U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

 
REPORT
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Back to Publication List        
Publication Number:  FHWA-HRT-12-048    Date:  November 2013
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-12-048
Date: November 2013

 

Pavement Marking Demonstration Projects: State of Alaska and State of Tennessee

APPENDIX H. MANAGEMENT TOOLS

CHALLENGES

Pavement markings enhance public safety by providing both orientation and guidance to roadway users. However, providing visible markings year-round is a considerable challenge to roadway agencies given the harsh conditions in which they must perform. These conditions include both wear and tear from traffic, winter operations, and roadway surface conditions. As an example, figure 100 and figure 101 show a pavement marking in Alaska, both when a new edge line was installed in 2006 and the resulting damage 2 years later in 2008.

This photo shows a worker installing a white edge line on an Alaskan roadway in 2006.
Figure 100. Photo. Pavement marking installed in Alaska in 2006

This photo shows the edge line that was installed in 2006 with ragged edges in 2008.
Figure 101. Photo. Pavement marking after 2 years in Alaska in 2008

Agencies must also select the most effective pavement marking and optical bead package for each roadway condition and ensure a high-quality installation. As shown in figure 102 and figure 103, the installation process involves placing both the marking material and glass beads appropriately while driving with traffic along the roadway.

This photo shows a truck applying pavement marking material in the left lane of a roadway while traffic passes it in the right lane.
Figure 102. Photo. Pavement marking installation

This photo shows a close-up view of pavement marking material being sprayed on the roadway.
Figure 103. Photo. Close-up of pavement marking installation

It is common to experience a wide variation in marking practices and policies even among adjacent States in similar regions. Agencies are constantly trying to balance resources between traditional and more expensive durable materials in the face of existing policies, user needs, construction seasons, and climate conditions.

This chapter summarizes a prototype PMST developed as part of this project, which is based on the results of two Tennessee test decks (Nashville and Tusculum) that were evaluated between 2006 and 2011.

PMST METHODOLOGY

The concept behind the PMST is to provide practitioners with a prototype tool that would assist in the selection of pavement markings based on the demonstrated product performances of different materials from the two Tennessee test decks. The tool is interactive and provides users with pavement marking material options based on a desired performance level.

TEST DECKS

Two pavement marking test decks were installed in Tennessee with cooperation from TDOT. In 2006, a test deck was installed near Nashville, TN, on SR 840. The test deck consisted of 9 different pavement marking materials, and the roadway has an AADT of 19,000. Winter operations for this test deck are considered minimal. The second test deck is in northeastern Tennessee on SR 340 near Tusculum, TN. The test deck again consisted of 9 different pavement marking materials, and the roadway has an AADT of 12,000. Winter operations for this test deck are considered minimal.

Retroreflectivity data were collected using a handheld pavement marking retroreflectometer and a mobile retroreflectometer. The handheld retroreflectometer only measures edge line markings, whereas the mobile retroreflectometer measures both edge line and lane line markings. All retroreflectivity measurements were collected in dry conditions. Photographic images of each section were taken using a digital camera to document the change in daytime presence over time.

PAVEMENT MARKING PERFORMANCE

Retroreflectivity data were collected roughly every 3 months for each test deck, as shown in table 104 and table 105.

Table 104. Nashville, TN, test deck evaluation data collection periods.


Day

Date

21

January 2000

162

June 2000

231

August 2000

308

November 2000

378

January 2001

525

June 2001

595

August 2001

672

November 2001

742

January 2002

870

May 2002

942

July 2002

1,018

October 2002

1,142

February 2003

1,267

June 2003

1,337

August 2003

1,422

November 2003

1,491

January 2004

1,624

June 2004

Table 105. Tusculum, TN, test deck evaluation data collection periods.


Day

Date

22

January 2000

99

April 2000

169

June 2000

316

November 2000

386

January 2001

463

April 2001

533

June 2001

661

October 2001

732

January 2002

807

March 2002

898

June 2002

1,056

November 2002

1,126

January 2003

1,213

April 2003

1,282

July 2003

1,414

November 2003

Table 106 and table 107 show the summarized retroreflectivity results for each Tennessee test deck by product type, installation style (eradicated/inlaid), and by the number of days after installation.

As shown in table 106, initial retroreflectivity values for the Nashville test deck ranged from 1,411 to 366 mcd. After 1,624 days, these values had dropped to a range of 644 to 105 mcd. Note that the test markings degraded at different rates, both by product and installation method, so the rank order of the products by retroreflectivity did not remain the same at the end of the evaluation as at the beginning. Some trends are evident in the various products' performance relative to the group over time, and some differences can be seen between application methods for the same product. For example, the extruded thermo performance was significantly better for the inlaid application (644 mcd) versus eradicated (371 mcd). The loss in retroreflectivity after 1,624 days ranged from 12 percent (extruded thermo, inlaid) up to 77 percent (polyuria, inlaid).

As shown in table 107, initial retroreflectivity values for the Tusculum test deck ranged from 1,152 to 377 mcd. After 1,414 days, these values ranged from 342 to 82 mcd. The modified epoxy material was judged to have failed after the reading on day 807 and was removed from the test. The low-temperature acrylic was significantly better in the inlaid application (246 mcd) versus eradicated (77 mcd). The loss in retroreflectivity after 1,414 days ranged from 34 percent (MMA, Degussa flatline, inlaid) to 92 percent (400 tape, eradicated).

Table 106. Nashville test deck retroreflectivity (mcd).

 

Materials

Installation
Style

Number of Days

21

162

231

308

378

525

595

672

742

870

942

1,018

1,142

1,267

1,337

1,422

1,491

1,624

 

 

Spray thermo

In rumble stripe

366

279

255

228

237

186

181

137

164

145

136

149

133

130

120

117

114

105

Eradicated

413

348

411

357

390

317

314

275

264

170

171

245

231

217

199

224

244

152

Inlaid

405

327

398

394

421

356

353

303

304

191

242

274

241

267

223

244

261

211

Eradicated

394

408

412

440

478

434

475

418

354

241

242

246

205

192

190

221

235

211

Inlaid

375

402

432

473

516

494

535

499

448

332

308

307

234

209

184

229

246

233

Extruded thermo

Eradicated

643

666

658

644

734

644

736

556

632

520

521

613

612

431

485

454

465

371

Inlaid

737

732

740

741

806

774

811

622

729

681

698

737

730

714

721

698

684

644

Inverted thermo

Eradicated

740

578

524

470

455

342

340

306

291

219

228

239

214

213

208

225

227

200

Low-temp acrylic

Eradicated

419

375

375

340

371

370

374

324

338

298

282

302

281

327

291

256

263

218

Inlaid

399

367

370

336

368

363

380

335

332

306

304

304

299

326

297

274

274

262

 

Polyurea

Eradicated

1,100

758

684

535

697

611

546

445

449

296

312

301

248

267

229

204

188

176

Inlaid

1,411

889

869

708

835

700

693

581

522

410

426

369

288

308

259

240

230

225

 

3M AWP

Eradicated

393

313

297

280

304

313

299

255

262

220

222

230

228

211

200

192

200

205

Inlaid

423

367

351

290

354

316

327

270

271

210

237

237

226

242

207

206

201

207

High-build paint

Eradicated

538

403

425

414

429

428

426

376

371

303

277

319

288

302

277

250

254

245

Inlaid

559

416

373

353

388

391

384

290

309

258

248

241

251

235

217

181

189

203

Note: Eradicated installations were in shallow grooves in the road surface ranging from 55 to 135 mil in depth. Inlaid installations were in grooves ranging from 145 to 270 mil in depth.

Table 107. Tusculum test deck retroreflectivity (mcd).

 

Materials

Installation
Style

Number of Days

22

99

169

316

386

463

533

661

732

807

898

1,056

1,126

1,213

1,282

1,414

Modified epoxy
(sprayed)

Eradicated

659

581

548

419

361

291

276

246

219

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inlaid

695

625

549

313

277

253

249

276

153

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

MMA (Degussa)- Flatline

Eradicated

449

421

470

526

500

481

463

476

425

413

390

353

372

354

290

281

Inlaid

516

504

496

613

602

586

538

573

508

492

473

416

414

367

330

342

MMA (Degussa)- Pathfinder

Eradicated

485

413

422

263

235

222

197

152

129

123

122

127

119

124

111

150

Inlaid

511

493

521

461

419

388

366

263

211

204

188

185

169

163

149

164

Low-temp acrylic

Eradicated

377

308

302

277

230

208

189

185

127

119

98

110

91

82

74

76

Inlaid

458

389

396

410

372

335

341

341

276

257

270

250

245

248

218

246

High-build acrylic

Eradicated

407

376

404

450

411

388

375

385

302

277

289

288

233

225

236

204

Inlaid

428

404

408

446

412

381

364

343

306

298

272

256

239

217

204

180

300 tape
(ATM)

Eradicated

950

857

796

604

555

520

458

350

303

292

242

152

136

131

125

109

Inlaid

1,152

1074

972

803

749

688

611

468

418

399

331

253

222

222

207

163

400 tape
(ATM)

Eradicated

1,082

959

894

678

613

540

486

380

322

304

267

106

93

101

88

82

Inlaid

1,079

1,002

922

614

563

496

415

287

239

214

180

138

123

126

120

104

Standard thermo

Eradicated

441

424

447

441

449

473

479

444

441

436

406

273

249

280

249

258

Inlaid

433

436

450

432

450

466

476

403

365

361

286

260

272

277

276

285

Modified urethane

Eradicated

645

557

583

478

438

378

374

342

255

239

240

225

242

253

222

241

Inlaid

649

571

576

526

466

432

430

374

317

283

253

261

273

276

245

276

Note: Eradicated installations were in shallow grooves in the road surface ranging from 25 to 110 mil in depth. Inlaid installations were in grooves ranging from 110 to 320 mil in depth. Blank cells indicate a test deck section where the pavement marking was considered to have failed and was replaced. No further measurements were made on those test sections.

The performance analysis included graphing the performance of each product over time and, as shown in figure 104, considering the impact of grooving versus eradication. A trend analysis was also conducted for each product in an effort to create the performance prediction curves that serve as the engine for the PMST tool (see figure 105).

This graph shows retroreflectivity for extruded thermo edge lines installed using both inlaid and eradicated methods. Retroreflectivity is on the y-axis ranging from 300 to 900 mcd, and days since installation is on the x-axis ranging from 0 to 1,800 days. Both types are shown between 650 and 750 mcd on day 0. They then both increase between days 400 and 600 and decrease between days 800 and 1,600. Inlaid is always higher than eradicated, with the gap widening between days 1,200 and 1,600.
Figure 104. Graph. Eradicated versus inlaid

This graph shows trend line analysis for pavement marking selection tool (PMST) marking materials. Retroreflectivity is shown on the y-axis ranging from 0 to 500 mcd for low-temperature acrylic for both edge line inlaid and eradicated paint, and days since installation is on the x-axis from 0 to 1,600 days. Both types are shown between 350 and 450 mcd on day 0. They both steadily decrease to day 1,400, with inlaid ending at 40 percent of its original rate and eradicated at 16 percent of its original rate. Inlaid is always higher than eradicated. In addition to the data points, lines of best fit are shown for both paint types.
Figure 105. Graph. Trend line analysis of PMST marking materials

To simplify the results, PMST combines the common products from the two Tennessee decks into the list of marking products and glass bead optics shown in table 108.

Table 108. Marking products and glass bead optic specifications.


Product

Optics Used

Extruded thermo (90 mil)

AASHTO M247(33)

Extruded thermo (120 mil)

Type 1 and type 4 Visibead plus 2

Sprayed thermo

Type 1

High-build acrylic paint

Type 3 virgin glass

Low-temperature acrylic

AASHTO M247(33)

MMA (splatter)

AASHTO M247(33)

MMA (extruded)

30/50 mesh, 30-30-40 Swarco mega blend

Modified epoxy

Type 4 Visibead plus 2, type 1 MnDOT spec

Modified urethane

Type 4 Visibead plus 2, type 1 MnDOT spec

Polyurea

Prismo high index cluster and Potters type 4 Visibead plus 2

PMST DEVELOPMENT

The PMST selection engine is based on regression equations that were developed for each pavement marking product. The selection functionality was created as follows:

RESULTS

The use and functionality for the resulting PMST is shown in the following series of figures (see figure 106 through figure 120):

The base condition and a comparison of five scenarios are shown in figure 114.

This screenshot shows the comparison conditions for the base condition and what-if scenarios. It shows input parameters of number of years, minimum retroreflectivity in mcd, pavement remaining life, average annual daily traffic (AADT), winter maintenance, grooving, and application temperature for the base condition and scenarios 1 through 5.
Figure 114. Screenshot. "What if" scenarios produced

A summary of changes per scenario, including the base conditions and scenarios 1 -5 is as follows: