National Academies Press: OpenBook

Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications (2010)

Chapter: Chapter One - Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14437.
×
Page 10

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5STUDY OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Objectives The primary objective of this study has been to compile information on the existing and potential use of warranty specifications for pavement markings on U.S. and Canadian highways. Further objectives have been to compare U.S. practice with Canadian experience and with the European approach to pavement marking warranties, and to identify gaps in current knowledge that suggest needs for future research. Pavement Markings Pavement markings encompass lane dividers, pavement edge marking, crosswalks, “Stop” bars, symbols (such as direc- tional arrows), cross-hatching, and messages or legends that provide information, guidance, and warnings to motorized and nonmotorized road users. Pavement markings play an important role in reducing congestion and improving safety by guiding traffic flows, providing modal separation, getting the attention of drivers at critical locations, and providing information that promotes safe and smooth vehicular and pedestrian movement. Markings comprise different materials including various types of paints, thermoplastics, preformed thermoplastic, tape, polymer materials, and different categories of discrete physical markers [e.g., raised pavement markers (RPMs), recessed markers, snowplowable markers]. Highway Construction Warranties Pavement marking warranties are one form of highway con- struction warranty. Construction warranties transfer the risk inherent in maintaining acceptable asset performance to a private sector firm—a contractor or materials manufacturer— in exchange for a potentially higher bid price. Additional benefits may attend to warranty use, particularly in improved product quality and performance. To date, state department of transportation (DOT) experience with pavement marking warranties varies among agencies, but warranty acceptance, use, and willingness to experiment with longer-duration specifications appear to be increasing. Canadian provincial agencies, materials manufacturers, and contractors that pro- vided information for this study exhibited a strong accep- tance of pavement marking warranties and confidence in their ability to achieve their respective objectives under a fair and reasonable warranty arrangement. Successful U.S. and Canadian firms have honed production, procurement, and application practices that enable them to meet performance requirements even when faced with demanding traffic, win- tertime, or other road conditions. Transportation agencies may consider the use of pave- ment marking warranties to gain one or more benefits—for example, superior performance, reduced need for inspection personnel, reduced life-cycle costs, and potential for con- tractor innovation. Warranties are attractive particularly if a potentially higher bid price is still cheaper than other options; for example, the cost of more frequent pavement re-marking, the cost to highway users of degraded safety and of increased congestion owing to road occupancy during more frequent re-marking, or the cost of research and development that would be needed by agencies to develop superior marking materials and methods on their own. However, there are also drawbacks to pavement marking warranties that are cited by other agencies that choose not to use them; for example, increased demands on personnel to ensure warranty com- pliance, greater administrative burdens, delays in closing out highway construction contracts, and adverse impacts to construction contractors. This study has explored these different motivations and opinions that surround warranty specifications. Value of This Study Both the public and the private sectors have worthwhile knowl- edge, experience, and perceptions of pavement marking per- formance and the application of warranty specifications. How- ever, to date, this information has not been organized within a single source for use by the highway community. In meeting this objective, this synthesis report serves several purposes: • To inform readers of the status of pavement marking warranty use; • To illustrate current variations in warranty requirements, duration, and administration; • To identify factors underlying different warranty provi- sions and approaches; for example, the type of marking (longitudinal, transverse, legend), the marking material, geographic location and climate, traffic volume, and so forth; CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

• To present the pros and cons of such warranties as expressed by knowledgeable parties; and • To provide examples of pavement marking warranty specifications now used by several agencies. Scope The scope of this study encompasses several topics that will inform readers of the development, use, and effects of pave- ment marking warranty specifications: • Current agency use of pavement marking warranty specifications and their degree of satisfaction to date. • Impact of state law and departmental policy on agen- cies’ evaluations of whether or not to consider using pavement marking warranty specifications. • Assessments of the cost impacts of pavement marking warranty specifications; that is, the additional costs to the agency of warranty use and the presumed life-cycle benefits in terms of long-term cost reductions to the agency and to road users. • The types of warranty specifications used by transporta- tion agencies, and the party (or parties) held responsible for meeting warranty requirements. • The duration of the warranty period, and how that length varies with marking material and other factors. • Technical aspects of warranty administration; for exam- ple, the types of specifications and data provided to bid- ders, frequency of pavement marking inspection once the installed markings have been accepted, typical mea- sures used to characterize pavement marking perfor- mance, corrective measures specified for the contractor or materials manufacturer to maintain compliance, and effects of external factors (e.g., snow plowing and traf- fic volume) on warranty requirements and responsibili- ties of the contractor or materials manufacturer. • Financial and business aspects of warranty administra- tion; for example, payment schedules (particularly for multi-year warranties); bonding arrangements, if any; and whether discussions with the construction industry have been held before warranty implementation. • The benefits of pavement marking warranty specifica- tions as perceived by agencies that have successfully implemented them and continue to use them. • By contrast, the perceived drawbacks of pavement marking warranty specifications that have caused agencies to discontinue their use or dissuaded agen- cies from considering warranties if they have not yet used them. • Examples of pavement marking warranty specifications currently in use by state and provincial transportation agencies. The study has focused on pavement marking warranty speci- fications associated with conventional contracting approaches to construction projects; that is, design-bid-build (DBB). These projects would involve the application of pavement 6 markings as part of new pavement construction, road resur- facing, or re-marking of an existing surface. STUDY APPROACH This synthesis study has gathered relevant information through a review of the domestic and international literature, surveys of U.S. state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation agen- cies, and interviews with private sector firms involved in man- ufacturing materials for or applying pavement markings. The literature review provided an historical perspective on high- way construction warranties generally and pavement marking warranties specifically. It also established background infor- mation on the domestic use of warranty specifications as com- pared with Canadian and European experience. The state DOT survey was conducted with the assistance of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. The survey of Canadian provincial agencies was facilitated by the Trans- portation Association of Canada. Interviews with materials manufacturers and U.S. and Canadian pavement marking contractors were conducted by telephone, based on contacts suggested by the Topic Panel. The initial round of the survey, which included several electronic mailings, yielded 32 responses: 24 from U.S. state DOTs and 8 from Canadian provincial agencies. At a subse- quent meeting with the Topic Panel it was agreed that the number of survey responses was not sufficient to represent an accurate picture of current pavement marking warranty use. An additional round of surveys was conducted, first by another electronic mailing and then by telephone, using a streamlined version of the questionnaire. This latest round brought the total number of responses to 48, as tallied in Table 1. In addition to response rate, Table 1 gives the num- ber of agencies that provided current examples of their spec- ifications for pavement marking warranties. Several agencies sent more than one specification, because their warranties cover multiple pavement marking materials or different per- formance periods. These example specifications are compiled in Appendix D (a web-only portion of the report). Survey responses were organized further according to agency interest and experience in using pavement marking warranty specifications. The relevant categories are described here, with the breakdown of all responses summarized in Figure 1. • Agencies that now use pavement marking warranties. Twenty-three of the 48 responding agencies (48%) now use pavement marking warranties and are likely to con- tinue to do so. One agency reported a history of war- ranty use extending more than two decades. Several have applied their experience to expanding the scope of their warranties, and others have already implemented or are considering improvements in their warranty administration. Of the 23 agencies that now use pave- ment marking warranties, 15 sent examples of their specifications (see Table 1), which provided good cov-

7erage of many details of warranty requirements and administration. • Agencies that have discontinued their use of pave- ment marking warranties. Three of the 48 respond- ing agencies (6%) reported that they had used pave- ment marking warranties, but have since discontinued their use. • Agencies that do not use and have no plans for future use of pavement marking warranties. Twelve of the 48 responding agencies (25%) do not now use pavement marking warranties and are unlikely to revise their position in the foreseeable future. • Agencies that have not used pavement marking warranties but are potentially interested. Ten of the 48 responding agencies (21%) do not now use pave- ment marking warranties, but are willing to consider future use. The statistical findings of the survey that are presented in chapter three are based primarily on the responses from the 23 U.S. and Canadian agencies that reported current use of pavement marking warranties. In addition to these analytic results, the survey yielded considerable supplementary infor- mation through managers’ responses to open-ended questions. This additional information supplied reasons for particular responses to questions, pointed out directions toward which the agency’s warranty program is now evolving, discussed factors (such as climate and materials quality control) that affect pavement marking performance and ways in which warranties account for those influences, and suggested needs for future research. This supplementary information is likewise discussed in chapter three. WARRANTY NOMENCLATURE AND PERFORMANCE TIMELINE A nationally recognized quality assurance glossary presents the following definition: Warranty specifications. A type of performance specification that guarantees the integrity of a product and assigns responsibility for the repair or replacement of defects to the contractor (Source: Glossary of Highway . . . May 2005). Agency Category Population Surveyed No. of Responses (response rate) No. Providing Warranty Specifications U.S. State Departments of Transportation 50 40 (80%) 13 Canadian Provincial and Territorial Transportation Organizations 13 8 (62%) 2 Total for All Agencies Surveyed 63 48 (76%) 15 TABLE 1 TALLY OF SURVEY RESPONSES Currently Use Pavement Marking Warranties 48% Have Used Pavement Marking Warranties But Discontinued Use 6% Do Not Use & Have No Plans For Pavement Marking Warranties 25% Do Not Use Pavement Marking Warranties But Are Potentially Interested 21% FIGURE 1 Breakdown of survey respondents.

Under this umbrella, two types of warranty specifications are further defined: Materials and workmanship warranties. Specifications that hold the contractor responsible for correcting defects in work elements within the contractor’s control during the warranty period. [Under materials and workmanship warranties [for pave- ments], the highway agency is responsible for the pavement structural design. The contractor assumes no responsibility for pavement design or those distresses that result from shortcom- ings in the design. Some responsibility is shifted from the agency to the contractor for materials selection and workmanship.] Performance warranties. Specifications that hold the contrac- tor fully responsible for product performance during the war- ranty period. [Under performance warranties [for pavements], the contractor guarantees that the pavement will perform at a desirable quality level. The contractor assumes some level of responsibility, depending on the specific project, for the struc- tural pavement or decisions on the mix.] (Source: Glossary of Highway . . . May 2005. Note: The outer set of [square brackets] in each definition above is part of the published definition. The inner set of square brackets [for pave- ments] has been inserted by the author to clarify that the defini- tions presume the application of these warranties to pavement projects.) Although these definitions could be adapted from “pave- ment warranties” to “pavement marking warranties,” later findings will show that a more refined explanation of war- ranty timeline and nomenclature will be useful. It will help in understanding how agencies actually implement warranty specifications with respect to various periods of performance monitoring. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate several options currently in use. Together they illustrate different ways of structuring pavement marking warranties and establish a consistent nomenclature for use in later chapters. Figure 2 presents the typical sequence of events conducted by most of the 23 agencies that reported using pavement marking warranties. • After application or installation the pavement mark- ings are inspected to determine that they conform to project construction specifications, in which case they are accepted by the agency in the “initial acceptance” period shown in Figure 2. If deficiencies in the initial 8 application require correction, this repair must be com- pleted before the markings will be accepted. The time allowed for such repair is specified in the construction documents and is considered part of the “initial accep- tance” period in Figure 2. • Figure 2 illustrates two options in how a pavement marking warranty period is described in specifications. Option (a) shows the warranty period measured from marking installation or application. Option (b) shows the warranty period commencing after the pavement markings are initially accepted. Because the time between installation/application and inspection/acceptance can be relatively short (e.g., 30 days or less), the practical difference in the durations of these two options is gen- erally negligible, particularly for multi-year warranties. The duration of current U.S. and Canadian pavement marking warranties varies from 180 days (6 months) to 6 years (72 months), based on information reported by surveyed agencies. Warranties in force for less than 1 year may be used by agencies that manage roads in harsh climates or that use short-lifetime products such as paint. These warranty periods are structured intentionally to encompass a single winter season. Figure 3 illustrates this subset of the general case described earlier. The initial acceptance period in Figure 3 includes inspec- tions to verify that pavement markings conform to construc- (Not to Scale) (a) Warranty Period Measured from Date of Application / Installation Initial Acceptance (b) Warranty Period Measured from Date of Acceptance Inspection After Application Typically 6 Months to 6 Years FIGURE 2 Typical pavement marking warranty timeline. (Not to Scale) Warranty Period (IL: "Performance Period") Example: 180 Days Through One Winter Initial Acceptance Post-Application Inspection; Specs May Also Impose Calendar Dates Note: IL = Illinois DOT. FIGURE 3 Pavement marking warranty timeline through one winter period.

9tion specifications, as discussed for Figure 2. However, the actual start of the warranty period may also be affected by calendar dates imposed by contract. For example, specifica- tions may call for the warranty period to start on the later of two dates—the date of initial acceptance or a particular date specified in the contract (usually in October or November). This method ensures that the warranty period (i.e., 180 days in Figure 3) carries through the entire winter season. Although one agency refers to the second period in Figure 3 as a “per- formance period,” this report will use the label “warranty period.” This practice follows the more widespread usage among other agencies that apply the warranty concept of Fig- ure 3, and reserves the term “performance period” for another interpretation that is explained here. Some agencies use other configurations of pavement marking warranties: • Following application, there is an “observation period” in which the pavement markings are observed in ser- vice for a specified length of time; for example, 180 days (6 months). This observation period may itself be the basis for initial acceptance, followed by a longer war- ranty period. This approach is used by Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), Nebraska, and South Carolina for their durable pavement markings (Figure 4). • Alternately, initial acceptance may be followed by an additional “performance period,” the approach used by Texas for its RPMs and Delaware for its retroreflec- tive preformed patterned tape. The performance period is followed by a longer warranty period, as shown in Figure 5. • Deficiencies in meeting construction specification requirements that are observed during the initial accep- tance period or the performance or observation periods must be corrected before moving to the next performance monitoring stage. • Following successful completion of the performance or observation period, the warranty period begins, typi- cally extending for 1 to 6 years of additional time. For those surveyed states that use an observation period, the warranty is provided by the manufacturer of a durable pavement marking product. Figures 2 through 5 reinforce that state and provincial agen- cies evaluate pavement marking performance in a number of ways through different contractually defined periods. For purposes of this study, the definition of a “pavement marking warranty period” has been based on the following consider- ations: (1) how individual agencies have characterized their own pavement marking performance periods in their specifi- cations and survey responses; (2) a consensus among sur- veyed agencies that a warranty of performance follows, and is distinct from, meeting construction specification require- ments during marking application/installation; and (3) a con- sensus among surveyed agencies that successful conclusion of a warranty period relieves the contractor and/or materials manufacturer of further responsibility for pavement marking performance. To recap the nomenclature that will be used in this report: • Initial acceptance: the determination of whether pave- ment markings meet project construction specifications for initial performance. An inspection to make this deter- mination typically occurs within a short time following application (e.g., 30 days or less), but pavement marking initial acceptance may occur, for example, up to 180 days after application if an observation period is used. (Not to Scale) Warranty Period Typically 1 to 6 Years Observation Period Typically 180 Days FIGURE 4 Pavement marking warranty timeline involving an observation period. (Not to Scale) Inspection After Application Initial Accept- ance Performance Period Warranty Period 60 Days (TxDOT RPMs) or 1 Year (DelDOT Tape) 1 Year (TxDOT RPMs) or 4 Years (DelDOT Tape) FIGURE 5 Pavement marking warranty timeline involving a performance period. TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation; RPMs = raised pavement markers; DelDOT = Delaware DOT.

• Observation period (as used by Maryland, Nebraska, and South Carolina for durable pavement mark- ings): typically a 180-day period following application to determine whether pavement markings meet proj- ect construction specifications for an initial period of performance. • Performance period [as used by the Texas DOT (TxDOT) and Delaware DOT]: a period following initial acceptance to evaluate further the performance of pavement marking materials and installation, but before commencing the provisions of the warranty specification. • Warranty period: a period after construction accep- tance during which the provisions of the warranty spec- ifications apply. Warranty periods often extend for 1 to 6 years. Some warranties (e.g., in harsh climates or for paint) may extend for 180 days (6 months) and may encompass a winter period. The successful conclusion of the warranty period relieves the contractor and/or materials manufacturer of any further responsibilities for pavement marking performance. Multi-year, performance-based warranty specifications are often linked with an alternate method of contracting, design-build (DB). The contracting relationships in DB and the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sec- tor entities involved are different, however, from those in the more conventional DBB projects envisioned in this study. For example, the relationships inherent in work per- formance and acceptance in Figures 2 through 5 do not apply under DB; moreover, warranty specifications used with DB are subject to a separate set of federal regulations (23 CFR 635.413(e)). To maintain focus and consistency, 10 this study deals with conventional DBB projects and does not address DB contracts. ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS Chapter two provides background information drawn from the literature review: a brief history of construction warranty use in the United States, with lessons learned from these early trials; description of the activities of the FHWA related to pavement marking performance and warranty administra- tion; and a summary of measures of the performance of pave- ment markings that are widely applied in warranty specifi- cations. Chapter three presents the main findings of this study, drawing on statistical tallies of key survey results from U.S. state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation min- istries, as well as interviews with pavement marking con- tractors and materials manufacturers. This chapter also covers the review of literature related to European pavement markings warranty practices. Chapter four concludes the report. The survey questionnaire, which was developed with the advice and assistance of the Topic Panel, is reproduced in Appendix A. The interview guide that was used in discussions with the contractors and materials manufacturers is included in Appendix B. Agencies and firms that participated in the sur- vey and the interviews, respectively, are listed in Appendix C. Examples of pavement marking warranty specifications that were provided by agencies as part of their survey responses are compiled in Appendix D (which is provided as a web-only portion of this report). Appendix E (also web only) describes comparative road construction–warranty practices of several European nations as identified in previ- ous reports and two international scans conducted by the FHWA and AASHTO.

Next: Chapter Two - Background and Context »
Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 408: Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications presents information on the use of pavement marking warranties by United States and Canadian transportation agencies, including agency specifications. European experience is also included in the report for comparison purposes.

Appendices D and E for NCHRP Synthesis 408 are available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!