National Academies Press: OpenBook

Effective Removal of Pavement Markings (2013)

Chapter: Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations

« Previous: Appendix C - State Pavement Marking Removal Specifications
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effective Removal of Pavement Markings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22474.
×
Page 138

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.

D-1 A P P E N D I X D Summary Data from Field Removal Evaluations Table D-1. Data summary from removal on PCC test deck. Marking Type Removal Method Removal Strategy Removal Rate (ft/hr) Degree of Removal Removal Rating Measured RL CCD Luminance (cd/m2) Measured Brightness (Y) Scar Depth (in) Estimated Texture Depth (mm) Day Night Modified Urethane Road Surface None 26 1434 0.696 28.34 0.457 Orbital Flailing Light 1980 7 3 78 1829 1.733 39.17 0.03 0.478 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1020 9 4 66 1520 1.617 47.72 0.04 0.597 High Pressure Water Light 6000 9 5 47 1289 1.076 31.41 0.02 0.761 High Pressure Water Heavy 4020 10 5 31 1417 0.806 28.23 0.04 0.657 Flailing Light 4500 8 3 66 1657 1.545 40.78 0.05 0.706 Flailing Heavy 4200 8 2 64 1795 1.555 40.09 0.09 0.66 Thermoplastic Road Surface None 30 548 0.74 30.37 0.655 Orbital Flailing Light 3600 7 4 51 683 1.339 49.56 0.01 0.594 Orbital Flailing Heavy 3000 9 5 46 687 1.179 41.72 0.02 0.506 High Pressure Water Light 5160 9 4 36 586 0.927 30.23 0.01 0.753 High Pressure Water Heavy 4020 10 5 37 542 0.982 30.83 0.02 0.853 Flailing Heavy 5160 10 3 50 658 1.349 39.39 0.04 0.731 Combined 4800(f), 7980(hpw) 10 4 41 618 1.058 34.64 0.01 0.908 Methyl Methacrylate Road Surface None 29 808 0.71 Orbital Flailing Light 3000 5 2 58 920 1.564 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1500 9 5 54 870 1.313 High Pressure Water Light 2040 8 4 68 652 1.381 High Pressure Water Heavy 2040 9 4 56 809 1.313 Flailing Light 2760 10 2 52 849 1.352 Flailing Heavy 2580 10 2 51 873 1.321 Combined 4800(f), 5520(hpw) 10 4 34 639 0.964 Polyurea Road Surface None 25 1092 0.736 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1020 7 3 78 945 1.748 High Pressure Water Light 4800 9 4 39 705 0.931 High Pressure Water Heavy 3780 10 5 33 1094 0.813 Flailing Light 4740 8 2 79 928 1.775 Flailing Heavy 4260 10 1 71 979 1.832 (continued on next page)

D-2 Table D-1. (Continued). Preformed Thermoplastic Road Surface None 26 2486 0.733 0.488 Orbital Flailing Light 1980 8 4 49 3082 1.275 0.02 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1020 9 4 54 2963 1.381 0.02 High Pressure Water Light 4500 9 4 39 2301 1.065 0.03 0.779 High Pressure Water Heavy 3600 10 4 31 2466 0.729 0.03 0.605 Flailing Light 2040 9 1 72 3039 1.625 0.03 0.869 Flailing Heavy 1440 10 1 62 3203 1.705 0.09 Combined 4800(f), 4500(hpw) 10 4 57 2400 1.196 0.1 0.82 Permanent Tape Road Surface None 26 1820 0.74 30.8 Orbital Flailing Light 1920 8 3 36 1892 1.037 34.43 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1740 10 4 44 2137 1.183 41.82 High Pressure Water Light 2400 7 4 34 1367 0.945 23.72 High Pressure Water Heavy 1800 9 4 23 1629 0.667 27.23 Flailing Light 2580 6 2 52 1513 1.256 37.97 Flailing Heavy 1800 10 3 53 2316 1.453 47.12 Combined 4800(f), 4200(hpw) 9 4 40 1466 0.977 30.1 Marking Type Removal Method Removal Strategy Removal Rate (ft/hr) Degree of Removal Removal Rating Measured RL CCD Luminance (cd/m2) Measured Brightness (Y) Scar Depth (in) Estimated Texture Depth (mm) Day Night Table D-2. Data summary from removal on asphalt test deck. Marking Type Removal Method Removal Strategy Removal Rate (ft/hr) Degree of Removal Removal Rating Measured RL CCD Luminance (cd/m2) Measured Brightness (Y) Scar Depth (in) Estimated Texture Depth (mm) Day (Toward Sun) Day (Away from Sun) Night High-Build Paint Road Surface None 9 3002 1554 0.2851 7.15 0.901 Orbital Flailing Light 2400 6 2 66 3570 3026 1.423 20.3 0 0.6 Orbital Flailing Heavy 780 8 3 47 3025 2744 0.906 26.51 0.04 0.789 High Pressure Water Light 3600 10 3 20 2330 1611 0.361 10.39 0.06 2.552 High Pressure Water Heavy 3300 10 3 18 2136 1703 0.42 9 0.07 4.236 Flailing Light 5160 8 3 59 3404 3162 1.022 20.65 0.1 0.942 Flailing Heavy 3300 9 3 41 3131 2937 0.795 29.45 0.11 0.862 Preformed Thermoplastic Road Surface None 9 2523 1744 0.343 9.97 1.062 Orbital Flailing Light 480 4 2 64 3694 4911 1.692 30.45 0 2.405 Orbital Flailing Heavy 420 5 2 69 3727 4851 2.241 36.55 0.02 1.746 High Pressure Water Light 1800 10 2 12 1737 1481 0.316 5.53 0.18 3.783 High Pressure Water Heavy 1620 10 2 21 1870 1550 0.477 5.03 0.2 5.091 Flailing Light 3120 4 3 74 498 6411 2.337 53.93 0.1 0.862 Flailing Heavy 1200 10 2 42 2761 3678 1.605 19.23 0.16 2.364 Combined Heavy 3600(f), 3660(hpw) 9 1 41 2288 1839 0.853 6.6 0.18 4.195

D-3 Table D-2. (Continued). Marking Type Removal Method Removal Strategy Removal Rate (ft/hr) Degree of Removal Removal Rating Measured RL CCD Luminance (cd/m2) Measured Brightness (Y) Scar Depth (in) Estimated Texture Depth (mm) Day (Toward Sun) Day (Away from Sun) Night Thermoplastic Road Surface None 9 2385 1684 0.281 7.21 1.08 Orbital Flailing Light 480 6 2 51 2897 3833 1.276 26.81 0.751 Orbital Flailing Heavy 420 8 3 37 2213 2458 1.002 19.15 1.117 High Pressure Water Light 1920 10 3 11 1465 1446 0.301 5.1 3.3 High Pressure Water Heavy 1800 10 2 12 1626 1500 0.34 5.81 3.707 Flailing Light 2580 6 2 50 2134 3776 1.101 20.26 1.656 Flailing Heavy 2400 9 2 47 2207 3674 1.214 22.04 1.957 Combined Heavy 2880(f), 3300(hpw) 10 1 15 1540 1778 0.44 7.67 3.534 Waterborne Paint Road Surface None 9 1437 0.29 9.6 0.9415 Orbital Flailing Light 1200 6 2 48 2047 1.099 19.21 0.01 0.804 Orbital Flailing Heavy 840 8 3 42 1951 1.063 25.4 0.04 0.759 High Pressure Water Light 3600 10 3 24 1358 0.553 6.7 0.06 2.702 High Pressure Water Heavy 2760 10 4 20 1197 0.491 6.14 0.06 2.228 Flailing Light 6000 8 3 59 2163 1.24 17.33 na 0.993 Flailing Heavy 2580 10 3 38 1969 0.922 24.57 0.1 1.066 Marking Type Removal Method Removal Strategy Removal Rate (ft/hr) Degree of Removal Removal Rating Measured RL CCD Luminance (cd/m2) Measured Brightness (Y) Scar Depth (in) Estimated Texture Depth (mm) Day Night Thermoplastic on Concrete Road Surface 17 13.57 0.883 Orbital Flailing Heavy 2340 8 2 38 see Figure D-1 see Figure D-2 32.41 0 0.589 High Pressure Water Heavy 3960 10 4 26 see Figure D-1 see Figure D-2 23.91 0 1.059 Flailing Heavy 7620 9 3 41 see Figure D-1 see Figure D-2 36.5 0 0.572 Dual Removal Heavy 27120(f), 14280(hpw) 10 4 25 see Figure D-1 see Figure D-2 27.12 0 0.801 Paint on Concrete Road Surface 17 3143 0.451 13.57 0.854 Orbital Flailing Heavy 720 9 3 86 8790 1.855 44.77 0.01 0.597 High Pressure Water Heavy 4320 10 4 26 5196 0.698 24.34 0.01 1.014 Flailing Light 4320 9 3 76 9093 1.664 38.29 0.08 0.676 Flailing Heavy 2700 10 2 43 7869 1.062 29.88 0.09 0.58 Hand Flailing Heavy 240 10 2 49 8147 1.247 40.98 0.07 0.569 Paint on Asphalt Road Surface 22 5043 0.765 15.51 0.588 Orbital Flailing Heavy 1260 8 4 48 5407 1.381 25.3 0.06 0.815 High Pressure Water Heavy 3360 10 4 20 3194 0.571 12.56 0.1 1.331 Flailing Light 6660 8 3 45 5515 0.935 31.95 0.13 0.951 Flailing Heavy 3540 10 2 115 7381 2.1551 36.22 0.2 0.748 Hand Flailing Heavy 300 7 2 74 6385 1.746 27.97 0.12 0.875 Table D-3. Data summary from closed-course removal.

D-4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 100 200 300 Lu m in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Evaluation Distance (ft) High-pressure Water Blasting Flailing Orbital Flailing Combined Figure D-1. CCD luminance during daytime toward sun from long-line thermoplastic removal on closed-course PCC. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 100 200 300 Lu m in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Evaluation Distance (ft) High-pressure Water Blasting Flailing Orbital Flailing Combined Figure D-2. CCD luminance during nighttime (low beam) from long-line thermoplastic removal on closed-course PCC. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 2 4 6 8 10 M ea su re d R L (m cd /m 2 / lu x) RL vs Degree of Removal RL vs Removal Rating Figure D-3. PCC test deck retroreflectivity vs qualitative assessments.

D-5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 2 4 6 8 10 M ea su re d R L (m cd /m 2 / lu x) RL vs Degree of Removal RL vs Removal Rating Figure D-4. Asphalt test deck retroreflectivity vs qualitative assessments. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 2 4 6 8 10 M ea su re d R L (m cd /m 2 / lu x) RL vs Degree of Removal RL vs Removal Rating Figure D-5. Closed-course test deck retroreflectivity vs qualitative assessments. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 50 100 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Measured RL (mcd/m2/lux) CCD Night vs RL Measured Brightness (Y) vs RL Figure D-6. PCC test deck comparisons to retroreflectivity.

D-6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 20 40 60 80 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Measured RL (mcd/m2/lux) CCD Night vs RL Measured Brightness (Y) vs RL Figure D-7. Asphalt test deck comparisons to retroreflectivity. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 50 100 150 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Measured RL (mcd/m2/lux) CCD Night vs RL Measured Brightness (Y) vs RL Figure D-8. Closed-course test deck comparisons to retroreflectivity. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Removal Rating CCD Night vs Removal Rating Measured Brightness (Y) vs Removal Rating Figure D-9. PCC test deck photometric measurements vs removal rating.

D-7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Removal Rating CCD Night vs Removal Rating Measured Brightness (Y) vs Removal Rating Figure D-10. Asphalt test deck photometric measurements vs removal rating. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 M ea su re d Br ig ht ne ss (Y ) CC D N ig ht L um in an ce (c d/ m 2 ) Removal Rating CCD Night vs Removal Rating Measured Brightness (Y) vs Removal Rating Figure D-11. Closed-course test deck photometric measurements vs removal rating. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 2 4 6 8 10 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Degree of Removal Scar Depth vs Degree of Removal Estimated Texture Depth vs Degree of Removal Figure D-12. PCC test deck comparisons to degree of removal.

D-8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Degree of Removal Scar Depth vs Degree of Removal Estimated Texture Depth vs Degree of Removal Figure D-13. Asphalt test deck comparisons to degree of removal. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Degree of Removal Scar Depth vs Degree of Removal Estimated Texture Depth vs Degree of Removal Figure D-14. Closed-course test deck comparisons to degree of removal. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Removal Rating Scar Depth vs Removal Rating Estimated Texture Depth vs Removal Rating Figure D-15. PCC test deck surface damage measurements vs removal rating.

D-9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Removal Rating Scar Depth vs Removal Rating Estimated Texture Depth vs Removal Rating Figure D-16. Asphalt test deck surface damage measurements vs removal rating. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Es ti m at ed T ex tu re D ep th (m m ) Sc ar D ep th (i n. ) Removal Rating Scar Depth vs Removal Rating Estimated Texture Depth vs Removal Rating Figure D-17. Closed-course test deck surface damage measurements vs removal rating.

Next: Appendix E - Standalone Pros and Cons of Each Removal Process Including Effectiveness with Respect to Pavement Marking Materials »
Effective Removal of Pavement Markings Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 759: Effective Removal of Pavement Markings aids in the selection of safe, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable practices for the removal of work zone and permanent pavement markings. The practices highlighted in this report emphasize minimal damage to the underlying pavement or visible character of the surface course.

  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!