Publications

UNPAVED ROAD Chemical Treatments
State of the Practice Survey

Previous Chapter « Table of Contents » Next Chapter

Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-13-002
January 2013

Central Federal Lands Highway Division
12300 W. Dakota Ave.
Lakewood, CO 80228

Front Materials

• Cover
• Foreword
  • Notice
  • Quality Assurance Statement
• Technical Report Documentation Page
• Units of Measurement
• Table of Contents
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables
• Acknowledgements

Foreword

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) encourages programs that protect both the environment and the life of the roadway. Fugitive dust from unpaved roads threatens air, soil and water quality and roadside flora and fauna. This loss of material cause road surface deterioration , increases maintenance cost, and adds to the complexity of managing a network of unpaved roads.

This FHWA report called Unpaved Road Chemical Treatments, State of the Practice Survey provides insights into how road managers at various levels of municipal, county, state, federal and tribal government, private industry and academic institutions approach unpaved road management regarding the use of chemical treatments.

Michael Davies, P.E., Director of Project Delivery
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-13-002	2. Government Accession No.			3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Unpaved Road Chemical Treatments State of the Practice Survey				5. Report Date January 2013
				6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Angela Kociolek				8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Western Transportation Institute P.O. Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250				10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
				11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH68-09-E-00099
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Lakewood, CO 80228				13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report, December 2009 - February 2010
				14. Sponsoring Agency Code HFTS-16.4
15. Supplementary Notes COTR: Roger Surdahl, FHWA-CFLHD. This project was funded under the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Coordinated Technology Implementation Program (CTIP).
16. Abstract This report documents survey results regarding the state of the practice of using chemical treatments on unpaved roads. It provides insights into road manager choices and challenges and is useful supplementary reading to the accompanying Unpaved Road Dust Management, A Successful Practitioner's Handbook by Jones et al. (2013). Roughly 80% of the survey respondents used chemical treatments for six or more years. Ninety eight percent (98%) of those indicated it was to control (fugitive road) dust, in part, to comply with federal regulations, for human and livestock health, in response to public complaints, or as a courtesy to the public. Other top reasons were to reduce maintenance costs and extend grader maintenance intervals. The most common treatment method was spray-on surface application with the top three chemical treatments being magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and lignin sulfonate, respectively.
17. Key Words FUGITIVE ROAD DUST, DUST CONTROL, CHEMICAL TREATMENT(S), UNPAVED, GRAVEL, UNSEALED ROADS, PALLIATIVES, STABILIZATION, UNPAVED ROAD MANAGEMENT			18. Distribution Statement No restriction. This document is available to the public from the sponsoring agency at the website https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified		20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified			21. No. of Pages 58	22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol	When You Know Multiply By To Find	Symbol
	LENGTH
in	inches 25.4 Millimeters	mm
ft	feet 0.305 Meters	m
yd	yards 0.914 Meters	m
mi	miles 1.61 Kilometers	Km
	AREA
in2	square inches 645.2 Square millimeters	mm2
ft2	square feet 0.093 Square meters	m2
yd2	square yard 0.836 Square meters	m2
ac	acres 0.405 Hectares	ha
mi2	square miles 2.59 Square kilometers	km2
	VOLUME
fl oz	fluid ounces 29.57 Milliliters	mL
gal	gallons 3.785 Liters	L
ft3	cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters	m3
yd3	cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters	m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
	MASS
oz	ounces 28.35 Grams	g
lb	pounds 0.454 Kilograms	kg
T	short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton")	Mg (or "t")
	TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
°F	Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius or (F-32)/1.8	°C
	ILLUMINATION
fc	foot-candles 10.76 Lux	lx
fl	foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2	cd/m2
	FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf	poundforce 4.45 Newtons	N
lbf/in2	poundforce per square inch 6.89 Kilopascals	kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol	When You Know Multiply By To Find	Symbol
	LENGTH
mm	millimeters 0.039 Inches	in
m	meters 3.28 Feet	ft
m	meters 1.09 Yards	yd
km	kilometers 0.621 Miles	mi
	AREA
mm2	square millimeters 0.0016 square inches	in2
m2	square meters 10.764 square feet	ft2
m2	square meters 1.195 square yards	yd2
ha	Hectares 2.47 Acres	ac
km2	square kilometers 0.386 square miles	mi2
	VOLUME
mL	Milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces	fl oz
L	liters 0.264 Gallons	gal
m3	cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet	ft3
m3	cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards	yd3
	MASS
g	grams 0.035 Ounces	oz
kg	kilograms 2.202 Pounds	lb
Mg (or "t")	megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb)	T
	TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
°C	Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit	°F
	ILLUMINATION
lx	lux 0.0929 foot-candles	fc
cd/m2	candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts	fl
	FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N	newtons 0.225 Poundforce	lbf
kPa	kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch	lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380 (Revised March 2003)

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1 - Background and Methods
• Chapter 2 - Survey Questions and Format
• Chapter 3 - Results
  • Agency and Affilliation and Role
  • Agency Use of Chemical Treatments
  • Size of Road Network and Corresponding Budget
  • Choice of Chemical Treatments
  • Approach to Road Design
  • Experience with Manufacturers/Suppliers
• Chapter 4 - Summary
• References
• Appendix A - Open-Ended "Other" Responses

List of Figures

• Figure 1. Graph. Affiliations of survey respondents. (rounded up to nearest percent; n = 285)
• Figure 2. Graph. Roles of survey respondents. (rounded up to nearest percent; n = 268)
• Figure 3. Graph. Rationale for not using chemical treatments on unpaved roads. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 46)
• Figure 4. Graph. Relative percent of survey respondents by length of their respective paved road network (assuming center lane miles). (n = 135)
• Figure 5. Graph. Relative percent of survey respondents by length of their respective unpaved road network (assuming center lane miles). (n = 143)
• Figure 6. Graph. Relative percent of survey respondents by amount of respective annual paved road maintenance budget (in US$). (n = 109)
• Figure 7. Graph. Relative percent of survey respondents by amount of respective annual unpaved road maintenance budget (in US$). (n = 108)
• Figure 8. Graph. Relative percent of survey respondents by percentage of agency's unpaved road maintenance budget used for chemical treatments. (n = 144)
• Figure 9. Graph. Rationale for using chemical treatments on unpaved roads. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 164)
• Figure 10. Graph. Methods by which agencies apply chemicals. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 164)
• Figure 11. Graph. Use of chemical treatment by application method. Parenthesized number refers to the total number of respondents per treatment type regardless of application method. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 161)
• Figure 12. Graph. Type of equipment by application method. Parenthesized number refers to the total number of respondents per equipment type regardless of application method. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 142)
• Figure 13. Graph. Rationale for choosing their agency's most commonly used chemical treatment. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 156)
• Figure 14. Graph. Respondent level of satisfaction with the performance of their agency's most commonly used treatment. (n = 156)
• Figure 15. Graph. Methods used to assess performance of chemical treatments on unpaved roads. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 158)
• Figure 16. Graph. Agency approach to designing unpaved roads. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. (n = 151)
• Figure 17. Graph. Degree of agreement with statements about agency/organization's experience with manufacturers and suppliers. Respondents were asked to answer all. Parenthesized numbers indicate the total number of respondents per statement, therefore, n ranged from 130 to 145
• Figure 18. Graph. Degree of agreement with statements about chemical treatments. Respondents were asked to answer all. Parenthesized numbers indicate the total number of respondents per statement, therefore, n ranged from 139 to 150
• Figure 19. Graph. Degree of agreement with statements about agency/organization's chemical treatment program. Respondents were asked to answer all. Parenthesized numbers indicate the total number of respondents per statement, therefore, n ranged from 140 to 149
• Figure 20. Graph. Desired outputs from a national program of managed research on unpaved road management practices. (n = 146)

List of Tables

• Table 1. Range and average of road maintenance budgets reported ($ US)
• Table 2. Source of written guidelines used by respondent agencies (entries unedited)

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Roger Surdahl of the FHWA-CFLHD for the sponsorship and leadership.

For their help in promoting the survey, the author thanks Tina Barbaccia of Better Roads Magazine, Michele Beck of the Montana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), Lorie Cover of the Idaho Technology Transfer (T2) Center, Mike Fitch of the Ohio Department of Transportation, Anthony Giancola of the National Association of County Engineers, John Kiefer of Michigan LTAP, Terry McNinch of Michigan LTAP, Russell Merle Jr. of the Clark County Department of Air Quality & Environmental Management, David Page of the Florida T2 Center, Carrie Plasters of EnviroTech Services, Dan Ratermann of the Missouri Association of County Transportation Officials, Bob Raths of the Association of Oregon Counties, Richard Rolland of the Tribal Technical Assistance Program, Mike Long, Chairman of the Transportation Research Board's Low-Volume Roads Committee, and others who may have regretfully been missed. The author is also very grateful to everyone who took the time to participate in the survey.

Finally, thanks to the staff at the Western Transportation Institute for their administrative support.

Previous Chapter « Table of Contents » Next Chapter