U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
![]() |
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-09-039
Date: April 2010 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pavement Marking Demonstration Project: State of Alaska and State of Tennessee-Report to CongressAppendix C. Durability Test Deck InformationPrevious | Table of Contents | Next Since one of the primary goals of this task was to compare the durability performance of different pavement marking materials measured over time, the markings needed to be subjected to similar traffic conditions. Furthermore, a reasonably high traffic volume was desired in order to illustrate the differences between materials in the short time available for the study. It was important to consider roadway design features, traffic characteristics, and local environmental conditions when selecting the test deck locations. Together with each State transportation department, the study sites were carefully selected so that they were representative and similar. The sites were also chosen based on pavements that would not need major maintenance during the life of the study. All of the test decks were installed on asphalt pavements in good condition; all materials were installed along the edge line and right-most lane line of multilane highways; and all test sections were applied along tangent sections. Pavement Marking Preparation for In-Laid MarkingsThe intended goal of the placement of the pavement markings was to place half the length of the marking section on the surface of the road and half in a groove (in-laid). This required that within each test section, half of the section needed the current markings to be eradicated, leaving a clean new surface for installation. The second half of the test section needed to be grooved to an adequate depth so that the marking would be in-laid below the road surface. The specific parameters of the grooving for the in-laid products were based on providing a consistent difference between the height of the final pavement marking system and the height of the roadway. The goal was to have the pavement marking system, including the optics of the pavement marking system, slightly depressed in the roadway to provide protection from the wintertime plowing and studded tires. The eradication process was not always consistent and ended up leaving a shallow groove in the road surface. A similar problem occurred when trying to create the groove for the in-laid marking section. The grooving machines were typically deeper than specified. To account for these discrepancies in eradication and groove depths, areas where the markings were eradicated were considered to be placed in a shallow groove, and areas where the road was fully grooved (marking system below the road surface) were considered a deep groove. In some cases, markings were also applied over the preexisting markings and were considered a surface application. The various placements of the markings all occurred within the 0.5-mi test section. Markings that only had two placement types were each installed for approximately 0.25 mi. Anchorage, AK, Pavement Marking Test Deck AreaFigure 20. Photo. Glenn Highway SR-1. Figure 21. Photo. Proposed pavement marking installation sites. Figure 22. Photo. Test section 3. Figure 23. Photo. Test section 5. Figure 24. Photo. Test section 6. Figure 25. Photo. Test section 7. Section 8 Test Area Figure 26. Photo. Test section 8. Figure 27. Photo. Test sections 9. Anchorage, AK, Pavement MarkingsTable 35. Initially installed edge line and outside lane line pavement markings (8/7/06).
N/A = Not applicable. Note: Section 1 AK a was applied with long-line striping equipment; all other sections were hand cart applied. Table 36. Pavement markings installed after the first winter in Anchorage, AK.
N/A = Not applicable. Note: Paint and MMA were applied with long-line striping equipment; preformed thermoplastic was hand cart applied. Table 37. Pavement markings installed after the second winter in Anchorage, AK.
Note: Paint was applied with long-line striping equipment; MMA was hand cart applied. Nashville, TN, Pavement Marking Test Deck AreaFigure 28. Photo. SR-840. Figure 29. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites. Figure 30. Illustration. Test sections 1 and 2. Figure 31. Illustration. Test section 3. Figure 32. Illustration. Test sections 4 and 5. Nashville, TN, Pavement MarkingsTable 38. Initially installed edge line and lane line pavement markings in Nashville, TN.
Note: All pavement markings were installed with long-line striping equipment. Table 39. Lead-free thermoplastic pavement markings installed 6/5/08 in Nashville, TN.
Note: All pavement markings were installed with long-line striping equipment. Tusculum, TN, Pavement Marking Test Deck AreaFigure 33. Photo. SR-34. Figure 34. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites. Figure 35. Illustration. Test section 1. Figure 36. Illustration. Test section 2. Figure 37. Illustration. Test section 3 and 4. Tusculum, TN, Pavement MarkingsTable 40. Initially installed edge line and lane line markings on 5/14/07.
Note: Sections 1 TN-T and 6 TN-T were applied with long-line striping equipment; all other sections were hand cart applied. |