2,216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 198:
Line 198:
Two of the main considerations contractors face in maintaining parking lots in winter are: what application rate should be used; and what is the level of service expected by the property owner, for which the bare pavement return time is a common measure (this is the amount of time it takes after treatment to achieve a bare surface). To better understand these questions in 2017 the LSRCA obtained a friction tester, with a goal of quantifying the effectiveness of various practices and salt application rates. Here we present some of the findings of this study.
→Parking Lot Friction Testing
This report talks about main considerations contractors face in maintaining parking lots in winter:
This report talks about main considerations contractors face in maintaining parking lots in winter:
*what application rate should be used?
*What application rate should be used?
*what is the level of service expected by the client, for which the bare pavement return time is a common measure?
*What is the level of service expected by the client, for which the bare pavement return time is a common measure?
*In order to better understand these questions; in 2017 the LSRCA obtained a friction tester, with a goal of quantifying the effectiveness of various practices and salt application rates. LSRCA’s friction testing showed that bare pavement is safest, as it has the highest friction value, and that the over-application of salt does not translate to safer conditions. To read more about the friction tester results continue on below, through the rest of this section.
**(This is the amount of time it takes after treatment to achieve a bare surface)
In order to better understand these questions; in 2017 the LSRCA obtained a friction tester, with a goal of quantifying the effectiveness of various practices and salt application rates. LSRCA’s friction testing showed that bare pavement is safest, as it has the highest friction value, and that the over-application of salt does not translate to safer conditions. To read more about the friction tester results continue on below, through the rest of this section.
[[File:Measuring friction LSRCA office.png|thumb|500px|This image demonstrates the two extremes of LSRCA’s friction testing: a perfectly clear and dry surface, with a µ value of 0.9 and the same surface covered in a light layer of snow, with a µ of only 0.11.]]
[[File:Measuring friction LSRCA office.png|thumb|500px|This image demonstrates the two extremes of LSRCA’s friction testing: a perfectly clear and dry surface, with a µ value of 0.9 and the same surface covered in a light layer of snow, with a µ of only 0.11.]]
As can be seen in the inset table, the unit for measuring friction is ‘µ’, and the closer to 1.00 the µ value, the safer the surface. A high µ, however, is not the only measure of safety – many smooth indoor floors will have low µ values, in the range of 0.3 to 0.4, and they are generally not considered unsafe. Through this study, friction of several different surfaces, which received varying treatments was measured by LSRCA staff. <br>
As can be seen in the inset table, the unit for measuring friction is ‘µ’, and the closer to 1.00 the µ value, the safer the surface. A high µ, however, is not the only measure of safety – many smooth indoor floors will have low µ values, in the range of 0.3 to 0.4, and they are generally not considered unsafe. Through this study, friction of several different surfaces, which received varying treatments was measured by LSRCA staff. <br>