ICE MELT APPLICATION FOR

PROFIT MAXIMIZATION

RUSS ALGER, MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

NILES HYSELL,MORTON SALT

June 24, 2011

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

Why Use Ice Melt?

Ice Melt helps snow professionals work faster and safer.

Yet, the ‘unknown’ behind what type of ice melt to use, when to use it, and how much to use can cause: Ineffective melting: Slow melt, no melt,

refreeze, etc. Over application - runoff Client dissatisfaction Reduction in profitsIdentifying optimal application rates can

help minimize negative impact of all these factors.

3

What Application Rate Is Optimal?

Application recommendations exist from a myriad of highly reputable organizations:

“Handbook of Test Methods For

Evaluating Chemical Deicers”, 1992

“Guide For Selecting Deicing Chemicals”, 2001

“Managing Snow And Ice”, 2002

Minnesota Snow and Ice Handbook , “Environmentally Sensitive Spreading Rates”,

2005

“Winter Parking Lot & Sidewalk Maintenance Manual” (Fortin), 2006

“Evaluation of Deicing Blends”, 2009

“Sidewalk and Parking Lot Application Study”,

2011

“Contractor Practices Survey”,

2010

Application Recommendations Vary Significantly From Source To Source…

4

Wide Range of Recommendations Can Lead To “Melter Abuse”

Recommended application ranges

from 2lb - 65lb/1,000 ft2

Using Too Little Ice Melt Can Lead To Safety Hazards While Using Too Much Leads To Environmental and Profitability Concerns.

5

Bulk Highway Package Retail

Commercial

So Who’s Right?…Everyone and No One.

Many factors influence ice melt performance

and effect optimal application rate.

Air Temperat

ure

Surface Temperat

ure

PrecipitationRadiation

Snow/Ice Level Altitude

Foot/Road Traffic

Morton’s Goal Was To Understand Impact of Key Variables To Identify Stronger Guidelines for Commercial Melter Application

Rates.

Melter Type Applicatio

n Rate

Air Movemen

t

Melter Particle

Size

6

What Are We Going To Cover Today: PART 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Third Party Research Test Variable Selection (Melters, Temperatures, Conditions, etc.)

PART 2: TEST SET UP Final Parameters Data Gathering Process & Analysis

PART 3: RESULTS OVERVIEW Initial Findings At Selection Temperature Ranges Findings Detail By Temperature, Product & Application Rate

PART 4: RECOMMENDATIONS & THE BIG PAYOFF Common Ice Melt Myths Recommended applications by product and temperature Potential Savings and Assistance Tools

PART 5: QUESTIONS

7

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

RUSS ALGER

DIRECTOR OF SNOW RESEARCHMICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

PART 1

Third Party Testing Helps Ensure Relevance of Results

In developing research study format and structure, Morton teamed with Russ Alger of Michigan Tech’s Keweenaw Research Center.

MTU experience and focus in Snow & Ice research helped develop optimal testing and data gathering plan for both controlled lab and external field testing.

Location In Houghton, MI provided ideal testing environment.

Keweenaw Research Center

Laboratory testing

validates safety and

performance claims in a controlled setting.

Field testing validates melting performance in real-world

settings.

9

Key factors influence ice melt performance and vary the optimal

application rate.

Surface Temperat

ure

Melter Type

Application Rate

Key Testing Variables Were Identified:

Air andSurface Temperatures, Melter Type, and Application Rate Were Identified as Prime Variables Which Contribute Most To

Melter Performance.

10

Air Tempera

ture

Average Monthly Temperatures: MINNEAPOLIS, MN

WEATHER.COM Monthly Averages

Surface Temperature Selection:

Air temperature directly impacts surface temperature and so was used as a ‘starting point’ for ST selection.

Even in extreme climates like Minneapolis, MN, the average temperature does not drop below 0°F for extended periods of time.

However, there are extreme temperature and wind chill drops that snow professionals must work through in any given season.

Surface Temperature “Ranges” Were Selected To Identify Melting Performance In Extreme And Average Winter Temperatures.

11

Resulting Surface Temperature “Ranges”:

Team identified surface temperature ‘groups’ to capture a range of potential conditions a snow professional may encounter…

> 21°F

11°F – 20°F

0°F – 10°F

<0°F

“Extreme Cold”: <0°F “Below Average”: 0°F to

10°F “Average”: 11°F to 20°F “Just Freezing”: >21°F

12

Melter Selection:

Melting materials were selected to provide a range of pricing options (expensive/inexpensive) and to align with most commonly used melters in the field:

Sodium Chloride (Rock Salt), Calcium Chloride, Calcium Chloride/Rock Salt Blend, and Magnesium Chloride were

selected for trials.GIE Snow Magazine, 2010 State of the Industry Report, “Icing Salt Prices”, Kyle Brown, May 2010

13

Test Melters:

Deicer Composition

Salt Sodium Chloride (NaCl)

Salt/Calcium Chloride Blend

NaCl and CaCl2•H20

Calcium Chloride CaCl2 (Anhydrous)

Magnesium Chloride MgCl2•6H20Deicer Selection and Application Rate Criteria

• Widely used• Availability• Economical• Temperature melting range• Commercial/Highway application

variability

14

Application Rate Selection:

Initial High/Medium/Low application rates were selected as a starting point based on common recommendations from various reputable organizations.

Adjustments to these application rates could be made during the course of the study in the case of observed over/under-melting.

15

TEST SET-UP & DATA GATHERING

PART 2

Laboratory Testing

A controlled laboratory test was performed on each material at each temperature range as a control and comparison point.

The SHRP recommended application rate* of 21lb/1,000 ft2 was used for all melters.

* SHRP H-205.1

17

Test Plot Layout18

Data Gathering Methodology19

Test Methodology20

Example: Calcium Chloride @ 3°F-10°F

Calcium at 60 minutes

60lb/1,000ft2

30lb/1,000ft2

15lb/1,000ft2

21

Image Analysis with ImageJ Software *

* Rasband, W.S., ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/,1997-2011

Test Area Image Test Area Image With Bare Pavement Defined by ImageJ

Sample output:

28-Jan-1130 Minutes Picture # # Pixels - ROI # Pixels - Bare Pavement Area Fraction

A2 IMG_5874.JPG 8525862 393608 5%

22

RESULTS OVERVIEW

PART 3

FIRST THE LAB RESULTS

Controlled Laboratory Test Results: -5°F

Note: MgCl2 results were overstated as a result of water present in the hexa-hydrate formula.

At -5°F, 21lb/1000ft2 is not sufficient to melt significant amounts of ice –

however, CaCl2 and MgCl2 melt some ice at this temperature & amount.-

5°F

* SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

Ice M

elt

ed

(M

easu

red

B

rin

e m

L/g

)

25

At +5°F, 21lb/1000ft2 – CaCl2 still melts faster, however the salt/calcium blend and salt catch up over

time.

Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +5°F

+5°F

* SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

Ice M

elt

ed

(M

easu

red

B

rin

e m

L/g

)

26

* SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +15°F

+15°F

At +15°F, salt and salt blends generate the most melting over time.

(MgCl2 demonstrates the least melting capacity despite hydrate levels.)

Ice M

elt

ed

(M

easu

red

B

rin

e m

L/g

)

27

Controlled Laboratory Test Results: +25°F

+25°F

At +25°F, all melters (Except MgCl2) perform fairly consistently.

* SHRP H-205.1, 21lb/1,000ft2

Ice M

elt

ed

(M

easu

red

B

rin

e m

L/g

)28

THE REAL WORLD RESULTS

Field Test: Surface Temp < 0°F

60lb/1,000ft2

No measurable melt.

15lb/1,000ft2

30lb/1,000ft2

No measurable melt.

In extreme winter temperatures, only calcium chloride melts.

A minimum of 60lb/1,000ft2 of calcium chloride is necessary to create partial bare pavement.

Other Conditions: February 10, 2011; 0.25 – 0.5 inches packed snow; Air temp +3 – +6°F; Light flurries.

30

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

Time (Minutes)

Field Test: Surface Temp 0°F to 10°F

15lb/1,000ft2

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

30lb/1,000ft2

Perc

ent

Bare

Pavem

ent

60lb/1,000ft2

In low winter temperatures, a blend of salt and calcium chloride performs better than pure calcium chloride.

A minimum of 60lb/1,000 ft2 is necessary to melt to bare pavement.

Other Conditions: January 25, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow, 0.25 inches loose snow, air temp 20°F, light snow

Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)Time (Minutes)

31

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

Field Test: Surface Temp 11°F to 20°F

15lb/1,000ft2

Perc

en

t B

are

P

avem

en

t

30lb/1,000ft2

Perc

en

t B

are

Pavem

en

t

60lb/1,000ft2

In moderately low temperatures, a blend of salt and calcium chloride performs generally as well as calcium chloride.

A minimum of 60lb/1,000ft2 at 30 minutes is necessary to melt to bare pavement.

Other Conditions: January 28, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow, air temperature 12°F, no snow

32

Time (Minutes)Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)

Field Test: Surface Temp > 20°F

15lb/1,000ft2

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

In the highest temperature range tested, the blend containing calcium melted comparably to straight calcium chloride and magnesium chloride albeit a bit slower. Salt achieved similar results but only at the highest application rate.

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

30lb/1,000ft2

60lb/1,000ft2

Other Conditions: March 4, 2011; 0.25 inches packed snow; Air temp 25 – 29°F; Freezing drizzle

33

Time (Minutes)Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)

Perc

ent

Bare

Pa

vem

en

t

APPLICATION GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS

PART 4

Disclaimer

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

35

Key Findings Summary:

Only anhydrous calcium chloride

produces measurable

melting.A deicer must

be complimented

with mechanical removal (i.e. plowing) to

produce bare pavement.

36

In “Extreme” Temperatu

res

In “Low” Temperatu

res

In “Typical”

Temperatures

T < 0°F +0°F to +10°F +11°F to +20°F

High application rates of any deicer are needed to

produce bare pavement. At heaviest

application rate the salt/calcium chloride blend is

most cost-effective deicer.

Performance of the salt/calcium blend becomes equivalent to calcium and magnesium chlorides.

The salt/calcium

chloride blend is the most cost effective deicer

in this temperature

range.

In “Warmer” Temperatu

res

> +21°F

Performance of the salt/calcium

and calcium chloride are

roughly equivalent.

Salt becomes the the most cost-effective deicer in this temperature

range.

Application Recommendation Summary

Melter Type

Rock Salt

Blend Rock Salt

& 10% CaCl2

Calcium Chloride

Magnesium

ChlorideSurface Temp. Range

< 0°FNot

Recommended

Not Recommen

ded>60

Not Recommen

ded

0°F - 10°FNot

Recommended

60 60Not

Recommended

11°F - 20°F > 70 50-60 30-60Not

Recommended

>20°F 45-60 40-60 30-60 30-60

Application (lb/1,000ft2)

= recommended melter

37

Morton Helps Optimize Ice Melt Use With New Smartphone App

Store and track site information

Recommend optimal Morton ice melter based on external conditions

Calculate and track total ice melt quantities needed for each specific snow event

38

Morton Snow Pro App available in early August 2011!

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

Next steps