Comparative Evaluation of Field Performance of Pavement Marking Products on Alternative Test Deck Designs

Submitted for Presentation and Publication at the 2001 Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting

Mohamed S. Kaseko, PhD Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 454015 Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-4015 email kaseko@ce.unlv.edu

Walter C. Vodrazka, Jr. Transportation System Analyst Transportation Research Center Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 454007 Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-4007 email: wvodkajr@trc.unlv.edu

Shashi S. Nambisan, PhD, PE Professor of Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 454015 Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-4015 email shashi@ce.unlv.edu

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

ABSTRACT This paper presents a comparative evaluation of the performance of pavement marking materials and products based on results of field tests from two types of test deck designs. The typical test deck design in the United States is based on ASTM D 713 and is used by AASHTOs National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) on several test decks across the United States. In this test deck test stripes are placed in transverse direction across a travel lane on a section of roadway with free flowing traffic. One of the advantages of this approach is that it subjects the test markings to similar traffic and environmental conditions so that a fair comparative evaluation of the products can be made. However, for products that are designed for use as transverse intersection markings, such a test deck does not expose the products to forces caused by stop-and-go and turning traffic that they would be subjected to at intersections. Hence, this type of test deck may not be a good predictor of the performance of intersection markings. One of the objectives of this project was to compare the performance of the pavement marking products and materials on the NTPEP-type test deck and at intersections. The results of this study have clearly demonstrated that using NTPEP-type test deck for evaluation of intersection markings may produce erroneous evaluations. Products that may appear to have better performance than other products on the test deck may actually perform worse when installed at intersections.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan INTRODUCTION

A variety of products and materials for pavement markings are presently being used by municipal agencies and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) on the roadways in Clark County, Nevada. These materials are used for pavement markings such as stop bars and pedestrian crossings on intersection approaches, and for lane lines. They are critically important in facilitating orderly traffic operations, both pedestrian and vehicular, and for maintenance of safety on the roadways. Over the years, a rapid deterioration of the markings on Clark County roadways has been observed and this has caused safety, operational, maintenance, and financial concerns for the agencies responsible for their maintenance. The primary objective of this project was to test and evaluate the field performance of several pavement marking products in order to identify products that can perform well under traffic, weather and pavement conditions on Clark County roadways. Although there are a number of on-going test decks nationwide mostly conducted by the NTPEP program for evaluation of pavement markings, the need was felt for Clark County to conduct its own testing program for two reasons: (1) To ensure that the products are evaluated under local Clark County traffic, environmental and pavement conditions. This is in line with studies [3, 4] that have demonstrated the importance and effect of the local conditions on performance of pavement markings. (2) To explore the suitability of using the typical NTPEP-type test deck design for evaluation of markings for intersection applications, as discussed below.

A typical approach used in the United States for conducting such field-testing has been to place test stripes in the transverse direction across a travel lane on a tangent section of a roadway

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

with free flowing traffic (Figure 1). This type of test deck design, based on ASTM D 713 [1] and used by AASHTOs National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) [2], has the advantage of subjecting all the test stripes to similar traffic and environmental conditions so that a fair comparative evaluation of the performance of the products can be made. However, for products that are designed for use as transverse intersection markings, such a test deck design does not expose the products to the more severe forces caused by stop-and-go and turning traffic that the markings would be subjected to at intersections. Therefore, performance of intersection markings on an NTPEP-type test deck may not be representative of the performance of the markings at intersections. Therefore, to accomplish the project objectives, two test deck designs were used for this project, namely, (1) an intersection test deck, and (2) an NTPEP-type test deck. The intersection test deck consisted of six selected intersection locations, while the NTPEP-type test deck was located on a section of a major urban arterial. The intersection test deck had asphalt concrete (AC) surface while the other test deck had both AC pavement surface as well as portland-cement concrete (PCC) surface. Each test product was installed on the intersection test deck, and on each of the two pavement surfaces on the NTPEP-type test deck. A comparative evaluation of the performance of the products across the two test decks was conducted to determine if there is any correlation in performance across the test deck designs. It is anticipated that the results of this research will be able to demonstrate the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the NTPEP approach test deck as an evaluation tool for the performance of products intended for use as intersection markings. This paper presents a comparative evaluation of the performance of the products between the two test decks, and between the two pavement surfaces (AC and PCC) on the control deck.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

The evaluations are based primarily on performance of the products in retroreflectivity and durability. Although field evaluation for the project had not concluded at the time of writing this paper, several preliminary conclusions could be drawn from the data gathered and analysis done at the time based on about 18-months of product performance data from the test decks.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST DECKS As previously discussed, two test deck designs were implemented for this project. The first test deck consisted of six selected intersections on which products for transverse pavement markings were installed as stop bars and markings for pedestrian crossing. The second test deck, referred to as the "control deck," was set-up similar to NTPEP test decks. It was set-up on a street segment with free-flowing traffic on which the markings were placed in transverse direction across the shoulder lane, as shown in Figure 1. The control deck serves two purposes, namely, (1) to facilitate comparative evaluation of products under identical traffic conditions, and (2) to facilitate comparative evaluation of the products between the two different pavement surfaces, namely, asphalt concrete (AC) and portland-cement concrete (PCC).

Intersection Test Locations Six intersections in the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Clark County were selected for the test deck. All the intersections had asphalt concrete surfaces, and were selected based on the following two main criteria: (1) They had relatively similar average annual daily traffic flow of between 6,000 and 9,000 per approach lane. The traffic information was based on the 1997 Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) annual traffic report.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

(2) The intersections were not scheduled for resurfacing work for a period of at least two years. This was done in order to allow for an uninterrupted 2-year evaluation period, which is the period of evaluation for the test deck.

The intersection markings consisted of stop bars and pedestrian crossing lines. Four different products were installed at each intersection. A product was installed as a stop bar on one approach, as the upstream pedestrian crossing line on another approach, and as the downstream pedestrian crossing line on the third approach (Figure 2). This arrangement was used (1) in order to try as much as possible to expose all products at an intersection to relatively similar traffic conditions, each product was installed on three different approaches of an intersection. (2) to ensure that if unexpected events on an approach rendered the evaluation of the markings on that approach useless or unavailable, there would still be data available from the other approaches for evaluation of the products.

The Control Deck The control test deck was installed on the westbound segment of the Desert Inn Expressway between Paradise Road and Valley View Boulevard. One of the reasons that made this roadway segment suitable for this project was the fact that it has both the AC and PCC pavement surfaces within close proximity of each other. This would enable comparative evaluation of the products on the two different pavement surfaces. This segment had an average annual daily traffic (AADT) of about 6,500 per lane. The control deck was designed similar to the NTPEP national test decks. It was divided into four sections, two on an AC surface and two on a PCC surface. Each product was installed

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

on each of the sections of the control deck. For each product, two 10-centimeter (4 inches) wide test stripes were installed on each section, for a total of eight stripes for each product, four on each pavement surface type. The rationale for having two test sections for each pavement surface was to ensure that if something happened to one section that would make that section useless, data could still be collected from the other section.

PRODUCTS TESTED Several products of different materials were included in the test decks. The products were of four different types of materials, namely, paint, thermoplastic, preformed thermoplastic, and tape products. A total of 52 products from 12 vendors were installed on the test decks. Of these, 21 were products designed for use as intersection markings, and are the subject of this paper. The products were installed on the test decks in September 1998, and were to be evaluated over a period of two years.

PRODUCT INSTALLATION To ensure proper installation of products and to speed-up the installation process, vendors were responsible for installation of their own products. They either did the installation themselves or hired contractors to do the installation under their supervision. This was also done to eliminate the potential for blaming improper installation on product performance problems. At intersections, the test markings were placed on a clean pavement surface adjacent to existing markings.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan FIELD EVALUATIONS

Field measurements for durability, retroreflectivity and color were taken for each product at twomonth intervals in the first year and four-month intervals in the second year of the test deck. Since the test sites were subject to different traffic volumes, the performance results are reported as a function of the number of cumulative vehicle passes per lane, instead of time. Durability is a measure of the percentage of the marking material remaining on the pavement surface in satisfactory working condition. It is a subjective measure based on the ASTM standard D 913 [6]. In this project, durability is reported in percent of the marking remaining on the pavement. The durability measurements were based on the evaluators judgement and, in this project, were made by a consensus of at least two observers at a time. Observations were made individually for each marking on each lane. The reported durability for each product was the average of the lane-by-lane observations. Retroreflectivity measurements were taken using the LTL-2000, which uses a 30-meter geometry, simulating a typical drivers view of the marking from a distance of 30 meters (about 100 ft). The units of measurements are mcd/m2/lx. On the control deck, two retroreflectivity readings were taken on each test stripe, one reading on the wheel-path and the other away from the wheel-path, next to the skip or lane line. Average values for each product on each pavement surface were computed separately for the wheel-path and skip-line locations. Similarly, on intersection test decks, two readings per lane, one on the wheel-path and one on the skip-line, were taken on each test stripe. Average values for wheel-path and skip-line locations across all lanes were computed for each product. It should be noted that, because of the manual application of beads on the paint and thermoplastic products, no retroreflectivity readings for these products were taken at the time of

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

installation. The procedure for installation of the paint and thermoplastic markings involved first spraying the material on the pavement and then manually applying beads on to the fresh markings. This typically resulted in excess beads, which could give erroneous retroreflectivity readings if measurements were taken immediately. Therefore, retroreflectivity readings could not be taken before the beads "bonded" onto the marking material and the excess beads removed from the markings by traffic. Although it is typical practice to take the first readings after about two weeks of installation and normal traffic flow, in this project we were not able to do that and the first readings were taken one month after installation on the control deck and two months after installation at the intersections. A similar procedure was used for measurement of the whiteness index for the products. The field instrument, BYK Gardner Color Guide, was used for measurement of the color coordinates, XYZ, together with whiteness index for each product. The whiteness index was computed within the instrument according to ASTM Standard E313 [5]. Its values range from zero to 100 with higher readings indicating more "whiteness" of the product. It should however, be noted that the whiteness index can only be used for relative comparisons of the whiteness of specimens of the same general texture and thickness ASTM Standard E313 [5].

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS In order to account for differences in traffic flows in the various test locations, the performance of the materials are evaluated based on the cumulative number of vehicle passes per lane from the initial installation. The traffic data was estimated based on traffic counts performed by the local transportation agencies during the first year of the study.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Durability

10

Figures 3 summarizes the durability of the products at the intersections by material type. As expected, paint products showed much poorer performance at the intersection test deck, with durabilities on the average dropping to below 40% after only six months. However, at the control deck, products performed very well, with average durabilities of above 90% for all products, including paint products. So while the average performance of the paint products was fairly comparable to the other materials on the control deck, it was much worse on the intersection test deck. This clearly illustrates the potential problem of making relative comparisons of products for intersection markings based on their performance on NTPEP-type test deck.

Retroreflectivity Figures 4 to 7 show the average retroreflectivity readings by material type on the control deck and at the intersections on both the wheel-paths and skip-lines. As with durability, it is observed that the difference in the average performance of the materials is more pronounced at intersections than at the control deck. Specifically, for paint products, while their average performance is fairly comparable to the other materials on the control deck, their performance is much worse on the intersection test decks. Their average retroreflectivity at intersections was already below 50 mcd/m2/lx by the time the first readings were taken, about two months after installation. The poorer performance of the paint products at intersection was in part probably due to the manual application of the beads, as explained earlier. Since traffic started using the facilities within only a few hours after installation, and because of the more severe forces the markings are

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

11

subjected to at intersections, a higher proportion of the beads were probably removed from the intersection markings by traffic before proper bonding with the paint. With regard to the relative performance of the pavement marking materials between the AC and PCC surfaces on the control deck, it is observed from Figures 8 and 9 that the markings perform slightly better on PCC than on AC. This can partly be explained by the fact that the markings get dirtier on AC than on PCC due to the asphalt material, thus making the beads less effective on the AC surface. As further evidence of this fact, it is observed that the readings that were taken a few days after a rainstorm showed a significant increase in retroreflectivity for more products on AC than on PCC. For example, Figures 8 shows the jump in retroreflectivity readings for products on the AC surface at about 3,300,000 vehicle passes. The corresponding readings on PCC (Figure 9) do not show such an increase. The jump in retroreflectivity was more likely due to the resulting cleaner markings due to the rainstorms. This also helps underscore the fact that cleaning of the pavement markings can help improve their retroreflectivity performance and hence increase their service lifetimes. When performance of individual products is examined, it is observed that there is apparently no consistency in product performance between the two test decks. For example, in Figures 10 and 11 for paint markings, product PA-01 is observed to have the best performance at the control deck but the worst at intersections. The reverse is true for product PA-05. A similar observation is made for tape products in Figures 12 and 13. For example, while product TP-02 performs the worst at intersections, it has a relatively average performance at the control deck. The situation is reversed for product TP-05.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Color

12

Although color measurements were taken as explained earlier, comparative evaluations of the products based on the color measurements was not done due to the fact that these measurement are not consistent across different materials. Even for the same visual whiteness, the color measurements will vary with, among other things, the thickness and texture of the marking. As such, only subjective evaluations were made. These subjective observations indicate that both thermoplastic and preformed thermoplastic products appear to get dirty and darken relatively faster and become harder to see, especially during the daylight hours. This is probably due to the texture of the material or other factors that make these materials less resistant to road grime and dirt. However, the products perform better at night because of their retroreflectivity. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate this point by showing a preformed thermoplastic test product side-by-side with an existing marking. It is observed from the picture that while the test product is dirtier and much less visible during daytime, it is clearly more visible at night due to retroreflectivity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS This study has demonstrated the potential problems of using test decks that subject pavement markings only to free-flowing traffic for evaluation of intersection markings. Products that may appear to have relatively better performance on the test deck may actually perform worse when installed at intersections. However, using intersections as test decks poses its own challenges. One of these challenges is the fact that it is hard to design the test deck such that all the test markings are subject to similar traffic conditions, including total volume of traffic, traffic mix and turning movements. In this study, an attempt was made to design the intersection test deck such that the each test product was subject to all the intersection movements (i.e., through, left

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

13

and right-turning movements) and the results were reported based on the cumulative number of vehicle passes. However, the effects of truck traffic and the differences in the pavement surface conditions for the different intersections in the test deck was not considered. With respect to the performance of the materials used in this project, tape products appear to perform better than the other materials, while, as may be expected, paint products have the worst performance in terms of both durability and retroreflectivity. On the other hand, thermoplastic and preformed thermoplastic products have comparable performance to tape products in durability and retroreflectivity. However, these thermoplastic-based products are less resistant to road grime and dirt and they tend to get dirt and darken faster and become less visible to road users, especially during daylight hours. This is particularly a problem in the desert climate in Clark County because of lack of rainfall, which, if present, would have the effect of occasionally cleaning the markings whenever it rains. Cleaning the markings does improve their performance of the markings in terms of both color and retroreflectivity. However, the logistics and cost-effectiveness of doing this need to be thoroughly evaluated. It is also observed that the products have comparable performance between the two different pavement surfaces, namely, asphalt and concrete. However, paint and thermoplastic products appear to perform better in terms of color and retroreflectivity on concrete than on asphalt, probably because of the cleaner surface.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project was financially supported by the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), The University of Nevada

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan

14

Las Vegas, through its Applied Research Initiative, and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Mesquite, Boulder City and the Clark County Public Works Department. These local entities were very supportive in all aspects of the project, especially in facilitating traffic control during field data collection and providing traffic counts. The authors would also like to thank the students and staff at the UNLV Transportation Research Center for their efforts in field data collection.

REFERENCES [1] ASTM D 713 - 90: Standard Practice for Conducting Road Service Tests on Fluid Traffic Marking Materials. 1990. [2] "Test and Evaluation Procedures for Pavement Marking Materials" AASHTOs National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP), January 1996. [3] Dale, John M. Pavement Markings: Materials and Application for Extended Service Life. Synthesis of Highway Practice, No. 138. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1988. [4] Bryden, James E. and Ronald A. Lorini. Traffic Paint Performance in Accelerated-Wear. In Transportation Research Record 1148, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 48-56. [5] ASTM E 313 - 96: Standard Practice for Calculating Yellowness and Whiteness Indices from Instrumentally Measured Color Coordinates. 1996 [6] ASTM D 913: Evaluating Degree of Resistance to Wear of Traffic Paint.

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 1: NTPEP Test Deck Design

15

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 2: Arrangement of Test Markings at Intersection

16

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 3: Average Durability of Markings at Intersections by Type of Material

17

100 Average Durability (% remaining)

80 Tape Products (9) Preformed Thermoplastics (5) Paint Products (5) 40 Thermoplastic Products (2)

60

20

0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane ( 000)

Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of products of that material in the test decks

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 4: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Wheel-paths at
600 Paint Products(5) Average Retroreflectivity (mcd/m2/lx) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 Tape Products (9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products (2)

18

Intersections

Figure 5: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Wheel-paths at the Control Deck

600 Average Retroreflectivity (mcd/m2/lx) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 Paint Products(5) Tape Products (9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products (2)

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 6: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Skip Lines at Intersections

19

600 Paint Products(5) Average Retroreflectivity (mcd/m2/lx) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 Tape Products (9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products (2)

Figure 7: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Skip Lines at the Control Deck

600 Average Retroreflectivity (mcd/m2/lx) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 Paint Products(5) Tape Products (9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products (2)

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 8: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Wheel-paths on AC Surface at the Control Deck.
600 Paint Products (5) Average Retroreflectivity. 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Cumulative No of Vehicle Passes/lane (000) Tape Products(9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products(2)

20

Figure 9: Average Retroreflectivity by Material Type on Wheel-paths on PCC Surface at the Control Deck.
600 Average Retroreflectivity. 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Cumulative No of Vehicle Passes/lane (000) Paint Products (5) Tape Products(9) Preformed Thermoplastics(5) Thermoplastic Products(2)

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 10: Average Retroreflectivity for Paint Products on Wheel-paths at Intersections

21

300 PA-01 250 Average Retroreflectivity 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 PA-02 PA-03 PA-04 PA-05

Cumulative No. of Vehicle Passes/Lane (000)

Figure 11: Average Retroreflectivity for Paint Products on Wheel-paths at the Control Deck
300 PA-01 250 Average Retroreflectivity 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 PA-02 PA-03 PA-04 PA-05

Cumulative No. of Vehicle Passes/Lane (000)

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 12: Average Retroreflectivity for Tape Products on Wheel-paths at Intersections
600 TP-01 500 Average Retroreflectivity 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 TP-04 TP-07 TP-02 TP-05 TP-08 TP-03 TP-06 TP-09

22

Figure 13: Average Retroreflectivity for Tape Products on Wheel-paths at the Control Deck
600 500 Average Retroreflectivity 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cumulative Vehicle Passes/lane (000) 4,000 TP-01 TP-04 TP-07 TP-02 TP-05 TP-08 TP-03 TP-06 TP-09

Kaseko, Vodrazka, and Nambisan Figure 14: Daytime Visibility of Preformed Thermoplastic Test Product (Left Line)

23

Figure 15: Nighttime Visibility of Same Product Shown in Figure 14 Above