Evaluation of Franklin Paint Structured Methyl Methacrylate Markings at Laurence G. Hanscom Field and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport

Transcription

1 DOT/FAA/TC-18/20 Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center Aviation Research Division Atlantic City International Airport New Jersey Evaluation of Franklin Paint Structured Methyl Methacrylate Markings at Laurence G. Hanscom Field and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport Holly Cyrus May 2018 Final Report This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia This document is also available from the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

2 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency. This document does not constitute FAA policy. Consult the FAA sponsoring organization listed on the Technical Documentation page as to its use. This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center s Full-Text Technical Reports page: actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF).

3 1. Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-18/20 4. Title and Subtitle 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. EVALUATION OF FRANKLIN PAINT STRUCTURED METHYL METHACRYLATE MARKINGS AT LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD AND MANCHESTER-BOSTON REGIONAL AIRPORT 7. Author(s) Technical Report Documentation Page 5. Report Date May Performing Organization Code ANG-E Performing Organization Report No. Holly Cyrus 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center Airport and Aircraft Safety Research and Development Division 11. Contract or Grant No. Airport Technology Research and Development Branch Atlantic City International Airport, NJ Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Report Airport Engineering Division 800 Independence Ave SW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC AAS Supplementary Notes Mr. Stephen Murphy of the FAA and Mr. Anthony Barone of CSRA provided technical support throughout this evaluation. 16. Abstract In response to a request for research from the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Engineering Division, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Aviation Research, Airport Technology Research and Development Branch (ATRD) began this research effort to determine if a new application technique for painting pavement markings would increase conspicuity over the useful life of the marking in an airport environment. Franklin Paint presented the FAA with information on a new paint marking called structured methyl methacrylate (SMMA). Methyl methacrylate (MMA), paint without the structured component, is currently approved for use on runways and taxiways. SMMA differs from traditional MMA in that it is applied using a splatter pattern. When applied to a pavement using the splattered application technique, SMMA creates a thicker, textured surface with peaks and valleys, while still creating a visible solid marking. Franklin Paint claims this application technique will enhance wet, nighttime retro-reflectivity by allowing water to flow off the peaks and into the valleys of the marking, thus making the paint and beads on the peaks more visible. The manufacturer also suggested using a slightly modified paint formula, which would provide enhanced visibility when used with this unique application technique. Previously, from , the ATRD team conducted a year-long research effort to evaluate the performance of SMMA against MMA at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The research objective for this test was to further evaluate SMMA paint in an airport environment. The research was conducted to further evaluate whether the proposed splatter application technique, a thicker application, and a modified formula offer improvements over the currently accepted MMA application technique and formula. A complex test plan, containing a variety of tests, enabled researchers to evaluate each element that comprise the SMMA paint markings. Testing activities included retro-reflectivity, chromaticity (color), and photograph/video documentation from November 2015 through December 2016 at Laurence G. Hanscom Field in Bedford, Massachusetts (KBED) and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, New Hampshire (KMHT). The performance of the new SMMA paint (new formulation) was acceptable on KMHT and KBED airports. The Franklin Paint SMMA application uses 80% more paint than the standard MMA and 90% of the specified bead application rate. The total material cost for SMMA with Type III beads is approximately 36% higher, or $0.78 more per square foot, than the standard MMA with Type III beads. The results of this test validate the research data obtained at the WJHTC. 17. Key Words Pavement marking, Retro-reflective, Glass beads, Structured methyl methacrylate, SMMA, Methyl methacrylate, Paint application techniques, Chromaticity, Splatter pattern 19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified 18. Distribution Statement This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia This document is also available from the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov. 21. No. of Pages Price Form DOT F (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to Keith Leonhardt, Manager, Operations and Maintenance of Laurence G. Hanscom Field in Bedford, Massachusetts (KBED) and Michael Legere, Manager, Airport Operations and Facilities of Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, New Hampshire (KMHT) for allowing testing on their respective airports. iii/iv

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi 1. INTRODUCTION Background Objectives Related Documents 2 2. EVALUATION APPROACH Test Surface-Painted Sign Materials Evaluation Sites Manchester-Boston Regional Airport Laurence G. Hanscom Field Application Technique Evaluation Equipment Evaluation Procedures Retro-Reflectivity Test Chromaticity Test Removal Test OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS Retro-Reflectivity Results Manchester-Boston Regional Airport Laurence G. Hanscom Field Chromaticity Results Removal Results Cost Comparison Objectives Met CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES 23 v

6 APPENDICES A Monthly Inspection Photographs B Retro-Reflective Charts, Chromaticity Charts, and Data vi

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The KMHT Surface-Painted Sign 4 2 Test Location at KMHT 5 3 Test Surface-Painted Sign on KMHT Taxiway M 6 4 The KBED Airport Surface-Painted Sign 7 5 Test Location at KBED 8 6 Test Surface-Painted Sign on KBED Taxiway E 9 7 The MMA Application at KMHT 10 8 The SMMA Application at KMHT 10 9 The MMA Application at KBED The SMMA Application at KBED Delta Light & Optics LTL-X Retro-Reflectometer The BYK-Gardner Spectro-Guide 45/0 Spectrophotometer Sample Data Collection Sheet for Chromaticity and Retro-Reflectometer Readings Grayed-out Effect at KMHT The FOD Paint Crumble Removal at KBED Installation Rust From Iron Ore at 1-Month Inspection at KBED Rust From Iron Ore at 12-Month Inspection at KBED First-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KMHT Fourth-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KMHT First-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KBED Third-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KBED 21 vii

8 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 The SMMA and MMA Cost Comparison 21 viii

9 LIST OF ACRONYMS AC ATRD CIE FAA FOD GA ICAO IOR KBED KMHT mcd/m 2 /lux MMA SMMA WJHTC Advisory Circular Airport Technology Research and Development International Commission on Illumination Federal Aviation Administration Foreign object debris General aviation International Civil Aviation Organization Index of refraction Laurence G. Hanscom Field Manchester-Boston Regional Airport Millicandela per meter squared per lux Methyl methacrylate Structured methyl methacrylate William J. Hughes Technical Center ix/x

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to a request for research from the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Engineering Division, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Aviation Research, Airport Technology Research and Development Section (ATRD) began this research effort to determine if a new application technique for painting pavement markings would increase conspicuity over the useful life of the marking in an airport environment. A paint manufacturer presented the FAA with information on a new paint marking called structured methyl methacrylate (SMMA). Methyl methacrylate (MMA), paint without the structured component, is currently approved for use on runways and taxiways. SMMA differs from traditional MMA in that it is applied using a splatter pattern. When applied to a pavement using the splattered application technique, SMMA creates a thicker, textured surface with peaks and valleys, while still creating a visible solid marking. The manufacturer claims this application technique will enhance wet, nighttime retro-reflectivity by allowing water to flow off the peaks and into the valleys of the marking, thus making the paint and beads on the peaks more visible. The manufacturer also suggested using a slightly modified paint formula, which would provide enhanced visibility when used with this unique application technique. Previously, from , the ATRD team conducted a year-long research effort to evaluate the performance of SMMA against MMA at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The research objective for this test was to evaluate SMMA paint in an airport environment. The research was conducted to further evaluate whether the proposed splatter application technique, a thicker application, and a modified formula offer improvements over the currently accepted MMA application technique and formula. A complex test plan, containing a variety of tests, enabled researchers to evaluate each element that comprise the SMMA paint markings. Testing activities included retro-reflectivity, chromaticity (color), and photographs/video from November 2015 through November 2016 at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, Manchester, New Hampshire (KMHT) and Laurence G. Hanscom Field Bedford Airport, Bedford, Massachusetts (BED). The December 2016 readings were not included because there was deicing fluid and sand on the markings, so the November 2016 readings were used. The retro-reflectivity readings for white and red paint marking for KMHT were: for the white paint marking, 1718 mcd/m 2 /lux (October 2015) at the beginning of the test and 251 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016) at the end; and for the red paint marking, 65 mcd/m 2 /lux (October 2015) at the beginning of the test and 19 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016) at the end. The white paint marking was the new SMMA pavement markings (new formulation) with Type III glass beads, and the red paint marking was standard (flat) MMA (new formulation) with Type I glass beads. The results of this research effort showed that the new SMMA paint, when used with Type III glass beads on white paint showed some iron ore rust stains at KBED within one month of installation as a result of the porous web pattern installation. The retro-reflectivity readings for white and red paint markings at KBED were: 1769 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2015) at the beginning of the test and 206 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016) at the end for the white paint marking, and 36 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2015) at the beginning of the test and 20 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016) at the end for red paint marking. The white paint marking was the new xi

11 SMMA pavement markings (new formulation) with Type III glass beads and the red paint marking was standard (flat) MMA (new formulation) with Type I glass beads. The chromaticity readings for KMHT and KBED for white, red, and black SMMA paint were within tolerance at the beginning and end of the tests per International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) color in Annex 14. The chromaticity (color) readings for KBED for white, red, and black were within tolerance at the beginning (November 2015) and end (November 2016) of the test. It took four passes of grinding to remove the marking at KMHT and three passes of grinding to remove the marking at KBED. The research objective for this test was to evaluate SMMA paint in an airport environment. The performance of the new SMMA paint (new formulation) was acceptable at KMHT and KBED airports. The Franklin Paint SMMA application uses 80% more paint than the standard MMA and 90% of the specified bead application rate. The total material cost for SMMA with Type III beads is approximately 36% higher, or $0.78 more per square foot, than the standard MMA with Type III beads. The results of this test validate the research data obtained at the WJHTC. xii

12 1. INTRODUCTION. Airport pavement markings are a critical component of ground visual aids for pilots, and it is especially important that the markings be well maintained. To accomplish this, airports expend considerable resources to maintain the effectiveness of the markings. Current practices in marking airport pavements have evolved over the years and are historically related to the application of roadway markings by highway departments. The Federal Highway Administration has a number of standard practices in highway pavement markings that offer benefits in the transfer of technology and application techniques. However, airport pavements continue to present some unique requirements for marking materials that differ from highway requirements. Among these requirements are adhesion, climate, abrasion, and resistance to jet fuel, as well as braking and friction characteristics. These additional criteria require special testing to ensure suitability. Because of the importance of airport pavement markings, researchers at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are interested in identifying new paint and application techniques that show potential for increasing the conspicuity of paint markings, lengthening the life of the marking, and providing a value to the airport community. The FAA s Office of Aviation Research, Airport Technology Research and Development (ATRD) Branch, in response to a request from the FAA Office of the Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Engineering Division, began this research effort to determine if a new application technique for painting pavement markings would increase conspicuity over the useful life of the marking. This research was conducted as part of the ATRD s Visual Guidance Program. 1.1 BACKGROUND. Franklin Paint presented the FAA with information on a new paint called structured methyl methacrylate (SMMA). Methyl methacrylate (MMA), paint without the structured component, is currently approved for use on runways and taxiways. SMMA differs from traditional MMA in that it is applied using a splatter pattern. When applied on a pavement using the splattered application technique, the SMMA creates a thicker, textured surface with peaks and valleys, while still creating a visible solid line. Because of the splatter pattern, the SMMA paint does not fully cover the pavement surface like MMA paint. The end result is approximately 70% SMMA paint coverage. Franklin Paint claims that this installation technique enhances wet, nighttime retro-reflectivity by allowing water to flow off the peaks and into the valleys of the marking, thus making the paint and glass beads on the peaks more visible. The manufacturer also has slightly modified the paint formula, which provides enhanced visibility when used with this unique application technique. The modified formula has a reduced amount of titanium dioxide, which is typically used by paint manufacturers to harden the paint and prevent it from fading. Previously, from , the ATRD team conducted a year-long research effort to evaluate the performance of SMMA against MMA at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The research showed that SMMA had favorable results including possessing higher friction values, shedding water faster, and improving the paint marking visibility over the conventional MMA markings [1]. 1

13 1.2 OBJECTIVES. The research objectives were to evaluate the manufacturer-suggested SMMA paint in an airport environment and to further investigate whether the proposed splattered application technique, thicker application, and modified formula offer improvements over the currently accepted MMA application techniques and formula. The specific objectives were to: evaluate the SMMA paint formula performance in the airport environment. evaluate the practicality of the SMMA paint formula application in airport environments. evaluate the benefits of using the SMMA splatter pattern. validate previous SMMA and MMA paint research results collected at the WJHTC. If it is determined that the results of this research effort are favorable, recommendations may be made to make changes to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ G, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Runway and Taxiway Painting, Item P-620 [2]. 1.3 RELATED DOCUMENTS. Related documents that contain information pertaining to this research include: DOT/FAA/AR-02/128, Paint and Bead Durability Study, March DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22, Development of Methods for Determining Airport Pavement Marking Effectiveness, March DOT/FAA/AR-TN96/74, Follow-On Friction Testing of Retro-Reflective Glass Beads, July DOT/FAA/CT-94/119, Evaluation of Alternative Pavement Marking Materials, January DOT/FAA/CT-94/120, Evaluation of Retro-Reflective Beads in Airport Pavement Markings, December FAA AC 150/ C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid- Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces, March 18, FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, September 27, FAA AC 150/ F, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-620, Runway and Taxiway Painting, September 30, 2011 International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodrome Design and Operation, August 9,

14 Federal Specification TT-B-1325D, Beads (Glass Spheres) Retro-reflective, August 6, EVALUATION APPROACH. After obtaining successful results at the WJHTC [1], the ATRD team developed a test plan to evaluate SMMA paint markings on pavement surfaces at two airports. One surface-painted sign was installed at a taxiway and runway intersection at the following airports: Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (KMHT) in Manchester, New Hampshire and Laurence G. Hanscom Field in Bedford, Massachusetts (KBED) in Bedford, Massachusetts. The test plan called for retroreflective Type I glass beads on the red portion of the marking, retro-reflective Type III glass beads on the white portion of the marking, and no beads on the black portion of the marking. The test plan called for monthly evaluations of the surface-painted signs for retro-reflectivity and chromaticity (color). 2.1 TEST SURFACE-PAINTED SIGN MATERIALS. A surface-painted sign was installed at KMHT on October 7, 2015, and another at KBED on November 5, The two surface-painted signs were installed as follows: Red MMA paint with Type I glass beads at 15-mils, wet-film thickness White SMMA paint with Type III glass beads at 60- to 90-mils, wet-film thickness Black MMA paint with no glass beads at 15-mils, wet-film thickness The two types of retro-reflective beads used are detailed in Federal Specification TT-B-1325D, Beads (Glass Spheres) Retro-Reflective, [3]: Type I (1.5 index of refraction (IOR)) low-index recycled glass beads, and Type III (1.9 IOR) high-index virgin glass beads. Type I glass beads have less density, roughly 1570 grams per liter and are commonly referred to as highway beads, while Type III glass beads have a larger density, roughly 2670 grams per liter and are referred to as airport beads. For the red MMA portion of the paint marking, the glass beads were applied at an application rate of 8 lb of Type I glass beads, and for the white SMMA portion of the paint marking, the glass beads were applied at an application rate of 10 lb of Type III glass beads. The two surface-painted signs were applied for the white SMMA at a 60- to 90-mils thickness, as recommended by the manufacturer. The red standard MMA was installed per the application criteria contained in AC 150/ G [2], which is 15 mils for paint markings with Type I glass beads. 2.2 EVALUATION SITES. The test surface-painted signs were installed at two airports: KMHT and KBED Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. The test surface-painted sign at KMHT was placed on Taxiway M at the intersection of Runway 6-24, as shown in figures 1 and 2. The test surface-painted sign was installed on October 7, This taxiway is used by general aviation (GA) aircraft, commercial aircraft, 3

15 and light vehicles. It is exposed to sweeping and blowing operations, as well as snow removal operations during the winter months. A photograph of the surface-painted sign is shown in figure 3. In addition, KMHT had a 4-month-old waterborne surface-painted sign at Taxiway M. Data was also taken on this marking. Figure 1. The KMHT Surface-Painted Sign 4

16 Figure 2. Test Location at KMHT 5

17 Figure 3. Test Surface-Painted Sign on KMHT Taxiway M (Hot-mix asphalt) Laurence G. Hanscom Field. A test surface-painted sign at KBED was placed on Taxiway E at the intersection of Runway 11, as shown in figures 4 and 5. The test surface-painted sign was installed on November 5, The taxiway is used by GA aircraft, commercial aircraft, and light vehicles. It is exposed to sweeping and blowing operations, as well as snow removal operations during the winter months. A photograph of the surface-painted sign is shown in figure 6. In addition, KBED had a 3-year-old thermoplastic surface-painted sign at Taxiway E. Data was also taken on this marking. 6

18 Figure 4. The KBED Airport Surface-Painted Sign 7

19 Figure 5. Test Location at KBED 8

20 Figure 6. Test Surface-Painted Sign on KBED Taxiway E (Hot-mix asphalt) 2.3 APPLICATION TECHNIQUE. The research team monitored the application of the two surface-painted signs at KMHT and KBED airports. Photographs and videos were taken to document the installations. Figures 7 through 10 show the manufacturer provided personnel using their own equipment at the two airports. The red and black MMA markings were placed per AC L [4] at 45 ft 2 /gal (15-mil, wet-film thickness) with a standard push-style MMA applicator. The white SMMA marking was placed at 60- to 90-mil wet-film thickness with a push-style applicator, which was equipped with an attachment with multiple holes that formed a spaghetti pattern as the SMMA was pushed through, as shown in figure 10. 9

21 Figure 7. The MMA Application at KMHT Figure 8. The SMMA Application at KMHT 10

22 Figure 9. The MMA Application at KBED 2.4 EVALUATION EQUIPMENT. Figure 10. The SMMA Application at KBED The following test equipment was used during this research effort: Retro-reflectometer tester An Ennis-Flint, 30-meter geometry LTL-X retroreflectometer built by Delta Light & Optics of Denmark (S/N 540) was used to measure the retro-reflectivity of the paint markings (figure 11). 11

23 Chromaticity tester A BYK-Gardner of Germany Spectro-Guide 45/0 Gloss, 20-mm, 6801 color spectrophotometer (S/N ) was used to measure the chromaticity of the paint marking (figure 12). Figure 11. Delta Light & Optics LTL-X Retro-Reflectometer Figure 12. The BYK-Gardner Spectro-Guide 45/0 Spectrophotometer 12

24 2.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES. The ATRD team conducted monthly measurements and tests over a 12-month period on the SMMA and MMA surface-painted signs Retro-Reflectivity Test. Retro-reflectivity tests were completed once a month using the LTL-X retro-reflectometer. Retro-reflective readings measure the effectiveness of the glass beads to adhere properly to the marking material. For each of the two test surface-painted signs, a total of six readings were taken by placing the retro-reflectometer on the surface-painted sign and activating the device. Readings were taken at the top, middle, and bottom of each surface-painted sign and then repeated once each month from October 2015 until December 2016 for KMHT and November 2015 until December 2016 for BED. The sample data sheet used for monthly collection of the retro-reflectivity readings is shown in figure Chromaticity Test. Chromaticity tests were completed using a Spectro-Guide 45/0, BYK-Gardner of Germany, spectrophotometer. For each test surface-painted sign, a total of two measurements were taken by placing the spectrophotometer on the pavement marking and activating the device. Readings were taken just after initial application (baseline) and then repeated each month from October 2015 until December 2016 for KMHT and November 2015 until December 2016 for KBED. The instrument was calibrated each month prior to collecting data. The data was plotted on an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Standard Illuminant D 65 chart to identify how much the color faded over time. A sample data sheet that was used for collecting the chromaticity readings is shown in figure

25 14 Figure 13. Sample Data Collection Sheet for Chromaticity and Retro-Reflectometer Readings

26 2.5.3 Removal Test. To remove the two surface-painted signs via grinding, a 2007 Caterpillar 287B was used at KMHT and a Coneqtec Universal SP-200 with a grinding attachment was used at KBED. The two surface-painted signs were removed on June 13, 2017 for KMHT and June 14, 2017 for KBED. 3. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS. The research team collected data during this 12-month research effort. The monthly photographs of the observations at KMHT and KBED airports are shown in appendix A. Retro-reflective charts, chromaticity charts, and data are shown in appendix B. The following observations were made during the 12-month evaluation: SMMA paint, when applied using the proposed structured splatter pattern, offered a paint marking that appeared to the observer to be a full-coverage marking. Although it did not fully cover the pavement, it appeared to be a continuous marking when viewed from a distance. The recommended 70% coverage rate appeared to be sufficient. The structured format of the SMMA paint raised the elevation of the retro-reflective glass beads; however, the bead used the paint to retro-reflect back to the pilot, which caused a grayed-out effect because the structured format interfered with the retro-reflection. An example of grayed-out effect is shown in figure 14. (The research team was told by Potter Industries personnel that this could be corrected with double bead guns in both directions.) At the initial marking installation, the modified paint formula crumbled and required sweeper cleaning to address foreign object debris (FOD). An example of the removal is shown in figure 15. Rust from iron ore in the pavement caused the paint formula to show visible rust spots in the white paint as early as the 1-month inspection. Examples of the rust are shown in figures 16 and

27 Figure 14. Grayed-out Effect at KMHT (July 2016) Figure 15. The FOD Paint Crumble Removal at KBED Installation (November 5, 2015) 16

28 Figure 16. Rust From Iron Ore at 1-Month Inspection at KBED Figure 17. Rust From Iron Ore at 12-Month Inspection at KBED 3.1 RETRO-REFLECTIVITY RESULTS. The retro-reflectivity test data was collected from October 2015 until November 2016 for KMHT and from November 2015 until November 2016 for KBED. The readings were entered into an electronic data table, enabling the research team to analyze and compile the data into a reportable format. Actual data from the monthly collection activity is presented in appendix B. 17

29 In AC 150/ G, the retro-reflectivity requirements for high-build acrylic waterborne marking material at initial application is 400 mcd/m 2 /lux on white markings [2]. The manufacturer met this requirement at initial application Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. Retro-reflectivity started at 1718 mcd/m 2 /lux for the white SMMA portion with Type III glass beads of the surface-painted sign (October 2015) and ended at 251 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). Retro-reflectivity started at 65 mcd/m 2 /lux for the red MMA portion with Type I glass beads (October 2015) and ended at 19 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). The black portion of the surface-painted sign had no beads. The white waterborne paint portions retro-reflectivity started at 1091 mcd/m 2 /lux (October 2015) and ended at 677 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). The red waterborne paint portions retro-reflectivity started at 75 mcd/m 2 /lux (October 2015) and ended at 57 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). The black portion of the surface-painted sign had no beads. The white SMMA was above the acceptable minimum of 100 mcd/m 2 /lux, and the white waterborne paint was above the acceptable minimum of 100 mcd/m 2 /lux [5] Laurence G. Hanscom Field. Retro-reflectivity started at 1769 mcd/m 2 /lux for the white SMMA portion with Type III glass beads of the surface-painted sign (November 2015) and ended at 206 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). Retro-reflectivity started at 36 mcd/m 2 /lux for the red MMA portion with Type I glass beads (November 2015) and ended at 20 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). The black portion of the surface-painted sign had no beads. Retro-reflectivity started at 248 mcd/m 2 /lux for the white thermoplastic portions (November 2015) and ended at 229 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). Retro-reflectivity started at 48 mcd/m 2 /lux for the red thermoplastic portions (November 2015) and ended at 53 mcd/m 2 /lux (November 2016). The black portion of the surface-painted sign had no beads. The white SMMA and white thermoplastic portions of the markings remained above the acceptable minimum of 100 mcd/m 2 /lux for the duration of the test and were visually acceptable [5]. 3.2 CHROMATICITY RESULTS. The chromaticity test data was collected from October 2015 until November 2016 for KMHT and November 2015 until November 2016 for KBED. The readings were entered into an electronic data table, enabling the research team to analyze and compile the data into a reportable format. Actual data from the monthly collection activity is presented in appendix B. Chromaticity readings over the 12-month evaluations at both airports showed that the paint markings remained satisfactory as they were within tolerance with DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22 [5]. 18

30 3.3 REMOVAL RESULTS. The two SMMA surface-painted signs removal via grinding occurred at KMHT on June 13, 2017 and KBED on June 14, It took four passes of a 2007 Caterpillar 287B with a grinding attachment to remove the marking at KMHT and three passes of a Coneqtec Universal SP-200 with grinding attachment to remove the marking at KBED. The two surface-painted signs were removed at 90% with minimal damage to the asphalt. Figure 18 shows the first pass at KMHT of the 2007 Caterpillar 287B with Flatliner attachment. Figure 19 shows the fourth pass at KMHT of the 2007 Caterpillar 287B with Flatliner attachment. Figure 20 shows the first pass at KBED of the Coneqtec Universal SP-200. Figure 21 shows the third pass at KBED of the Coneqtec Universal SP-200. Figure 18. First-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KMHT 19

31 Figure 19. Fourth-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KMHT Figure 20. First-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KBED 20

32 Figure 21. Third-Pass SMMA Paint Removal via Grinding at KBED 3.4 COST COMPARISON. The materials cost comparison between MMA and SMMA paints with Type III glass beads is shown in table 1. The MMA data is current for 2017 and includes tax and shipping. The test deck was installed and tested for 1 year. It was not tested to failure. Table 1. The SMMA and MMA Cost Comparison Type III Glass Bead Rate (lb/gal) Type III Glass Bead Rate (lb/ft 2 ) Manufacturers Application Rate (ft 2 /gal) Cost/gal Paint Cost/ft 2 Bead Cost/lb Bead Cost/ft 2 Material Cost/ft 2 Franklin Paint 24 $45.00 $ $ $1.13 $2.93 SMMA Franklin Paint 45 $40.79 $ $ $1.24 $2.15 MMA Ennis-Flint 45 $40.79 $ $ $1.24 $2.15 MMA Benox L-40LV * $78.79 Transpo MMA 45 $46.59 $ $ $1.24 $2.28 * Benox L-40LV is a drying agent added to Ennis-Flint MMA. 21

33 The Franklin Paint SMMA application uses 80% more paint than the amount specified by the FAA for MMA and 90% of the specified bead application rate. The total material cost of SMMA with Type III beads is approximately 36% higher, or $0.77 more per square foot, than MMA with Type III beads. 3.5 OBJECTIVES MET. The performance of the new SMMA paint (new formulation) was acceptable on the pavement surfaces at KMHT and KBED airports. The application of the new SMMA paint was installed in a reasonable timeframe (1 to 2 hours). The SMMA splatter pattern covered 70% of the pavement compared with 100% pavement coverage with flat MMA. The results of this test validate the research data obtained at the WJHTC. 4. CONCLUSIONS. The following conclusions were made concerning Franklin Paint : The paint markings chromaticity remained satisfactory over the 12-month evaluation period. The proposed application of 60- to 90-mil, wet-film thickness appeared acceptable for structured methyl methacrylate (SMMA) paint applications. The surface-painted signs were exposed to snowplowing and de-icing fluid during this research. The retro-reflective readings on the white SMMA at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (KMHT) was slightly below in December 2016 at 80 mcd/m 2 /lux from the acceptable minimum of 100 mcd/m 2 /lux as a result of the marking being wet for the last reading. The November 2016 readings on the white SMMA at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport was 251 mcd/m 2 /lux since the marking was dry for the second to last reading. The retro-reflective readings on the white SMMA at Laurence G Hanscom Field (KBED) was slightly below in December 2016 at 71 mcd/m 2 /lux from the acceptable minimum of 100 mcd/m 2 /lux as a result of de-icing fluid on the marking. The November 2016 readings on the white SMMA at Laurence G Hanscom Field (KBED) was 206 mcd/m 2 /lux since the marking was dry for the second to last reading. The new SMMA paint (new formulation) showed some iron ore rust staining as a result of the porous web pattern installation, which allowed water into the marking. The new SMMA paint (new formulation) performance was acceptable on KMHT and KBED airports. The new SMMA paint (new formulation) costs $0.65 to $0.78 higher cost/ft 2 than methyl methacrylate (MMA). 22

34 The removal of the surface-painted signs via grinding was successful with minimal damage to the asphalt at KMHT and KBED airports. The new SMMA paint (new formulation) took one to two more passes to remove than MMA. At initial installation, the modified paint formula proposed by the manufacturer crumbled and had to be sweeper cleaned to address Foreign Object Debris (FOD) on the taxiways. The application of the new SMMA paint (new formulation) can be installed in a reasonable timeframe. The SMMA splatter pattern covers 70% of the pavement, whereas a flat MMA marking covers 100% of the pavement. The proposed glass bead application rate for the SMMA paint markings of 8 lb for Type I glass beads, 10 lb for Type III glass beads, and 10 lb for Type IV glass beads (previously tested at Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) test deck) produced acceptable results. The test results validate the research data obtained at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. 5. REFERENCES. 1. Cyrus, H. and Patterson, J., Evaluation of Structured Methyl Methacrylate Marking to Increase Paint Conspicuity, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) technical note DOT/FAA/TC-TN15/50, October FAA, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Runway and Taxiway Painting, Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ G, Item P-620, July 21, Federal Specification TT-B-1325D, Beads (Glass Spheres) Retro-Reflective, August 6, FAA, Standards for Airport Markings, AC 150/5340-1L, September 27, Cyrus, H., Development of Methods for Determining Airport Pavement Marking Effectiveness, FAA technical note DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22, March /24

35 APPENDIX A MONTHLY INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS This appendix shows the monthly day and night photographs taken at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (KMHT) and Laurence G. Hanscom Field (KBED) from November 2015 to December The photographs (figures A-1 through A-98) show the month-to-month progression of wear on the pavement markings. Figure A-1. One-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (November 4, 2015) A-1

36 Figure A-2. One-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (November 4, 2015) Figure A-3. One-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (November 4, 2015) A-2

37 Figure A-4. One-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (November 4, 2015) Figure A-5. Two-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (December 2, 2015) A-3

38 Figure A-6. Two-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (December 2, 2015) Figure A-7. Two-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (December 2, 2015) A-4

39 Figure A-8. Two-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (December 2, 2015) Figure A-9. Three-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (January 6, 2016) A-5

40 Figure A-10. Three-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (January 6, 2016) Figure A-11. Three-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (January 6, 2016) A-6

41 Figure A-12. Three-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (January 6, 2016) Figure A-13. Four-Month Inspection at KMHT Day February (January 27, 2016) A-7

42 Figure A-14. Four-Month Inspection at KMHT Night February (January 27, 2016) Figure A-15. Four-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day February (January 27, 2016) A-8

43 Figure A-16. Four-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night February (January 27, 2016) Figure A-17. Five-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (March 2, 2016) A-9

44 Figure A-18. Five-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (March 2, 2016) Figure A-19. Five-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (March 2, 2016) A-10

45 Figure A-20. Five-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (March 2, 2016) Figure A-21. Six-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (April 4, 2016) A-11

46 Figure A-22. Six-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (April 4, 2016) Figure A-23. Six-Month Inspection KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (April 4, 2016) A-12

47 Figure A-24. Six-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (April 4, 2016) Figure A-25. Seven-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (May 4, 2016) A-13

48 Figure A-26. Seven-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (May 4, 2016) Figure A-27. Seven-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (May 4, 2016) A-14

49 Figure A-28. Seven-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (May 4, 2016) Figure A-29. Eight-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (June 8, 2016) A-15

50 Figure A-30. Eight-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (June 8, 2016) Figure A-31. Eight-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (June 8, 2016) A-16

51 Figure A-32. Eight-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (June 8, 2016) Figure A-33. Nine-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (August 4, 2016) A-17

52 Figure A-34. Nine-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (August 4, 2016) Figure A-35. Nine-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (August 4, 2016) A-18

53 Figure A-36. Nine-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (August 4, 2016) Figure A-37. Ten-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (September 14, 2016) A-19

54 Figure A-38. Ten-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (September 14, 2016) Figure A-39. Ten-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (September 14, 2016) A-20

55 Figure A-40. Ten-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (September 14, 2016) Figure A-41. Eleven-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (October 5, 2016) A-21

56 Figure A-42. Eleven Month Inspection at KMHT Night (October 5, 2016) Figure A-43. Eleven-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (October 5, 2016) A-22

57 Figure A-44. Eleven-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (October 5, 2016) Figure A-45. Twelve-Month Inspection at KMHT Day (November 2, 2016) A-23

58 Figure A-46. Twelve-Month Inspection at KMHT Night (November 2, 2016) Figure A-47. Twelve-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (November 2, 2016) A-24

59 Figure A-48. Twelve-Month Inspection at KMHT, Waterborne Paint (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (November 2, 2016) Figure A-49. One-Month Inspection at KBED Day (December 1, 2015) A-25

60 Figure A-50. One-Month Inspection at KBED Night (December 1, 2015) Figure A-51. One-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (December 1, 2015) A-26

61 Figure A-52. One-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (December 1, 2015) Figure A-53. Two-Month Inspection at KBED Day (January 5, 2016) A-27

62 Figure A-54. Two-Month Inspection at KBED Night (January 5, 2016) Figure A-55. Two-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (January 5, 2016) A-28

63 Figure A-56. Two-Month Inspection at KBED Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (January 5, 2016) Figure A-57. Three-Month Inspection at KBED Day February (January 26, 2016) A-29

64 Figure A-58. Three-Month Inspection at KBED Night February (January 26, 2016) Figure A-59. Three-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day February (January 26, 2016) A-30

65 Figure A-60. Three-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night February (January 26, 2016) Figure A-61. Four-Month Inspection at KBED Day (March 1, 2016) A-31

66 Figure A-62. Four-Month Inspection at KBED Night (March 1, 2016) Figure A-63. Four-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (March 1, 2016) A-32

67 Figure A-64. Four-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (March 1, 2016) Figure A-65. Five-Month Inspection at KBED Day (April 5, 2016) A-33

68 Figure A-66. Five-Month Inspection at KBED Night (April 5, 2016) Figure A-67. Five-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (April 5, 2016) A-34

69 Figure A-68. Five-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (April 5, 2016) Figure A-69. Six-Month Inspection at KBED Day (May 3, 2016) A-35

70 Figure A-70. Six-Month Inspection at KBED Night (May 3, 2016) Figure A-71. Six-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (May 3, 2016) A-36

71 Figure A-72. Six-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (May 3, 2016) Figure A-73. Seven-Month Inspection at KBED Day (July 5, 2016) A-37

72 Figure A-74. Seven-Month Inspection at KBED Night (July 5, 2016) Figure A-75. Seven-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (July 5, 2016) A-38

73 Figure A-76. Seven-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (July 5, 2016) Figure A-77. Eight-Month Inspection at KBED Day (August 3, 2016) A-39

74 Figure A-78. Eight-Month Inspection at KBED Night (August 3, 2016) Figure A-79. Eight-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (August 3, 2016) A-40

75 Figure A-80. Eight-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (August 3, 2016) Figure A-81. Nine-Month Inspection at KBED Day (September 13, 2016) A-41

76 Figure A-82. Nine-Month Inspection at KBED Night (September 13, 2016) Figure A-83. Nine-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (September 13, 2016) A-42

77 Figure A-84. Nine-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (September 13, 2016) Figure A-85. Ten-Month Inspection at KBED Day (October 4, 2016) A-43

78 Figure A-86. Ten-Month Inspection at KBED Night (October 4, 2016) Figure A-87. Ten-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (October 4, 2016) A-44

79 Figure A-88. Ten-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (October 4, 2016) Figure A-89. Eleven-Month Inspection at KBED Day (November 9, 2016) A-45

80 Figure A-90. Eleven-Month Inspection at KBED Night (November 9, 2016) Figure A-91. Eleven-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (November 9, 2016) A-46

81 Figure A-92. Eleven-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (November 9, 2016) Figure A-93. Twelve-Month Inspection at KBED Day (December 6, 2016) A-47

82 Figure A-94. Twelve-Month Inspection at KBED Night (December 6, 2016) Figure A-95. Twelve-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Day (December 6, 2016) A-48

83 Figure A-96. Twelve-Month Inspection at KBED, Thermoplastic (Left) and SMMA (Right) Night (December 6, 2016) Figure A-97. Rust From Iron Ore at KMHT at 1 Month A-49

84 Figure A-98. Rust From Iron Ore at KMHT at 12 Months A-50

85 APPENDIX B RETRO-REFLECTIVE CHARTS, CHROMATICITY CHARTS, AND DATA B.1 INTRODUCTION. This appendix includes retro-reflective and chromaticity charts and data from the tests performed at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (KMHT) (table B-1 and figure B-1) and Laurence G. Hanscom Field (KBED) (table B-2 and figure B-2). Figures B-3 through B-10 show the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) D 65 Charts for color with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) color requirements, as well as color guide readings for the current testing. For a more in depth explanation, please see DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22 on pages 12 and A-6 [B-1]. Table B-1. Monthly Retro-Reflectivity Readings on Old Asphalt at KMHT on Surface-Painted Sign at Taxiway M Year Month Red Type I Waterborne (at 4 months) mcd/m 2 /lux White Type III Black No Beads Red Type I SMMA New ( ) mcd/m 2 /lux White Type III Black No Beads Pavement Condition 2015 October Dry November Dry December Wet 2016 January Snow removed February Wet March Dry April De-iced May Wet June Dry July Dry August Dry September Dry October Fog November Dry December Wet B-1

86 Retro-Reflective Comparison Average Retro-Reflectivity Waterborne Red Type I Waterborne White Type III Waterborne Black No Bead Month MMA Red Type I SMMA White Type III MMA Black No Bead MMA = methyl methacrylate SMMA = Structured methyl methacrylate Figure B-1. Retro-Reflective KMHT Comparison Chart for Waterborne (at 4 Months) and SMMA in mcd/m 2 /lux B-2

87 Table B-2. Monthly Retro-Reflectivity Readings on Old Asphalt at KBED on Surface-Painted Sign at Taxiway E Year Month Thermoplastic (at 3 years) mcd/m 2 /lux Red Type I White Type III Black No Beads Red Type I SMMA New ( ) White Type III Black No Beads Pavement Condition November Dry December Wet January Snow removed February Dry March Dry April Sodium Formate May Wet June Dry July Dry August Dry September Dry October Dry November Dry December Sodium formate B-3

88 Retro-Reflective Comparison Average Retro-Reflectivity Thermoplastic Red Type I Thermoplastic Black No Bead SMMA White Type III Month Thermoplastic White Type III MMA Red Type I MMA Black No Bead Figure B-2. Retro-Reflective KBED Comparison Chart for Thermoplastic (at 3 years) and SMMA B-4

89 YELLOW Y WHITE BLACK ORANGE RED X Figure B-3. The CIE D 65 Chart - Ordinary Colors for Surface Markings [B-1] B-5

90 GREEN FAA Yellow ICAO YELLOW Y 0.40 ORANGE 0.30 WHITE FAA In-Service Yellow RED 0.20 BLUE X Figure B-4. The CIE D 65 Chart - Colors of Retro-Reflective Materials for Markings, Signs, and Panels [B-1] B-6

91 Y 0.40 GREEN White Data Points YELLOW ORANGE 0.30 WHITE Yellow Data Points RED 0.20 BLUE X Figure B-5. The CIE D 65 Chart - Color Guide Readings for KMHT Hot-Mix Asphalt Test Site (October 2015) B-7