of Table 1 most nearly corresponding to
the range of sizes in the aggregate as furnished for the work.
The weight of the sample prior to test shall be recorded to the
nearest 1g.
8. Procedure
8.! Place the test sample and the charge in the Los
Angeles testing machine and rotate the machine at a speed of
30 to 33 rpm for 500 revolutions. After the prescribed
number of revolutions, discharge the material front the
‘—-STEEL WALL THICK
PREFERRED DESIGN ‘ -NOT LLSS THAN 50 ’
or PLATE 4ELF AND COVER MEASURED OPI
OUTSICE OF DRUM
ST STEEL OR ROLLED STEEl. ..-
ENDSN OTLESSTHANk
D— 3
-------
C 131
TABLE I Gradings of T..t Simpl.s
S4vs S zs (
S uws Ogini ys)
Wi ght Of
Indicated S z.s, g
Pass I ng
R.L.Ii sJ On
A
B
C
0
31.5mm (1½ Ii.)
25.0mm (1 In.)
1 250±25
...
...
...
250 mm (1 ii)
19.0 mm (¾ In.)
1 250±25
...
...
...
19. Onwn(¾in.)
12.5mm ( ¼ I n.)
1250*10
2500±10
...
...
12.5nvn(½ s .)
L5mm (%Ut)
1250±10
2500*10
...
...
9.5 ran (¼ In.)
53 mm (¼ IL)
...
...
2500*10
...
6.3 nen (‘Im IL)
4.754nm (No. 4)
...
...
2 500 ± 10
...
4.75mm (No.4)
2.36 .mm (No.5)
...
.
...
...
5000±10
TotI
5000±10
5000±10
5000*10
5000±10
machine and make a preliminary separation of the sample
on a sieve coarser than the 1.70-mm (No. 12). Sieve the finer
portion on a 1.70-mm sieve in a manner conforming to
Method C 136. Wash the material coarser than the 1.70-mm
sieve (Note 5), oven-dry at 221 to 230F (105 to I 10’C) to
substantially constant weight, and weigh to the nearest 1 g
(Note 6).
Nom 5—If the awegate is essentially free of adherent coatings and
dust, the requirement for wishing before and alter test may be waived.
Elimination of washing after test will seldom reduce the measured loss
by more than about 0.2 % of the original znpie weight.
Non 6—Valuable information concerning the uniformity of the
temple under test may be obtained by determining the loss after 100
revolutions. This loss should be determined without washing the
material coarser than the 1.70.mm sieve. The ratio of the loss after 100
revolutions to the lose after 500 revolutions should not greatly exceed
0.20 1 br material of uniform hardness. When this determination is
made, take care to avoid losing any part of the sample return the entire
temple, including the dust of fracture, to the testing machine for the
final 400 revolutions required to complete the test.
9. Calculation
9.1 Express the loss (difference between the original
weight and the final weight of the test sample) as a
percentage of the original weight of the test sample. Report
this value as the percent loss.
NOTE 7—The percent loss determined by this method has no known
consistent relationship to the percent loss for the same inatcnal when
tested by Test Method C 53 .
10. Precision
10.1 For nominal 19.0-rum (3/ 4 -in.) maximum size coarse
aggregate with percent losses in the range of 10 to 45 %, the
multilaboratory coefficient of variation has been found to be
4,5 %. Therefore, results of two properly conducted tests
from two different laboratories on samples of the same
coarse aggregates should not differ from each other by more
than 12.7 %‘ of their average. The single-operator coefficient
of variation has been found to be 2.0 % 5 Therefore, results
of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on the
same coarse aggregate should not differ from each other by
more than 5.7% of their average
3 Thsss numbers reprisest, isepectively, the (IS%) and (D2S%) limits as
dssctibed in Practice C 670.
0-4
-------
APPENDIX E
STATE DERIVED AGGREGATE DURABILITY TESTS
E.- 1
-------
The following pages contain state—derived durability tests for construc-
tion aggregates based on AASHTO Method 1—210 and ASTM Method 0 3744. Test
methods derived by Washington, Maine, and Alaska are provided.
E—2
-------
WASHINGTON DEGRADATION TEST PROCEDURE
Following is the procedure for performing the Washington
Degradation Test, Revised 1962, as modified by the Maine Depart—
ment of Transportation.
Equipment
Balance, minimum 800 gm capacity, sensitive to 0.1 gm
Sieve Shaker — Soiltest #CL300
Plastic Canister, 6” high 7½” diameter, Tupperware, with cover
Sand Equivalent Cylinder
Sand Equivalent Stock Solution
Sieves — 1/2”, 1/4”, *10, *200
Grathiate 500 ml, 10 ml
Interval Timer
Funnel, 9”
Squeeze Bottle, 500 ml
Test Method
The material to be tested shall pass the 1/2” sieve, be washed
over a *10 sieve and dried to constant weight. Make up sample
graded as follows:
1/2” — 1/4” .500 grams
1/4” — TJ.S. *10 500 grams
E- 3
-------
Part I
Place sample in a 7 1/2’ diameter x 6” high plastic canister
(tupperware), add 200 cc water, cover tightly, and place in a
Tyler Portable Sieve Shaker (Soiltest *CL—300, 305, suitably
motored to provide oscillation described below). * fl shaker for
twenty minutes at 215 oscillations per minute with a 2 1/8” throw
on the cam. At the conclusion of shaking time, empty the canister
into nested *10 and *200 sieves, placed in a funnel over a 500 ml
graduate to catch all water. Wash out the canister and continue
to wash the aggregate with fresh water from squeeze bottle until the
graduate is filled to the 500 ml mark.
Caution: The aggregate may drain 50 — 100 ml of water after
washing has been stopped. Save all aggregate:
Pour 7 ml of sand equivalent stock solution (see AASHTO -l7G—73)
into a sand equivalent cylinder. Bring all solids in the wash
water into suspension by capping the graduate with the palm of the
hand, then turning the cylinder upside down and right side up as
rapidly as possible about ten times. Immediately pour the liquid
into the sand equivalent cylinder to the 15” mark.
Cap cylinder with stopper, hand or other suitable means, and
mix the contents of the sand eqi.iivalent cylinder by alternately
turning the cylinder upside down and right side up, allowing the
bubble to transvc3rse completely from end to end. Repeat this
cycle twenty times as rapidly as possible.
* is essential that the portable field Sieve shaker be checked
against the Central Lab shaker by running degradation values on check
samples.
-------
At the conclusion of the mixing time, pleace the cylinder on
the table, remove the stopper and start the timer. After twenty
minutes read and record the height of the sediment column to the
nearest 0.1 inch.
Part II
Place the aggregate retained on the *10 and #200 sieves in
oven until dry, then sieve and record the weights retained on
U.S. #10 and *200 sieves. Loss through each sieve is determined
by subtraction from original weight, and recorded to nearest gram.
Calculations :
Calculate the degradation factor by the following formula:
[ 0.3 . + 0.7 ] X 100
‘nere D degradation factor
L
200 grams lost through *200 sieve
L
10 grams lost through *10 sieve
H = height of sediment: in tube
This formula gives a weight of 30 percent to the ratio of the loss
through the #200 and *10 sieves, and 70 percent to the quality of
the fines as determined by the cleanness portion of the test.
Values will range from 0 to 100, with high values being best materials.
E— 5
-------
July, 1981
MAINE TEST METhOD FOR
DETERMINING AGGREGATE DEGPADATION
1. SCOPE:
A. This test method details a procedure for determining the
susceptibility of an aggregate to degrade and the quality
of the fines produced by self-abrasion in the presence
of water.
2. APPAP TtJS:
A. Balance — 800 gram capacity, sensitive to 0.1 gin.
B. Sieve shaker — Tyler portable model, ± 1 3/4” throw on
cam at +300 oscillations per minute.
C. Plastic Canister — 7 1/2” in diameter x 6” high (“Tupper- are ”)
with cover.
D. Sand Equivalent Cylinder.
E. Sand Equivalent Stock Solution (AASHTO T—176—73).
F. Sieves 1/2”, 1/4” — U.S. No. 10 and U.S. o. 200.
G. Graduates — 500 ml tall. form, 10 ml.
H. Interval Timer.
I. Funnel, 9”.
J. Sçueeze Bottle, 500 ml.
3. PRCCEDUBE:
A. Sieve the material to be tested through the 1/2” sieve,
wash over a No. 10 sieve and dry to constant wei9ht.
B. 1000 g sample of the aggregate graded as follows:
1/2 in. —1/4 in. . . 500 g
1/4 in. — U.S. No. 1.0 . . . . . . . . . 500 g
E— 6
-------
C. Place sample in the plastic canister, add 200 cc of water,
cover tightly and place in sieve shaker.
D. Agitate the material for 20 minutes.
E. Empty the canister into nested No. 10 and No. 200 sieves
placed in a funnel over a 500 ml graduate to catch all the
water,
F. Wash out the canister and continue to wash the aggregate
with fresh water from the squeeze bottle until the graduate
is filled to the 500 ml mark. (The aggregate may drain
50—100 ml of water after washing has beeri stopped).
G. Pour 7 ml. of sand equivalent stock solution into a sand
equivalent cylinder.
H. Bring all solids in the graduate into suspension by capping
the graduate with the palm of the hand and turning it
upside down and back as rapidly as possible about 10 times.
I, Inunediately decant into the sand equivalent cylinder to
the 15” mark and insert stopper in the cylinder, or cover
with hand.
J. Mix the contents of the cylinder by alternately turning
the cylinder upside down and right side up, allowing the
bubble to transverse from end to end. Repeat this cycle
20 times as rapidly as possible.
IC, Place the cylinder on the table, remove stopper and start
timer. After 20 minutes read and record the height of
the sediment column to the nearest 0.1’.
4. CALCULATIONS:
A. Calculate the degradation factor by the following formula;
( 15—H )
a (15+175M) x 100 or use Table 1
where:
DF = egradation Factor
• H a Height of Sediment in Tube.
B. Values may range from 0 to 100, with high values being
best materials.
5. REPORTS:
A. All test results shall be reported on Form TL—83(1/31).
E—7
-------
Alaska Test Method T-1 3
Rev. 7-79
STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR
DEGRADATION OF AGGREGATES
A. SCOPE:
This method of test covers a procedure (or determining the susceptibility of an aggregate to
degradation during agdation in water.
B. APPARATUS:
1. Balance — The balance shall be sensitive to 1.0 gram with a minimum capacity of 500 grams.
2. Sieves — The sieves shall conform to AASHTO M-92. Sizes 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, No. 10 and No.
200 are required.
3. Sieve Shaker — The sieve shaker shall be a portable model suitably motorized to provide
300+ 10 oscillations per minute with a 1 314-inch throw on the cam. It shall be calibrated
against the sieve shaker at the Regional Materials Laboratory before use.
4. Plastic Canister — The plastic canister shall be “Tupper Ware”, 7 1/2” in diameter and 6” in
height, having a flat bottom.
5. Miscellaneous — Standard Sand Equivalent Cylinder, Sand Equivalent Solution, funnel with
9” mouth, ring and ring stand, polyethylene wash bottle, 500 ml. graduate, rubber or cork stop-
pers, 10 ml. capacity graduated cylinder, drying oven.
C. SAMPLE PREPARATION:
1. Crush a representative sample of the plus No, 4 material to be tested to pass the 1/2 inch
sieve. There will be some material that will pass through the crusher uncrushed.
2. Wash over a No. 10 sieve and dry to a constant weight.
3. Separate the sample into two sizes, 1/2-inch to 1/4-inch and 114-inch to No. 10, and weigh Out
500 gms. of each size to the nearest 1.0 gm.
D. PROCEDURE:
1. Place both sample portions in the plastic canister, add 200 ml. of water, and cover tightly.
Place the canister in the shaker and run for 20 minutes.
2. Stack a No. 10 and No. 200 sieve inside the large tunnel. Support the funnel with a ring and ring
stand over the 500 ml. graduate.
* Sand Equivalent Stock Solution to be supplied by the Central Material Laboratory
E-8 (7 79)
-------
Alaska Test Method T-1 3, Cont’d
3. Wash the contents of the canister over the No. 10 and No. 200 sieves and continue washing
until wash water has reached the 500 ml. mark on the graduate. Washing may be facditated by
agitating the nest of sieves. in instances where highly degradable materials are encountered
and the sample cannot be washed clean with 500 ml. of water, continue washing using water
sparingly. until sample is washed clean. in no instance, however, shall the total volume of
water be greater than 1000 ml, Allow the wash water to settle until clear, then siphon or pipette
the extra water to 500 ml. being careful not t&disturb the settled material.
4. Pour 7 ml. of stock sand equivalent solution into the sand equivalent cylinder. Bring all solids in
the wash water into suspension by clapping the graduate with the palm or a rubber stopper,
then turn the graduate upside down and right side up 10 times. immediately fill the sand
equivalent cylinder to the 15” mark and insert rubber stopper in cylinder.
5. Mix the contents of the sand equivalent cylinder by alternately inverting and righting the
cylinder allowing the bubble to traverse from o ne end to the other and back again. This is one
cycle. Repeat this cycle 20 times as rapidly a possible.
6. Remove the stopper and place the cylinder onthe table. Allow the cylinder to set undisturbed
for 20 minutes, then read and record the height of the sediment to the nearest 0.1 inch.
E. CALCULATIONS:
1. Calculate the degradation factor by the following formula:
0= 15—H (100)
15 + 1.75 H
Where: 0 = Degradation factor
H = Height of sediment in cylinder.
or use Table I.
2. Values may range from 0 to 100, with high values being more suitable material.
F. REPORTING RESULTS:
Use appropriate lab worksheet, and report date on form 25.229.
(7.79)
E—9
-------
Alaska Test Method T.1 3. Ccnt’d
TABLE I
DEGRADATION VALUE “0’
15— H
15 +1.75H
(100)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.8 75
1.7 74
1.8 73
1.9 71
2.0 70
69
68
67
66
65
63
62
61
60
59
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.5 38
5.7 37
5.8 37
5.9 36
6.0 35
F. REPORTING RESULTS:
Report data using form 25-229
D
H D
H D
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
H D
98
96
95
93
91
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
H
58
57
56
55
54
D
6.1
8.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
H D
35
34
33
33
32
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
19
18
18
17
go
88
87
85
84
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
54
53
52
51
50
8
8
7
7
7
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
32
31
30
30
29
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.0
82
81
79
78
77
17
17
16
16
15.
4,1
4.2
4.3.
4.4
4.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.1
49
48
48
47
46
6
6
6
6
5
7.1 29
7.2 28
7.3 28
7.4 27
7.5 27
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
15
15
14
14
13
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
5
5
4
4
4
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
45
44
44
43
42
41
41
40
39
39
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
28
26
25
25
24
24
23
23
22
22
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.4
5.5
10.6
1.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
4
3
3
3
3
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
13
ia
12
12
12
1 1
11 ’
id
10
13.6
13.7
13.8 -
13.9
14.0
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
2
2
2
1
1
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
21
21
20
20
20
11.8
11.7
11.8
11.9
12.0
10
9
9
9
8
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.9
15.0
I
1
0
0
0
(7-79)
E 1 0
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pteese read Inslmclb o ns on Me reverse before conep!ering)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA_450/3—90-007
3. AECIPIENrS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUITITLE
Guidance Document for Selecting Antiskid Materials
Applied to Ice—and Snow—Covered Roadways
5. REPORT DATE
January 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION C0 0E
-7. AuTHOR(S) M l awest ) esearcn Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas_City,_Missouri 64110
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research_Triangle_Park,_NC_27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1.CONTRACT/GRANTNO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. A8STRACT
The purpose of this document is to identify and quantify those physical
properties that can be used to select clean, durable antiskid materials
(salt and sand). Test methods used to quantify the physical properties are
either included or identified in this document.
.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b .IOINYIFI!RS OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI Field/Gtoup
Antiskid material Roads
Control techniques Salt
Fugitive dust Sand
Ice Snow
Physical properties Test methods
PM 10
R mnv 1 -bn1r io
OF PAGES
18. DISTRIBUTION STAT MENT
0 1 II 14 4e . 4
, e 1 ease n. 1 m 1
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassifed
20.UCURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
21. NO,
22. PRICE
EPA P.qin 2220—1 (R.v. 4—77) p tviouS ED ION 1 o.so
-------
INStRUC1 IONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE B1.ANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverape of lhc report, and be hspIaycd prominently, Sd sulililk. if uwd. in snialier
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary silk, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the hints on which it was selected (e.g., Jafr ojjxxuc.. Iote oJ.
PP’O’I 1 . sinCe of prepwwsion. etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Liave blank.
7. AUTNOR(SI
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe. J. Robert Doe. etc.). List author’s affiliation if it differs 5mm 51w perlorming organi.
rat Ion.
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
insert if performing orpnization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, s set, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organiz.aiional hiresrehy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the propam element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinaic numbers may be included in p rIhe.c .
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
indicate interim final, etc., and If applicable, dates
14. SPONSORING AQ NCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter Information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. FranshatHm ui. Pre tfflcsl aS co*ihie,,iu s I.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
iS. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or IessJ factual summery of the most significant information contained in the report. 151 1w reporl e. ,iIasIls a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of t nginecrhte and Scientilk Terms the proper auihovi scd Icims that identity the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries br cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFiERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers (or project mimes. code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor forum for those subjects to, which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP- Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject (‘ase *ury List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary held/Group assignmenusl will be specilic discipline. area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The spplicalion(s) will be crosa-rcienmced with secondary lleId/(.ruup assi tn lnenIs that will Iolbu*
th. primary posting(s).
1$, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote reIcassbiIic to the public or limitation (or reasons other than security for example “Release tlnhioilvd.” (ile any availability So
the public, with address and price.
15.1120. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGIS •
Insert the total number of pages, includIng this one and unnumbered pages. but c*dudc distribution list. ii any.
fl PRICE
Insert the pric, set by the National rechnical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA P.,m 2220—1 (Rsv. 4—77) (R.v.r..)
------- |