Each snowmelt system is briefly described
in a section below. The
strengths and weaknesses of the systems were gleaned from studies of
technical manuals, engineering handbooks, and interviews with systems
manufacturers, and MTA Facilities Maintenance personnel.
The findings are summarized in a table for quick reference.
The Appendix section of the report presents details on the
derivation of the estimated annual cost for operating each system.
The choice of system is based on the comparative analyses of
strengths and weaknesses and estimated annual operating costs.
Back
to top
2.0
Shoveling with Chemical treatment
This approach employs manual
labor, snow blowers, and other mechanical devices to remove the
precipitation. Attractive
features of this approach include: little or no capital cost, no added
system to maintain, no appreciable increase in electric power demand,
and no need for extra maintenance staff because available
contract services
provide a ready pool of laborers.
This approach, however, has several strong negative effects on
the short term and long term structural health of the facility and on
the life of capital equipment.
Use
of corrosive chemicals to delay re-freezing of pavement has damaged
vital escalator components, accelerating the deterioration of the
platform, and threatens the substructure of the stations.
See Table 1 for summary of the system’s strengths and
weaknesses and comparison with other systems.
The costs and effects of the chemicals on the station structure
and capital equipment are often over looked.
This is because the deterioration process is not immediately
evident. The American
Concrete Institute classifies an environment where deicing agents are
present as a severe environment.
Typically calcium or sodium chloride is used as the chemical
agent. The chloride ions
react with and break down the binding agent, cement paste, of the
concrete. Due to the
relatively small size of the chloride ions, the deterioration moves
through the concrete with each wet and dry cycle.
Eventually the chloride ions reach the reinforcing steel and
rapidly consume it. Once
the adhesion is lost between the sand, gravel, and the reinforced steel,
the concrete fails structurally. The
only solution left is to replace the concrete.
The
impact of corrosive chemical on concrete structures is demonstrated by
the rate of deterioration of parking garages.
Parking garages are not treated with snowmelt chemicals.
However, these chemicals are tracked on to the premises by
incoming vehicles. The
garages are generally constructed using a low water-cement ratio
(f>45000psi), fly ash, and epoxy coated reinforcement to reduce the
effects of salt. Even with
these precautions, the time to major repairs ranges from 7 to 15 years.
The major repairs include replacement of floors, beams, and
columns. Without this
chemical exposure the life expectancy of the concrete is approximately
40 years. MTA’s platforms
are subjected to far more salt than parking garages and are less
resistant to chloride ion penetration.
As a consequence, our platforms have to be repaired more
frequently and suffer more rapid decline in structural integrity.
There are other chemicals sold as deicing agents that have even
more destructive effects on concrete than salt.
MTA once used such chemicals, which resulted in structural
failure in concrete members.
Capital
equipment such as elevators and escalators are similarly affected by
deicing agents. Elevators
and escalators at station entrances deteriorate from the bottom up.
A recent survey of these escalators exposed damaged base
supports, and rust build-ups, resulting in deformation of crucial
support members, and, in a few cases, actual shifting of the entire
escalator assemblies were observed.
Thus, the total annual cost of using this method to clear snow
and ice must include the hidden costs of major repairs or replacement of
the infrastructure, inconvenience patrons suffer, and accidents.
Using our
10 freezing event for
Baltimore, we estimate the annual cost to clear ice and snow at Owings
Mills to be $88,000. Details
of this estimate are outlined Appendix, A.10.
Back
to top
3.0
Overhead Infrared Approach
Infrared radiation is an
electromagnetic emission generated in a heat source by rapid vibration
and rotation of molecules. The
most attractive feature of Quartz lamp Infrared heaters is that it
instantaneously provides radiant heat to melt snow without raising the
temperature of the intervening air space.
The infrared fixture requires no more maintenance than would a
fluorescent fixture, and the quartz lamps are rated for 5000hours.
The average duration of freezing precipitation is less than 150
hours per year. Hence, the
lamps will render many years of useful service.
With the infrared approach there is no refreeze of pavement.
Hence, there is no need for the use of corrosive chemical.
The system is equipped with temperature and relative humidity
sensors. Thus, it is
automatically turned on some time before there is freezing
precipitation.
Infrared
fixtures are typically installed overhead.
Without a completely covered platform, a large number of fixtures
would have to be mounted on poles.
The number of poles required could compromise space and the
aesthetics of platform. This
is one of the drawbacks to the infrared approach.
See Table 1 for a summary of the system’s strengths and
weaknesses and a comparison with other systems.
Another weakness of this approach is its high electric power
demand. For the Baltimore
area, the system is required to output 90W/sq.ft to provide the desired
result. The total annual
cost of using this method to clear snow and ice is estimated at $47,108.
See Appendix A.20 for cost derivation.
Back
to top
4.0
Embedded System Approach
This approach requires implanting ferromagnetic tubes and or high
resistance power cable in concrete, 2-4” below the finished surface of
the platform. The Direct
Buried Cable and the Skin-effect methods are currently the most
effective embedded systems in use.
Like the infrared approach, there is no refreeze of pavement.
Hence, there is no need for the use of corrosive chemical.
The system is equipped with temperature and relative humidity
sensors. Hence, it is
automatically turned on some time before there is freezing
precipitation.
Back to top
4.1 Direct Buried Cable
The Direct Buried Cable System is
designed to deliver an average of 30w/ft.
A system designed to output 40W/sq.ft is generally required to
yield the best result. The
fact that the cable is directly buried in concrete constitutes the
system’s biggest weakness. See
Table 1 for a summary of the system’s strengths and weaknesses and a
comparison with other systems.
Correcting any fault in the buried cable would require
jackhammering the concrete. One
weakness of this system, relative to the infrared system, is that much
energy is expended to raise the pavement temperature before snow melting
begins. Other weaknesses
include high installation cost and the potential for high repair cost.
Additional attractive features of this system include; low annual
operating cost, very little maintenance requirements, and lower electric
power demand than the infrared system.
The total annual cost of using this method to clear snow and ice
is estimated at $44,340.
See Appendix A.30 for cost derivation.
Back
to top
4.2
Skin-Effect Heating System
Skin-Effect heating system is
designed to deliver 50W/sq.ft to the pavement.
It is best suited to large area applications.
The system is founded on the principles of electromagnetic
induction and the skin-effect phenomenon that occurs in current carrying
conductors. Insulated
conductors are used to heat the ferromagnetic tubes, embedded in the
concrete. The distinct
advantage of this system over the direct buried system is that the cable
can be pulled in and out of the tube in the event of a cable fault.
One
weakness of this system, relative to the infrared system, is that much
energy is expended to raise the pavement temperature before snow melting
begins. The biggest
drawback to this system is its initial cost.
At $50/sq.ft this system is the most expensive on the market.
This cost does not include pavement demolition and
reconstruction. Another
weakness is the potential for high repair cost.
Additional attractive features of this system include; low annual
operating cost, very little maintenance requirements, and lower electric
power demand than the infrared system.
See Table 1 for a summary of the system’s strengths and
weaknesses and a comparison with other systems.
The total annual cost of using this method to clear snow and ice
is estimated at $65,640.
See Appendix A.40 for cost derivation.
Back
to top
5.0
Conclusion
The shoveling with Chemical
treatment has been shown to be the most costly and inefficient of the
approaches to control the accumulation of frozen precipitation on
pavements. It has been
demonstrated that this method generates indirect costs that, in the
final analysis, make it more costly than the most expensive automated
system. The inherent
weaknesses of this method far outweigh its strengths.
The analyses also showed that the
infrared system could be the method of choice based on its instantaneous
heat production, lower annual cost than the skin-effect system, and low
maintenance cost and requirement. The
advantages of the infrared systems outweigh its relatively high
power demand. The
primary drawback
to the total use of infrared in
platform application is the requirement for additional poles to mount
the heat fixtures. This
problem would be eliminated if the platform were totally covered.
Of the two embedded systems discussed,
the Skin-effect system would be the better choice for platform
application. The higher
initial cost for the Skin-effect is compensated for by the fact that
probable cable faults are much less costly to repair with the
Skin-effect system. The
Direct Buried system falls short as an option because exception is taken
to the prospect of jackhammering the platform to fix a cable fault.
Although our analysis suggests that
automatic systems would be ideal for snow and ice control, they are not
widely used in the Transit industry.
The current systems installed in the MTA are yet to receive
unanimous acclaim within the MTA. WMATA
is still in the process of evaluating its needs.
Personal Rapid Transit, PRT, in Western Virginia, employs a
hydronic system installed in 1971.
Reports indicate that the system is working well.
However, annual operating costs for the hydronic system range
from $75,000 to $250,000. Chicago
Transit Authority, CTA employs infrared and other systems for snow and
ice control. The extent of
the application of these systems could not be confirmed at this time.
Back
to top
6.0
Recommendations:
The MTA should use an automated
snowmelt system to control the build-up of frozen precipitation at its
metro stations. The
infrared system is suitable for applications where the areas are totally
covered with a canopy or the use of mounting poles would not be an
exception. A combination of
the Infrared and Skin-effect systems for semi-covered platform
applications, such as Owings Mills station could prove cost effective
and efficient.
Back
to top
7.0
Summary of Cost Analysis Table 1
|
SNOWMELT
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
|
|
SYSTEMS
|
ANNUAL
COSTS
|
ADVANTAGE
|
WEAKNESSES
|
SHOVELING WITH
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT |
$88,000.00 |
No capital
equipment cost |
Shoveling crew dispatched after
snowfall-high probability of accidents, such as slipping from
platform onto rails and delays during snowfall
Slick residue must be treated
with chemicals to prevent refreeze
Chemicals attack concrete,
exposing rebars to corrosion; Life is significantly reduced
Chemicals also attack station
sub-structure; Life of station shortened
Chemicals corrode entrance
escalators, stairs and elevators resulting in costly repairs or
replacement
|
| BURIED CABLE |
$44,340.00 |
Low annual operating
cost
Little or no maintenance required
Auto snow detect and system
control
No refreezing, pavement remains
warm and dry
No need for corrosive chemicals
|
High initial capital cost
System embedded in 2-4” of
concrete
Costly system repair-may require
jackhammering platform
Expend energy to preheat pavement
before melting precipitation
|
| SKIN-EFFECT |
$65,640.00 |
Low annual operating cost
Low maintenance required
Auto snow detect and system
control
No refreezing, pavement remains
warm and dry
No need for corrosive chemicals
|
High initial capital cost ($50/sq.ft)
System embedded in 2/4” of
concrete
Costly system repair, may require
jackhammering platform, but cable can be pulled from tube and
replaced
Expend energy to preheat pavement
before melting precipitation
Added utility demand
|
| INFRARED HEATER |
$47,100.00 |
Low annual operating cost
No refreezing, pavement remains
warm and dry
No more maintenance than on a
fluorescent fixture required
Auto snow detect and system
control
Instantaneous direct heat on
ice/snow
No need for corrosive chemicals
Lower capital cost than embedded
snowmelt system
|
High kilowatt demand
High capital cost relative to
manual system
Requires overhead mounting
support canopy or poles
Must be installed at least 5 feet
above combustible material
Some possibility for injury to
patrons who stand directly under a fixture for an extended
period
|
Back
to top
APPENDIX
A.10
Derivation of annual costs for Shoveling with Chemical Treatment
A.11
Direct Cost
Assumptions:
Combined snow and ice showers occur approximately 10 times per
annum over a 2 months period. Ice
storms take 5 times more man-hours to clean up than comparable snowstorms
Man-hours:
average 40 hours (assumed typical for 4” snowfall and or
icing with a 5-man crew)
Contractor hour-rate: weighted
avg.: $60 per hour.
Average duration: 12 hours
Equip. & material per
snowfall: $400
Estimated
operating cost per snowfall: 40 x 60 + 350 = $2,800
Estimated
annual operating cost:
10
x 2800 = $28,000
A.12
Indirect Costs:
Assumptions:
(1)
Entrance escalators need to be cleaned after each snow/ice event.
(2)
More frequent escalator repair/refurbishment.
(3)
Approximate normal escalator life of 35 yrs.; reduced life, 20 yrs.
(4)
50% reduction in the platform life (assume 20 yr. Life)
(5)
Cost of escalator replacement approximates $700,000
(6)
Cost of platform replacement approximates $600,000
Estimated
added annual cost per escalator for service and refurbish
= $700,000(35-20/700) = $15,000
Total cost (Owings Mills has 2 escalators) =
$30,000
Estimated added annual cost for platform replacement
= $600,000(20-10/200) = $30,000
Estimated
total annual cost =
$88,000
A.20
Derivation of annual cost for Overhead Infrared
To heat the entire platform,
infrared lamps have to be installed on the canopy and on poles, planted in
the platform, for areas not under canopy.
Fixtures will be mounted at 14 ft above the platform.
The layout of the fixtures provides the light pattern coverage and
a power density of 90W/sq.ft, recommended to handle frozen precipitation in
Baltimore.
Estimated # of fixtures required =
12150sqft/79sqft/fixture = 154
Recommended fixture:
Fostoria: Multimount 343-30-THSS-480V.
Dimensions: 46”x21.5”x7.9”
Weight: 49.5lb
Electrical: 480V, 3 Ø, 10,950W, Quartz lamps-3 elements, with 30º sync.
Beam pattern
A.21
Direct Costs: Installation and Operation
Estimated system installation cost:
154 fixtures @ $652.5 = $100,485
1 lot mtg. Hardware @ 12000 =
$12,000
1 snow switch @ $819 = $819
1 snow sensor @ $315 = $315
6 60-120A contactor @ $107 = $642
Electrical connection @ $ 5/sq.ft =
$60,750
Total = $175,000
Estimated
Annual Operations Cost:
Assumptions:
Combined snow and ice showers occur approximately 10 times per annum
over a 2 months period.
Electric power demand: 154
fixture @ 10950W/fixture = 1700KW
Utility demand rate/KWh:
$0.03/KWh = $8.32/KW/month
Average
snowfall duration: 12 hr.
Estimated system runtime: 14
hr. (12 hr. + 2 hr. hold-on time after precip.)
Estimated operating cost per
snowfall: 1700 x 0.03 x 14 = $714
Estimated annual operating cost: (10
x 714) = 2(1700 x 8.32)
= $35,428
Estimated life of system, approximately 30 yr.
Annual depreciation = $175,000/30 =
$5,840
Estimated life of heater (lamp) = 5,000
Estimated annual operating time = 140 hrs.
Annual maintenance cost (clean/re-lamp) = 30 hrs @ $40/hr + $4400
$6,600
Estimated total annual operating cost:
= $47,108
A.30
Direct Buried Cable:
The costs for demolishing and
reconstructing the platform pavement are not included in these cost
estimates since the “platform rehabilitation project” assumes these
tasks independent of the snowmelt system used.
A.31
Direct Costs: Installation and Operation
RayChem, EM2-XR cable $5.25/ft
Expansion joint kit $14/unit
Tie-wraps (100/box) $12/unit
Cable splice kit $18/unit
Power end kit $19/unit
Nema 4x nonmetal J.B. $92/unit
Control panel & snow sensor $770/unit
Assume
8” loop spacing
Required cable length = 12150 x
12 /8 + terminations = 20000ft
Maximum length of cable 50A circuit = 358ft
No. of circuits = 20000/358 = 56
Estimated
system installation cost:
20000ft cable = $105,000
Installation accessories = $15,000
Control panel & snow sensor =
$770
Electrical connection @ $5/sq.ft $60,750
Subtotal =
$181,520
Annual
Operations Cost:
Snowfall
per annum: greater than one inch occur on an average of 7 days per
year. Ice or freezing rain
occurs on average of 2 to 3 times per year.
Electric power demand: 20000ft
@ 30W/ft = 600KW
Utility demand rate/KWh: $0.03
+ $8.32/KW/month
Average snowfall duration: 12
hr.
Estimated system runtime: = 17
hr (12 hr. + 5 hr. hold-on time after precip)
Estimated operating cost per
snowfall: (600 x 0.03 x 17) = $306
Estimated annual operating cost: (10
x 306) + 2(600 x 8.32) = $13,044
Estimated life of system, approximately 20 yr.
Assumed annual cost of demo. Platform due to cable fault = $15,000
Annual depreciation = $181,520/20 =
$9,100
Annual maintenance cost = 200 hrs @ $36/hr =
7,200
Estimated
total annual cost = $13,044 +
$9,100 + $7,200 + $15,00
= $44,340
A.40
Skin-effect:
The costs for demolishing and
reconstructing the platform pavement are not included in these cost
estimates since the “platform rehabilitation project” assumes these
tasks independent of the snowmelt system used.
A.41
Direct Costs: Installation
and Operation:
Platform area is 12150sqft
Estimated
system installation cost @ $50 per sq.ft = $608,000
Annual
Operations Cost:
Snowfall
per annum: greater than one inch occur on an average of 7 days per
year. Ice or freezing rain
occurs on average of 2 to 3 times per year.
Electric power demand: 20000ft
@ 30W/ft = 600KW
Utility demand rate/KWh: $0.03
+ $8.32/KW/month
Average snowfall duration: 12
hr.
Estimated system runtime: =
17hr (12 hr. + 5 hr. hold-on time after precip)
Estimated operating cost per
snowfall: (600 x 0.03 x 17) = $306