NO TRACK THERMOPLASTIC - Florida Department of Transportation

yy 0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-23. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: R, Color: White,
Glass Beads: No)

0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-24. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: C, Color: White,
Glass Beads: No)

37

yy 0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-25. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: E, Color: White,
Glass Beads: No)

0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-26. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: D, Color: White,
Glass Beads: No)

38

yy 0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-27. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: R, Color: White,
Glass Beads: Yes)

0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-28. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: C, Color: White,
Glass Beads: Yes)

39

yy 0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52nd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-29. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: E, Color: White,
Glass Beads: Yes)

0.45
1st day
2nd day

0.40 3rd day
10th day

0.35 31st day
38th day

0.30 52rd day
108th day
151st day

0.25
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
x

Figure 3-30. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: D, Color: White,
Glass Beads: Yes)

40

yy 0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40 52nd day
0.35 108th day

151st day
0.30

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-31. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: R, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: No)

0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40
52nd day

0.35 108th day
151st day

0.30
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-32. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: C, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: No)

41

yy 0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40 52nd day
0.35 108th day

151st day
0.30

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-33. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: E, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: No)

0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40 52nd day
0.35 108th day

151st day
0.30

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-34. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: D, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: No)

42

yy 0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
0.50 3st day

10th day
0.45 31st day

38th day
0.40

52nd day
0.35 108th day

151st day
0.30

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-35. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: R, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: Yes)

0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40
52nd day

0.35 108th day
151st day

0.30
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-36. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: C, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: Yes)

43

yy 0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50 10th day
0.45 31st day

38th day
0.40 52nd day
0.35 108th day

151st day
0.30

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-37. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: E, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: Yes)

0.60
1st day

0.55 2nd day
3rd day

0.50
10th day

0.45 31st day
38th day

0.40
52nd day

0.35 108th day
151st day

0.30
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
x

Figure 3-38. Change of Average Chromaticity over Time (Product: D, Color: Yellow,
Glass Beads: Yes)

44

Table 3-9. Color Differences at Different Times during Study Period
(Color: Yellow, Glass Beads: No)

CIE 1931 and 1964 CIE 1976 L* a* b* (CIELAB)
L* a* b*
Products # of Days xy Y ΔE* ΔE*94
R 73.39 17.86 77.59
1 0.49 0.45 45.76 56.34 12.53 47.77 0.00 0.00
31 56.10 12.49 47.61 34.77 18.30
108 0.46 0.43 24.25 57.52 2.95 44.70 35.03 18.54
151 39.45 18.13
0.46 0.43 24.01

0.43 0.44 25.46

1 0.47 0.44 52.02 77.29 15.95 68.73 0.00 0.00

D 31 0.45 0.42 41.06 70.22 15.14 50.91 19.19 8.41
108 0.44 0.41 31.59 63.00 14.06 41.52 30.79 15.88

151 0.46 0.42 35.42 66.07 17.12 50.92 21.09 12.26

1 0.49 0.46 44.43 72.51 14.77 81.82 0.00 0.00

C 31 0.46 0.43 37.8 67.87 14.53 55.38 26.84 7.56
108 0.46 0.43 32.84 64.03 13.86 52.85 30.20 10.66

151 0.48 0.44 36.38 66.81 16.77 64.16 18.67 7.19

1 0.49 0.46 49.83 75.96 15.35 85.01 0.00 0.00

E 31 0.46 0.44 38.38 68.30 11.72 59.13 27.23 9.36
108 0.46 0.43 36.53 66.92 14.36 54.75 31.59 11.16

151 0.47 0.42 40.16 69.58 20.63 55.79 30.37 10.05

45

Table 3-10. Color Differences at Different Times during Study Period
(Color: Yellow, Glass Beads: Yes)

Products # of Days CIE 1931 and 1964 CIE 1976 L* a* b* (CIELAB) ΔE* ΔE*94
R xy Y L* a* b*
1 0.00 0.00
31 0.49 0.45 40.36 69.73 17.13 74.41 33.76 18.02
108 0.46 0.43 21.03 52.98 11.95 45.55 48.35 18.70
151 0.42 0.39 22.61 54.67 12.95 28.66 35.12 16.91
0.44 0.44 22.58 54.64 5.20 45.02

1 0.49 0.44 43.81 72.10 20.59 71.90 0.00 0.00

D 31 0.46 0.40 28.93 60.72 21.68 41.67 32.32 14.20
108 0.47 0.42 25.14 57.21 17.65 47.73 28.54 16.01

151 0.46 0.42 22.82 54.89 14.78 43.98 33.31 18.45

1 0.49 0.45 41.88 70.79 17.34 75.33 0.00 0.00

C 31 0.47 0.43 25.90 57.94 15.19 51.28 27.35 14.02
108 0.46 0.42 24.93 57.01 15.22 45.29 33.12 15.52

151 0.50 0.44 24.44 56.53 20.21 64.16 18.34 14.68

1 0.51 0.45 37.63 67.75 21.80 81.76 0.00 0.00

E 31 0.46 0.43 22.64 54.70 12.25 46.68 38.62 15.08
108 0.48 0.44 23.87 55.96 14.58 55.75 29.45 13.06

151 0.50 0.44 23.43 55.51 19.93 63.27 22.25 12.90

46

Table 3-11. Color Differences at Different Times during Study Period
(Color: White, Glass Beads: No)

CIE 1931 and 1964 CIE 1976 L* a* b* (CIELAB)

Products # of Days xy Y L* a* b* ΔE* ΔE*94
R
1 0.33 0.34 69.46 86.73 3.10 6.67 0.00 0.00
31 8.09 7.71
108 0.33 0.35 57.39 80.40 -1.12 9.41 12.76 12.58
151 12.13 11.93
0.33 0.35 48.06 74.86 -1.05 8.87

0.33 0.35 49.18 75.56 -1.06 8.94

1 0.32 0.34 69.32 86.66 -1.45 4.96 0.00 0.00

D 31 0.33 0.35 57.61 80.52 -1.12 9.42 7.60 7.15
108 0.33 0.34 52.92 77.83 2.83 6.09 9.88 9.72

151 0.33 0.35 53.18 77.98 -1.09 9.18 9.66 9.35

1 0.32 0.34 68.43 86.22 -1.45 4.94 0.00 0.00

C 31 0.33 0.35 59.39 81.51 -1.13 9.52 6.58 6.03
108 0.33 0.35 45.21 73.03 -1.03 8.69 13.72 13.55

151 0.33 0.35 51.42 76.93 -1.08 9.07 10.17 9.89

1 0.32 0.34 69.13 86.57 -1.45 4.96 0.00 0.00

E 31 0.33 0.35 56.83 80.08 -1.11 9.38 7.86 7.44
108 0.33 0.35 54.48 78.74 -1.10 9.25 8.94 8.59

151 0.33 0.35 51.29 76.85 -1.08 9.07 10.55 10.29

47

Table 3-12. Color Differences at Different Times during Study Period
(Color: White, Glass Beads: Yes)

CIE 1931 and 1964 CIE 1976 L* a* b* (CIELAB)
xy Y
Products # of Days L* a* b* ΔE* ΔE*94
R 0.33 0.35 60.24
1 0.33 0.35 38.13 81.97 -1.13 9.56 0.00 0.00
31 0.33 0.35 33.86 13.92 13.88
108 0.34 0.35 29.42 68.12 -0.97 8.21 17.20 17.16
151 21.13 21.06
64.85 -0.94 7.89

61.15 2.42 8.85

1 0.32 0.34 58.99 81.29 -1.38 4.70 0.00 0.00

D 31 0.33 0.35 28.91 60.70 -0.89 7.49 20.78 20.72
108 0.33 0.35 34.44 65.31 -0.94 7.94 16.31 16.21

151 0.33 0.35 34.00 64.96 -0.94 7.90 16.64 16.54

1 0.32 0.34 61.15 82.46 -1.39 4.76 0.00 0.00

C 31 0.33 0.35 35.83 66.39 -0.95 8.04 16.41 16.30
108 0.33 0.35 33.74 64.76 -0.94 7.88 17.98 17.90

151 0.34 0.35 32.01 63.35 2.49 9.11 19.98 19.76

1 0.33 0.35 66.50 85.25 -1.17 9.88 0.00 0.00

E 31 0.33 0.35 26.32 58.34 -0.86 7.26 27.04 0.00
108 0.35 0.34 37.30 67.50 9.70 8.28 20.88 20.11

151 0.33 0.35 38.74 68.56 -0.98 8.26 16.77 16.73

48

ΔE* ΔE* 45
40 Glass Beads Applied

Without Glass Beads
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

RDCE
Thermoplastic Marking Products

Figure 3-39. ΔE* Values for Yellow Markings (151st day)

30
Glass Beads Applied

25 Without Glass Beads
20

15

10

5

0
RDCE
Thermoplastic Marking Products

Figure 3-40. ΔE* Values for White Markings (151st day)

49

ΔE*94 25
Glass Beads Applied
ΔE*94
20 Without Glass Beads
15

10

5

0
RDC E
Thermoplastic Marking Products

Figure 3-41. ΔE*94 Values for Yellow Markings (151st day)

25
Glass Beads Applied
Without Glass Beads

20

15

10

5

0
RDCE
Thermoplastic Marking Products

Figure 3-42. ΔE*94 Values for White Markings (151st day)

50

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Summary

Thermoplastic material is a durable traffic marking material which has been widely used in
the State of Florida. To install thermoplastic markings on newly constructed pavement, the
roadway needs to be closed and traffic has to be stopped. This would cause significant delay
to traveling public. Recently, a new type of thermoplastic material called “no track”
thermoplastic has been introduced in practical applications. The main benefit of a no track
thermoplastic marking is that it can be placed on a fresh asphalt surface. Thus, the roadway
can be opened to traffic with a minimum wait time as compared to traditional thermoplastic
markings.

Recent practices have indicated a problem associated with some so called no track
thermoplastic markings. The problem is that with new asphalt being placed into service,
bitumen tracks onto the thermoplastic markings. Thus, during the final asphalt cure time, the
markings become discolored with the asphalt materials, resulting in discoloration and
reduced retroreflectivity performance. In order to be a no track thermoplastic marking, the
marking is supposed to provide resistance to tracking of asphaltic materials onto the marking.
Similar to other traffic marking materials, a no track thermoplastic marking should also meet
the initial requirements, including shape, adhesion, color, and reflectance for a certain time
period as specified by the Florida Department of Transportation.

The main objectives of the research are (1) to search and review existing practices for
installing and evaluating no track thermoplastic markings; (2) to develop a test
method/procedure to determine whether a thermoplastic marking is a no track marking; and
(3) to run field tests and experiments to obtain the performance data (such as reflectivity and
color performance) through real applications of no track thermoplastic markings.

To achieve the research objective, real thermoplastic installation projects were arranged and
test equipment/instruments were used onsite to measure the performance of industry
proclaimed and marketed no track thermoplastic markings. The field tests started on March
26th, 2007 and lasted five months. The last field visit was made on August 23rd, 2007. Four

51

thermoplastic marking materials were selected for the field tests, including three proclaimed
no track thermoplastic markings and one regular thermoplastic marking. For convenience,
the three no track thermoplastic marking products were named as product C, D, and E,
respectively, and the regular thermoplastic marking was named as product R. Factors
considered in field tests include color of traffic markings and the use of glass beads. It total,
sixteen transverse lines were installed at the test section for the field tests, including four
yellow lines with glass beads applied on the surfaces of traffic markings, four yellow lines
without glass beads, four white lines with glass beads applied and four white lines without
glass beads.

The research team randomly selected 15 points from each transverse line and measured both
initial and in service performance data for the applied thermoplastic markings.
Retroreflectivity was measured using a MX-30 handheld retroreflectometer. Color was
measured using a BYK Gardner Handy colorimeter. When measuring retroreflectivity,
procedures provided by the ASTM standard E 1710 were followed. The color measurements
followed the test methods provided by the ASTM standard E 1347. Pictures were also taken in
the field to illustrate the change of appearance of traffic markings over time. Data
measurements were taken during clear daylight hours and were not collected when the
pavement was wet. In total, the research team conducted nine field visits to collect
performance data, and took 1463 retroreflectivity measurements and 2230 color
measurements at the test section.

The appearance of traffic markings by visual inspection in the field showed that the selected
no track thermoplastic markings were not completely resistant to the wheel tracking of
asphalt on to the traffic marking surfaces. In fact, with visual inspection one could not
distinguish between no track and regular thermoplastic markings.

The mean initial retroreflectance for selected thermoplastic markings varies from 189 to 255
mcd/lx·m2 for yellow traffic markings, and from 330 to 440 mcd/lx·m2 for white traffic
markings. For yellow traffic markings, only product C and product D meet the FDOT
requirements for initial retroreflectance. Products R and E did not meet the initial

52

requirements. For white markings, all selected thermoplastic marking products successfully
meet the initial requirements for retroreflectance.

Based on the collected retroreflectivity data, degradation curves were developed to illustrate
the change of retroreflectivity over time. The curves show that the retroreflectances of traffic
markings increase with time and reach the maximum values after the markings have been
installed on the road for three days. After three days, the retroreflectances of selected
thermoplastic traffic markings reach a relatively steady state. The mean initial
retroreflectance for selected thermoplastic markings varies from 189 to 255 mcd/lx·m2 for
yellow traffic markings, and from 330 to 440 mcd/lx·m2 for white traffic markings. For
yellow traffic markings, only product C and product D meet the FDOT requirements about
initial retroreflectance. Products R and E were not found to meet the requirements. For white
markings, all selected thermoplastic marking products successfully meet the requirements
about initial retroreflectance.

The retroreflectivity degradation curves were used to compare the no track and regular
thermoplastic markings. For yellow traffic markings, the selected no track thermoplastic
markings were found to be superior to the selected regular thermoplastic marking in terms of
the higher in-service retroreflectivity. For white traffic markings, even though the selected no
track thermoplastic markings meet the FDOT initial and in-service requirements for
retroreflectance of white traffic markings, they do not provide better retroreflectivity as
compared to the selected regular thermoplastic marking.

Color measurements were represented on the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram to check if the
in-service color is outside the chromaticity limits established by the FDOT, and to illustrate
the discoloration of traffic markings over time. It was found that most of the color
measurements fall within the box created by the coordinates provided by the FDOT. The data
points fall outside of the box represent the points on traffic markings that are badly stained by
wheel tracking of asphalts. By looking at these figures, however, it is difficult to identify the
pattern of discoloration over time and to quantify the color differences between initial and in-
service traffic markings.

53

In this study, two parameters were used to quantify the discoloration of traffic markings
during the asphalt curing time and to compare the discoloration of no track thermoplastic
markings to that of the regular thermoplastic marking. These two parameters include the
ΔE * value which is calculated based on the L*, a*, b* values from the CIELAB color space,
and CIE94 color tolerance ΔE9*4 . It was found that both ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values increase with
the time, indicating the fact that these two parameters can be used to quantify the
discoloration of traffic markings over time. The selected no track thermoplastic marking
materials are found to be more resistant to the tracking of asphalt as compared to the regular
thermoplastic marking material in terms of the lower ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values. The data also
show that the assumption about the impacts of glass beads is not true. Traffic markings with
glass beads dropped on the surfaces were not found to be more resistant to the tracking of
asphalt. In fact, for most of the test lines, traffic markings with glass beads dropped on the
surfaces have larger ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values as compared to those without glass beads.

4.2 Conclusions

Based on the data analysis results, the following conclusions are made:

1. The selected no track thermoplastic traffic marking materials are not completely
resistant to wheel tracking of asphalt. Visual inspection of the appearance of traffic
markings in the field cannot distinguish between no track and regular thermoplastic
markings.

2. For yellow traffic markings, the selected no track thermoplastic markings were found
to be superior to the selected regular thermoplastic marking in terms of the higher in-
service retroreflectivity. For white traffic markings, even though the selected no track
thermoplastic markings meet the FDOT initial and in-service requirements for the
retroreflectance of white traffic markings, they do not provide better retroreflectivity
as compared to the selected regular thermoplastic marking.

3. It is difficult to use CIE color coordinates (x, y) to identify if a thermoplastic marking
is a no track marking. By plotting color measurements at different times during the

54

study period on the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram, it is difficult to identify the
pattern of discoloration over time and to quantify the color differences between initial
and in-service traffic markings.

4. The CIELAB ΔE * value which is calculated based on the L*, a*, b* values from the
CIELAB color space, and the CIE94 color tolerance ΔE9*4 can be used to quantify the
discoloration of traffic markings during the asphalt curing time and to compare the
discoloration of no track thermoplastic markings to that of the regular thermoplastic
marking. The selected no track thermoplastic marking materials are more resistant to
the tracking of asphalt as compared to the regular thermoplastic marking material in
terms of the lower ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values.

5. Traffic markings with glass beads dropped on the surfaces were not found to be more
resistant to the tracking of asphalt. In fact, for most of the test lines, traffic markings
with glass beads dropped on the surfaces have larger ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values as
compared to those without glass beads.

This study developed a test method and conducted field tests to measure the performance of
three industry proclaimed no track thermoplastic markings and one regular thermoplastic
marking. It was found that the best parameter that can be used to identify if a particular
thermoplastic marking is a no track marking is the color differences between the newly
installed marking and the marking that has been opened to traffic for a certain period of time.
The difference between initial and in-service color can be quantified by using either the
CIELAB ΔE * value or the CIE94 color tolerance ΔE9*4 . It was found that the selected no
track thermoplastic marking materials have lower ΔE * and ΔE9*4 values as compared to the
regular thermoplastic marking, implying that the selected no track thermoplastic markings
are more resistant to the tracking of bitumen as compared to the ordinary thermoplastic
striping.

The study provided some quantified results about the change of retroreflectivity and color
over time for both no track and regular thermoplastic marking materials. The quantified
results can help the FDOT develop technical specifications for the use of no track

55

thermoplastic marking materials. The limitation of this study is that the test lines are
transverse lines installed in an exclusive right-turn lane where heavy vehicles will pass over
the test lines. The research team was not able to test the performance of longitudinal lines
such as edge lines and lane lines. In addition, the study period of the field tests is five months.
From the authors’ stand point, the study period is still relatively short, and the optimum study
period shall be greater than one year. The authors suggest that a larger scale study should be
conducted in the future to test more products with a longer study period.

56

REFERENCES

1. Migletz, J., J.K. Fish, and J.L. Graham. Roadway Delineation Practices Handbook,
FHWASA-93-001. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1994.

2. Florida Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 711, Florida
Department of Transportation, 2007.

3. Irtishad, A., Najafi, T.N., Benham, J.L., and Lancaster, P.D. An Investigation into
Application and Bonding Strengths of Thermoplastic Pavement Markings on Concrete
Asphaltic Roadway Surfaces. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL,
2001.

4. Kopf, J. Retroreflectivity of Pavement Markings: Analysis of Retro-Retroreflectivity
Degradation Curves. Final Report, Research Project T1803, Task 20. Washington State
Transportation Center. Washington, D.C., September 2004.

5. Migletz, J; Graham, JL; Harwood, DW; Bauer, KM. Service Life of Durable Pavement
Markings. Transportation Research Board No 1749, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2001, pp 13-21.

6. Scheuer.M, Maleck.T.L, Lighthizer.D.R. Paint-Line Retroreflectivity over Time.
Transportation Research Board No 1585, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1997, pp 53-63.

7. NCHRP Synthesis 306, Long-Term Pavement Marking Practices: A synthesis of
Highway Practices.” Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2002.

8. Pavement Marking Handbook. Texas Department of Transportation. 2003.

9. Jacobs, G. J., & Johnson, N. L. Yellow Pavement Marking with Yellow Nighttime Color.
Transporation Research Record 1495, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1995, pp147-155.

57

10. Thomas-Meyers, G., Nagy, A. L., & Khan, M. Pavement marking color specifications.
Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 2003.

11. ASTM Standard Specification D 713. Standard Practice for Conducting Road Service
Tests on Fluid Traffic Marking Materials. ASTM International, West Conshohochen, PA.

12. ASTM Standard Specification D 1710. Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Retroreflectivity of Pavement Marking Materials with CEN-Prescribed Geometry Using
a Portable Retroreflectometer, ASTM International, West Conshohochen, PA.

13. ASTM Standard Specification D 6359. Standard Specification for Minimum
Retroreflectance of Newly Applied Pavement Marking Using Portable Hand-Operated
Instruments, ASTM International, West Conshohochen, PA.

14. ASTM Standard Specification E 1347. Standard Test Method for Color and Color
Difference Measurement by Tristimulus (Filter) Colorimetry, ASTM International, West
Conshohochen, PA.

15. ASTM Standard Specification D 2244. Standard Practice for Calculation of Color
Tolerances and Color Differences from Instrumentally Measured Color Coordinates,
ASTM International, West Conshohochen, PA.

16. ASTM Standard Specification D 6628. Standard Specification for Color of Pavement
Marking Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohochen, PA.

17. Florida Method of Test for Traffic Striping Retroreflectivity, Designation 5-579, Florida
Department of Transportation, 2006

18. Florida Method of Test for Traffic Striping Field Test, Designation 5-541, Florida
Department of Transportation, 2006

19. Florida Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 971, Florida
Department of Transportation, 2007

58