Slashdot Mirror


Is Our Infrastructure Ready For Rising Temperatures?

Hugh Pickens writes "Megan Garber writes that last weekend, a US Airways flight taxiing for takeoff from Washington's Reagan National Airport got stuck on the tarmac for three hours because the tarmac had softened from the heat, and the plane had created — and then sunk into — a groove from which it couldn't, at first, be removed. So what makes an asphalt tarmac, the foundation of our mighty air network, turn to sponge? The answer is that our most common airport surface might not be fully suited to its new, excessively heated environment. One of asphalt's main selling points is precisely the fact that, because of its pitchy components, it's not quite solid: It's 'viscoelastic,' which makes it an ideal surface for the airport environment. As a solid, asphalt is sturdy; as a substance that can be made from — and transitioned back to — liquid, it's relatively easy to work with. And, crucially, it makes for runway repair work that is relatively efficient. But those selling points can also be asphalt's Achilles heel. Viscoelasticity means that the asphalt is always capable of liquefying. The problem, for National Airport's tarmac and the passengers who were stuck on it, was that this weekend's 100+-degree temperatures were a little less room temperature-like than they'd normally be, making the asphalt a little less solid that it would normally be. 'As ironic and as funny as the imgur seen round the world is, it may also be a hint at what's in store for us in a future of weirding weather. An aircraft sinking augurs the new challenges we'll face as temperatures keep rising.'"

31 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Narmi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of bus stops where buses are expected to sit for a while are paved with concrete because of this problem. When it's really hot out, buses sink into asphalt.

    1. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correction to the article, runways are made of thick concrete. Ramps and Taxiways are made of asphalt since they don't need to absorb the impact of an airplane landing gear traveling at 100+ MPH.

    2. Re:Nothing new by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lots of bus stops where buses are expected to sit for a while are paved with concrete because of this problem. When it's really hot out, buses sink into asphalt.

      Yes, asphalt's cheaper and quicker to lay down, cheaper to replace too. N.Y.'s Palisades Parkway was made all concrete back in 1958 and only in the last decade or so have heavily trafficed sections been resurfaced with asphalt. Concrete does rarely 'buckle' in high heat though. The recent heat wave made a section of a U.S. highway raise up, catching a motorist doing highway speed unaware. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoHMdjhEI73c&v=oHMdjhEI73c&gl=US

    3. Re:Nothing new by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually you have it the wrong way around. Most runways are asphalt with concrete landing areas while taxiways are concrete so aircraft can sit on them or long periods of time. Asphalt is used because it does not have expansion joints and is less susceptible to heaving. Here is an example of a USAF airfield with just that configuration. Note that the taxi ways are a light colour while most of the runway is dark. In the text it explains exactly what kind of asphalt was used. Here is another example in Alaska. Notice that the aircraft are sitting on concrete while most of the rest of the taxiways and runways are asphalt.

  2. Nope. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our infrastructure was built 40 years ago and had a 25 year life expectancy. Every day that things dont simply fall apart is a blessing. Since apparently putting people to work rebuilding and improving things would be socialsim, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Nope. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, a tarmac can simply be maintained for a longer life. I am not sure if ripping it off and rebuilding it would be socialism, but it would definitely be stupid.

    2. Re:Nope. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, not an infrastructure problem.

      Tarmac is formulated for specific climates, so that it heats and flows properly for the maximum temperature expected in that area. For instance, 25 years ago in the region where I live, a Hot day was around 80 degrees. So the asphalt mix used was intended for that sort of climate. Now that our summers mave many days in the mid-upper 90's, and a few that tweak 100, that asphalt is out of it's temperature range.

      The reason that they use different mixes depending on climate is that the mixes that set will in a cooler climate, also have some resistance to frost heaving. The mixes that harden at a higher temp are more brittle at freezing temps.

      This is probably more than anyone wants to know about asphalt paving or tarmacadam.

      Otherwise, yeah, we are sure letting a lot of stuff fall apart.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Nope. by mug+funky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      roads can't be traded like "generic trade goods" can. they don't work like TVs in boxes on trucks.

      infrastructure is not a traditional product, and market models can get somewhat confused when dealing with immovable things that are used all the time and need maintenance.

      if you look at private rail systems, they're a very mixed bunch. some do it better than others.

      what prevents the selection and evolution you speak of are the little details like you can't just choose another city's infrastructure because they're better or more efficient. you're stuck with what you've got where you live, and there's very little incentive for the local monopoly to improve things if their bottom line is not going to be improved.

      melbourne's rail system was privatized in the '90s, originally split to 3 companies who handled a third of the network each. they eventually all merged into the one, which was a multinational. they made more money in london than they did here, so they effectively trained up drivers here and offered them packages in london. they only bought new trains when their hands were forced. they hired goons to shake people down for ticket infractions. the fines for no ticket are higher than the fines for exceeding the speed limit by 20km/h +.

      this company then got the arse when their contract was up for renewal. people were sick of them. the network had not had significant works in over a decade. another company moved in their place, and were left with the canonical "stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure" of a system. the previous tenant had left enough leeway in their contract that major works were not assigned explicitly to either state government or them, so they just didn't get done.

      works are finally happening now, slowly. the public are absorbing the cost in a big way, road traffic is worse than it has ever been because people stopped taking the train.

    4. Re:Nope. by vivian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roads, like all networks are a natural monopoly, and thus should be run by the state.
      Unless you want to allow for competition that is by having a second road network constructed and maintained alongside the first. Then you could have a dupoly.
      Services on networks should be privatized (bus services, mail services, electricity generation, internet service provision, telephone, etc) but the physical network structure itself should be in the hands of the public, via that trustworthy custodian, the government. If you don't like how they run things, vote in a new bunch.

    5. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99. That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years. I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid. Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P

    6. Re:Nope. by ghostdoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the UK's road system started off as private toll roads maintained by the people who charged tolls on them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust

      It was abandoned as being inefficient and the responsibility for the roads turned over to local government. So yes, roads 'should' be run by the state, but not as a natural monopoly, but just because it's actually more efficient to fund the roads through taxes than tolls.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    7. Re:Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you think that money to put people back to work building infrastructure comes from?

      It comes from the same place that the >$1Trillion bailout of bankers (who then took the money and set it on fire, and no it has not been "paid back"). At the moment it comes from being borrowed at an effective negative interest rate. It should come from printing money. Better yet, by minting several $1Trillion coins.

      But who would invest in such infrastructure? I don't know; that's the point of allowing a Free Marketâ"an environment where there are robust processes of variation and selection that give rise to the evolution of society, allowing society to adapt to the needs of the moment.

      That is an insane fantasy. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for building infrastructure. We actually sort of had a "Free Market" infrastructure here in Chicago in the 19th century - until the city burned down because the infrastructure sucked. Do you know what the "Free Market" approach to toxic waste management is? Dumping it in the lake.

      The vast majority of problems on a national scale do not have anything remotely like a "Free Market" solution, and that's assuming that there actually was something like a "Free Market" that could possibly exist. There is as much evidence that a "Free Market" could exist as there is for the existence of the pantheon of Greek gods or UFOs. OK, there's quite a bit more evidence for UFOs than there is for a "Free Market". And if you could have a "Free Market", it would suck so bad it would make your head spin. And you especially can't have a "Free Market" when the major players in the economy are legal constructs designed to deflect any kind of liability away from the people that own them. There has never been a "Free Market" in human history, especially not on a national scale. One of the first acts, of the first congress of the US (the one that had a bunch of Founding Fathers in it) was to put tariffs in place. The ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when the Founders figured out that a "Free Market" was an impossible fantasy.

      Free Markets do not exist in nature. Just plain "markets" don't even exist in nature - they require a government, some form of central control. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for enforcing contracts, for example.

      It's unfortunate that they don't tell this to students until the 200-level econ courses, because by then the damage is done. That's how Ron Paul gets his fans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our infrastructure was built 40 years ago and had a 25 year life expectancy. Every day that things dont simply fall apart is a blessing. Since apparently putting people to work rebuilding and improving things would be socialsim, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

      FWIW, worries about our infrastructure started at least 30 years ago. The eternal problem is that politicians want their names associated with new stuff, but there's no glamour to be had for legislating money to paint rusty bridges or repave ragged-out highways.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Nope. by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know things are heating up but really I remember 100+ temperatures when I was in my teens some 4 decades ago. A rise of 2 or 3 degrees since the 70's is hardly going to make asphalt flow like melted butter. Yes, I know it has serious implications for human existence on the planet but this kind of kooky sensationalism is what give climate change prophets such a bad name.

    10. Re:Nope. by Maow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99.

      Parent didn't claim "average". They claimed higher summer peak temps. These can be offset by colder winter temperatures leaving averages little changed.

      That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years.

      Agreed.

      I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid.

      I really wish everyone pointing out changing weather patterns over the course of our lifetimes would stop saying it cannot be due to climate change. It makes us^W them look stupid.

      Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P

      You keep that in mind when re-reading the GP post: he said more hot summer days, you said he claimed averages.

      Of course, I'm not saying the GP is correct about the amount of temperature swing, but it does jive with my personal experience and with scientific predictions.

    11. Re:Nope. by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the US, you can always tell the tollways from the freeways -- they're far less well maintained, as the private businesses which own them are interested in extracting as much profit as possible. Since there is no cost incurred from the delays, accidents and/or deaths caused by the poor road quality, the businesses simply don't bother with maintenance. It's the invisible hand of the market at work, not giving a flying fuck about the externalities.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    12. Re:Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      [snip flame war]

      Remember the good ol' days, when polite folk talked about the weather because politics or religion might lead to an argument?

      [maybe it's all the flame wars that's causing all the hot]

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. News to us in Texas by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is news to us in Dallas. Our international airport has been fine for many, many days of 105+ temperatures.

    Clearly this is a case of poor engineering and substandard materials, not 'hot environment destroying asphalt'.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:News to us in Texas by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High temperatures thin air.  Thin air makes for less lift.  Less lift makes for dangerous takeoffs.

    2. Re:News to us in Texas by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you think the air in Phoenix (1200 feet) is ever at thin as the air in Denver (5280 feet)? Just by eyeballing it appears the density altitude in Phoenix at 115 F is about 4,000 feet.

    3. Re:News to us in Texas by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The performance of aircraft engines at various altitudes and temperatures are well-understood. Before anything the size of an airliner takes off the crew calculates exactly how much thrust is needed to complete the takeoff safely.

      Things considered include:
      1. Temperature
      2. Altitude
      3. Takeoff weight
      4. Runway length (from start point to end of runway).
      5. Any obstructions beyond the end of the runway.
      6. Runway slope
      7. Head/tailwind
      8. Flap configuration
      9. Ground conditions (wet, ice, etc - this matters if the takeoff needs to be aborted)

      I might have missed something, but there are charts for every aircraft with any model of engines that allow you to look all this stuff up and determine if the takeoff can be performed safely. A safe takeoff is one where the aircraft can reach a safe speed and clear all obstacles should an engine fail right at the point of no return, and also where the aircraft can lose an engine right before the point of no return and stop before the end of the runway. None of this stuff is left to chance.

      Usually there is a considerable margin beyond what is necessary for a safe takeoff, and in this case the pilots instruct the aircraft to use less than full thrust. That saves wear and tear on the engines, reduces noise, and also gets rid of the "Top Gun" effect when a jet powered to haul cargo takes off mostly empty.

      If the air is too hot to take off safely on any available runway then the plane doesn't take off. Of course, they know that this will happen before they bother to load the plane - they would take on less cargo/etc if they could, or cancel the flight.

  4. Big rains - bigger culverts by aggles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The civil engineers around here are replacing any culvert that needs it with the bigger size, so that the increased run-off can be handled without washing out the roads. They assume 500 year events are now 100 year events and 100 year events are 30. 10 year events can happen at any time. Makes sense to me.

  5. "...in a future of weirding weather." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stand back! This weather has the weirding way!

  6. don't stand in one place by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a reason that the area around the terminal is made of concrete and there are concrete pads placed at spots where airplanes sit. It is to allow them to stay in one place without sinking. While heat will hasten the effect, a fully loaded large airplane will sink into any tarmac. I ride motorcycles and on hot days my kick stand can dig through most tarmac quite easilly(I carry a small metal plate to spread the load on hot days).

    The idea is to keep moving so one does not sink. Whoever let the heavy aircraft sit on tarmac instead of concrete is to blame for the issue and not the heat. Even on an average day for July I bet the aircraft would have sunk to some degree in three hours.

    The solution to this problem is to not stand for more than a few minutes on tarmac. If the delay is longer, return to the gate or wait on a piece of concrete.

  7. Re:Earth won't turn into Venus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Damnit, even the worst fearmongers tell us that temperatures will rise by 1 degree per 20 years. Even ignoring the fact that this kind of temperature rise is insignificant in terms of what we're talking about, that's decades or centuries to replace infrastructure.

    Instead of worrying about asphalt on streets, I'm worring about brains already having melted in one-too-many climate change activists demonstration.

    Get a clue.

    "Temperatures will rise by an average of 1 degree" does not imply that temperatures will be ~1 degree higher each and every day. Quite the contrary, climatologists predict that the weather (including temperature) will be MUCH more volatile. That means you will have many days where the temp is >15 degrees above normal, in additional to crazier winter weather etc.

    Basically, because the size of weather fluctuations are expected to increase, you will get more days of crazy temperatures that will take a toll on infrastructure.

  8. Sky Harbor by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sky Harbor (Phoenix airport) doesn't use asphalt runways for precisely this reason: archaeologists would be digging the bones of widebodied aircraft out of the tarpit centuries from now.

    FWIW, the record temperature at Sky Harbor was 50C. They had to shut down the airport until it cooled off because the standard tables for flap settings didn't go that high. Now they do.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  9. Metling permafrost in Colo. closed major highway by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yesterday, CDOT closed US-24, about the fourth most important highway in Colorado, due to ice 100 ft. down that melted for the first time (since a railroad tunnel was constructed a century ago) and created a sinkhole.

  10. Re:Any mix for -18 to 38? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what's the solution for a place like Indiana that can reach both 0 deg F (-18 deg C) and 100 deg F (38 deg C)?

    Here in Chicago, we have a bigger swing than that by about 15 deg F. We've gone from less than -10 deg to 105 deg.

    I swear, sometimes on the same day. Two weeks ago, we had very nearly a 50 degree swing in the course of 30 hours.

    Last week, when we were over 100 all week long, there were pavement buckles all over the expressways. Thing is, we can make infrastructure that will last, but it means making it a priority higher than building an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Another scaremongering story by dinther · · Score: 4, Insightful

    World temperatures increased by a fraction of a degree but here we go, now airports are melting because of it. What an idiot conclusion telling me a lot of the mental state of the author.

    In reality, the aircraft has been in the same spot for far too long. Additionally the consistency of the tarmac material might be sub-standard causing the melting point to be lower. I have seen roads here in New Zealand that had substandard tarmac on them turning to liquid in the hot sun. And New Zealand average temperate is actually dropping over the last decade.

  12. Re:It's never been over 100 in DC before? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    this has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the expansion of the federal government.

    Also, Drudge is reporting that the airplane was discovered to be a closet liberal, faking the whole thing to boost the whole fake AGW thing.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. Re:Average temperature a few degrees higher by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Funny

    George Carlin had his own unique view on the 'save the earth' issue. God, I miss that guy! .....g, pale -blue-dot, perspective, plastic “We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are! We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic asshole.” George Carlin *** And here's a Youtube link of George... http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=948Nm34arfA