The performance of several marking materials, including fast dry waterborne traffic paint, extruded thermoplastic, preformed thermoplastic, slow cure epoxy, fast cure epoxy, polyurea, modified urethane, methyl methacrylate, and high performance durable tapes, was evaluated on sixteen Portland cement concrete (PCC) bridge decks in Ashland and Richland counties in OhioDepartment of Transportation (ODOT) District 3 along interstate I-71. Theperformance evaluation period lasted for slightly over two years. In eachfield evaluation, retroreflectivity was measured using two LTL-X handheldretroreflectometers; color was measured using a MiniScan XE Plus colorimeter; and daytime color, nighttime visibility, and durability were subjectively rated by experienced evaluators. In addition, a pocket magnifier was used to examine glass bead retention as it varied over time. Based on theperformance evaluation results and observations made during the periodic evaluations, the following conclusions were made: (1) The performance of fast dry waterborne traffic paint was reasonably acceptable throughout the performance evaluation period (2-year retroreflectivity close to 150 mcd/m2/lux). (2) As expected, the extruded thermoplastic failed due to durability in less than one year even though a sealer was applied prior to the application of the thermoplastic. (3) Preformed thermoplastic had high initial retroreflectivity. However, one of the products had low retained retroreflectivity. (4) The three slow cure epoxy products evaluated had excellentdurability and relatively high retroreflectivity (greater than 300 mcd/m2/lux) throughout the study. (5) Two fast cure epoxy products were evaluated. One product failed due to durability in less than eight months, while the other had low retained retroreflectivity. (6) The performance of the modified urethane was comparable to the slow cure epoxies. (7) The three polyurea products evaluated widely varied in performance. One product had thehighest retroreflectivity of all materials throughout the study; another product had high initial and high retained retroreflectivity; while the last product had relatively low retained retroreflectivity. Still, all products had excellent durability and high daytime color ratings. 8- Two methylmethacrylate products were evaluated. Poor installation of one of these products resulted in poor performance. Meanwhile, the performance of the second product was comparable to the slow cure epoxies. 9- Two durable tapeswere evaluated. One of the products had poor retroreflectivity, while theother product had comparable performance to the slow cure epoxies.
Abstract