1. 1 Long Term Striping Alternatives for Bridge Decks Dr. Ala R. Abbas Department of Civil Engineering University of Akron

2. 2 Outline Background Objectives Research approach Results and analysis Conclusions and recommendations Implementation Questions

3. 3 Background

4. 4 In June 2006, several pavement markings were installed on 16 PCC bridge decks along interstate IR 71 in Ashland and Richland counties (ODOT District 3) Traffic conditions (3 Lanes per Direction):  Total Traffic: 42,000 ADT (Both Directions) Left Lane: 4,200 ADT (Per Lane Per Direction) Middle Lane: 9,900 ADT (Per Lane Per Direction) Right Lane: 6,900 ADT (Per Lane Per Direction)

5. 5 Background (Cont.) The performance of these materials was monitored for slightly over two years (two winter seasons) Sixteen periodic field evaluations were conducted

6. 6 Background (Cont.) These materials include:  Traffic paint (Fast Dry Ennis Waterborne Traffic Paint)  Thermoplastic (Swarcotherm Alkyd)  Epoxies: Slow Cure Epoxies (Mark 55.2, LS 60, and HPS 2) Fast Cure Epoxies (Mark 55.4 and LS 70)  Modified urethane (HPS 4)  Polyurea (Mark 75, Glomarc 90 and HPS 5)  Preformed thermoplastic (Premark Plus / Contrast)  Methyl Methacrylate (Duraset 1 and Duraset Pathfinder)  Durable tapes (3M 380WR ES, 380WR-5 ES and 270 ES)

7. 7 Objectives

8. 8 Develop a comprehensive performance evaluation plan for pavement markings Evaluate the performance of several pavement markings on PCC bridge decks Compare the performance evaluation results with preselected milestone performance criteria

9. 9 Objectives (Cont.) Augment the performance evaluation results with data from the NTPEP program Compare materials based on cost-effectiveness Recommend changes to current ODOT practices and specifications to address the research findings

10. 10 Research Approach

11. 11 Epoxy, Modified Urethane, and Polyurea

12. 12 Preformed Thermoplastic

13. 13 Methyl Methacrylate; Extruded

14. 14 Methyl Methacrylate; Splatter

15. 15 Durable Tapes

16. 16 Durable Tapes

17. 17 Performance Evaluation Quantitative measures:  Retroreflectivity (LTL-X Retroreflectometer)  Color (Miniscan XE Plus Colorimeter) Qualitative measures:  Durability (0 – 10)  Daytime color (0 – 10)  Nighttime visibility (0 – 10)

18. 18 Results and Analysis

19. 19 Results Sixteen periodic field evaluations were conducted Ratings and measurements include:  Retroreflectivity (5 to 10 readings per line)  Color (5 readings per line)  Durability (consensus ratings per line)  Daytime color (individual ratings per line)  Nighttime visibility (individual ratings per line)

20. 20 Analysis Comparison with milestone performance criteria:  Retroreflectivity: Initial (min. 300 for W and min. 250 for Y) 1-yr (min. 250 for W and min. 200 for Y) 2-yr (min. 200 for W and min. 150 for Y)  Color: ODOT color specifications for white and yellow  Durability: Less than 10  Daytime Color: Minimum of 7  Nighttime Visibility: Minimum of 7

21. 21 Analysis (Cont.) Comparison with NTPEP data Prediction of future retroreflectivity Estimation of service life Life cycle cost analysis

22. 22 Comparison with Milestone Performance Criteria

23. 23 Retroreflectivity (LTL-X Retroreflectometer)

24. 24 LTL-X Retroreflectometer

25. 25 Traffic Paint Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial202310305330 Ennis Paint1-yr179229207237 2-yr151166139150

26. 26 Thermoplastic Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial169282342371 Swarcotherm1-yr225402379303 2-yr--

27. 27 Slow Cure Epoxy Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial480706648682 HPS-21-yr349472486404 2-yr407422415307 Initial516697710636 Mark 55.21-yr486565536372 2-yr433503498292 Initial461619640514 LS 601-yr422390481396 2-yr333324395332

28. 28 Fast Cure Epoxy Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial425728706766 Mark 55.41-yr378473482259 2-yr320386398200 Initial249326320447 LS 701-yr309267258193 2-yr--

29. 29 Modified Urethane Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial451711695737 HPS-41-yr459563540605 2-yr431466387343

30. 30 Polyurea Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial423783747775 Mark 751-yr405486399386 2-yr387337277247 Initial695119312391142 Glomarc 901-yr609826786684 2-yr529727691526 Initial339681641794 HPS-51-yr404560549587 2-yr411503483527

31. 31 Preformed Thermoplastic Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Premark Contrast Initial184626688663 1-yr282590654470 2-yr375559532215 Premark Plus Initial317715814579 1-yr400780851570 2-yr385433410215

32. 32 Methyl Methacrylate Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial82508480280 Ennis MMA1-yr83347327236 2-yr92320276223

33. 33 Durable Tapes Retroreflectivity, R L (mcd/m 2 /lux) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial638550572594 3M 380WR ES1-yr587446473539 2-yr492314336352 Initial466527517486 3M 270 ES1-yr421430436228 2-yr356362 127

34. 34 Color (Miniscan XE Plus)

35. 35 Miniscan XE Plus

36. 36 CIE Color Diagram ODOT White Color Specifications ODOT Yellow Color Specifications

37. 37 Did color meet ODOT specifications at all times? MaterialLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W 3M 380WR ESYes Premark Contrast NoYes HPS 2No † Yes HPS 4NoYes PolyCarb 55.2Yes PolyCarb 75No † Yes PolyCarb 55.4Yes SwarcothermYes † Color failed to meet ODOT specifications towards the end of the second year, but was acceptable before that time.

38. 38 Did color meet ODOT specifications at all times? MaterialLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Epoplex LS 60NoYes Epoplex GM 90No † Yes Epoplex LS 70NoYes HPS 5No † Yes Ennis MMAYes Ennis PaintNo † Yes Premark Standard NoYes 3M 270 ESYes † Color failed to meet ODOT specifications towards the end of the second year, but was acceptable before that time.

39. 39 Durability

40. 40 Durability Durability (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Premark Contrast Initial10 1-yr10 8 2-yr10 5 Initial10 Swarcotherm1-yr9988 2-yr0000 Initial10 LS 701-yr10 70 2-yr0430

41. 41 Daytime Color

42. 42 Traffic Paint Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial8.98.38.9 Ennis Paint1-yr7.2 7.87.3 2-yr7.48.17.9

43. 43 Thermoplastic Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial8.05.47.17.9 Swarcotherm1-yr7.26.26.06.5 2-yr--

44. 44 Slow Cure Epoxy Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.37.68.4 HPS-21-yr9.28.88.0 2-yr8.78.4 Initial9.48.610.0 Mark 55.21-yr9.79.38.89.0 2-yr9.99.18.99.0 Initial8.99.18.9 LS 601-yr8.78.88.38.7 2-yr9.08.78.17.9

45. 45 Fast Cure Epoxy Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.0 9.1 Mark 55.41-yr9.2 8.28.0 2-yr9.49.08.4 Initial8.99.79.69.3 LS 701-yr8.37.86.34.5 2-yr6.75.85.73.3

46. 46 Modified Urethane Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.48.49.39.1 HPS-41-yr9.59.08.38.7 2-yr9.08.17.9

47. 47 Polyurea Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.610.0 Mark 751-yr9.710.09.7 2-yr9.7 9.19.3 Initial9.78.99.39.4 Glomarc 901-yr9.89.79.59.7 2-yr9.39.69.3 Initial9.7 9.49.6 HPS-51-yr9.2 2-yr9.49.39.19.3

48. 48 Preformed Thermoplastic Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Premark Contrast Initial8.07.98.98.6 1-yr7.78.37.36.5 2-yr6.17.46.46.3 Premark Plus Initial8.48.99.49.3 1-yr5.86.55.56.2 2-yr5.07.36.66.1

49. 49 Methyl Methacrylate Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.38.99.08.9 Ennis MMA1-yr9.08.58.78.2 2-yr9.49.07.9

50. 50 Durable Tapes Daytime Color (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W 3M 380WR ES Initial8.38.49.18.9 1-yr8.2 7.57.0 2-yr7.78.0 6.9 3M 270 ES Initial9.69.49.0 1-yr8.89.0 8.8 2-yr9.49.99.07.9

51. 51 Nighttime Visibility

52. 52 Traffic Paint Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial7.79.1 9.4 Ennis Paint1-yr7.38.08.3 2-yr6.77.5 8.0

53. 53 Thermoplastic Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial6.17.79.0 Swarcotherm1-yr6.78.07.37.0 2-yr--

54. 54 Slow Cure Epoxy Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial10.09.39.1 HPS-21-yr9.29.59.08.8 2-yr9.810.0 Initial10.0 Mark 55.21-yr9.510.09.710.0 2-yr9.810.0 Initial9.79.49.39.1 LS 601-yr8.89.38.88.5 2-yr8.39.09.28.7

55. 55 Fast Cure Epoxy Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.910.0 Mark 55.41-yr9.5 9.39.2 2-yr9.79.8 9.5 Initial9.08.98.79.1 LS 701-yr9.59.08.27.5 2-yr--

56. 56 Modified Urethane Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial10.09.910.0 HPS-41-yr9.29.710.0 2-yr9.59.79.89.3

57. 57 Polyurea Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial9.710.0 Mark 751-yr9.79.89.59.7 2-yr10.0 9.8 Initial10.0 Glomarc 901-yr9.59.310.0 2-yr9.810.0 Initial8.99.910.0 HPS-51-yr9.39.59.89.5 2-yr10.0

58. 58 Preformed Thermoplastic Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Premark Contrast Initial5.67.35.76.1 1-yr5.87.7 7.3 2-yr7.57.86.35.0 Premark Plus Initial5.99.79.38.4 1-yr7.08.79.07.8 2-yr6.27.36.24.3

59. 59 Methyl Methacrylate Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Initial3.79.49.36.4 Ennis MMA1-yr4.08.78.06.5 2-yr5.39.58.75.8

60. 60 Durable Tapes Nighttime Visibility (0 ~ 10) MaterialAgeLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W 3M 380WR ES Initial8.7 9.79.4 1-yr8.08.79.08.8 2-yr8.88.78.58.3 3M 270 ES Initial9.910.0 1-yr9.29.7 9.2 2-yr9.59.79.07.5

61. 61 Service Life Prediction

62. 62 Retroreflectivity Models Linear Model Power Model Exponential Model Natural Logarithmic Model Inverse Polynomial Model

63. 63 Retroreflectivity Modeling A Matlab code was developed to solve for the model parameters a, b and c All nonlinear models were linearized to simplify the analysis Two methods were used in determining the regression parameters:  Ordinary Least Square Method  Weighted Least Square Method

64. 64 Retroreflectivity Modeling The quality of fit was assessed using:  Coefficient of determination, r 2  Mean square of errors, MSE  Several diagnostic figures including: Measured and predicted retro. versus age Measured versus predicted retroreflectivity Confidence interval versus age Prediction interval versus age Standardized error versus age

65. 65 Retroreflectivity Modeling Based on the results, the exponential model provided the most reasonable estimates of the pavement marking service life followed by the linear model (more conservative) In most cases, the weighted least square method produced more reasonable estimates than the ordinary least square method

66. 66 Estimated Service Life (yrs) Material GroupMaterialLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Traffic PaintFast Dry Paint4.22.11.71.9 ThermoSwarcotherm1.01.90.9 Slow Cure Epoxy HPS-26.0 5.83.9 Mark 55.26.0 5.53.6 LS 606.04.55.64.5 Fast Cure Epoxy Mark 55.46.05.25.12.5 LS 701.5 0.80.7 Mod. UrethaneHPS-46.0 4.53.2 Estimated Service Life

67. 67 Estimated Service Life (yrs) Material GroupMaterialLEL-YLLL-WRLL-WREL-W Polyurea Mark 756.03.73.13.0 Glomarc 906.0 5.5 HPS-56.0 Preformed Thermoplastic Premark Cont.6.0 1.0-- Premark Plus6.04.24.1-- MethacrylateEnnis MMA0.04.93.9-- Durable Tapes 3M 380WR ES6.04.03.84.7 3M 270 ES6.04.54.41.8 Estimated Service Life (Cont.)

68. 68 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

69. 69 Material Compatibility Matrix Existing (Old) Material Restripe (New) Material (TxDOT 2004) Thermo WB Paint TapeEpoxyPolyurea Mod. Ureth. MMAButtons ThermoYYNNNNNY WB PaintYYNNNNNY TapeNNNNNNNN EpoxyYYNY–––Y PolyureaYYN–Y––Y Mod. Ureth.YYN––Y–Y MMAYYN–––YY ButtonsNNNNNNNN

70. 70 Material Group Avg. Contracted Cost ($/LF) Avg. Grooving Cost ($/LF) Avg. Removal Cost ($/LF) Service Life (yrs) Traffic Paint0.080.90--Up to 2 yrs Thermoplastic0.350.90--Up to 1 yr Epoxy0.400.90--3 to 5 yrs Modified Urethane 0.630.90--3 to 4 yrs Polyurea1.000.90--3 to 6 yrs Preformed Thermoplastic --0.90-- MMA2.500.90-- Durable Tape2.570.900.754 to 5 yrs

71. 71 Material Group Assumed Service Life (years) Maintenance Strategy 1 Present Value ($/LF) Maintenance Strategy 2 Present Value ($/LF) Traffic Paint 11.521.23 21.441.19 Thermoplastic11.791.50 Epoxy 31.691.47 41.621.43 51.551.40 Modified Urethane 31.921.70 41.851.66

72. 72 Material Group Assumed Service Life (years) Maintenance Strategy 1 Present Value ($/LF) Maintenance Strategy 2 Present Value ($/LF) Polyurea 32.292.07 42.222.03 52.152.00 62.081.97 Preformed Thermoplastic -- MMA-- Durable Tape 44.434.25 54.334.19

73. 73 Conclusions & Recommendations

74. 74 Ennis Fast Dry Traffic Paint The performance of Ennis fast dry waterborne traffic paint was reasonably acceptable for about two years, which is probably due to installing in groove. When applied on the surface, typical service life is about one year. Therefore, it is recommended to consider grooving as a surface preparation technique in the installation of this material.

75. 75 Slow Cure Epoxy HPS-2, Mark 55.2, and LS 60 performed satisfactorily over the two-year performance evaluation period. LS 60 is currently included in ODOT “Approved List”. It is recommended to add Mark 55.2 and HPS-2.

76. 76 Fast Cure Epoxy LS 70 failed due to durability in less than eight months. Therefore, it is not recommended to approve this material. Mark 55.4 had one of the highest retroreflectivity deterioration rates. Therefore, it is recommended to review recent projects striped with this material to determine whether to keep it or remove it from the “Approved List”.

77. 77 Modified Urethane HPS-4 had comparable performance to slow cure epoxies. Slightly more expensive. Yet, it dries much faster, which makes it desirable for areas with high traffic volumes since it requires less traffic control. Therefore, it is recommended to conditionally approve this material. Large glass beads loss is of concern.

78. 78 Polyurea Glomarc 90 had the highest retroreflectivity throughout the study. Epoplex has recently changed the bead systems used in Glomarc 90. Therefore, this material shall be revaluated with the new bead systems. HPS-5 had the lowest retroreflectivity deterioration rate. It is recommended to include HPS-5 in ODOT “Approved List”. Mark 75 did not perform as satisfactorily. All products had a washed-out appearance after 2 yrs.

79. 79 Preformed Thermoplastic The performance of Premark Plus and Premark Contrast was comparable to the less expensive slow cure epoxies. Therefore, it is not recommended to use them for longitudinal applications on PCC concrete bridge decks.

80. 80 Methyl Methacrylate Poor installation of Duraset 1 resulted in poor performance. Additional evaluation may be required to assess the performance of this material. At the present, it is not recommended to include it in ODOT “Approved List”. The performance of Duraset Pathfinder was comparable to that of the less expensive slow cure epoxies. Therefore, it is not recommended to include it in ODOT “Approved List.”

81. 81 Durable Tapes Durable tapes did not seem to offer clear advantage over the less expensive slow cure epoxies under dry conditions. Additional research may be needed to evaluate the performance of wet-retroreflective tapes under wet night conditions.

82. 82 Implementation

83. 83 Implementation It is recommended to use the following materials on PCC bridge decks:  Ennis fast dry waterborne traffic paint (for bridges with low to medium traffic volumes or as part of a mainline asphalt pavement striping project)  LS 60  HPS-2  Mark 55.2  Mark 55.4  HPS-4  HPS-5

84. 84 Implementation (Cont.) It is recommended to add the following materials to ODOT “Approved List”:  HPS-2  Mark 55.2  HPS-4  HPS-5

85. 85 Questions?