Tow behind Plow Study Determining The Potential Cost Benefits Of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Determining The Potential Cost Benefits Of Utilizing A Truck With A Tow Behind Plow When Compared To A Truck With A Standard Front Plow And A Mid-mounted Wing Plow

William H. Schneider, IV Christopher M. Miller Mallory Crow (Presenter) William A. Holik Paul Ensinger Mark Griffiths Brian Olson

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

This project was conducted in cooperation with ODOT and FHWA. The researchers would like to thank the members of ODOT’s Technical Liaison Committee: Mr. Paul Ensinger, Mr. Mark Griffiths, and Mr. Brian Olson. As well as ODOT’s Statewide Planning and Research team: Ms. Vicky Fout, Ms. Jill Martindale, Ms. Cynthia Jones, Mr. Scott Phinney, and Ms. Kelly Nye.

Learning Outcomes

• How is this equipment utilized during different storm

severities in comparison to a standard plow truck.

• What is the true truck equivalence ratio for a TowPlow
• Determining if there is a cost savings when

implementing a TowPlow.

2

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

3

Project Setting

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Standard Truck Comparison in Portage Co.

Truck opposite of tow plow in Portage is tandem axle, 14 foot plow, with wing plow. Treated opposite side of IR- 76 while TowPlow treated

• ther side.

4

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

TowPlow System

• Tandem axle truck with at least 350-horsepower engine.
• TowPlow units equipped with hopper and brine tank.
• Combined with front plow may clear 25 foot path.
• Operate safely at 30 to 40 mph.

5

Image from Viking-Cives, www.vikingcives.com

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Data Collection

6

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Standard Truck Data

7

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

TowPlow Data

8

Guidance Laser DVR

Driver Camera Passenger Side Camera Rear Camera Front Camera

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Video Documentation

9

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Shoulder Deployment Right Lane Deployment Right Lane Deployment Ramp Deployment (Truck and TowPlow figures modified from Viking-Cives Website)

10

TowPlow Deployed TowPlow not Deployed. (Truck and TowPlow figures modified from Viking-Cives Website)

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Video Documentation

• 2000 Hours of Video Used to Document:
• TowPlow Deployment
• TowPlow Treatment Change
• Front Plow Deployment
• New Route
• Lane Position Change

11

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Cost and Variables

12

• Annualized cost of

TowPlow versus standard truck

• Monte Carlo simulation
• Matlab
• Random number

generator

• Utilization rate for each

truck by storm classification

• TowPlow to standard

truck equivalency Comparison

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Variable Average Standard Deviation Source Capital Cost TowPlow ($) 101000 1000 ODOT Capital Cost of Truck Pulling TowPlow ($) 200080 18067 ODOT Capital Cost Standard Truck (w/wing plow) 168179 1000 ODOT Annualized Factor 0.04 0.02 ODOT Fuel Price ($/gal) 4 1 ODOT Fuel Economy (mile/gal) TowPlow Treating 3.5 1.1 M&R 661 Fuel Economy (mile/gal) TowPlow Not Treating 3.7 1.1 M&R 661 Fuel Economy (mile/gal) Standard Treating 4.4 1.14 M&R 661 Fuel Economy (mile/gal) Standard Not Treating 4.8 0.57 M&R 661 Speed of Truck (mph) 31 9.5 GPS/AVL and Video Hours of Events (hr/event) 8 2 NOAA Trace Events (event/yr) 51 9 NOAA Light Events (event/yr) 31.5 2 NOAA Moderate Events (event/yr) 12 2.4 NOAA Heavy Events (event/yr) 4.5 0.5 NOAA Labor Rate ($/hr) 17.5 3 ODOT Maintenance Cost Truck and TowPlow ($/yr) 9000 250 ODOT Maintenance Cost Standard ($/yr) 8000 250 ODOT

Cost Variables

Sources: ODOT – Specific

• perational and financial

data. M&R 661 – Forms filled

• ut by operators with

treatment, time, and location data. NOAA – Weather data from stations near garages with TowPlows. GPS/AVL & Video – Data collected from trucks.

13

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Utilization Rate (UR)

• Need to determine how much the equipment is used to maintain the

roadways during a winter event.

𝑉𝑢𝑗𝑚𝑗𝑨𝑏𝑢𝑗𝑝𝑜 𝑆𝑏𝑢𝑓 𝑔𝑝𝑠 𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 𝑉𝑆𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 = 𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑓 𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 𝑗𝑡 𝐸𝑓𝑞𝑚𝑝𝑧𝑓𝑒 𝑈𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑚 𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑓 𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 𝑗𝑡 𝑝𝑜 𝑆𝑝𝑣𝑢𝑓 𝐸𝑣𝑠𝑗𝑜𝑕 𝐹𝑤𝑓𝑜𝑢 × 100 𝑉𝑢𝑗𝑚𝑗𝑨𝑏𝑢𝑗𝑝𝑜 𝑆𝑏𝑢𝑓 𝑔𝑝𝑠 𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 𝑈𝑠𝑣𝑑𝑙 𝑉𝑆𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 = 𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑓 𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 𝑈𝑠𝑣𝑑𝑙 𝑗𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑗𝑜𝑕 𝑈𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑚 𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑓 𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 𝑈𝑠𝑣𝑑𝑙 𝑗𝑡 𝑝𝑜 𝑆𝑝𝑣𝑢𝑓 𝐸𝑣𝑠𝑗𝑜𝑕 𝐹𝑤𝑓𝑜𝑢 × 100

• Determine an overall and by storm classification UR.

14

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Utilization Rate - Results

TowPlow Standard Overall 54% 65% Trace 17% 18% Light 45% 67% Moderate 72% 96% Heavy 91% 100%

15

• TowPlow UR determined from video data collected.
• Standard UR determined from GPS/AVL data and

verification from M&R 661.

• UR calculated for hours during event – not clean up time

after

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Truck Equivalency

• Not a 1:2 ratio – since TowPlow is not always able to be deployed or

needed. 𝐷𝑏𝑞𝑏𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 × 𝐹𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑓𝑜𝑑𝑧𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 = 𝐷𝑏𝑞𝑏𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝐹𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑓𝑜𝑑𝑧𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝜄

• 𝜄 is the equivalent number of standard trucks needed to treat the same

amount as the TowPlow.

16

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Truck Equivalency

𝐷𝑏𝑞𝑏𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 × 𝐹𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑓𝑜𝑑𝑧𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 = 𝐷𝑏𝑞𝑏𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝐹𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑓𝑜𝑑𝑧𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒 × 𝜄

• Assume efficiencies are equal between both trucks.
• Capacity of each truck is lane(s) treated in one pass:
• TowPlow Capacity is 2 lanes
• Standard Capacity is 1 lanes

17

Image modified from Viking-Cives, www.vikingcives.com

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Truck Equivalency – Solving for Theta

• Monte Carlo simulation – 1,000,000 times randomly select from range
• f UR to determine a distribution.
• θ is determined to have an average of 1.706

18

Frequency – Number of Time Theta is Calculated in Simulation Value of Theta (unit less)

𝜄 = 2 𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑓 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑈𝑝𝑥𝑄𝑚𝑝𝑥 1 𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑓 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑆𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑒

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Annualized Cost

𝑍𝑓𝑏𝑠𝑚𝑧 𝐷𝑝𝑡𝑢 = 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑣𝑏𝑚𝑗𝑨𝑓𝑒 𝐷𝑏𝑞𝑗𝑢𝑏𝑚 𝐷𝑝𝑡𝑢 + 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑣𝑏𝑚𝑗𝑨𝑓𝑒 𝑁𝑏𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑓 𝐷𝑝𝑡𝑢 + 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑣𝑏𝑚𝑗𝑨𝑓𝑒 𝑃𝑞𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑢𝑗𝑝𝑜𝑏𝑚 𝐷𝑝𝑡𝑢

19

• Monte Carlo simulation – 500,000 times
• Average cost of TowPlow- $83,629 per year

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Cost Results

• TowPlow has an annual savings averaging $22,551

per year.

• 1.4 standard trucks is break even point – no savings

20

Equipment Annualized Average Cost Standard Deviation TowPlow (includes truck towing TowPlow) $83,629 $12,568 One Standard Truck (with a wing) $62,212 $10,865 Equivalent Standard Trucks (1.7 – with wings) $106,180 $11,210 Note: 1.7 is the number of standard trucks needed to match one TowPlow (See Section 6.3, for details).

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Learning Outcomes

• Utilization outcomes in table above.
• The true ratio of the TowPlow is found to be

1:1.706.

• TowPlow has an annual savings averaging $22,551

per year when compared to the equivalent standard trucks.

21

TowPlow Standard Overall 54% 65% Trace 17% 18% Light 45% 67% Moderate 72% 96% Heavy 91% 100%

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation

Thank You! For Further Questions, Please Contact: William Schneider at whs4@uakron.edu

Tow behind Plow Study Winter Maintenance Evaluation