This article addresses the impact of asphalt type and roughness on paint pavement marking retroreflectivity. Marking retroreflectivity and pavement roughness data were collected on two-lane highways in North Carolina. A t test was used to analyze the data. It was found that the mean values of the retroreflectivity measurements for the plant mixed pavements are significantly higher than those for the bituminous surface treatment (BST; chip seal) pavements. The mean left-wheel international roughness index (IRI) values and right-wheel IRI values for plant mixed pavements are lower than for the BST pavement. The conclusion is that marking crews should consider applying higher-quality paint markings (thicker paint and more glass beads) on BST pavements to achieve the same service life as the markings on plant mixed pavements. This would provide drivers with a more consistent and uniform marking retroreflectivity and the agency or municipality with a more consistent marking schedule.
AbboudN.BowmanB. L. (2002). Cost and longevity-based scheduling of paint and thermoplastic striping (Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1794, pp. 55-62). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
2.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2004). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Society for Testing Materials. (2001). Standard practice for describing retroreflection (ASTM E 808). West Conshohocken, PA: Author.
4.
American Society for Testing Materials. (2005). Standard test method for measurement of retroreflective pavement marking materials with CEN-prescribed geometry using a portable retroreflectometer (ASTM E 1710-05). West Conshohocken, PA: Author.
5.
AndradyA. L. (1997). Pavement marking materials: Assessing environment-friendly performance (NCHRP Report 392). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
6.
BaharG.MasliahM.ErwinT.TanE. (2006). Pavement marking materials and markers: Real-world relationship between retro-reflectivity and safety over time (NCHRP Web-Only Document 92). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
7.
CarlsonP.ParkE.AndersenC. (2009). The benefits of pavement markings: A renewed perspective based on recent and ongoing research (Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2107, pp. 59-68). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
8.
CraigW. N.SitzabeeW. E.HummerJ. E.RasdorfW. (2007). Impact of line location on pavement marking retroreflectivity degradation. Journal of Public Works Management and Policy, 12(2), 431-450.
9.
DonnellE. T.KarwaV.SathyanarayananS. (2009). Analysis of effects of pavement marking retroreflectivity on traffic crash frequency on highways in North Carolina (Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2103, pp. 50-60). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
10.
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways (MUTCD, Chapter 3A-3B). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
11.
LeeJ.MaleckT. L.TaylorW. C. (1999). Pavement marking material study in Michigan. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 69(7), 44-50.
PerrinJ.Jr.MartinP. T.HansenB. G. (1998). A comparative analysis of pavement marking materials (Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 1998, CD-ROM; TRB Paper Number 98-130). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Bureau.
16.
ProwellB.HansonD. (2005). Evaluation of circular texture meter for measuring surface texture of pavements (Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1929, pp. 88-96). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
17.
RasdorfW.HummerJ.ZhangG.SitzabeeW. (2009). Pavement marking performance analysis (NCDOT Technical Report). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Transportation.
18.
RasdorfW.ZhangG.HummerJ. (2009). The impact of directionality on paint pavement marking retroreflectivity. Public Works Management and Policy, 13(3), 265-277.
19.
SarasuaW. A.ClarkeD. B.DavisW. J. (2003). Evaluation of interstate pavement marking retroreflectivity (Report Number: FHWA-SC-03-01). Columbia: South Carolina Department of Transportation.
20.
SasidharanL.KarwaV.DonnellE. T. (2009). Use of pavement marking degradation models to develop a pavement marking management system. Public Works Management and Policy, 14(2), 148-173.
21.
SayersM. W.GillespieT. D.PatersonD. W. O. (1986). Guidelines for conducting and calibrating road roughness measurements (The World Bank Technical Paper Number: 46). Washington, DC: World Bank.
22.
SitzabeeW.HummerJ.RasdorfW. (2009). Pavement marking degradation modeling and analysis. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15(3), 190-199.
23.
SmadiO.SouleyretteR. R.OrmandD. J.HawkinsN. (2008). Pavement marking retroreflectivity: Analysis of safety effectiveness (Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2056, pp. 17-24). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
VereenS.HummerJ.RasdorfW. (2004). Alternative approaches for state agencies to address the proposed minimum retroreflectivity standards. Public Works Management and Policy, 8(4), 235-248.
26.
WrightP. H.PaquetteR. J. (1987). Highway engineering (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley.
27.
ZhangG.HummerJ.RasdorfW. (2009). The impact of bead density on paint pavement marking retroreflectivity. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 136(8), 773-781.
