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.
