USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Synthesis of Pavement Marking Research


            
            In This Section
        Other Safety Areas
                Road Diets
                Lighting and Visibility
                                Overview
                Sign Retroreflectivity
                Pavement Markings
                Roadway Lighting
                Focused Approach to Safety
                Motorcyclist Safety
                Older Road Users
                                Overview
                Crash Facts
                Engineering and Training
                Federal and State Programs
                Community Resources
                Articles
                Work Zone Safety
                Transportation Safety Planning (TSP)
                
                Chapter 5: Wet Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
The interest in pavement marking performance during wet nighttime conditions has increased in recent years. Research on wet retroreflective pavement marking performance was practically nonexistent a decade ago, but more recently a number of efforts have sought to better understand wet retroreflective pavement marking performance. Much of the research is related to visibility gains in wet nighttime conditions and the durability of marking performance in wet nighttime conditions. The potential safety benefits of wet pavement marking retroreflectivity is a topic of recent interest but to date there has not been an established relationship. There are also concerns that increased visibility of markings in wet conditions could potentially result in more drivers going too fast for the wet conditions.

Operational Performance

In 2013, research documented findings related to speed and lateral placement in active highway work zones, with pavement markings designed to have high-performing wet nighttime retroreflectivity levels. Five test sites were selected in North Carolina and Ohio. The researchers used the vehicle travel speed, rate of lane encroachment, and linear lane displacement to evaluate the effectiveness of the markings. The initial retroreflectivity of the prototype markings was higher than that of comparable markings, but not consistently higher. These findings produced inconclusive results, similar to the results from dry retroreflectivity studies.(42)

SUMMARY: Like dry pavement marking retroreflectivity performance, wet pavement marking retroreflectivity performance has not been shown to impact operational measures of performance such as vehicle speed or lateral placement. If additional research is performed in this area, it should include new considerations (e.g., the benefits of retroreflectivity during wet conditions and when driving can be particularly challenging, such as on undivided highways with opposing vehicle headlamp glare).

Visibility

Early studies of wet nighttime pavement marking performance were conducted with the retroreflectivity measurements based on ASTM E2176, which required almost 10 inches of water per hour on the markings during measurements. The more recent studies summarized here have used the superseding test method, ASTM E2832, which is based on 2 inches of water per hour during measurements.

Several significant studies have involved the performance and visibility of pavement markings in wet conditions. One of the initial key studies was conducted in Texas in 2007. This study included visibility measurements of 18 different pavement markings in an intensity-controlled rain tunnel, where participants drove through simulated rain looking for randomly positioned lane line markings.(12) The results show that wet retroreflectivity cannot be predicted by dry retroreflectivity. In general, dry retroreflectivity is typically higher than wet retroreflectivity. The study of retroreflectivity, and particularly wet retroreflectivity, is very dependent on the characteristics of the pavement marking materials.

The researchers formatted the results in terms of preview times provided by various pavement markings (and RRPMs). The study produced results showing that pavement markings, even those specifically designed for wet nighttime performance, are not a replacement for RRPMs in terms of visibility and cost of visibility per mile. The costs of the RRPMs were based on surface-applied RRPMs, which are mostly used in areas with no or very little snow plow operations. This study did not include any aspect of durability. All of the markings used were performing as if they were newly installed.

In 2009, researchers reported an evaluation of pavement marking performance using specially designed optics for wet nighttime visibility. This study included three prototype optics-on-paint marking systems employing high-refractive-index, dual-optics, drop-on elements.(43) These markings were evaluated at night under dry, wet-recovery, and continuous wetting conditions. Two commercially available marking systems (one glass beads-on-paint system and one wet-reflective removable tape) were also evaluated as industry benchmarks. Thirty participants driving through simulated work zones on a closed course viewed all of the marking types at night under all three weather conditions. Each driver's task was to identify the direction of work zone lane shift tapers delineated by the markings. In wet recovery, all three prototype marking systems and the wet-reflective tape sustained 60 to 80 percent of their dry average detection distances. In rain, they sustained 50 to 70 percent of their dry average detection distances. In contrast, the average wet-recovery and rain detection distances for the conventional glass beads-on-paint benchmark system dropped to 28 and 17 percent of the dry detection distance, respectively. In addition, participants failed to detect the conventional glass beads-on-paint benchmark system in nearly half of the observations in the rain condition.

A 2012 Virginia study evaluated the detection distance of several pavement marking types in wet conditions.(22) The markings were surface applied, recessed, and installed over a rumble strip (often called a rumble stripe). While there were differences among the pavement marking products studied, the wet nighttime performance of the markings degraded to 100 mcd/m2/lx or less after the first year. The research team was able to derive a minimum required level for wet nighttime retroreflectivity of 150 mcd/m2/lx. This level was based on their data and assumptions about how much preview time is needed for safe nighttime driving.

SUMMARY: The dry retroreflectivity performance of a marking does not indicate how the marking will perform under wet conditions. In general, dry retroreflectivity is almost always higher than wet retroreflectivity. The wet retroreflectivity performance is very dependent on the pavement marking optic materials. Additional research will be needed to validate appropriate research recommendations for minimum wet nighttime retroreflectivity. Additional research is also needed to understand how wet retroreflective pavement marking visibility affects nighttime crashes.

Durability

As noted in the previous section, the durability of wet nighttime pavement marking performance has been reported to be relatively short, at least compared to dry pavement marking performance. This is an area where research is just starting to emerge, although several evaluations are currently underway and more results are expected soon.

In Iowa, research was performed in 2011 on 16 variations of pavement markings over a two-year period to assess their performance and durability in wet conditions.(44) The study included yellow edge line and white lane line markings that were both surface applied and recessed. They were measured under dry and wet conditions over a period including two winters. The research found that:

For the yellow edge line markings, the initial wet retroreflectivity measurements showed that only 7 of the 16 sections measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx. After one winter, only three sections measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx. (Again, the performance of these sections is very dependent on the materials used and the application techniques.) After two winters, only two sections measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx.
	For the white lane line markings, the initial wet retroreflectivity measurements showed that 13 of the 16 sections measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx. After one winter, six sections measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx (and all of these were grooved). After two winters, only one section measured above 100 mcd/m2/lx.
	The results indicate that placing markings in a groove can protect them from plowing operations.SUMMARY: Markings that provide long-lasting wet retroreflectivity performance are not yet widely available. Even with a new, more controlled ASTM test method for measuring the performance of pavement markings under a continuous condition of wetting, there are some concerns that the durability of markings designed specifically for wet nighttime visibility is too short. Placing markings in a groove can help maintain an adequate performance level in areas with snow plowing operations.

Test Methods and Specifications

In the United States, there are two test methods for measuring wet retroreflectivity:

ASTM E2177. This test method measures pavement markings in a condition of wetness but not actually being wetted. This test method represents how quickly a pavement marking can recover from the rain.
	ASTM E2832. This test method measures how well markings can perform under a standard condition of wetting (i.e., representing rain conditions). This supersedes ASTM E2176.Both of these test methods were designed around handheld measurement equipment. Both test methods include a precision and bias statement to provide users an indication of the errors associated with such measurements. There are still some concerns about the repeatability of the test method for continuous wetting.
      
  Book traversal links for Chapter 5: Wet Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
      ‹ Chapter 4: Dry Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
                    Up
                    Chapter 6: Combined Impacts of Markers ›
                
                Book:Synthesis of Pavement Marking Research
              Chapter 1: Introduction
                Chapter 2. MUTCD Warrants
                Chapter 3. Pavement Marking Width
                Chapter 4: Dry Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
                Chapter 5: Wet Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
                Chapter 6: Combined Impacts of Markers
                Chapter 7. Pavement Marking Selection Tools
                Chapter 8. Future of Pavement Markings
                Chapter 9. Other Topics of Interest
                References U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us