Splash and Spray Assessment Tool project

goals and available resources

Historical overview
Definitions and factors that affect pavement
splash and spray
Techniques used to measure splash and spray
Overview of the Slash and Spray Assessment
Tool project
Evaluation of splash and spray for different
pavement surface types and road geometries
Related ongoing projects
 Lijie Tang, Samer Katicha and Edgar de Leon, Center for
Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure

Helen Viner, Alan Dunford, Kamal Nesnas, Fiona Coyle and Peter
Sanders, TRL Ltd.

Ronal Gibbons and Brian Williams, Center for Infrastructure-

based Safety Systems

David Hargreaves and Tony Parry, Nottingham Transportation

Engineering Center

Kevin McGhee, Virginia Transportation Research Council

Roger M. Larson and Kelly Smith, Applied Pavement Technology,

Inc.

Mark Swanlund, FHWA Office of Pavement Technology

 To develop an assessment tool to
characterize the propensity of highway
sections to generate splash and spray during
rainfall and the impact of splash and spray on
road users
 Evaluation of prior work in the area of splash
and spray mechanisms
Development of a model to predict water film
thickness and splash and spray occurrence on
pavement surfaces
Evaluation of the impact of splash and spray on
roadway users
Validation and refinement of the developed
model
Documentation of the development efforts and
preparation of technology transfer materials
 1. Splash and Spray Assessment Tool
Development Program Final Report

2. TechBrief: Assessing Pavement

Surface Splash and Spray Impact on
Road Users, FHWA-HRT-15-062
www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=964

Splash & Spray Density under 1.0 inch/hour rain

0.030
Level of Nuisance

Splash and
Spray Density kg/m^3)

0.025 1 2 3 4 5
3.
Spray
0.020

Assessment
0.015

0.010

Tool 0.005

0.000
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Mile Post
 Reduction of Adverse Aerodynamic
Effects of Large Trucks
Chapter VI. Splash and Spray Tests
and Results
Weir et al. (1978)

Heavy Truck Splash and Spray

Testing: Phase II
Used laser to
measure Light
Attenuation
Koppa et al. (1985)
 Development of a Recommended Practice
for Heavy Truck Splash and Spray Evaluation
Compared contrast change
vs laser measurements
Koppa et al. (1990)

Splash and Spray

Surface Characteristics of Roadways:
International Research and Technologies,
Edited by Meyer, W.E. and Reichert, J.,
ASTM STP 1031. 528-541
Summarized some
previous work
[2] Kirsch, J. W., "Informal
Pilkington (1990)
Comments on the Road Spray
Problem," Document No. SSS-IR-
72-1352, Systems, Science and
Software, La Jolla, CA, Oct. 1972.
 U.K.
Chatfield, A. G., Reynolds, A. K., & Foot, D. J. (1979),
Water Spray from Heavy Goods Vehicles: An
Assessment of Some Vehicle Modifications, Department
of Transport, London, England
Sweden
Sandberg, U., (1978) Spray Protectors; Testing of
Efficiency, Report No. 171A, Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden
Sandberg, U., (1980) Efficiency of Spray Protectors--
Tests 1979, Report No. 199A, Swedish National Road
and Transport Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden
Definitions and Influential
Factors
 Splash & Spray
Splash: the mechanical action of a vehicles tire
forcing water out of its path. Splash is generally
defined as water drops greater than 1.0 mm (0.04
inches) in diameter, which follow a ballistic path
away from the tire.
Spray: being formed when water droplets,
generally less than 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) in diameter
and suspended in the air, are formed after water has
impacted a smooth surface and been atomized.
 Splash & Spray (cont.)
Capillary
Adhesion

Tread
Pickup

Weir, D. H., Strange, J. F., & Heffley, R. K.

(1978). Reduction of Adverse Aerodynamic
Effects of Large Trucks - FHWA-RD-79-84.
Bow Wave Side Wave
Washington, D.C.: FHWA.
 Factors influencing Splash and
Spray
1. Water Film Thickness
Measurement
Geometry
Contact
Pavement width
Longitudinal slope
Cross slope

Pavement
Texture Coiret (2005)
(Mannings Coefficient) Non-contact
Porosity

Rain intensity

Vaisala Condition Patrol DSP310

 Factors influencing Splash and
Spray (cont.)
2. Vehicle
Speed Vehicle Loading and
Aerodynamics

(McCallen et al., 2005)

Tire Properties
Type, tread pattern, SpraySuppression
condition (tread Devices
depth), etc.
Mud flaps
Tire/Road Side-skirts/valance
Fenders
Interaction
Three-zone contact
concept (Smith, 2008)
Techniques used to measure
splash and spray
 Measurement of Splash and Spray
1. Collection
Used in early studies:
Maycock (1966)
Ritter (1974)
Pilkington (1990)

Diagram. Spray collector (Ritter, 1974)

Measurement of Splash and Spray (cont.)
2. Optical Methods
Contrast Change
Light Attenuation
32 km/h
Subjective Observation
Occlusion

80 km/h
(Chatfield et al., 1979)
 Example of Optical Methods
SAE Standard J2245_201105
Digitizing Method

Laser Method
 Occlusion Factor
Ratio of the mean luminance of the black
squares to the mean luminance of the white
squares
Vehicle-Mounted Systems (experimental)
VTTIs Prototype
EUROCONSULT
Prototype

Prez-Jimnez, F., Martnez, A.

Snchez-Domnguez, F., &
Ramos-Garca, J. A., (2011),
System for Measuring Splash on
Wet Pavements, Journal of the
Transportation Research Board,
TRR 2227, 171-179.
Project Overview
Literature Review
There has been a considerable
amount of research into the
problem of splash and spray, but
results are often inconclusive and
contradictory.
No conclusive link had been
demonstrated between water film
thickness and splash and spray
generation
Main contributory factors to splash
and/or spray
Measurement techniques
 Model Development
Exposure
Model
Water Film
Model
Splash & spray
Model

Splash & Spray

Equations

Impact on User Splash & Spray

Tools
 Exposure Model
Builds on CalTrans project (Huang et al. 2008) which
updated the California Wet Percentage Time tables.
Wet hours (for different thicknesses)
Wet exposure = percentage time

Tang, L., Flintsch, G.W., and Viner,

H., (2012) Exposure Model For
Predicting Splash and Spray,
Proceedings of the 7th Symposium
on Pavement Surface
Characteristics (SURF 2012), Sep.
18-21, 2013, Norfolk, VA.

2000 Wet Percentage Interpolation Raster Map (%)

 Water Film Thickness
1. Lab Work
Material Texture (mm)
Stone Mastic Asphalt 0.549
Asphaltic Concrete 0.633
Porous Asphalt 1.644
Tined Concrete 1.011
Smooth Concrete 0.208
Perspex 0.001

2. Generic Formula
d = k T ( LI ) S
w y z d = Water depth (m)
T= texture (mm)
L = drainage length (m)
3. Calibrated Formula I = rainfall intensity (m/h)
d = 6 x10 4 T 0.09 ( LI ) 0.6 S 0.33 S =slope
w, x, y, z, w, k = regression coefficients
(k incorporates Mannings coefficient)
 Impact on the User (Nuisance)
Test under a range of
different controlled
conditions
Measure of splash and
spray: Occlusion Factor
Correlated with user
responses; i.e., subjective
ratings of:
Obstruction,
Concentration
Risk
Flintsch G.W., Williams, B., Gibbons, R., Viner, H., Assessment of
1.

Confidence the Impact of Splash and Spray on Road Users - Controlled

Experiment Results, Journal of the Transportation Research
Control Board, 2012, Vol 2306, pp. 151-160.
Experiments at the Virginia Smart Road
Two following vehicles

Two trucks

Different maneuvers,
speed and rain rates
100 Participants
Rated obstruction,
concentration, confidence,
control and risk
Computed Occlusion
 Splash and Spray Model
CDF Simulation
Capillary Adhesion + Tread Pickups
+ Bow wave Speed @ 30mph

+ Side Wave

Combined
Speed @ 60mph
Used results
to build the
model
 Modeled Each Mode Separately
Capillary adhesion Bow wave

Tread pickup Side wave

CFD for Individual Splash/Spray
Mechanisms
Capillary adhesion Tread pick-up

Bow wave Side wave

 Model Integration
Inputs:
Pavement Geometry, Surface Type, Speed,
Location or Rain Intensity, etc.
Outputs:
Water density
(+ Figure or Map)
Two implementation formats
Spreadsheet
Matlab program
 Quantifying the Amount of Spray

0.002
Capillary Adhesion Tread Pickup
Spray per mass flow rate / m-3s-1

Bow Wave Side Wave

0.0015

0.001

0.0005
Applied in order
0
20 30 40 50 60 70
Speed / mph
 Conclusion I
Produced a model that can be used to
predict splash and spray based on
pavement surface characteristics and
climatic conditions
 Potential Improvements
The project produced a practical tool for assessing
splash and spray potential based on pavement
surface properties and expected precipitation
However, the research team has identified some
potential limitations that could be addressed in
future improvements of the model:
Improvement to the water depth model
(especially for lower level of precipitation)
More experiments to verify the most crucial
maneuver
Additional field validation experiments
Evaluation of Splash and Spray
 Splash and Spray Tools
Excel Worksheet
Surface Geometry
MATLAB Script
Gradient (%)
Cross slope (%)
Pavement width (m)
Number of lanes
Rainfall
Rainfall rate
Pavement information
Type of surface layer
Pavement Texture

Water Depth
Driving Conditions
Speed Limit

Density of water
Nuisance
 Spreadsheet Tool
Pavement surface cross slope
Calculated drainage path

Longitudinal grade
Precipitation
Spray Density
Splash & Spray Density under 0.68 inch/hour rain
0.030
Level of Nuisance
Spray Density kg/m^3)

0.025 1 2 3 4 5
0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Mile Post
 0.68-inch/h rainfall (10-hour level)
Case Study non-porous pavement Splash & Spray Density under 0.68 inch/hour rain
0.030
Level of Nuisance

Spray Density kg/m^3)

0.025 1 2 3 4 5
0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Mile Post

1-inch/h rainfall (4-hour level)

non-porous pavement Splash & Spray Density under 1.0 inch/hour rain
0.030
Level of Nuisance
Spray Density kg/m^3)

0.025 1 2 3 4 5
0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Mile Post
 Case Study (cont.)

1-inch/h rainfall (4-hour level)

porous pavement Splash & Spray Density under 1.0 inch/hour rain
0.030
Level of Nuisance
Spray Density kg/m^3)

0.025 1 2 3 4 5
0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Mile Post
 Conclusion II
Pilot implementation showed:
The developed splash and spray
assessment model was practical, and
Can be used to support highway
engineers decisions regarding highway
design and maintenance.
Selection of pavement surfaces

Develop practical guidance

 FHWA The acceptance testing and demonstration
of the Continuous Friction Measurement
Equipment
[Pavement Friction Management]
Impact on Accidents
Porous-Graded Asphalt
Impact of permeable surfaces

NCHRP 15-55 Hydroplaning

Improved Water Film Thickness Models

10-98 Macrotexture
Enhance macrotexture characterization (2-D
and possibly 3-D)
 Larry Wiser Gerardo Flintsch, PhD, PE
FHWA Office of Director, Center for
Infrastructure R&D Sustainable Transportation
Turner-Fairbank Highway Infrastructure, VTTI
Research Center Professor, The Charles E.
6300 Georgetown Pike Via, Jr. Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
McLean, VA 22101
Phone: (540) 231-9748
Phone: 202-493-3079
(540) 231-1569
Larry.Wiser@dot.gov flintsch@vt.edu