Road Marking Report

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Road surface marking is a type of material or device which is used on a surface of road so
as to convey driving information. These materials are also used in other facilities such as
mark parking spaces and lay byes.
Pavement markings are used to delineate roadways (for instance, to identify the division
between opposing traffic, different lanes and pavement edges) and to provide horizontal
traffic visual cues to road users (markings to indicate turn movements, stop bars, crosswalks,
etc.). The markings assist the driver in detecting geometric changes downstream, support
passing and merging maneuvres and delineate safe travel boundaries for the driver. These
markings play a critical role in the driving task under short, medium and long-range detection
distances [4].
Road surface markings are used on paved roadways to provide guidance and information to
drivers and pedestrians [27] . Uniformity of the road markings is very important factor in
minimizing confusion among drivers and uncertainty about their meaning. Lot of efforts are
being made by various countries to standardize road markings [27]. Different countries and
areas categorize and specify road surface markings in different ways.
Road surface markings may be mechanical, non-mechanical, or temporary. They can be used
to clearly show traffic lanes, inform drivers and pedestrians .They also serve as noise
generators when run across a road. They are also used to make an attempt to wake a sleeping
driver when installed in the shoulders of a road. Road surface marking can also be used to
show clearly parking and stopping areas [13].
Road markings along with traffic signals and signs are used as traffic control devices to
govern, control and guide traffic movement and help to ensure safety on the highway. Traffic
marking typically include longitudinal or transverse lines, symbols, and signs to the
pavement [33]. Traffic marking performance is evaluated by factors such as general daylight
appearance, color, film condition, bead retention, and reflectance.
Typical traffic marking products include:
• Traffic Paint
1
• Thermoplastics
• Preformed Tapes
• Epoxy
• Polyester
When using a specific traffic marking type, limitations such as:
• Application temperature
• Durability under snow removal equipment
• Cost effectiveness
• Reflectivity
• Service life
• Field installation should be considered.
During daytime, drivers recognize pavement markings frequently by color contrast between
the marking and the pavement surface. However, Nighttime visibility is strictly a function of
the luminous contrast between the pavement markings and the road surface, which is
generally determined by the pavement marking retro reflectivity [14] . Retro reflectivity is a
term used to describe the amount of light returned back to a source, such as the amount of
light from a vehicle’s headlight that is reflected back toward the driver. The reflected light
provides the driver with roadway information and enables a safer drive at night. Retro
reflectivity is represented by a measure referred to as the coefficient of retro reflected
luminance RL, which is expressed in units of milli candelas per square meter per
lux/mcd/m2/lx ASTM 2001. The current ASTM standard requires that retro reflectometers
use a 30-m geometry ASTM 2005 [14].
Pavement marking retro reflectivity is achieved through the use of glass beads on the surface
of, and partially embedded in, the paint. Auto headlights are reflected in all directions when
illuminated on markings without beads, and only a small amount of light is reflected back to
the driver . In contrast, a much greater quantity of light is reflected back to the driver if the
marking contains glass beads. Using glass beads in a reflective binder, such as paint, to
achieve nighttime retro reflectivity is now a world-wide accepted practice. Pavement marking
retro reflectivity values is intuitively thought to depend on the quantities and qualities of the
glass beads in the markings. However, if a glass bead is fully embedded in the marking
binding material, it will not reflect headlight back to the driver. Retro reflectivity is primarily
achieved by the portion of the beads exposed above the paint [14]
2
1.2 Types of Pavement Marking materials
To meet the objective of proposed work it is desirable to understand the types of pavement
marking materials that are used on the roads of India
1.2.1 Traffic paints
Paints are surface coatings generally suitable for site use, markted in liquid form. Paints
consist of a vehicle, binder and pigment, the former being responsible for setting, gloss and
impermeability, while the latter being responsible for opacity ,color and to some extent to
strength .once applied ,coating must hardened within few hours .Additives such as glass
beads are used with paint to mark the paved roads. Paints are usually applied right after road
has been paved by a truck called STRIPER which contains hundreds of gallons of paint.
Markings are controlled manually or automatically by a controller who sits on the bed [7].
Stencils are used for making painted symbols, such as turn-lane arrows or HOV lane markers,
that too manually. Painted markings usually have a life of 9 to 36 months. Some water based
paints can be applied at double the level of thickness than characteristic latex paints. This
technique can extend the life of the road markings made using paint.
1.2.2 Thermoplastics
One of the most well known types of road marking based on its sense of balance between
cost and durability is thermoplastic. Thermoplastic involves three core
chemistries: hydrocarbons, rosin esters or maleic modified rosin esters (MMRE).
Thermoplastic coatings are normally uniform dry mixes of binder resins, plasticizers, glass
beads (or other optics), pigments, and fillers. The main ingredients of thermoplastic are:
binder, glass beads, titanium dioxide, and calcium carbonate (or filler). To hold the mixture
as a rigid mass we use binder, reflectivity is provided by glass beads, to enhance the
reflectivity we use titanium dioxide and calcium carbonate or sand is used as an inert filler
material. Thermoplastic markings contain 15 to 33 percent binder, 14 to 33 percent glass
beads, 8 to 12 percent titanium dioxide, and 48 to 50 percent filler [24].
The use of thermoplastics has increased over paints largely due to the increased durability,
retro-reflectivity, and a lack of VOC solvents. It is a long-lasting pavement marking material
usually composed of glass beads, pigments, binders (plastics and resins) and fillers.
Hydrocarbon and alkyd are two main types of thermoplastic. Hydrocarbon is a petroleum
derivative, and hence is susceptible to oil. Alkyd is a naturally occurring resin which can
resist oil, but is thin-skinned to heat and therefore needs to be carefully controlled during
3
application [31]. Both types require strict quality control during application as they are very
sensitive to the variables leading the application procedure (Lopez 2004). Thermoplastic road
markings are solid at normal temperatures, so they must be melted for the application (at least
at 200°C). The surface should be properly cleaned and moisture should be removed before
installing thermoplastic. Thermoplastic materials should not be applied on cold pavements
surfaces (poor adhesion may occur). These materials can be re-applied over older
thermoplastic marking They perform equally well on all types of asphalt surfaces.
Thermoplastic markings are applied using specifically designed vehicles. Usually road
marking machine is used to coat traffic lines with thermoplastic marking , and a device
called pre heater is used for preheating of the road paint . The thermoplastic mix is heated
to about 200 °C (400 °F) in trucks before being transferred to the road marking machine.
This is frequently done by screed box or ribbon gun. Glass beads are immediately laid on hot
thermoplastic which is being applied at that time, so that they embed before the plastic
hardens. These beads provide initial retro reflection. As the time passes and marking wears
during use and the initial beads are lost, the beads mixed with the binder are exposed, which
provides long term retro reflectivity. Usually thermoplastic is produced in white and yellow
colors, but sometimes red color may also be produced.
Thermoplastics have excellent durability on asphalt surfaces, which can be attributed to the
thermal bonding mechanism between the heated thermoplastic and the asphalt surface upon
installation, resulting in bond strengths equivalent to that of the cohesive strength within the
asphalt. On the other hand, thermoplastics have poor durability on concrete surfaces due to
the inferior mechanical bond between these two materials during installation, leading to
premature failure on concrete surfaces [11].
Thermoplastics generally have more retroreflectivity than that of the traffic paints especially
under night and wet conditions. They have an average service more than that of the paints
[23].
1.2.3 Preformed Thermoplastic
Preformed thermoplastic markings consist of pigments, reflective glass beads, fillers, binders,
and additives. They are normally used for transverse markings and signs. They are usually
available in large pieces, which are put together as large sheets. The material is placed at the
desired location and material is heated with a propane torch to achieve bonding with
4
pavement. Preformed thermoplastic markings are of two types. The first type does not require
preheating the road surface prior to installation, while the second type requires preheating the
road surface to a prescribed temperature 10 prior to installation [32]. A primer/sealer is
usually required on concrete or old asphalt surfaces. Before applying the preformed
thermoplastic or the primer/sealer the pavement surface must be dry, free of dirt, dust,
chemicals, and oily substances. Mainly preformed thermoplastic materials may be applied at
air temperatures early up to 35ºF. However, surface temperature is critical and must match to
maker’s recommendations [32].
1.2.3.1 Characteristics of performed tapes

• Performed tapes need a slow application and proper surface preparation.
• Cost of preformed tapes is 5 to 10 times higher than thermoplastic.
• Glass beads are added into the material in factory during manufacturing.
• Performed tapes have a longer service life than others road marking systems.
• They have an excellent retro-reflectivity (300-1000 mcd/(lux m2).
• They are not easily damaged by the snowplows as plastic is melted into the surface.
1.2.4 Glow mark Water based road marking compound
Is a water based road marking compound intended to meet the growing needs of traffic
engineering and to provide improved safety measures in modern control systems[16].
Product composition:
• Aggregate: specially selected aggregate, pulverized to required fineness.

• Extender: Dazzling white calcareous material after proper pulverization is used to
ensure uniformity of color through even dispersion of pigments.
• Pigments: a special type of pigment, compatible with base material and capable of
withstanding very high temperature variation is used.
• Binder: A special formulation of resin is used.
Glow mark can be applied on:
• City roads
• Road junctions and speed breakers
• Bridges, flyovers and approach roads
• Runways, helipads and airport traffic control system
5
• National and state highway.
1.2.4.1 Advantages of Glowmark:
• Long life: GM is highly durable and has a life expectancy of 12 to 24 months

compared to 3 to 4 months for conventional cold material.
• Reduced cost recurrence: due to its longevity, maintenance time and expenses get
reduce drastically conventional water based material needs re-coating every 3 to 4 months.
• Instant drying: Due to its fast time, traffic can be released within a few minutes of
application and hence traffic disruption is ruled out.
• Highly visibility: Glossy surface with high retro reflection value ensures high
visibility in all types of weather.
• Good skid resistance: Careful grading of materials gives the product an intrinsic anti
skid property which is essential for driver’s safety.
1.2.4.2 Technical Data
Nature : solid at ambient temperature
Color : white or yellow
Softening Point C at 105 C : 90 C to 105 C
Flow Resistance : Less than 10%
Solubility in Petroleum Fuel : NIL
Sensitivity to Water immediately : NIL
after marking
Gloss : Matt
Pour Temperature : 160 C to 170 C
Safe Heating Temperature : 180 C
Time required for drying : 3-4 minutes
Volume of solids : approx. 61%
Recommended WFT per coat : 100-500 microns
Theoretical Coverage : 4-5 Kg/ sqm at thickness of 2mm
Recommended drop : BS 6088 type II
6
1.3 Performance Evaluation of Pavement Marking
The parameters that are used in this work to evaluate the performance of pavement marking
materials so as to find out the suitability among different materials are retro reflectivity, Skid
resistance and Durability which are explained as follows:
1.3.1 Retro Reflectivity:

For markings to be visible at night they should be retroreflective unless ther source of light
ensures sufficient visibility [22]. Retro reflectivity makes pavement markings visible to
drivers at night. Measurement of retro reflectivity tells us about the ability of an object to
reflect light to a source in the same direction from which the light originally struck the object
[10]. Retro reflectivity refers to reflection in which light coming from a particular direction
is turned in direction close to the direction from which it had came earlie. Reteroreflectivity is
measured in candelas/lux/square meter, or candelas/foot-candle/square foot.Roadway
information is provided by reflected light to the drive ,and thus helping a safer drive at night.
Retro reflectivity is represented by a measure referred to as the coefficient of retro reflected
luminance RL, which is expressed in units of milli candelas per square meter per lux
mcd/m2/lx ASTM 2001. The current ASTM standard requires that retro reflectometers use 30
m geometry ASTM 2005. Glass beads when partially embedded in paint are used to achieve
retro reflectivity of road marking surface. If glass beads are not used the auto headlights are
reflected in all directions when illuminated , and only a small amount of light is reflected
back to the driver. On other hand a much greater quantity of light is reflected back to the
driver if the marking contains glass beads. Glass beads are now used worldwide in a
reflective binder, such as paint, to achieve nighttime retro reflectivity. Retro reflectivity
values of pavement markings are thought to depend on the quantities and qualities of the
glass beads in the marking but that is not the case no light will be reflected to driver if the
glass bead is fully embedded in the marking binding material. Retro reflectivity is mainly
achieved by the portion of the beads uncovered above the paint.
1.3.2 Durability
Durability can be defined as the amount of material remaining on the pavement surface over
a period of time. Durability has an adverse effect on both the day time and night time
appearance of markings. Durability performance is usually measured either by determining
the amount of material remaining on the surface .It can be measured directly by testing the
7
bond strength of a material to the surface. Visibility relates to the lustre of the material.
Visibility is primarily a night time performance measure. Daytime visibility is related to the
contrast of the marking with the pavement surface. Most of the research regarding marking
visibility uses retro reflectivity as alternative measure for visibility performance.
Factors that affect the durability are as follows [5]:
• Type of material (i.e., thermoplastic, plural component, tape).
• Method of application.
• Configuration (i.e., marking thickness, bead rate, surface application, or recessed).
• Type of pavement (i.e., asphalt cement concrete, Portland cement concrete, old
surface, new surface, open coarse surface, previously marked).
• Conditions during application.
• Location (i.e., stop bar, horizontal curve, edge line, lane line).
• Annual average daily traffic (AADT).
• Percentage of heavy vehicle traffic.
• Pavement maintenance cycle (i.e., crack sealing, overlays).
• Regional climate (i.e., rain, snow, humidity).
Durability is another parameter to check the performance of road marking materials. It is

checked by following tests:
1. Visual test is carried out to check the durability of road markings.
2. Abrasion tests performed on paints are typically either a test using an abrading
rotating wheel, or a falling sand test where sand free falls onto a painted surface. ASTM
Standard D-4060-81 and Federal Test Method Standard No. 141 a provide testing procedures
for using the Taber Abraser.
3.
1.3.3 Luminance
Luminance is the luminous intensity or brightness of any surface in a given direction, per unit
of projected area of the surface as viewed from that direction, independent of viewing
distance. The SI unit is candela/m2. Pavement marking luminance is directly proportional to
the amount of the light energy that is retroreflected by the marking toward a driver’s eyes.
8
1.4 Thesis Overview
This thesis is divided into seven (VI) chapters. Chapter I presents an introduction, which
includes Background, types of marking materials and performance evaluation parameters.
Chapter II introduces the past researches that has been carried out till now on pavement
marking. Chapter III explains the objective & methodology used in achieving the objectives
of this study, in which equipment used is also defined. Chapter IV includes detailed
description of experimental studies that has been carried out to meet the desired objective ie.
Data collection and Data Analysis procedure. Chapter V, include results and discussion of the
proposed work. And chapter VI, the work is concluded and there is a little discussion
regarding future scope.
9
UNIT 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Road marking on the surface of road is very important as it provides guidance to the driver as
well as pedestrians. It also conveys the information regarding traffic signals and signs to
regulate the traffic, defines parking spaces, delineate the roads etc. And the signs used for
road marking are standardized to avoid the confusion.
Different materials are used for marking of different types of road surface. The aim of this
work is to find out the compatibility of the different material used for road marking
Different researchers carried out the research regarding the use of different material for
marking the different roads. So before starting the actual work, the first step is to study the
research papers of the required field that have been performed previous by other researchers,
to know the level of advancement. For this work, paper related to different material used for
pavement marking, pavement marking reteroreflectivity & factors affecting performance of
pavement marking in general is studied.
2.2 Review of Literature
2.2.1 Abboud et al in [1] conducted a new study to evaluate cost and durability of paint and
thermoplastic striping to find out useful paint life. They used a minimum [14] retro
reflectivity threshold of 150mcd/m²/lux, determined from their previous study of crash data
and traffic exposure on state highways in Alabama. Abboud and Bowma came to the
conclusion that the useful lifetime (in months) for low-AADT (5000 vpd) highways is 4.5
months.
2.2.2 Al Masaeid Hashem R. et al in [2] aims to find out Accident reduction factor which
is defined as a proportion of change in number of accidents and accident rates from before
period to the after period when safety measure is to be implemented. The author investigated
from previous research that for given improvement, there is no exact estimate of accident
reduction factor. Hence it is uncertain. To overcome this, author applied some probabilistic
procedure to evaluate the safety effectiveness of pavement marking of undivided rural roads.
The data for the study was randomly selected from 100 different sites from undivided rural
10
roads of India that received pavement marking improvements in 1987. These sites had
average daily traffic volume less than 4000 vehicles per day. In this study the total number of
accidents was only considered and data was taken from police records from two year before
or two year after from the estimation period. The procedure that was conducted in the
estimation of accident reduction factor at site level was that analysis of distribution of
accident reduction improved sites, estimation of expected accident reduction factor due to
pavement marking and its ranges. Bayesian approach was used to estimate the expected
accident rates. And it was concluded that the accident reduction factor as well as expected
accident rate in after period were positively correlated with accident rates in the before
period. Also pavement marking provides a significant reduction in accidents by delineating
the roads.
2.2.3. Babic Darco et al. in [3] evaluate the methods for measuring reterorefection of road
marking. The author measured the reteroreflectivity in terms of static method and dynamic
method. In static method measurement sequences were selected according to principle of
randomness and in dynamic method whole of the road section is examined in its entirety. It
was concluded that static method were appropriate to certain extent but for detailed analysis
dynamic method was best.
2.2.4 Cho Yong al in [6] identified the effective temporary pavement marking removal
methods in roadways construction zone that can help the transportation agencies to
significantly improve the current temporary marking removal protocols and inspection
practices. Temporary pavement markings are those that are placed within temporary traffic
control (TTC) zones to provide road users with a clearly defined path of travel through the
TTC zone during construction work activities. The method was identified in such a way that
it causes minimal visual and physical damage to both asphalt and concrete pavement while
being safe and environment friendly. Author mainly focussed on testing the visual
characteristics of removed marking in roadway construction zones as travellers are confused
visually. The two design methods were adopted to accomplish the objective of the research
ie online survey and field testing. In online survey method, questionnaires were composed
and sent to committee to study nationwide DOT’s experience with regard to temporary
pavement marking removal techniques. The responses of different states were then
summarized and analyzed to identify common removal techniques. On the other hand in case
of field testing method, the selected testing method such as water blasting, grinding, shot
11
blasting, chemical method, dry ice blasting etc, based on the survey was adopted and field
test was taken out based on these method. The site adopted for field testing was concrete
pavement as a test bed. This study carried out the testing and comparing of extensive number
of removal methods and testing and validating the digital image based approach for removal
effectiveness evaluation. Finally it was concluded that the removal results of non methylene
chloride were found to be most satisfactory on both asphalt and concrete pavement. Also this
method was fond to be cost effective and environmentally safe. The visual character analysis
tool developed in this study accurately quantified the color differences and amount of paint
remaining on the surfaces after removal
2.2.5 Cuelho et al in [8] investigated that conventional paint were appropriate in areas
where traffic or winter maintenance activities do not result in high levels of wear. Epoxy
paints or thermoplastics, on the other hand, provide durability on highways in areas
experiencing snow and locations of high traffic wear, such as intersections. They also pointed
out that the service life of pavement markings usually strongly correlated with the material
cost of the particular marking and this was a critical input element in the asset management of
pavement markings.
2.2.6 Dale et al in [9], in an NCHRP Synthesis Report summarized pavement marking needs,
different types of pavement marking materials, and various methods of preparing the
pavement surface prior to marking. This study investigated two types of paints (solvent-borne
and water-borne), thermoplastics, thermosets (polyester and epoxy), and marking tapes. The
cost-effectiveness of the different pavement marking types is discussed and life-expectancy
curves provided for marking on both bituminous and concrete pavements.
2.2.7 Grath Mc et al in [12], reporting on a Durable Pavement Marking Materials

Workshop, summarized presentations on the evaluation of six durable pavement markings
materials. Beads with a gradation of #20 to #80 sieve were used in thermoplastic markings
which provided excellent reflectivity on asphalt after two years, but resulted in poor
reflectivity on concrete due to bond failure. Preformed materials performed satisfactorily for
four years, epoxy for two years, polyester for up to eight years, and epoflex performed
exceptionally well even with high traffic volumes and warm climates. No specific
information was given regarding traffic marking paint.
12
2.2.8 Holman et al in [15], in 1971, reported on Alabama's experience during a national
experimental program using traffic marking beads. Alabama used drop-on beads of 4
gradation between U.S. Sieve #30 and #80, and premixed beads of gradations between U.S.
Sieve #40 and #230. Test sections were installed at two locations in Montgomery, and
monitored periodically for night visibility. It was concluded that test sections with high drop-
on bead application rates had good night visibility but low durability as compared to
premixed-bead sections.
2.2.9 Jian John Lu et al in [17] measured the performance of different materials such as
thermoplastics, traffic paints, preformed tapes, methyl methacrylate used for road marking in
cold region of Alaska and some northern states. The main objective of the studies was to
evaluate performance qualities of various traffic marking types by conducting comparative
field experiments or surveys. Although many research results have been applied in other
states, during Alaska's winter season, studded tires and road sand are very hostile to traffic
markings in Alaska and make performance information from most other states difficult to
interpret for the Alaskan environment. In recent years, a new traffic marking product called
methyl methacrylate (MMA), made by Morton Inc., has been applied in colder region of
Alaska. Various site survey or experiments were conducted by author using different
marking material which mainly focused on the two important aspects such as performance
and application or installation. Performance was measured in aspect of Expected service life,
Visibility and Durability while Application/Installation included Main reasons for failure,
Best air temperature ranges for field placement and drying time. Three answering methods
were provided by this survey i.e. scoring, comments and multiple choice and the survey
forms were send to 40 different agencies which used preformed tapes, thermoplastic, traffic
paint and methyl methacrylate to rate the material. It was found that:
• Traffic paints have shorter service life than any other material.
• Preformed tape have highest life cycle cost
• MMA can be applied in any of the season in cold region while other material required
moderate temperature.
• MMA provides good performance quality, good visibility and best in terms of
appearance and reflectivity.
• Preformed tapes have good reflectivity at the initial stage but it deteriorate with time
and increase in traffic as compared to MMA
13
Thus it was concluded that MMA was the best material to use in cold regions.
2.2.10 Lee Dongmin et al in [18] had studied the night time driving behaviour of drivers.
Night time driving behaviour differs from that during the day because of differences in the
driver’s field of view. At night drivers rely on their vehicle headlamps to illuminate the
roadway. It is essential then that the roadway characterization system provide the appropriate
lane guidance to drivers to drive on the roadway. A night time driving experiment was
conducted to collect user perception data of various pavement markings and markers applied
to horizontal curves. The effectiveness of each pavement marking was rated using a
subjective scale. A fuzzy inference system was used to analyze the subjective pavement
marking and marker evaluation ratings provided the research participants. Pavement marking
effectiveness, horizontal curve sharpness driver age were used to develop a fuzzy index for
night time driving condition FIND. Based on the FIND, the results indicate that drivers prefer
that a combination of treatments be applied to horizontal curves rather than only a single
treatment. A bright centre line, bright edge line, and bright retro reflective raised pavement
maker combination treatment, and a bright centre line and bright edge line combination
treatment, resulted in the highest FIND score.
Some conclusions regarding the performance of various pavement marking treatments can be
made.
• Curves with worn pavement markings existing condition that are treated with any pavement
marking improve user perception of night time driving.
• The effects of the bright double edge line treatment i.e., 8 in. 20.3 cm wide white edge line
on both subjective ratings and night time driver behaviour are lower than the effects of other
single pavement marking treatments.
• Combined pavement marking treatments improved both the subjective perception regarding
the effectiveness of pavement marking treatments and night time driving conditions more
than any single treatment.
Generally, night time driving conditions are more influenced by pavement marking
treatments along sharp curves rather than along flat curves. A
2.2.11 Lee Hsiang Yi et al in [19] conducted the field experiment and evaluation study to
investigate the visibility effectiveness on various curved road driving conditions. Two marker
types, the hemisphere and the corner cube, and two directional driving conditions, right-turn
and left-turn conditions were considered. The results indicate that there were no difference
between marker types, but there were differences between turning directions. The field
14
experiment was conducted on a U-shaped test track set up on an abandoned parking lot. It
was used to simulate the driving conditions of entering a curve section from a straight leading
section. These two straight leading sections were intended to simulate both right turn and left-
turn driving conditions. The central delineation of the road was painted with a yellow line.
Edge lines were painted white.
Both the corner cube and the hemisphere were visually effective on various curved roads;
however, the corner cube was better for roads with a radius greater than 60 m, and the
hemisphere was preferable for roads with a radius smaller than 60 m. Visibility threshold of
pavement markers for curved road driving conditions was found to be 1.70 x 10-6 lx.
2.2.12 Lee et al. in [20] suggested that part of the reason was the insufficient variation of the
observed retroreflectivity values in the database and limited sample size of the nighttime
accidents used in the analysis. The authors also suggested that a larger sample of nighttime
accidents may allow the identification of a relationship between pavement marking
retroreflectivity and nighttime accidents.
2.2.13 Lundkvist Sven-Olof et al in [21] investigated if results obtained on dry road

markings can be used for prediction of the retro reflectivity of wet markings. The results
presented in paper indicate the possibility of predicting retro reflectivity and skid resistance
of wet road markings from RL dry and MPD (mean profile depth) values. If a mobile reflecto-
meter was supplemented with an equipment for measurement of road marking texture, not
only will RL dry would be known, but also RL wet and skid resistance, with acceptable
reliability. It is important not to generalize the results to other types of road markings than
those included in this study. Consequently, the model for retro reflectivity of wet road
markings was valid for profiled thermoplastic materials and the two skid resistance models
for profiled and flat thermoplastics, respectively, all applied in test field.
2.2.14 Migletz et al. in [23] performed a study over four years throughout 19 states to
evaluate the durability of a variety of marking materials. The threshold values were set in the
project to range between 85 to 150 mcd/m²/lux for white lines and 55 to 100 mcd/m²/lux for
yellow lines. The values varied on the basis of the roadway type and its speed classification.
Using these thresholds, the study found the service life for white waterborne paint on
freeways to average 10.4 months, but calculated values ranged from 4 to 18 months.
15
2.2.15 Dale M.Mull et al in [25] aim to develop a new performance prediction model for
paint pavement marking that includes effects of snow removal operations. The data for this
research was taken from North Carolina. The database was provided by NCDOT that was
separately collected from contractor state wise for quality assurance purpose. The provided
data set contains observation of many pavement marking materials but only paint was
considered in this research. The modeling of data was done according to least square analysis.
The researchers developed an initial model with a randomly selected 80% of the data points
and then validated the variables in the initial model using the remaining 20% of the data.
Several variables were analyzed for inclusion in the model; however, only variables with
significance greater than 95% were accepted in the initial model. The mean absolute
percentage error (MAPE) was used to measure how well the initial model predicted the
observed retro reflectivity of the 20% holdback data. A final model was then developed from
the full data set using the independent variables established by the initial model. To detect the
effect of snow, one of the roads was taken as a test road and had been repainted in summer
before snowplow. And it was concluded that each snowplow degrades the paint pavement
marking which degrades the service life of paint pavement marking. Otherwise when there
was no snowfall the paint pavement marking had a service life of more than five years with
AADT of 4000 vehicles per day.
2.2.16 Ozelim Luana et al in [26] undertook a case study based on the data collected by
Alabama to model the retro reflectivity performance of thermoplastic pavement markings.
The pavement marking must be replaced when retro reflectivity falls below the acceptable
value. Thus the purpose of this research was to find out how the existing model fits the data
and to develop a new statistical model that could predict retro reflectivity over time. The
initial variable that were considered to model the retro reflectivity were initial retro
reflectivity, age, AADT etc. Retro reflectivity data was collected by handheld reflecto meter
by some group of people. One retro reflectivity curve was developed for each milepost in
accordance with color and type of marking. Retro reflectivity data from 2007–2010 were
used to create models of retro reflectivity over time. Since only 4 years of data exist, the
created curves had to be extrapolated to reach minimum retro reflectivity values.
2.2.17 Rumar K. et al. in [28] evaluated from their study that the driver’s behavior and their
reliance on pavement markings in night driving. Some of the important conclusions made by
them were that the drivers mostly rely on the pavement marking for guidance and information
16
in nighttime and adverse weather conditions. Also driver characteristics are very important in
determining the performance of the markings.
2.2.18 Sitzabee William E. et al in [29] determined the performance characteristics of

thermoplastic pavement markings in North Carolina and thus create viable life cycle
predicative model for those markings. Also the evaluation for paint pavement material was
conducted and model was constructed for the performance of both thermoplastic and paints.
The data used for this study were collected by an independent contractor who was originally
hired by the NCDOT to measure retro reflectivity for specified North Carolina roads for the
purpose of quality assurance for new markings. Since the researchers did not have control
over the data collection methodology there were some limitations on the analysis associated
with using the existing data. Most of the data set of roads that was available, the roads with
thermoplastic pavement marking was selected. And limited data for paint pavement marking
roads were analysed. The modelling method used was least square analysis. This study
confirmed that both thermoplastics on asphalt and paint pavement markings could be
modelled as linear through 60 months for thermoplastics and through 12 months for paint.
From the testing site point of view the following conclusions were made that Paints have a
service life slightly greater than 2 years, and both thermoplastic and paint pavement markings
were found to have a far greater life expectancy than originally expected.
2.2.19 Songchitruksa Praprut et al in [30] aims to develop a systematic approach to

provide practitioners with objective guidance for selecting cost effective pavement marking
material for work zone that meet specific requirements. Four types of material were
considered to carry out these study i.e. thermoplastic, paints, temporary tapes and traffic
buttons. Various approaches were considered for combining pavement marking performance
and work zone project phase duration data so as to establish recommendations for the best
marking material to use for a particular work zone situation. And the Monte Carlo simulation
analysis method was adopted as it is the most appropriate and flexible approach to address
the problem. This approach is a computational technique used to solve the mathematical
problem and is not easy to solve analytical problem, this method was adopted to find out the
cost of marking material based on the factors such as type of pavement marking material,
type of surface, annual average daily traffic, cost of material, reapplication cost, service life,
project phase duration etc. The objective function of this analysis is the total cost of selecting
and applying specific marking materials under a given set of factors. The total cost depends
17
on how frequent markings need to be reapplied over the course of the project. The total
expected cost of selecting particular marking material depends on several factors, such as the
actual material service life, construction phase completion, and unit cost of materials. It was
concluded from the research that on asphalt surfaces, traffic buttons were most effective
choice for high traffic volume and long project duration. On the other hand, on concrete
surfaces the material used is either paint or buttons. Paint was used for short project duration
and for long project duration buttons were used. Temporary paints were also analysed and not
recommended for any surface.
2.2.20 Zhang Guanghua et al in [33] addressed the effect of bead density on pavement
marking reteroreflectivity. The requirement for this study was to collect the retro reflectivity
data and glass bead images and for the same the researcher collected these data on a 40
segment of two lanes highway. The sites for the collection of data were selected randomly.
All these sites have asphalt surfaces and AADT below 4000 vehicles per day. Bead density is
defined as the surface percentage of glass beads exposed above the paint marking material.
The method developed to determine the bead density was computer aided counting method.
In this program 108 images of marking surface taken from digital camera were analyzed to
obtain the bead density of each image. Then the impact of bead density on paint pavement
marking retero-reflectivity was analyzed. And from this study it was concluded that glass
bead density had significant impact on marking retero-reflectivity. Higher glass bead density
leads to higher marking retero-reflectivity. Also white edge markings have conclusively
higher retro -reflectivity values than do yellow centre markings when the bead density values
are the same.
2.3 Inference Drawn from Literature Survey:
• Effective Pavement marking provides reduction in accident by delineating the roads.

• Thermoplastics have greater life expectancy than any other material.
• Paints have short life span so it is used for short duration projects.
• The total expected cost of selecting particular marking material depends on several
factors, such as the actual material service life, construction phase completion, and
unit cost of materials.
• Higher glass bead density leads to higher retro reflectivity.
18
• Preformed tapes have high retro reflectivity at the initial stage than any other material
but it deteriorates with time and increase in traffic so it has high life cycle cost.
2.4 Identification of Gaps

• Most of studies regarding this have been carried outside India. Therefore their
application under Indian environmental and traffic conditions need to be verified.
• The studies that have been carried out till now does not taken into account the factors
affecting the Luminance.
• As per codal provisions there is no restriction on thickness i.e. how much thickness
should one use on a specific type of road.
• Life cycle studies are not done specifically
19
CHAPTER 3
OBJECTIVE & METHODOLOGY

3.1 OVERVIEW
This study is aimed to presents a comparative study of pavement marking materials on the
various roads of north region in Chandigarh of India. The parameter effecting the
performance of two types of pavement marking materials (Thermoplastic, Glowmark Water
based Compound) are determined and compared based on retroreflectivity, luminance, and
durability.
The comprehensive literature review was conducted on publications related to pavement

marking reteroreflectivity, various material used for pavement marking & factors affecting
the performance of pavement marking in general. This study intend to evaluate the
effectiveness of particular material used in terms of age of the marking materials. In addition,
it is also predicted which material is economic or cost effective for the particular roads. The
outcome of this study can assist state highway agencies in selecting appropriate pavement
marking materials for different needs.
3.2 Problem Statement
Considerable improvement has taken place in producing high quality marking materials
over last few years. The result of which is that, several research studies were initiated by
various countries to determine the suitable of different materials to prevailing traffic and
environmental conditions. Beside that the studies that had been carried out till now was
limited to the country other than India. Its main objective is to find out the factors
effecting the performance evaluation parameter (Reflectivity and Luminance) of road
marking materials and to determine which material is better among two material on the
roads of India and to assist the state agencies to make informed decision regarding the
usage of these materials; and thus improve the quality of available products and raise
awareness of their availability. The factors that are considered in this work are Thickness
& Age of pavement marking material applied.
However, a very limited number of research studies have been carried out in this field to
evaluate the factors effecting the performance of pavement markings and that’s too are
not from India. This study attempts to fill this gap in the state of knowledge by comparing
20
the performance of two pavement marking material on the roads of Chandigarh region
of India.
3.3 Objectives of the Study

From literature review carried out it has been revealed that numerous factors affect
pavement marking reteroreflectivity and Luminance such as traffic, thickness, marking
age, type of material used for road marking and environmental conditions. This study
uses pavement marking data collected in the north region of India , to analyze factors
effecting the performance of pavement marking material on the roads of Chandigarh
which are pre selected based on age and type of marking material used. The overarching
goal of this thesis is to find out the life cycle of the two materials used for road surface
marking. To meet this goal the following objectives were accomplished:
• To analyze the performance evaluation parameter of pavement marking material.

• To investigate the factors affecting the pavement markings and pavement marking retro
reflectivity and luminance on the roads of chandigarh
• To compare the two types of road marking materials in terms of service life, day time
luminance and night time reflectivity
• To study the performance w.r.t. aging for various types of Road markings.
• To examine the adequacy of the IRC specifications w.r.t. various road types and
recommend/ suggest modifications if any
3.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The step by step procedure of work is as follows:
Categorize Different type of Roads : Various test sites or roads are categorized in
terms of age of the marking material applied and two different types of material used.
Data Collection : Data is collected in terms of night time reflectivity, thickness and
Day time Luminance from the various roads selected.
Data Analysis: The collected data from various pre selected sites are then analysed
which will be explained in detail.
Comparison: The two material selected for the proposed work are then compared in
terms of cost and life span.
Pavement marking material that has been used in the proposed research are :
• Thermoplastics
21
• Glowmark Water based Compound
The detailed description of the steps carried out in work methodology i.e. the proposed work
are explained in chapter 4.
3.5 EQUIPMENT
The equipments that are used for data collection are handheld retro reflectometer to measure
retro reflectivity as shown in figure 3.1, Micrometer to measure thickness as shown in figure
3.2 and Luminance meter to measure luminance as shown in figure 3.3 and data recording
sheets for recording the data on site.
Figure 3.1 Hand held Reflectometer
Figure 3.2 Micrometer
22
3.6 Flow Diagram of Work Methodology:
Categorize Different types of Road in terms of

age
Data Collection (Collection of data from

preselected sites in terms of age of marking
material)
Data Analysis ( Analyse the data collected

from pre selected sites)
Graphical representation of age of marking

material
Conclude the proposed work
Prepare a report based on the study
23
CHAPTER 4
DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

In order to meet the desired outcome it is essential to study the detailed description of each
process carried out in research methodology. In this section, each step carried out to finalize
the proposed work, to meet the desired objective and their outcomes are explained in detail:
4.1 Categorization of Roads

Various test sites are selected on the roads of Chandigarh in India in terms of age of the
material applied and type of the material applied:
1. In terms of Age: In this category, the roads are categorized in terms of age of the
marking material applied (ie thermoplastic) means the road on which material is
newly laid, then the roads on which material were applied one month ago, then six
month ago, then one year ago, then two year ago and finally three year ago. The
selected roads or sites on the basis of this classification are
• Sector 42 road in Chandigarh on which the thermoplastic was newly laid
• Airport road via Zirakpur onto which thermoplastic were laid one month
ago.
• Hallomajra road in Chandigarh onto which thermoplastic were laid six
months ago
• Transport Chowk to Panchkula onto which thermoplastic were laid one year
ago
• Industrial area Chandigarh to Pnchkula onto which thermoplastic were
applied two year ago.
• Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road onto which thermoplastic were
applied three year ago.
2. In terms of material applied: In this category, the roads are classified on the basis
of material applied that is Thermoplastic or Glowmark Water based Compound. The
roads that are fallen under the category in terms of age are those onto which only
24
thermoplastic were applied and the roads on to which Solvent based compound were
used are
• Derabassi Road onto which water based compound were applied one month
ago
• PGI Road onto which water based compound were applied eight months ago.
4.2 Data Collection:

The data that has been collected from the pre selected sites are in terms of night time
reflectivity, thickness and day time luminance. In addition information about pavement
marking age and type of material was collected through conversation with local striping
crews and traffic engineer. The collected data are arranged in tables as shown below:
4.2.1 Night time Reflectivity Readings on Preselected test site:
The data is collected in terms of age of marking material and types of marking material. The
night time reflectivity readings for both the marking material used in this work are shown
below in the tables
4.2.1.1 For Thermoplastic material:
Table 4.1 Reflectance measured at sector 42
Night time Reflectivity Readings of newly laid thermoplastic
Towards Central Verge Central line Opposite Central Verge

365 360 368
360 354 364
358 350 362
334 330 360
312 322 356
305 320 334
287 280 295
25
Table 4.2 Reflectance measured at Airport road via Zirakpur
Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied One month ago

270 217 335
258 211 325
240 206 318
235 200 312
230 156 270
222 124 260
210 116 234
Table 4.3 Reflectance measured at Hallomajra Road
Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied Six month ago
240 202 240

230 181 230
215 175 225
210 170 210
208 165 205
206 80 200
200 70 198
Table 4.4 Reflectance measured at Transport Chowk to panchkula
Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied One Year ago

180 172 260
178 158 256
177 152 230
174 132 217
170 110 211
167 106 209
160 98 187
26
Table 4.5 Reflectance measured at Industrial Area to Panchkula
Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied Two Year ago

93 92 94
90 90 93
85 85 90
84 82 84
83 74 82
81 44 81
44 35 50
Table 4.6 Reflectance measured at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk
Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied Three Year ago

94 74 94
92 61 91
90 58 87
84 53 85
83 52 82
82 49 70
81 48 54
4.2.1.2 For Water based Glowmark compound:
Table 4.7 Reflectance values measured at Derabassi road on which Water Based Paint was laid One months
ago :
Night time Reflectivity Readings ofWater based compound applied One month ago
Left side Centre line Right side
273 172 210
290 191 201
285 182 193
280 178 190
272 186 185
275 175 182
27
Table 4.8 Reflectance values measured on PGI road on which Water Based Paint was laid Eight months ago
Night time Reflectivity Readings of Water based compound applied Eight months ago
165 106 135
133 96 135
150 118 133
155 97 120
140 90 115
135 85 107
4.2.2 Thickness Values measured on Various Test sites:
Thickness is measured only for thermoplastic material. There is no provision of

thickness measuring for water based compound. The measured thickness of
thermoplastic materials, sorting in terms of age of marking material are shown
below:
Table 4.9 Thickness measured at sector 42 where thermoplastic were newly laid
Thickness Readings of newly laid thermoplastic

3.9 3.88 3.82
3.87 3.85 3.76
3.81 3.8 3.66
3.77 3.76 3.64
3.65 3.65 3.6
3.62 3.65 3.52
3.4 3.56 3.4
28
Table 4.10 Thickness measured at Airport road via Zirakpur
Thickness Readings of thermoplastic applied One month ago

3.88 3.82 3.78
3.81 3.76 3.74
3.76 3.72 3.65
3.72 3.69 3.62
3.62 3.62 3.56
3.60 3.58 3.46
3.39 3.54 3.39
Table 4.11 Thickness measured at Hallomajra Road
Thickness Readings of thermoplastic applied Six month ago

2.7 2.63 2.67
2.61 2.55 2.63
2.43 2.53 2.62
2.3 2.52 2.58
2.24 2.5 2.55
2.2 2.45 2.54
2.14 2.4 2.43
Table 4.12 Thickness measured at Transport Chowk to panchkula
Thickness Readings of thermoplastic applied One Year ago

2.39 2.64 2.67
2.37 2.54 2.54
2.36 2.48 2.44
2.34 2.42 2.37
2.31 2.33 2.34
2.26 2.24 2.33
2.22 2.23 2.23
29
Table 4.13 Thickness measured at Industrial Area to Panchkula
Thickness Readings of thermoplastic applied TwoYear ago

2.24 2.16 2.31
2.22 2.15 2.29
2.16 2.11 2.23
2.15 2.1 2.15
2.15 2.05 2.14
2 1.95 2.1
1.98 1.93 2
Table 4.14 Thickness measured at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk
Thickness Readings of thermoplastic applied Three Year ago

1.66 1.96 1.95
1.66 1.95 1.9
1.65 1.87 1.83
1.62 1.82 1.8
1.62 1.76 1.76
1.51 1.7 1.74
1.28 1.68 1.66
4.2.3 Day time Luminance Reading on Preselected Test site :
Luminance value is obtained by applying tri stimulus filter i.e. green, Blue and
Amber (explained in detail in Appendix A) out of which the reflectance value of
green Filter gives the luminance value. The reflectance value of all the three
filters on pre selected sites are collected as shown:
4.2.3.1 For Thermoplastic :
• Reflectance Values of tri stimulus filter collected on Sector 42, Chandigarh

where thermoplastic was newly laid are shown in table 4.15 (a), 4.15(b) &
4.15(c).
30
For green Color:
Table 4.15 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured on Sector 42 on which thermoplastic was newly laid.

80.5 35.7 80.5
79.2 38.5 79.2
70.6 37.7 70.6
65.1 39.5 65.1
60.2 38.8 60.2
63.5 37.5 63.5
For Blue Color:
Table 4.15 (b) Reflectance value for Blue filter measured on Sector 42 on which thermoplastic was newly laid.

37 30.5 37
37.9 33.1 37.9
40.1 33.7 40.1
39.2 33 39.2
38.8 32.9 38.8
37 32.1 37
For Amber colour:
Table 4.15 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Sector 42 on which thermoplastic was newly
laid.

48.5 35.6 48.5
48.9 38.2 48.9
48.5 38 48.5
48.6 37.5 48.6
47.7 38.4 47.7
46 36.5 46
31
• Reflectance Values of tri stimulus filter collected on Airport Road via
Zirakpur, Chandigarh where thermoplastic was laid one month ago are
shown in table 4.16 (a), 4.16(b) & 4.16(c)
For green Color

Table 4.16 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured on airport road via zirakpur where thermoplastic was
laid one month ago.

46.4 35.8 46.4
50.2 39.1 50.2
56 36.4 56
48.5 36 48.5
49.2 37.2 49.2
50.1 37 50.1
For Blue Color:
Table 4.16 (b) Reflectance value for Blue filter measured on airport road via zirakpur where thermoplastic was
laid one month ago.

42.7 29.9 42.7
38.4 33.3 38.4
36.8 33.2 36.8
34.6 33.8 34.6
38.6 34 38.6
38.4 34.5 38.4
For amber color:
Table 4.16 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on airport road via zirakpur where thermoplastic
was laid one month ago.

51.5 41.2 51.5
51.3 44.1 51.3
55.7 45.5 55.7
55.4 46.0 55.6
55.6 47.0 53.4
54.2 47.5 54.2
32
• Reflectance Values of tri stimulus filter collected on Hallomajra Road, Chandigarh
where thermoplastic was laid six month ago are shown in table 4.17 (a), 4.17(b) &
4.17(c).
For green Color

Table 4.17 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured on Hallomajra road where thermoplastic was laid
six month ago.

40.4 30.8 40.4
45.2 33.1 45.2
37 31.4 37
43.2 31 43.2
44.2 32.3 44.2
45.1 32 45.1
For Blue Color:
Table 4.17 (b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured on Hallomajra road where thermoplastic was laid six
month ago.

37.7 24.9 37.7
33.4 28.3 33.4
31.8 28.2 31.8
29.6 28.8 29.6
33.6 29 33.6
33.4 29.5 33.4
For Amber color:
Table 4.17 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Hallomajra road where thermoplastic was laid
six month ago.

46.5 36.2 46.5
46.3 39.1 46.3
50.7 40.5 50.7
50.4 41 50.4
50.6 42 50.6
49.2 42.5 49.2
33
• Reflectance Values of tri stimilius filter collected on, Transport Chowk to Panchkula,
where thermoplastic was laid one year ago are shown in table 4.18 (a), 4.18(b) &
4.18(c)
For green Color

Table 4.18 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured Transport Chowk to panchkula road where
thermoplastic was laid one year ago.

35.4 25.8 35.4
40.2 28.1 40.2
32 26.4 32
38.2 26 38.2
39.2 27.3 39.2
40.1 27 40.1
For Blue Color:
Table 4.18 (b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured Transport Chowk to panchkula road where
thermoplastic was laid one year ago

34.7 21.9 34.7
30.4 25.3 30.4
28.8 25.2 28.8
26.6 25.8 26.6
30.6 26 30.6
30.4 26.5 30.4
For Amber color:
Table 4.18 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Transport Chowk to panchkula road where
thermoplastic was laid one year ago.
44.5 34.2 44.5

44.3 37.1 44.3
48.7 38.5 48.7
48.4 39 48.4
48.6 40 48.6
47.2 40.5 47.2
34
• Reflectance Values of tri stimilius filter collected on, Industrial Area, Chandigarh to
Panchkula, where thermoplastic was laid two year ago are shown in table 4.19 (a),
4.19(b) & 4.19(c)
For green Color

Table 4.19 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured Industrial area to panchkula road where
thermoplastic was laid two year ago.

29.4 19.8 29.4
34.2 22.1 34.2
26 20.4 26
32.2 20 32.2
33.2 21.3 33.2
34.1 21 34.1
For Blue Color:
Table 4.19 (b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured Industrial area to panchkula road where thermoplastic
was laid two year ago

30.7 17.9 30.7
26.4 21.3 26.4
24.8 21.2 24.8
22.6 21.8 22.6
26.6 22 26.6
26.4 22.5 26.4
For Amber color:
Table 4.19 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Industrial area to panchkula road where
thermoplastic was laid two year ago.

42.5 32.2 42.5
42.3 35.1 42.3
46.7 36.5 46.7
46.4 37 46.4
46.6 38 46.6
45.2 38.5 45.2
35
• Reflectance Values of tri stimilius filter collected on, Transport Chowk to Tribune
Chowk, Chandigarh where thermoplastic was laid one year ago are shown in table
4.20 (a), 4.20(b) & 4.20(c)
For green Color

Table 4.20 (a) Reflectance value for green filter measured Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road where
thermoplastic was laid three year ago.

16.5 11.9 16.5
10.8 12.2 10.8
17.2 10.5 17.2
17.5 19 17.5
18.2 28.2 18.2
17 30.5 17
For Blue Color:
Table 4.20 (b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road where
thermoplastic was laid Three year ago

21.8 28.2 21.8
17.6 27.3 17.6
15.3 29 15.3
20.5 28.3 20.5
23.2 29.5 23.2
25 30.2 25
For Amber color:
Table 4.20 (c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road where
thermoplastic was laid three year ago.

30.5 38.4 30.5
22.4 36.6 22.4
27.5 35.4 27.5
28.2 35.2 28.2
29 36.1 29
30.1 36.5 30.1
36
4.2.3.2 For Water based Paint
• Reflectance Values of tri stimilius filter collected on Derabassi Road

Chandigarh where thermoplastic was laid one month ago are shown in
table 4.21 (a), 4.21(b) & 4.21(c)
For green Color

Table 4.21(a) Reflectance value for green filter measured on Derabassi road where Water Based Paint was
laid one month ago.

27.2 20.1 27.2
22.5 22.1 22.5
20.1 23.0 20.1
22.2 22.5 22.2
22.4 20.3 22.4
20.5 20.5 20.5
For Blue Color:
Table 4.21(b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured on Derabassi road where Water Based Paint was laid
one month ago.

14.2 18.7 14.2
15.2 15.6 15.2
24.3 15.6 24.3
19.4 15.5 19.4
20.6 14.0 20.6
21.9 14.9 21.9
For Amber color:
Table 4.21(c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on Derabassi road where Water Based Paint was
laid one month ago.

21.9 21.6 21.9
21.4 21.8 21.4
26.1 21.7 26.1
22.6 21.5 22.6
25 22.0 25
26.2 18.8 26.2
37
• Reflectance Values of tri stimilius filter collected on PGI Road Chandigarh where
thermoplastic was laid eight month ago are shown in table 4.22 (a), 4.22(b) & 4.22(c)
For green Color

Table 4.22(a) Reflectance value for green filter measured on PGI road road where Water Based Paint was laid
eight month ago.

23.2 20.1 23.2
18.5 22.1 18.5
16.1 23.0 16.1
18.2 22.5 18.2
18.4 20.3 18.4
16.5 20.5 16.5
For Blue Color:
Table 4.22(b) Reflectance value for blue filter measured on PGI road road where Water Based Paint was laid
eight month ago.

12.2 20.7 12.2
13.2 14.3 13.2
22.3 14.2 22.3
17.4 15.1 17.4
18.6 14.0 18.6
19.9 13.6 19.9
For Amber color:
Table 4.22(c) Reflectance value for amber filter measured on PGI road road where Water Based Paint was
laid eight month ago.

20.9 21.4 20.9
20.4 21.7 20.4
23.3 21.5 23.3
22.4 20.5 22.4
23.2 21 23.2
26.1 19 26.1
38
4.3 Data Analysis
The value of reflectivity and thickness were recorded from various pre selected test sites and
are plotted against each other for thermoplastic material. In this section, the data is analysed
in terms of the tables are drawn showing the value of reflectivity at particular thickness and
graph are plotted in between two for each test site individually towards central verge, at
centre Line and Opposite central Verge.
The thickness of water based paint is in the units of microns so it cant be measured.
4.3.1 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at sector 42 (Newly Laid Thermoplastic)
At sector 42, the pavement marking material were newly laid and the value of
thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.23, table 4.24 and table 4.25 and their
related plots are shown in figure 4.1, Figure 4.2 and in figure 4.3 for towards centre
line, centre line and opposite centre line individually.
Table 4.23 Reflectivity vs Thickness towards central verge measured at Sector 42
RL, towards central Verge Thickness

365 3.9
360 3.87
358 3.81
334 3.77
312 3.65
305 3.62
287 3.4
400
RL, Towards Central Verge
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4
Thickness
Figure 4.1 Reflectivity vs Thickness plot of Sector 42 towards central Verge
39
Table 4.24 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured at central line at sector 42
RL, Central Line Thickness

360 3.88
354 3.85
350 3.8
330 3.76
322 3.65
320 3.65
280 3.56
400
350
300
RL, Centre Line
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8 3.85 3.9
Thickness
Figure 4.2 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot of sector 42 at Centre Line
40
Table 4.25 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured opposite central Verge at sector 42
RL , Opposite Central Line Verge Thickness

368 3.82
364 3.76
362 3.66
360 3.64
356 3.6
334 3.52
295 3.4
400
RL , Opposite Central Verge
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9
Thickness
Figure 4.3 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot of sector 42 Opposite Central verge
4.3.2 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at Airport Road via zirakpur on which

Thermoplastic were laid One month ago:
At Airport road via Zirakpur, the pavement marking material were laid one month ago
and the value of thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.26, table 4.27 and table
4.28 and their related plots are shown in Figure 4.4, Figure 4.5 and in Figure 4.6 for
towards centre line, centre line and opposite centre line individually.
41
Table 4.26 Reflectivity vs Thickness towards central verge measured at Airport Road via Zirakpur
RL, Towards Central Verge Thickness

270 3.88
258 3.81
240 3.76
235 3.72
230 3.62
222 3.60
210 3.39
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4
Thickness
Figure 4.4 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Airport road via Zirakpur Towards Central verge
42
Table 4.27 Reflectivity vs Thickness at central Line measured at Airport Road via Zirakpur
RL,Central Line Thickness

217 3.82
211 3.76
206 3.72
200 3.69
156 3.62
124 3.58
116 3.54
250
200
RL, Central Line
150
100
50
0
3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8 3.85
Thickness
Figure 4.5 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Airport road via Zirakpur at Central Line
43
Table 4.28 Reflectivity vs Thickness opposite central verge measured at Airport Road via Zirakpur
RL, Opposite Central Verge Thickness
335 3.78
325 3.74
318 3.65
312 3.62
270 3.56
260 3.46
234 3.39
400
350
RL, Opposite Central Verge
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8
Thickness
Figure 4.6 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Airport road via Zirakpur Opposite Central verge
4.3.3 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at Hallomajra Road on which Thermoplastic were

laid Six month ago:
At Hallomajra Road, the pavement marking material were laid six monts ago and the
value of thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.29, table 4.30 and table 4.31
and their related plots are shown in figure 4.7, Figure 4.8 and in figure 4.9 for towards
centre line, centre line and opposite centre line individually.
44
Table 4.29 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Towards central Verge at Hallomajra
Road

240 2.7
230 2.61
215 2.43
210 2.3
208 2.24
206 2.2
200 2.14
245
240
235
RL, towards Central Verge
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
195
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Thickness
Figure 4.7 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Hallomajra road Towards Central verge
45
Table 4.30 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured at central Verge at Hallomajra Road

202 2.63
181 2.55
175 2.53
170 2.52
165 2.5
80 2.45
70 2.4
250
200
RL, Central Line
150
100
50
0
2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65
Thickness
Figure 4.8 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Hallomajra road at Central Line
46
Table 4.31 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured opposite central Verge at Hallomajra Road

240 2.67
230 2.63
225 2.62
210 2.58
205 2.55
200 2.54
198 2.43
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7
Thickness
Figure 4.9 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Hallomajra road Opposite Central verge
4.3.4 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at Transport Chowk to Panchkula Road on which

Thermoplastic were laid One Year ago:
At Transport Chowk to Panchkula Road, the pavement marking material were laid
One Year ago and the value of thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.32, table
47
4.33 and table 4.34 and their related plots are shown in figure 4.10, Figure 4.11 and in
figure 4.12 for towards centre line, centre line and opposite centre line individually.
Table 4.32 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Towards central Verge at Transport Chowk to
Panchkula Road

180 2.39
178 2.37
177 2.36
174 2.34
170 2.31
167 2.26
160 2.22
185
180
RL, towards Central Verge
175
170
165
160
155
2.2 2.22 2.24 2.26 2.28 2.3 2.32 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.4
Thickness
Figure 4.10 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Panchkula road towards Central verge
48
Table 4.33 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured at central Verge at Transport Chowk to
Panchkula Road

172 2.64
158 2.54
152 2.48
132 2.42
110 2.33
106 2.24
98 2.23
200
180
160
140
120
RL. Central line
100
80
60
40
20
0
2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7
Thickness
Figure 4.11 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Panchkula road at Central verge
49
Table 4.34 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Opposite central Verge at Transport Chowk to
Panchkula Road

260 2.67
256 2.54
230 2.44
217 2.37
211 2.34
209 2.33
187 2.23
300
RL. Opposite Central Verge
250
200
150
100
50
0
2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7
Thickness
Figure 4.12 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Panchkula road Opposite Central verge
4.3.5 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at Industrial Area to Panchkula Road on which

Thermoplastic were laid Two Year ago:
At Industrial Area to panchkula road, the pavement marking material were laid two
year ago and the value of thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.35, table 4.36
and table 4.37 and their related plots are shown in figure 4.13, Figure 4.14 and in
figure 4.15 for towards centre line, centre line and opposite centre line individually.
50
Table 4.35 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Towards central Verge at Industrial area to
Panchkula Road

94 2.24
92 2.22
90 2.16
84 2.15
83 2.13
82 2
81 1.98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
1.95 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3
Thickness
Figure 4.13 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Industrial area to Panchkula road towards Central verge
Table 4.36 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured at central Verge at Industrial area to Panchkula Road

92 2.16
90 2.15
85 2.11
82 2.1
74 2.05
44 1.95
35 1.93
51
100
90
80
RL, Central Line

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.9 1.95 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2
Thickness
Figure 4.14 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Industrial Area to Panchkula road at Central verge
Table 4.37 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Opposite central Verge at Industrial Area to Panchkula
Road

94 2.31
93 2.29
90 2.23
84 2.15
82 2.14
81 2.1
50 2
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.95 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35
Thickness
Figure 4.15 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Industrial area to Panchkula road Opposite Central verge
52
4.3.6 Reflectivity Vs Thickness at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk Road on
which Thermoplastic were laid Three Year ago:
At Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk , the pavement marking material were laid
Three years ago and the value of thickness and reflectivity are shown in table 4.38,
table 4.39 and table 4.40 and their related plots are shown in figure 4.16, Figure 4.17
and in figure 4.18 for towards centre line, centre line and opposite centre line
individually.
Table 4.38 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured towards central Verge at Transport Chowk to Tribune
Chowk Road

93 1.66
90 1.66
85 1.65
84 1.62
83 1.62
81 1.51
44 1.28
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Thickness
Figure 4.16 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road towards Central verge.
53
Table 4.39 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured at central Verge at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk
Road

74 1.96
61 1.95
58 1.87
53 1.82
52 1.76
49 1.7
48 1.68
80
70
60
50
RL, Central line
40
30
20
10
0
1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2
Thickness
Figure 4.17 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road at Central verge.
54
Table 4.40 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Values measured Opposite central Verge at Transport Chowk to Tribune
Chowk Road

94 1.95
91 1.9
87 1.83
85 1.8
82 1.76
70 1.74
54 1.66
100
90
RL, Opposite Central Line
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2
Thickness
Figure 4.18 Reflectivity Vs Thickness Plot at Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk road opposite Central verge
From all the plots drawn above based on data analysis, between reflectivity and thickness it
has been shown that as the thickness of pavement marking material decreases the reflectivity
also reduces.
Further discussion and results regarding the data analysis and age of marking material is explained in
Chapter 5.
55
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Retroreflectivity, Thickness and Luminance data collection was performed on selected

locations (sites) on highways in the Chandigarh. The data collection was performed
approximately after period six months, one year , 2 years and upto 3 years. Data analysis
was performed using Microsoft Excel Data Analysis tool.
In the analysis, the following factors were considered that is traffic, pavement marking age,
thickness, pavement marking material type and colour.
The analysis was performed without taking into account any category other than colour
(white) and type of Marking Material (Thermoplastics and Water Based Compound).
In this section the percentage change in the value of thickness and reflectivity with the age
will be shown individually for each test site on which thermoplastic were laid towards centre
line, at centre line and opposite centre line. Then the reflectance will be plotted against the
age of material.
5.1 Variation in Reflectivity
The variation in the value of reflectivity for each test site has been shown individually
5.1.1 Difference of Reflectance after One Month :

Table 5.1 Difference of reflectance towards central verge after One Month
Difference RL , Towards Central verge % Difference Average

365 270 95 26.0274
360 258 102 28.33333
358 240 118 32.96089
334 235 99 29.64072 28.18383
312 230 82 26.28205
305 222 83 27.21311
287 210 77 26.82927
56
Table 5.2 Difference of reflectance at Central Line after One Month
Difference RL , Central Line % Difference Average

360 217 143 39.72222
354 211 143 40.39548
350 206 144 41.14286
330 200 130 39.39394 47.43268
322 156 166 51.5528
320 124 196 61.25
280 116 164 58.57143
Table 5.3 Difference of reflectance opposite Central Verge after One Month
Difference RL , Opposite Central Verge % Difference Average

368 335 33 8.967391
364 325 39 10.71429
362 318 44 12.1547
360 312 48 13.33333 16.02295
356 270 86 24.1573
334 260 74 22.15569
295 234 61 20.67797
5.1.2 Difference in Reflectance after six months
Table 5.4 Difference of reflectance towards central verge after Six Month

365 240 125 34.24658
360 230 130 36.11111
358 215 143 39.94413
334 210 124 37.12575 34.7905
312 208 104 33.33333
305 206 99 32.45902
287 200 87 30.31359
Table 5.5 Difference of reflectance at central verge after Six Month

360 202 158 43.88889
354 181 173 48.87006
350 175 175 50
330 170 160 48.48485 55.71451
322 165 157 48.75776
320 80 240 75
280 70 210 75
57
Table 5.6 Difference of reflectance opposite central verge after Six Month

368 240 128 34.78261
364 230 134 36.81319
362 225 137 37.8453
360 210 150 41.66667 38.07495
356 205 151 42.41573
334 200 134 40.11976
295 198 97 32.88136
5.1.3 Difference of Reflectance after One Year:

Table 5.7 Difference of reflectance towards centre verge after one year

365 180 185 50.68493
360 178 182 50.55556
358 177 181 50.55866
334 174 160 47.90419 47.81613
312 170 142 45.51282
305 167 138 45.2459
287 160 127 44.25087
Table 5.8 Difference of reflectance at centre verge after one year

360 172 188 52.22222
354 158 196 55.36723
350 152 198 56.57143
330 132 198 60 60.26777
322 110 212 65.83851
320 106 214 66.875
280 98 182 65
Table 5.9 Difference of reflectance opposite centre verge after one year

368 260 108 29.34783
364 256 108 29.67033
362 230 132 36.46409
360 217 143 39.72222 35.71002
356 211 145 40.73034
334 209 125 37.42515
295 187 108 36.61017
58
5.1.4 Difference of Reflectance after Two Year:
Table 5.10 Difference of reflectance towards centre verge after two year

365 94 271 74.24658
360 92 268 74.44444
358 90 268 74.86034
334 84 250 74.8503 73.81298
312 83 229 73.39744
305 82 223 73.11475
287 81 206 71.777
Table 5.11 Difference of reflectance at centre verge after two year

360 92 268 74.44444
354 90 264 74.57627
350 85 265 75.71429
330 82 248 75.15152 78.66502
322 74 248 77.01863
320 44 276 86.25
280 35 245 87.5
Table 5.12 Difference of reflectance opposite centre verge after two year

368 94 274 74.45652
364 93 271 74.45055
362 90 272 75.13812
360 84 276 76.66667 76.63964
356 82 274 76.96629
334 81 253 75.7485
295 50 245 83.05085
5.1.5 Difference of Reflectance after Three Year:

Table 5.13 Difference of reflectance towards centre verge after three year

365 93 272 74.52055
360 90 270 75
358 85 273 76.25698
334 84 250 74.8503 76.01955
312 83 229 73.39744
305 81 224 73.44262
287 44 243 84.66899
59
Table 5.14 Difference of reflectance at centre verge after three year

360 74 286 79.44444
354 61 293 82.76836
350 58 292 83.42857
330 53 277 83.93939 82.99662
322 52 270 83.85093
320 49 271 84.6875
280 48 232 82.85714
Table 5.15 Difference of reflectance opposite centre verge after three year

368 94 274 74.45652
364 91 273 75
362 87 275 75.96685
360 85 275 76.38889 77.07363
356 82 274 76.96629
334 70 264 79.04192
295 54 241 81.69492
5.1.6 Discussion regarding the variation in Retro-reflectivity:
• From table 4.1, table 4.2 & table 4.3 it has been shown that the average
decrease in the value of reflectance is 28.183% towards centre verge,
47.43268% at centre line and 16.02295% opposite centre verge after one
month of marking material applied.
• From table 4.4, table 4.5 & table 4.6, it has been shown that the average
decrease in the value of reflectance is 34.79% towards centre verge, 55.71%
at centre line and 38.074% opposite centre verge after six month of marking
material applied.
at centre line and 35.71% opposite centre verge after one year of marking
material applied.
60
at centre line and 76.6396% opposite centre verge after two year of marking
material applied.
decrease in the value of reflectance is 76.0195% towards centre verge,
82.99% at centre line and 77.073% opposite centre verge after three year of
marking material applied
5.2 Variation in Thickness
5.2.1 Difference of Thickness after one Month :
Table 5.16 Difference of thickness towards centre verge after one month
Thickness, Towards Central Verge

Newly Laid After one Difference % Difference Average
Thickness month
3.9 3.88 0.02 0.512821
3.87 3.81 0.06 1.550388
3.81 3.76 0.05 1.312336
0.910047
3.77 3.72 0.05 1.32626
3.65 3.62 0.03 0.821918
3.62 3.60 0.02 0.552486
3.4 3.39 0.01 0.294118
Table 5.17 Difference of thickness at centre verge after one month
Thickness, Central Line

Thickness month
3.88 3.82 0.06 1.546392
3.85 3.76 0.09 2.337662
3.8 3.72 0.08 2.105263
3.76 3.69 0.07 1.861702 1.59322
3.65 3.62 0.03 0.821918
3.65 3.58 0.07 1.917808
3.56 3.54 0.02 0.561798
61
Table 5.18 Difference of thickness opposite centre verge after one month
Thickness, Opposite Central Verge

Thickness month
3.82 3.78 0.04 1.04712
3.76 3.74 0.02 0.531915
3.66 3.65 0.01 0.273224
3.64 3.62 0.02 0.549451 0.787355
3.6 3.56 0.04 1.111111
3.52 3.46 0.06 1.704545
3.4 3.39 0.01 0.294118
5.2.2 Difference of thickness after six months
Table 5.19 Difference of thickness towards centre verge after six month

Newly Laid After six Difference % Difference Average
Thickness months
3.9 2.7 1.2 30.76923
3.87 2.61 1.26 32.55814
3.81 2.43 1.38 36.22047
3.77 2.3 1.47 38.99204 36.20791
3.65 2.24 1.41 38.63014
3.62 2.2 1.42 39.22652
3.4 2.14 1.26 37.05882
Table 5.20 Difference of thickness at centre verge after six month

Thickness months
3.88 2.63 1.25 32.21649
3.85 2.55 1.3 33.76623
3.8 2.53 1.27 33.42105
3.76 2.52 1.24 32.97872 32.76433
3.65 2.5 1.15 31.50685
3.65 2.45 1.2 32.87671
3.56 2.4 1.16 32.58427
62
Table 5.21 Difference of thickness opposite centre verge after six month

Thickness months
3.82 2.67 1.15 30.10471
3.76 2.63 1.13 30.05319
3.66 2.62 1.04 28.4153
3.64 2.58 1.06 29.12088 29.03301
3.6 2.55 1.05 29.16667
3.52 2.54 0.98 27.84091
3.4 2.43 0.97 28.52941
5.2.3 Difference of thickness after One Year:

Newly Laid After One year Difference % Difference Average
Thickness
3.9 2.39 1.51 38.71795
3.87 2.37 1.5 38.75969
3.81 2.36 1.45 38.05774
3.77 2.34 1.43 37.93103 37.49338
3.65 2.31 1.34 36.71233
3.62 2.26 1.36 37.56906
3.4 2.22 1.18 34.70588
Table 5.22 Difference of thickness towards centre verge after one year
Table 5.23 Difference of thickness at centre verge after one year

Newly Laid After One year Difference % Difference Average
Thickness
3.88 2.64 1.24 31.95876
3.85 2.54 1.31 34.02597
3.8 2.48 1.32 34.73684
3.76 2.42 1.34 35.6383 35.50199
3.65 2.33 1.32 36.16438
3.65 2.24 1.41 38.63014
3.56 2.23 1.33 37.35955
63
Table 5.24 Difference of thickness opposite centre verge after one year

Newly Laid After one year Difference % Difference Average
Thickness
3.82 2.67 1.15 30.10471
3.76 2.54 1.22 32.44681
3.66 2.44 1.22 33.33333
3.64 2.37 1.27 34.89011 33.42765
3.6 2.34 1.26 35
3.52 2.33 1.19 33.80682
3.4 2.23 1.17 34.41176
5.2.4 Difference of thickness after 2 years
Table 5.25 Difference of thickness towards centre verge after two year

Newly Laid After two year Difference % Difference Average
Thickness
3.9 2.24 1.66 42.5641
3.87 2.22 1.65 42.63566
3.81 2.16 1.65 43.30709
3.77 2.15 1.62 42.97082 42.72709
3.65 2.15 1.5 41.09589
3.62 2 1.62 44.75138
3.4 1.98 1.42 41.76471
Table 5.26 Difference of thickness at centre verge after two year

Newly Laid After two year Difference % Difference Average
Thickness
3.88 2.31 1.57 40.46392
3.85 2.29 1.56 40.51948
3.8 2.23 1.57 41.31579
3.76 2.15 1.61 42.81915 41.82488
3.65 2.14 1.51 41.36986
3.65 2.1 1.55 42.46575
3.56 2 1.56 43.82022
64
Table 5.27 Difference of thickness opposite centre verge after two year

Newly Laid After Two Difference % Difference Average
Thickness Year
3.82 2.31 1.59 41.62304
3.76 2.29 1.58 42.02128
3.66 2.23 1.58 43.1694
3.64 2.15 1.62 44.50549 42.51742
3.6 2.14 1.51 41.94444
3.52 2.1 1.52 43.18182
3.4 2 1.4 41.17647
5.2.5 Difference of thickness after 3 Years
Table 5.28 Difference of thickness towards centre verge after Three year

Newly Laid After Three Difference % Difference Average
Thickness Year
3.9 1.66 2.24 57.4359
3.87 1.66 2.21 57.10594
3.81 1.65 2.16 56.69291
3.77 1.62 2.15 57.02918 57.78866
3.65 1.62 2.03 55.61644
3.62 1.51 2.11 58.28729
3.4 1.28 2.12 62.35294
Table 5.29 Difference of thickness at centre verge after three year

Thickness Year
3.88 1.96 1.92 49.48454
3.85 1.95 1.9 49.35065
3.8 1.87 1.93 50.78947
3.76 1.82 1.94 51.59574 51.31927
3.65 1.76 1.89 51.78082
3.65 1.7 1.95 53.42466
3.56 1.68 1.88 52.80899
65
Table 5.30 Difference of thickness opposite centre verge after three year

Thickness Year
3.82 1.95 1.87 48.95288
3.76 1.9 1.86 49.46809
3.66 1.83 1.83 50
3.64 1.8 1.84 50.54945 50.26088
3.6 1.76 1.84 51.11111
3.52 1.74 1.78 50.56818
3.4 1.66 1.74 51.17647
5.2.6 Discussion regarding variation in thickness

decrease in the value of thickness is 0.91% towards centre verge, 1.59% at
centre line and 0.787355% opposite centre verge after one month of marking
material applied which may be considered as negligible.
decrease in the value of Thickness is 36.20% towards centre verge, 32.76%
at centre line and 29.033% opposite centre verge six month of marking
material applied.
material applied.
material applied
at centre line and 50.26% opposite centre verge after two year of marking
material applied.
5.3 Age of Pavement Marking Material
From the data collected from various preselected test sites the average reflectivity of
thermoplastic material and age ( in number of days) has been determined and the plot
66
between the age and reflectivity has been drawn individually for towards centre line, at centre
line and opposite centre line as shown below:
Table 5.31 Average Reflectivity Vs Age towards centre line
Average Reflectance Towards Centre Age (in days)

Verge
331.5714 0
237.8571 30
215.5714 180
172.2857 365
86.5713 730
80 1460
350
300
250
Reflectivity
200
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
No of Days
Figure 5.1 Average Reflectivity Vs Age towards centre line.
Table 5.32 Average Reflectivity Vs Age at Centre Line
Reflectance at Centre Age (in days)

330.8571 0
175.7143 30
149 180
132.5714 365
71.71429 730
56.42857 1460
67
350
300
250
Reflectivity 200
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
No of Days
Figure 5.2 Average reflectivity Vs Age at Centre line
Table 5.33 Average Reflectivity Vs Age opposite Centre Line
Reflectance Opposite Centre Verge Age (in days)

348.4286 0
294.42 30
215.42 180
224.2857 365
82 730
80.42857 1460
400
350
300
Reflectance
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
No.of Days
Figure 5.3 Average Reflectivity Vs Age opposite Centre Line
68
5.3.1 Discussion regarding Average Reflectance Vs Age of Thermoplastic
• From figure 5.1, figure 5.2 and figure 5.3 it has been clearly indicated that as
the time span of the applied material increases the reflectance decreases
correspondingly.
• It affects more at centre line as compare to side lines as the time span
increases as shown in table 5.31, table 5.32 and table 5.33.
5.3 Yellowness Index of Luminance :
Yellowness Index is a number calculated from spectrophotometric data that describes the
change in color of a test sample from clear or white toward yellow. This test is most
commonly used to evaluate color changes in a material caused by real or simulated outdoor
exposure. When thermoplastic is applied on the road then its yellowness index should not
exceed 0.15 for white thermoplastic.
Yellownwss Index is obtained by using the formula:
Y= (A-B)/G
Where A= Amber color filter
B= Blue color Filter
G= Green color Filter
For Thermoplastic:
• At sector 42 where thermoplastic were newly laid
Table 5.34 Yellowness Index at sector 42 where thermoplastic were newly laid
Left side Centre Line Right Side

0.142857 0.142857 0.142857
0.138889 0.132468 0.138889
0.11898 0.114058 0.11898
0.144393 0.113924 0.144393
0.147841 0.141753 0.147841
0.141732 0.117333 0.141732
69
• At airport road via Zirakpur where thermoplastic were laid one month
ago
Table 5.35 Yellowness Index at sector Airport road via Zirakpur where thermoplastic were laid
one month ago

0.189655 0.315642 0.189655
0.256972 0.276215 0.256972
0.3375 0.337912 0.3375
0.428866 0.338889 0.428866
0.345528 0.349462 0.345528
0.315369 0.351351 0.315369
• At Hallomajra road, Chandigarh where thermoplastic were laid Six

month ago
Table 5.36 Yellowness Index at Hallomajra road where thermoplastic were laid six month ago

0.217822 0.366883 0.217822
0.285398 0.326284 0.285398
0.510811 0.39172 0.510811
0.481481 0.393548 0.481481
0.384615 0.402477 0.384615
0.350333 0.40625 0.350333
• At Transport Chowk to panchkula road where thermoplastic were laid

one year ago
Table 5.37 Yellowness Index at Transport Chowk to Panchkula where thermoplastic were laid
one year ago

0.276836 0.476744 0.276836
0.345771 0.419929 0.345771
0.621875 0.503788 0.621875
0.570681 0.507692 0.570681
0.459184 0.512821 0.459184
0.418953 0.518519 0.418953
70
• At Industrial area Chandigarh to Panchlula where thermoplastic were
laid two year ago:
Table 5.38 Yellowness Index at Industrial area Chandigarh to Panchkula where thermoplastic
were laid two year ago

0.401361 0.722222 0.401361
0.464912 0.624434 0.464912
0.842308 0.75 0.842308
0.73913 0.76 0.73913
0.60241 0.751174 0.60241
0.55132 0.761905 0.55132
• At transport chowk to Tribune Chowk Chandigarh where thermoplastic

were laid three year ago:
Table 5.39 Yellowness Index Transport Chowk to Tribune Chowk where thermoplastic
were laid three year ago.

0.861386 0.857143 0.861386
0.444444 0.762295 0.444444
0.709302 0.609524 0.709302
0.44 0.363158 0.44
0.318681 0.234043 0.318681
0.3 0.206557 0.3
For Water Based Paint:
• At Derabassi road where waterborne paint were laid one month

ago:
Table 5.40 Yellowness Index at derabassi road where Water borne paint were laid one
month ago.

0.283088 0.144279 0.283088
0.275556 0.280543 0.275556
0.089552 0.265217 0.089552
0.144144 0.266667 0.144144
0.196429 0.394089 0.196429
0.209756 0.190244 0.209756
71
• At PGI road where waterborne paint were laid eight month ago:
Table 5.41 Yellowness Index at PGI road where Water borne paint were laid eight month
ago.

0.375 0.034826 0.375
0.389189 0.334842 0.389189
0.062112 0.317391 0.062112
0.274725 0.24 0.274725
0.25 0.344828 0.25
0.375758 0.263415 0.375758
5.4.1 Discussion Regarding Yellowness Index:
• As the age of material increases, yellowness index increases.

• It affects more at centre line due to more traffic at centre line, but sometimes
it affects more at side line rather than centre line because all the dirt is
collected at side line during adverse weather condition as shown in above
tables.
• Yellowness index of Water based paint is more rapidly increasing as
compare to Thermoplastic because its thickness is in few microns.
72
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE
6.1 Project summary

The performance evaluation parameter of pavement marking material including thermoplastic
and water based glowmark compound was evaluated from seven different test sites located in
Chandigarh region of India. Thermoplastic were laid on five test sites and water based paint
were laid on two test sites. The test sites were selected based on the age and type of material.
The performance evaluation was examined from beginning and lasted from two to three year.
The performance evaluation plan included measuring night time reflectivity using handheld
retro reflectometer, measuring thickness using micrometer, measuring day time Luminance
using photovolt or reflectance meter confirming to ASTM E97.
Retroreflectivity values were plotted against thickness of the material. Reteroreflectivity

values and thickness values of both the marking material were compared with milestone
criteria for newly laid, one month, six months, 1 year, 2 year & 3 year performance.
Luminance value were recorded & yellowness index was calculated with same milestone
criteria for newly laid, one month, six months, 1 year, 2 year & 3 year performance for both
the marking material.
6.2 Conclusion
Based on the performance evaluation results and the data analysis performed following
Conclusions are made :
Reteroreflectivity :
• It was seen that the retero reflectivity of pavement marking decreases with age. For
normal paints there is considerable decrease in the retero reflectivity within one year
of application.
• Reflectivity of water based paint reduces more as compare to thermoplastic paint with
time.
• It was also examined that the age of water based paint is approximately 15 months
whereas thermoplastic paints have age more than three year.
73
• It is also concluded that water based paint should be applied on low traffic volumes
whereas thermoplastic should be applied on high traffic volumes.
• On comparing reteroreflectivity with thickness, analysis were performed by making
XY plots which clearly shows that as the thickness decreases with time the reflectivity
also decreases.
• The value of reflectivity decreases more at centre line as compare to side line because
all the traffic plying at centre line. Thus it reduces thickness of marking material
which in turn reduces the reflectivity.
• The average reduction in the value of reflectivity derived from data analysis in the
time span of three years is approximately 77 % at side lines and 82.9 % at centre line
for thermoplastic. And for water based paint it reduces almost 100%.
• It is also examined that the appearance of thermoplastic is excellent during initial time
and its reflectivity is sustained throughout the service life and in case of water based
paint its appearance is excellent during initial time but degrade after 14 to 18 months
approx.
Luminance :
6.3 Future Scope

•
74
REFRENCES
[1] Abboud, N. and Bowman B. L.,"Cost-and longevity-based scheduling of paint and
thermoplastic striping." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1794(1): 55-62, 2002.
[2] Al Masaeid Hashem R. and Sinha Kumars C., “Analysis of Accident Reduction
Potential of Pavement Marking”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol 120,
Page 723-7361994.
[3] Babic Darco, Mario M, Prusa Peter, “Evaluation of Road Markings Retoreflection
Measuring Methods” European Scientific Journal, Vol 3, pp 105-116, Feb 2014.
[4] Burns, D. M., Hedblom T.P, and Miller T.W, “Modern Pavement Marking Systems:
The Relationship Between Optics and Nighttime Visibility”, Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board. 2008.
[5] Carlson P.J., Miles J., Chalmers S., “Strategy for Evaluating Durable Pavement
Marking Materials for High Traffic Areas and Mountain Passes”, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[6] Cho Yong, Kabassi Koudous, Pyeon Jae-Ho, Choi Kunhee, Wang Chao, and Norton
Terri ,“Effectiveness Study of Methods for Removing Temporary Pavement Markings
in Roadway Construction Zones” Journal Of Construction Engineering And
Management,Vol. 139, Page 257-266, March 2013.
[7] Conglong Yu, “A Comparative Performance Analysis Of Pavement Marking
Materials” Mississippi State University, Master Thesis, 2004.
[8] Cuelho E., Stephens J., and McDonald C., "A Review of the Performance and Costs
of Contemporary Pavement Marking Systems", Publication FHWA/MT -03-
001/8117-17. Western Transportation Institute. 2003.
[9] Dale, John M., "Pavement Markings: Materials and Application for Extended Service
Life," NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice #138, TRB, Washington, D.C., June
1988.
[10] Debaillon, C., and Carlson P.J, “Updates to Research on Recommended Minimum
Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver Night Visibility
Needs”, Report FHWA-HRT- 07-059, University of Iowa, pp - 46. 2007.
[11]Gates,T.J., Hawkins H.G., and Rose E.R., Effective Pavement Marking Materials and
Applications for Portland Cement Concrete Roadways. Texas Department of
Transportation, Report No. FHWA/TX-03/4150-2, Year 2003.
75
[12] Grath Mc, Marcia, A., "Durable Pavement Marking Materials Workshop".
FHWATS-81-221, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1981.
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_surface_marking.
[14] http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm
[15] Holman, F.L., "Glass Beads for Traffic Marking Paint," Alabama Highway
Research, HPR Report #55, Alabama Highway Research, July 1971.
[16] Jayanti Construction Limited manual.
[17] John Lu Jian, Barter Tony, ‘Evaluation Of Traffic Markings In Cold Regions”,
Journal Of Transportation Engineering , Vol 124, Page 42-51, January-February 1998.
[18] Lee Dongmin and Donnell Eric T. , “Analysis of Night time Driver Behavior and
Pavement Marking Effects Using Fuzzy Inference System”, Journal of computing in
civil engineering, May/June 2007.
[19] Lee Hsiang Yi and Yuang Yu Chi , “Visibility Effectiveness of Hemisphere and
Corner Cube Retro reflective Pavement Markers on Curved Roads”, Journal Of
Transportation Engineering, Vol 129, Page 77-83, January-February 2003.
[20] Lee, J.T., Maleck T.L., and Taylor W.C, "Pavement Marking Material Evaluation
Study in Michigan", ITE Journal, pp. 44–51, July 1999.
[21] Lundkvist Sven-Olof , Isacsson Ulf, Prediction Of Road Marking Performance,
Journal Of Transportation Engineering , June 2007.
[22] Migletz J., Graham J., “Long-Term Pavement Marking Practices”, A Synthesis of
Highway Practice, NCHRP Synthesis 306, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., p. 162, 2002.
[23]Migletz J., Graham J.L., Harwood D.W., Bauer K.M., “Service Life of Durable
Pavement Markings”, Maintenance of Transportation Pavements and Structures -
Maintenance, Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C. , pp. 13–21, 2001.
[24] Migletz, J., Graham J.L., Bauer K.M., and Harwood D.W. “Field Surveys of
Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
TRB, Transportation Research Record 1657, National Research Council, Washington,
D. C., pp. 71-78, 1999.
[25] Mull Dale M., and Sitzabee William E., “Paint Pavement Marking Performance
Prediction Model”, Journal Of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 138, Page 618-624,
May 2012.
76
[26] Ozelim Luana and Turochy Rod E., “Modeling Retro reflectivity Performance of
Thermoplastic Pavement Markings in Alabama”, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 2014, Page140.
[27] Rehman SAU, Duggal A.K, “ Suitability of different material used for Road
marking- A Review”, IJRET, Vol 2, Issue 2, May 2015.
[28] Rumar K., Marsh D.K., "Lane Markings in Night Driving A Review of Past
Research and of the Present Situation", University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Transportation Research Institute, 1998.
[29] Sitzabee William E., Hummer Joseph E., and Rasdorf William, “Pavement Marking
Degradation Modellisssng and Analysis”, Journal Of Infrastructure Systems, Vol 15,
Page 190-199, September 2009.
[30] Songchitruksa, Ullman Gerald L., and Adam M. Pike, “Guidance for Cost-
Effective Selection of Pavement Marking Materials for Work Zones” Journal Of
Infrastructure Systems, Vol 17, Page 55-65,June 2011.
[31] Thomas, G.B. and Schloz C., “Durable, Cost-Effective Pavement Markings”, Phase
I: Synthesis of Current Research, Iowa Department of Transportation, Report No. TR-
454. Available online: http://www.dot.ia.us/materials/research/reports_pdf/
hr_and_tr/reports/tr454.pdf.
[32] Traffic Engineering Manual, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), 2002
Edition (including revision through January 20, 2006). Available Online:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/traffic/Publication %20Manuals/TEM/TEM%20complete_
012006.pdf.
[33] Zhang Guanghua, Hummer Joseph E., and William Rasdorf, “Impact of Bead
Density on Paint Pavement Marking Retro reflectivity”, Journal Of Transportation
Engineering © Asce , Vol 136, Page 773-78 August 2010.
77
APPENDIX A
Testing Method of Luminance
White: Day light luminance at 45 Degree-65%min as per AASTO M249
Yellow: Day light luminance at 45 Degree-45%min as per AASTO M249
1 (a) Yellowness index:
For white thermoplastic paint: Not more than 0.12 as per AASTO M 249
Procedure
A. Appartus
(i) Photovolt or other reflectance meter confirming to ASTM E 97
(ii) Clean Tin plates approx 75 mm dia lids for pint cans are satisfactory
(iii) Round one half pint
(iv) Oven capable of regulation 218+-2 degree C
(v) Spatulla having square tipped blades.
B. Testing Procedure
(i) Weigh approximately 100 gms of material into the can and heat for 4th at
218+-2 degree C
(ii) Remove from oven, stir rapidly and thoroughly with a spatula for 10
seconds.
(iii) Cast approximately 75 mm dia meter patty on the tin plate or can lid.
Allow to cool to room temperature.
(iv) Remove the sample from the tin plate being careful that patty does not
break.
(v) Follow the manufacturer’s direction for use of the photo volt reflectance
meter. Using the three tri-stimulus filters, amber(A) blue(B) & green (G)
in the defuse reflectance head, no 610 Y calibrate each filter with porcelain
enameled plaque secondary standard.
(vi) Determine the reflectance value of the sample.
(vii) The day light luminance reflectance of the sample correspond to the value
obtained with the green(G) tri-stimulus filter. Calculate the yellowness
index Y from the above value for A B & G issuing following equation
Y=(A-B)/G
78
79

Road Marking Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Road Marking Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INTRODUCTION

1.2.1 Traffic paints

1.2.3 Preformed Thermoplastic

1.2.3.1 Characteristics of performed tapes

1.2.4 Glow mark Water based road marking compound

• Aggregate: specially selected aggregate, pulverized to required fineness.

Glow mark can be applied on:

1.2.4.1 Advantages of Glowmark:

• Long life: GM is highly durable and has a life expectancy of 12 to 24 months

1.2.4.2 Technical Data

Nature : solid at ambient temperature

Color : white or yellow

Softening Point C at 105 C : 90 C to 105 C

Flow Resistance : Less than 10%

Solubility in Petroleum Fuel : NIL

Sensitivity to Water immediately : NIL

Pour Temperature : 160 C to 170 C

Safe Heating Temperature : 180 C

Time required for drying : 3-4 minutes

Volume of solids : approx. 61%

Recommended WFT per coat : 100-500 microns

Theoretical Coverage : 4-5 Kg/ sqm at thickness of 2mm

Recommended drop : BS 6088 type II

1.3.1 Retro Reflectivity:

Durability is another parameter to check the performance of road marking materials. It is

2.2 Review of Literature

2.2.7 Grath Mc et al in [12], reporting on a Durable Pavement Marking Materials

2.2.13 Lundkvist Sven-Olof et al in [21] investigated if results obtained on dry road

2.2.18 Sitzabee William E. et al in [29] determined the performance characteristics of

2.2.19 Songchitruksa Praprut et al in [30] aims to develop a systematic approach to

2.3 Inference Drawn from Literature Survey:

• Effective Pavement marking provides reduction in accident by delineating the roads.

2.4 Identification of Gaps

OBJECTIVE & METHODOLOGY

The comprehensive literature review was conducted on publications related to pavement

3.2 Problem Statement

3.3 Objectives of the Study

• To analyze the performance evaluation parameter of pavement marking material.

3.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Figure 3.1 Hand held Reflectometer

Figure 3.2 Micrometer

Categorize Different types of Road in terms of

Data Collection (Collection of data from

Data Analysis ( Analyse the data collected

Graphical representation of age of marking

Conclude the proposed work

Prepare a report based on the study

DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Categorization of Roads

4.2 Data Collection:

4.2.1 Night time Reflectivity Readings on Preselected test site:

4.2.1.1 For Thermoplastic material:

Table 4.1 Reflectance measured at sector 42

Night time Reflectivity Readings of newly laid thermoplastic

Towards Central Verge Central line Opposite Central Verge

Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied One month ago

Towards Central Verge Central line Opposite Central Verge

Table 4.3 Reflectance measured at Hallomajra Road

Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied Six month ago

Towards Central Verge Central line Opposite Central Verge

240 202 240

Table 4.4 Reflectance measured at Transport Chowk to panchkula

Night time Reflectivity Readings of thermoplastic applied One Year ago

Towards Central Verge Central line Opposite Central Verge