See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233445880

Modelling the performance of pavement marking in cold weather conditions

Article in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · November 2012

DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2010.504212

CITATIONS READS

29 876

7 authors, including:

Khaled Shahata Emad Elwakil

Concordia University Montreal Purdue University
11 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS 116 PUBLICATIONS 757 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Eweda Tarek Zayed

Concordia University Montreal The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
6 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS 520 PUBLICATIONS 8,708 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Emad Elwakil on 04 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Modelling the performance of pavement marking

in cold weather conditions

Hussam Fares , Khaled Shahata , Emad Elwakil , Ahmed Eweda , Tarek

Zayed , Magdy Abdelrahman & Ismail Basha

To cite this article: Hussam Fares , Khaled Shahata , Emad Elwakil , Ahmed Eweda , Tarek
Zayed , Magdy Abdelrahman & Ismail Basha (2012) Modelling the performance of pavement
marking in cold weather conditions, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8:11, 1067-1079,
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2010.504212

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.504212

Published online: 11 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 172

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [Purdue University Libraries] Date: 22 March 2017, At: 07:48
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 8, No. 11, November 2012, 1067–1079

Modelling the performance of pavement marking in cold weather conditions

Hussam Faresa, Khaled Shahataa, Emad Elwakila, Ahmed Ewedaa, Tarek Zayeda*,
Magdy Abdelrahmanb and Ismail Bashac
a
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; bNorth Dakota State University, Fargo, USA; cDepartment of Construction
Management and Civil Engineering Technology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA
(Received 3 August 2009; final version received 19 December 2009; accepted 22 June 2010; published online 12 August 2010)

Inadequate and poorly maintained pavement markings are considered to be one of the largest contributing factors to
fatal motor vehicle crashes. As a result, it is essential to apply the appropriate pavement marking material for all
weather conditions in order to increase public safety and reduce motor vehicle crashes. Building a strategic plan to
renew and re-stripe pavement marking is receiving increasing interest from companies/authorities that manage the
pavement marking in order to reach the most cost-efficient management plan of the available pavement marking
materials. The objective of this paper is to develop pavement marking performance models that predict the condition
of different marking materials under various service conditions including weather, traffic and snow removal plans.
The developed models are validated and the results show that the average percent validity varies from 87% to 99%.
Marking performance is assessed using a condition rating scale, which numerically ranges from 1 to 5 and
linguistically from excellent to critical, respectively. Deterioration curves are developed that assess the condition of
the pavement marking based on the developed models. They are expected to benefit academics and practitioners
(municipal engineers, consultants, and contractors) to prioritise inspection, stripping, and re-stripping planning for
various pavement markings.
Keywords: information management; deterioration; highway safety; regression analysis; roads and highways

Introduction Assessing the pavement marking condition is an

The Canadian motor vehicle traffic collision statistics for
2006 show an increase in fatalities of 1.8% (Transport
Canada 2008) with a total incurred cost of $10–$25
billion/year (Transport Canada 2004b). Even though
25% of travel occurs at night, 59% of fatal crashes, 47%
of injuries, and 48% of property-damage occurs at this
time (Migletz and Graham 2002, Hatzi 2005, Minnesota
Statewide Transportation Plan 2005). Previous studies
reported that convenient retro-reflective pavement
markings reduce the number of crashes that take place
under darkness during normal and rainy weather
conditions (Migletz et al. 2001, Migletz, and Graham,
2002, Shahata et al. 2008).
Inadequate and poorly maintained pavement
markings are often considered as a contributing factor
to accidents (Hatzi, 2005, Minnesota Statewide Trans-
portation Plan, 2005). It was found that improving
lighting, signing, pavement markings, and their asso-
ciated maintenance will eliminate 50% of night crashes
and 28% of fatalities under dark conditions. Hence,
the appropriate pavement marking material for all
weather conditions will decrease the number of crashes
and therefore increase public safety.
essential part of the marking management system in
order to maintain a high level of performance. One of
the main aspects of pavement marking management is
to decide on re-striping duration of the marking in all
traffic, road and environmental conditions in order to
keep them within safe retro-reflectivity limits. Hence, it
is essential for the Ministry of Transportation or
municipal engineers to have an effective tool that helps
them decide:
(1) which marking material should be used for
different road and weather conditions;
(2) at what time it should be replaced;
(3) its striping and re-striping procedures; and
(4) the most cost-effective methods to measure
their retro-reflectivity after the exposure to
weather, snow ploughing, road salt and sand,
and traffic density.
Measuring the performance of the pavement marking
is the first step to achieve a sustainable pavement
marking that considers the social, environmental, and
economical issues.

*Corresponding author. Email: zayed@bcee.concordia.ca

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.504212
http://www.tandfonline.com
1068 H. Fares et al.

According to Shahata et al. (2008), the factors that

contribute to the pavement marking deterioration
process are: material, age, type and location of marking
line, annual average daily traffic (AADT), lane traffic
type, weather conditions, quality of construction/
installation, type and condition of pavement surface,
type of road/highway, speed of traffic, and behaviour of
drivers. Each factor should be studied to describe the
performance of pavement markings on various road
types. Consequently, there is a need for models that
assess the condition of different pavement marking
materials under varying weather and traffic conditions.

Research objectives
The main objectives of this research are to present
condition rating models and performance (deteriora-
tion) curves for pavement marking in cold weather
conditions. The models cover various pavement mark-
ing materials in different weather conditions taking
into consideration the different factors contributing to
the pavement marking condition rating (average values
of daily traffic, percentage of trucks, snow removal
times, salts and abrasives).

Research methodology
The methodology of designing pavement marking
models using regression analysis is presented in Figure
1, which shows that the regression model building
process included three main steps:
(i) preliminary diagnostics for interactions,
(ii) model building, and
(iii) statistical diagnostics of the built model.
The validation data are embedded into their corre-
sponding regression models in order to compare their
results with the actual data. All the models are
validated using two basic criteria:
(i) average invalidity percentage (AIP), and
(ii) root mean square error (RMS).
Twenty two performance models are developed for
different types of datasets. From the collected data,
approximately 20% of data is picked randomly for
model validation process, and the rest of the data is
used in developing the models. Current research is
based on observational records done by Quebec
province to rate the condition of the pavement
marking in order to prioritise the re-striping process.
The models are built using Minitab1 statistical
software. Figure 1 shows the model building process,
which includes three main steps:
Figure 1. Regression model building methodology.
(i) preliminary diagnostics for interactions,
(ii) building model(s), and
(iii) statistical diagnostics.
The purpose of the preliminary diagnostics for
interaction is to determine whether there is multi-
collinearity or if another relationship exists within the
variables of the model. In the model building step, the
corresponding data for the selected variables are used
for regression analysis. The regression output consisted
of a certain regression equation with an estimate of
regression coefficients bk for the specified data and
some other results for further analysis. In the statistical
diagnostics of the building model(s), many preliminary
tests were performed including the coefficient of
multiple determinations, F-test for regression relation
and t-test for each regression parameter bk. Further
statistical analysis is performed to test the soundness of
the developed models. Finally, the models should be
validated using the validation data set (20% of the
collected data selected randomly).
Factors affecting pavement marking conditions
If a selected material has a composition such that it is
more durable and weather resistant compared with
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1069

other materials, it will certainly have a higher
condition rating. An increase in daily traffic volume
within a lane will increase deterioration of its pavement
markings and reduce reflectivity. Seasonal temperature
variations, amount of annual precipitation (rainfall
and snow) adversely affects the pavement and its
markings. In cold regions, snow ploughing and de-
icing salt reduces the durability of pavement marking.
Average service life of a similar pavement material
varies in dry, wet, and cold weather conditions.
Transportation agencies are bound to shortlist their
choices of pavement marking materials in cold regions
and to maintain an optimum level of service for
pavement marking and snow removal operations.
Surface condition and pavement type dictate which
pavement marking material should be used. If a
pavement marking material does not match the
pavement type and surface condition, it might deterio-
rate quickly. Generally, durable pavement markings
are preferable for a new pavement surface.
Therefore, several factors, which influence the
condition of pavement markings, can be summarised
as follows (Shahata et al. 2008):
(1) Material type
(2) Location of marking line
(3) Estimated age
(4) Annual average daily traffic (AADT)
(5) Road/highway type
(6) Number of lanes per road
(7) Pavement surface condition
(8) Speed of traffic
(9) Normalises salts
(10) Normalises abrasives
(11) Snow removal.
Data collection
Data collected from the Quebec Ministry of Trans-
portation is used to develop the models for establishing
a pavement marking condition rating. This data is an
observational record done to rate the condition of the
pavement marking in order to prioritise the re-striping
process. The data is then analysed and sorted based on
the aforementioned factors that affect the pavement
marking condition rating (PMCR). Data collected
from the Province of Quebec contains about 4500
observational data points in which 600 are randomly
selected and excluded from the analysis for validation
purposes. The remaining set is used for building
regression models and analysis. These 4500 points are
sorted based on the location of the pavement marking
line (e.g. left line, centre line, and right line), highway
class category (e.g. highways, arterial roads, secondary
streets, and collectors), and pavement marking materi-
al (e.g. alkyd paint and epoxy) as shown in Table 1. To
explain the abbreviations in Table 1, data set ID Alkyd
(AR.L.A2) means arterial road, left line, and alkyd
paint.
Defining assumptions
The data received from the Province of Quebec
contains pavement marking visual inspection reports,
traffic data, salt and abrasive quantities used in winter
season. However, additional information, such as the
number of snow removals, is required to assess the
pavement marking condition. Many cities face a
problem in the winter related to clearing large
quantities of snow from streets and sidewalks. Snow
ploughing activities are carried out in most Canadian
cities. In many cities, snow is loaded on to trucks and
hauled to snow disposal sites, where it remains until
melting, perhaps several months later. Montreal,
Quebec and Ottawa, Ontario are contacted to inquire
their snow removal strategies. Assumptions and
interpretations were made for snow removal as
discussed below. Retro-reflectivity is not covered in
the developed models due to lack of data. The
Province of Quebec does not measure retro-reflectivity
values for their pavement marking and merely depend
on visual inspection. However, this research is to
provide a framework for pavement marking

Table 1. Quebec data sets of pavement marking.

Road type
Highway Arterial roads Secondary streets Collectors
Line type
Left line (l) Alkyd (H.L.A1) Alkyd (AR.L.A2) Alkyd (SS.L.A3) Alkyd (C.LA4)
Epoxy (H.L.E5) Epoxy (AR.L.E6) Epoxy (SS.L.E7) N/A
Centre line Ó Alkyd (H.C.A8) Alkyd (AR.C.A9) Alkyd (SS.C.A10) Alkyd (C.CA11)
Epoxy (H.C.E12) Epoxy (AR.C.E13) Epoxy (SS.C.E14) Epoxy (C.C.E15)
Right line 1 Alkyd (H.R.A16) Alkyd (AR.R.A17) Alkyd (SS.R.A18) Alkyd (C.R.A19)
Epoxy (H.R.E20) Epoxy (AR.R.E21) Epoxy (SS.R.E22) N/A
1070 H. Fares et al.
assessment and management. This framework can be
applied to all factors affecting pavement marking
condition mentioned earlier. The factors that are not
covered in the developed model will be added in future
work (when their data are available). Also these
models will be considered for validation over several
winters.
In Montreal, snow removal operations start for
highways as soon as snow accumulation occurs. The
snow removal operation for arterial and secondary
streets begins as soon as snow accumulation reaches
2.5 cm. The snow-loading operation must be com-
pleted within a specific time period based on the total
snow accumulation. According to Campbell and
Langevin (1995), sectors that contain less than 25 km
of streets, snow removal deadlines are 72 hours for
20 cm of snow accumulation, 84 hours for 20 to 25 cm
of snow accumulation, and 96 hours for more than
25 cm of snow accumulation. For larger sectors, the
deadlines are 96 hours, 108 hours, and 132 hours,
respectively. Over the winter months, the City of
Ottawa clears snow and ice from roadways, sidewalks,
bridges, bus stops, and transit ways. To keep the
roadways and sidewalks clear of snow and ice, the City
crews are required to apply de-icing materials, and to
prioritise maintenance of roads and sidewalks based on
their importance in the transportation network. Table
2 describes the maintenance quality standards for snow
and ice control on the City of Ottawa roads (Wylie
2006, City of Ottawa 2006).
Based on the snow removal information collected
from the Cities of Montreal, Quebec, and Ottawa,
Ontario, in addition to weather data collected from the
weather network centre, the total number of carried
out snow removal operations for year 2005–2006 are
estimated, as shown in Table 3, in several cities in the
Province of Quebec.
Table 2. Snow ploughing road maintenance quality standards (Martin et al. 1996).
Road Minimum depth of
maintenance snow accumulation
class Road type for deployment of resources
1 A High priority roads
B
2 A Most arterials
B
3 A Most major collectors
B
4 A Most minor collectors
B
C
5 A, C Residential roads and lanes
B 10 cm
Development of condition rating models
Twenty-two data sets are prepared in order to develop
22 different models based on the categories shown in
Table 1 and each model has an average number of
observational records which varies from 500 to 1500
observations. These models provide a ranking from 1
(excellent) to 5 (critical) in terms of a visual inspection
rating. The condition rating classes are associated with
a range of percentages and a specific colour. The
highest percentage range (96–100), represented by a
green colour indicates the best condition (Excellent)
and falls under class 1. Black is associated with the
lowest percentage range (0–15) representing a critical
condition and falls under class 5. Table 4 and Figure 2
describe the proposed scale and associated classes and
colors. Table 5 defines the unit of each factor
considered in the regression model. The regression
equations for the developed models are listed in
Table 6.
Selection of variables and their functional forms
As discussed earlier, the selection of proper variables
for model development depends upon the data in hand
regarding the explanatory and response variables.
Furthermore, a variety of diagnostics should be
employed to identify the functional forms in which
the explanatory variables should enter a regression
model and important interactions that should be
included in the model (Neter et al. 1996). The selected
variables (predictors) for developing regression models
are based upon literature review of the pavement
marking condition influence factors and the actual
data information in hand regarding these factors.
Then, functional forms for the input variables are
defined.
Time to clear snow
accumulation from the
end of snow accumulation
or time to treat icy conditions
As snow accumulation begins 2 hours
3 hours
4 hours
5 cm 6 hours
7 cm 10 hours
16 hours
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1071

Table 3. Total number of snow removals in main cities in

the Province of Quebec. Preliminary diagnostics for relationships and
interactions
Number of snow removals winter 2005–2006
The next step is to find out whether multi-collinearity
Arterial Secondary
City name
or possible relationships exist within the considered
Highways roads streets Collectors
variables. The matrix scatter plot for all the model
Coaticook 62 52 52 42 input variables is obtained, in order to visually detect
Lachute 47 38 38 32 these possibilities. This plot is useful in detecting any
Lac-Megantic 39 33 33 24
Magog 50 43 43 36 existing bivariate relationships between predictors and
Mont Laurier 46 38 38 32 response variables as well as among predictor
Montreal 33 28 28 22 variables.
Hull 36 31 31 24
Val Dor 53 47 47 38
Best subset analysis
If there are some unexpected interactions or bivariate
relationships found in a matrix plot, the combination
of variables is redefined through best subsets regression
Table 4. Condition grading of pavement marking in analysis. The best subsets analysis determines the best
Quebec adapted from. possible combination of variables with regard to lowest
Range of percentage error, variation, and the highest R2 (adjusted) values.
Class marking remaining Colour Therefore, best subset analysis identifies the best fit
regression model that can be constructed with the
1 95–100
specified number of variables. Due to the limits place
2 75–95 on paper size, the analysis and visual diagnostics are
not presented in this paper.
3 50–75

4 15–50
Model building
5 0–15 After the above-mentioned preliminary diagnostics
and analysis, the next step is to build multiple
regression model(s) for further analysis. The corre-
sponding data for the selected variables is used for
regression analysis. The regression output consisted of
a certain equation with an estimate of regression
coefficients k and some other statistical results for
further analysis.

Preliminary tests for model adequacy

The preliminary tests include the coefficient of multiple
Figure 2. Pavement marking condition rating scale. determinations, F-test for regression relation and t-test

Table 5. Units used for each parameter and their description.

Parameter Units Description

Condition rating Integer Condition rating of pavement marking line ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 is 95% to 100%,
2 is 75% to 95%, 3 is 50% to 75%, 4 is 15% to 50% and 5 is 0% to 15%.
Age (A) Month Age from the installation date to the inspection date in month
No. of lanes (N) Integer Total number of lanes per selected road
Pavement condition (P) Integer Condition rating of pavement ranging from 5 to 1, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good.
AADT AADT AADT is number of vehicles expected to pass a given location on an average day of the
year. AADT equals [Average annual daily traffic (AADT)/100,000]
PCT trucks Percent Percentile of trucks passing from AADT for the selected road
Salt (S) t/km Salt equals [Total amount of salt applied per year (t/km)/50]
Abrasives (Ab) t/km Abrasives equals [Total amount of abrasives applied per year (t/km)/50]
Snow removal (Sn) Integer Number of snow removal operation per year for the selected road
1072 H. Fares et al.

Table 6. Developed regression models.

Material Road type Model name Condition rating equation

Left line (l) Alkyd Highway (H.L.A1) 0.1977 þ 0.428 A þ 0.1458 N 7 0.833 P 7 0.4026* 7 0.0068 (Ab * Sn) þ
0.0108 (S * Sn)
Arterial (AR.L.A2) 0.383 þ 0.416 A þ 0.0140 N 7 0.420 P þ 0.322 AADT* þ 0.460 S 7
0.212 Ab 7 0.00164 Sn
Secondary (SS.L.A3) 0.596 þ 0.401 A þ 0.0517 N 7 0.258 P þ 0.237 AADT* þ 0.470 S 7
0.424 Ab 7 0.00544 Sn
Collector (C.LA4) 0.591 þ 0.398 A 7 0.908 P 7 1.04 AADT* þ 0.532 S 7 0.428 Ab 7
0.00119 Sn
Epoxy Highway (H.L.E5) 0.162 þ 0.230 A þ 0.0912 N 7 0.410 P þ 0.258 AADT* þ 0.172 S 7
0.231 Ab 7 0.00144 Sn
Arterial (AR.L.E6) 70.957 þ 0.230 A þ 0.0389 N 7 0.784 AADT* þ 2.12 S þ 0.00349 Sn
Secondary (SS.L.E7) 71.34 þ 0.250 A 7 0.0394 N þ 4.59 P þ 3.50 AADT* þ 1.12 S þ
0.105 Ab
Centre line Ó Alkyd Highway (H.C.A8) 71.10 þ 0.245 A þ 0.319 N 7 0.693 P 7 0.46 AADT* þ 0.727 S þ
0.399 Ab 7 0.0167 Sn þ 1.77 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Arterial (AR.C.A9) 71.18 þ 0.25 A þ 0.226 N 7 0.521 P 7 0.51 AADT* þ 0.621 S þ
0.311 Ab 7 0.0114 Sn þ 1.63 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Secondary (SS.C.A10) 0.783 þ 0.388 A þ 0.089 N 7 0.917 P þ 0.391 AADT* þ 0.173 S 7
0.331 Ab 7 0.00508 Sn þ 0.04 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Collector (C.CA11) 0.47 þ 0.357 Age þ 0.072 pave cond 7 0.563 PCT trucks þ
0.607 AADT* 7 0.109 salt* 7 0.401 abrasives* 7 0.0142 no. of
snow removal þ 1.77 Log (age) X Log (snow removal)
Epoxy Highway (H.C.E12) 70.559 þ 0.175 A þ 0.129 N 7 0.539 P 7 0.075 AADT* þ 0.317 S þ
0.44 Ab 7 0.00961 Sn þ 0.727 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Arterial (AR.C.E13) 70.226 þ 0.184 A þ 0.0358 N 7 0.688 P 7 0.185 AADT* þ 0.0315 S
70.0625 Ab 7 0.00762 Sn þ 0.736 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Secondary (SS.C.E14) 0.038 þ 0.171 A þ 0.0528 N 7 0.581 P 7 0.081 AADT* 7 0.0289 S 7
0.447 Ab 7 0.0153 Sn þ 0.908 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Collector (C.C.E15) 70.345 þ 0.167 A þ 0.136 N 7 1.38 P þ 0.838 AADT* 7 0.345 S þ
0.282 Ab 7 0.0182 Sn þ 0.905 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Right line 1 Alkyd Highway (H.R.A16) 70.099 þ 0.322 A 7 0.0045 N 7 0.0452 P þ 0.334 AADT* þ 1.11 S þ
0.397 Ab 7 0.00941 Sn þ 0.984 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Arterial (AR.R.A17) 70.0817 þ 0.308 A þ 0.00427 N 7 0.245 P 7 0.393 AADT* þ
0.948 S þ 0.257 Ab 7 0.0101 Sn þ 1.05 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Secondary (SS.R.A18) 70.288 þ 0.283 A þ 0.0197 N þ 0.0304 P þ 0.961 AADT* þ 1.01 S 7
0.292 Ab 7 0.0179 Sn þ 1.48 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Collector (C.R.A19) 70.317 þ 0.283 A þ 0.0646 N 7 0.0575 P þ 2.74 AADT* þ 0.602 S
70.261 Ab 7 0.0173 Sn þ 1.37 Log (A) X Log (Sn)
Epoxy Highway (H.R.E20) 0.325 þ 0.227 A 7 0.0258 N 7 0.0296 P þ 0.675 AADT* þ 0.190 S 7
0.219 Ab 7 0.00205 Sn
Arterial (AR.R.E21) 70.583 þ 0.234 A þ 0.0289 N 7 0.056 P þ 0.426 AADT* þ 1.24 S 7
0.112 Ab þ 0.00258 S
Secondary (SS.R.E22) 71.56 þ 0.224 A þ 0.145 N 7 2.22 P 7 1.14 AADT* þ 2.86 S þ
0.379 Ab þ 0.0114 Sn

A, Age; N, no. of lanes; P, PCT trucks, S, salt; Ab, abrasives; Sn, Snow removal.

for each regression parameter bk. Figure 3 shows the
Minitab output for these tests. The R2 and R2
(adjusted) values are 98.9% and 98.8%, respectively.
The R2 value indicates that the predictors explain
98.9% of the variance in ‘Condition rating’ (response
variable) for model name Alkyd (H.L.A1). The R2
(adjusted) accounts for the number of predictors in the
model. Both values indicate that the model fits the data
well.
The next test is the F-test for regression. To
determine P (F) for the entire model, a hypothesis
test is carried out. The null hypothesis (H0) assumes
that all regression coefficients, b0, b1, . . . , bp71 are
zero, i.e. b0 ¼ b1 ¼ bp71 ¼ 0. The alternate
hypothesis (Ha) assumes that not all of them equal to
zero. In Figure 3, the p-value (statistical significance) in
analysis of variance table is 0.000. That means that null
hypothesis is rejected. This shows that the estimated
model is significant at an a-level of 0.05 and 0.01.
Therefore, at least one coefficient in the estimated
regression equation is not zero. The next step is to test
that all predictors are significantly related to the
response variable. To determine the validity of regres-
sion coefficient individually, t-tests are performed
separately for b0, b1, . . . , bp71 in a similar fashion.
In case of b0, the null hypothesis (H0) of the t-test
assumes that b0 ¼ 0; while alternative hypothesis (Ha)
assumes that b0 6¼ 0. Similarly, the other null
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1073

Figure 3. Regression output for alkyd (H.L.A1) model.

hypothesis assumes that b1 ¼ 0 and vice versa. Figure

3 shows the results of these tests where the p-values for
the estimated coefficients for predictors ‘PCT trucks’,
‘Age’, and ‘AADT’ are almost 0.000. Similarly, the p-
value for predictors ‘No. of lanes’ and ‘salt X snow
removal’ is 0.096 and 0.039, respectively. As a result,
the alternative hypothesis is accepted in which the
predictors are significantly related with the response
variable ‘condition rating’ at a-level of 0.1. However,
the case is different for other predictors. For example,
the p-value for the estimated coefficient for the
predictor ‘abrasives X snow removal’ is 0.172; which
is acceptable at an a-level of 0.2. Due to the interaction
among the different factors, data were normalised and
the interaction among factors was tested. The factors
that passed the statistical tests (i.e. statistically sound)
were left in the model (example: S X Sn and Ab X Sn).
This statistical analysis shows that predictors are
significantly related to the response variable. It also
shows that the model is sound.

Residual analysis Figure 4. Normal probability and histogram of residual

After obtaining satisfactory results from the previous
step, the next step is to analyse the residuals and their
patterns. These diagnostic checks are essential to the
verification of the linear regression assumptions. These
diagnostics are described in the following sections.
Normality of error
Figure 4 shows the normal probability and frequency
plots for residuals of the selected model for Alkyd
(H.L.A1). The normal probability plot shows that
plots for alkyd (H.L.A1) model.
error terms are nearly normal. Since small departure
from normality do not create any serious problems
(Kutner et al. 2005); the results could be considered as
satisfactory. However, there could be a possibility of
outliers. The possibility of outliers is also clear from
the histogram of residuals plot. The bar on the far right
indicates that the data corresponding to these values
1074 H. Fares et al.
do not fit with the model. In order to check the
possibility of outliers and errors in normal probability
plots, regression outputs for unusual observations are
analysed. Figure 5 shows observations with large
standardised residuals and some with large influence
on the model characteristics. These types of observa-
tions are considered as possible outliers. Eliminating
these unusual observations from the model would give
better results in terms of R2 values and other statistical
parameters.
Independence of error
Errors around a regression line should be independent
for each value of predictors. Figure 6 shows the
residuals vs. the order of data plot for the model under
consideration. The results show positive residuals at
inner bands of X values, and the outer bands largely
consist of negative residuals. Therefore, the error term
is considered independent.
A similar analysis is performed for the remaining
models in the categories shown in Table 1. Table 6
shows these models and Table 7 shows the summary of
their statistical analysis. The R2 (co-efficient of multi-
ple determination) measures the proportional variation
in pavement marking condition explained by its
attributes. According to Table 7, 96% to 99% of the
total variability in the condition of pavement markings
can be explained through the developed regression
equations. The R2-adjusted accounts for the number
of predictors in the model. Both values of R2 and
R2-adjusted indicate that all the developed models fit
the data well. Table 7 also presents the results of the F-
test for the relationship of predictors and the pavement
condition. The p-values for the F-test are 0.000 for all
the developed models. This means that the null
hypothesis is rejected and none of the regression
Figure 5. Regression output for unusual observations.
coefficients are zero. Similarly, Table 7 also presents
the results of the t-test performed separately for each
bk of every variable in the selected models. In most
cases, the p-values are closer to 0.000, which show that
there is a linear relationship between the predictors and
the response (condition). Some of the p-values are
high; nevertheless, the other statistical diagnostics for
these models show robust results. Therefore, these
models are sound and acceptable.
Validation of the developed models
The validation data set is embedded into the developed
models to compare its results with actual data. Based
on Al-Barqawi and Zayed (2006), Equations (1) and
(2) are used to validate the developed regression
models. Equation (1) represents the average invalidity
percent (AIP), which shows the prediction error. If the
value AIP is closer to 0.0, the model is sound and a
value closer to 1 shows that the model is not
appropriate. Similarly, the root mean square error
(RMSE) can be estimated by Equation (2) (Al-Barqawi
and Zayed 2006). If the value of the RMSE is close to
0, the model is sound and vice versa. In addition, the
mean absolute error (MAE) is defined as shown in
Equation (3) (Al-Barqawi and Zayed 2006).
Pn
j1  ðEi =Ci Þj
AIP ¼ i¼1 ð1Þ
n
where AIP is the average invalidity percent, Ei is the
estimated/predicted value for case i, Ci is the actual
value for case i.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
2
i¼1 ðCi  Ei Þ
RMSE ¼ ð2Þ
n
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Pn
i¼1 jCi  Ei j
MAE ¼
n sensitivity analysis is performed by varying one factor
The MAE value varies from 0 to infinity. However,
the value of the mean absolute error should be close to
zero for sound results. Table 8 shows the summary of
validation results for the developed models. The results
show that the average validity percent of the developed
models varies from 87% to 99%. Therefore, the
developed models are acceptable, robust, and are
recommended for further applications.
Sensitivity analysis
From the developed models, it is induced that
deterioration of pavement marking is a complex
1075
phenomenon, which involves many attributes. The
ð3Þ
at a time; while other factors are kept constant. The
sensitivity analysis is conducted by considering mini-
mum, average, and maximum values of the other
factors in the developed model (Table 9). For example,
average values of daily traffic, percent of trucks, snow
removal times, salts and abrasives used are taken as
4600 vehicles, 12%, 34 snow removals, 18 ton/km, and
33 ton/km, respectively. However, the maximum
values are taken as 18,000 vehicles, 20%, 40 snow
removals, 25 ton/km, and 36 ton/km, respectively and
the minimum values are taken as 1300 vehicle, 6%, 24
snow removals, 13 ton/km, and 27 ton/km respectively.
As a result of the sensitivity analysis, 18 performance
curves are developed under minimum, average, and
maximum conditions as explained in the following
sections and shown in the sample Figures 7, 8, 9, and
10.

The use of condition rating models

As discussed earlier, 22 regression models are devel-
oped which are characterised by specific line type,
pavement marking material, and road type. So to pick
up the right regression equation from Table 6, the
following questions need to be answered in sequence:

Figure 6. Residual vs. order of data plot for alkyd (1) What is the line type? (The answer is left line,
(AR.C.A9) model. centre line, or right line).

Table 7. Summary of statistical results for condition assessment models.

Model P(t)
2 2
Line Name R (%) R -Adj (%) P(F) b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8
Left line Alkyd (H.L.A1) 98.9 98.8 0.000 0.320 0.000 0.161 0.000 0.002 0.114 0.114 0.114 –
Alkyd (AR.L.A2) 99.0 99.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 –
Alkyd (SS.L.A3) 97.9 97.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 –
Alkyd (C.LA4) 96.8 96.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 – –
Epoxy (H.L.E5) 97.0 96.9 0.000 0.169 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.206 0.163 0.091 –
Epoxy (AR.L.E6) 99.5 99.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.071 – – –
Epoxy (SS.L.E7) 99.9 99.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.374 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 – –
Centre line Alkyd (H.C.A8) 98.8 98.7 0.000 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.041 0.634 0.000 0.000
Alkyd (AR.C.A9) 96.6 96.1 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.061 0.254 0.000 0.000
Alkyd(SS.C.A10) 96.2 96.2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.263 0.004 0.124 0.000
Alkyd (C.CA11) 95.2 95.7 0.000 0.752 0.000 0.845 0.000 0.001 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.002
Epoxy(H.C.E12) 97.8 97.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.473 0.047 0.012 0.000 0.000
Epoxy(AR.C.E13) 98.6 98.6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.137 0.718 0.086 0.000 0.000
Epoxy(SS.C.E14) 97.9 97.9 0.000 0.724 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.552 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.000
Epoxy(C.C.E15) 98.4 98.2 0.000 0.228 0.000 0.008 0.019 0.048 0.350 0.282 0.000 0.001
Right line Alkyd (H.R.A16) 99.8 99.7 0.000 0.580 0.000 0.878 0.521 0.019 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.000
Alkyd (AR.R.A17) 99.4 99.4 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Alkyd (SS.R.A18) 99.2 99.2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.326 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Alkyd (C.R.A19) 99.0 99.0 0.000 0.342 0.000 0.434 0.198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Epoxy (H.R.E20) 98.9 98.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.764 0.000 0.052 0.067 0.001 –
Epoxy (AR.R.E21) 99.7 99.6 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.013 0.830 0.156 0.012 0.443 0.118 –
Epoxy (SS.R.E22) 99.9 99.8 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.097 0.004 0.060 0.001 0.066 0.013 –
1076 H. Fares et al.

(2) What is the type of marking material? (The determine the status of the pavement marking;
answer is alkyd or epoxy). however the output of the model does not give an
(3) What is the road type? (The answer is highway, integer value but fractions or decimals and the user has
arterial road, secondary street, or collectors).

The second step after choosing the suitable regres-

sion equation is to collect and prepare the input data.
Although there are a lot of factors which can play a
role in the deterioration process of pavement marking
material (about 11 factors), only seven factors are
considered due to the type of data collected. These
factors are as follows (the units are explained in Table
4): age, number of lanes, annual average daily traffic,
the percentage of trucks, salt, abrasives and snow
removal.
The output of the regression model is matched
against the condition rating scale shown in Figure 2 to

Table 8. Validation summary results for built regression

Figure 7. Left line performance curves for alkyd paint
models.
(average conditions).
Model
Line Name AIP RMSE MAE

Left line Alkyd (H.L.A1) 0.029 0.021 0.086

Alkyd (AR.L.A2) 0.047 0.035 0.189
Alkyd (SS.L.A3) 0.007 0.006 0.029
Alkyd (C.LA4) 0.061 0.046 0.245
Epoxy (H.L.E5) 0.161 0.031 0.184
Epoxy (AR.L.E6) 0.041 0.021 0.121
Epoxy (SS.L.E7) 0.029 0.036 0.059
Centre line Alkyd (H.C.A8) 0.065 0.070 0.242
Alkyd (AR.C.A9) 0.061 0.033 0.158
Alkyd(SS.C.A10) 0.045 0.048 0.198
Alkyd (C.CA11) 0.041 0.020 0.143
Epoxy(H.C.E12) 0.126 0.027 0.150
Epoxy(AR.C.E13) 0.060 0.021 0.135
Epoxy(SS.C.E14) 0.050 0.009 0.063
Epoxy(C.C.E15) 0.050 0.035 0.103
Right line Alkyd (H.R.A16) 0.055 0.047 0.178
Alkyd (AR.R.A17) 0.032 0.023 0.128 Figure 8. Centre line performance curves for alkyd paint
Alkyd (SS.R.A18) 0.015 0.012 0.059 (minimum conditions).
Alkyd (C.R.A19) 0.015 0.011 0.062
Epoxy (H.R.E20) 0.124 0.030 0.178
Epoxy (AR.R.E21) 0.048 0.027 0.121
Epoxy (SS.R.E22) 0.024 0.037 0.062

Table 9. Minimum, median, and maximum values of

different parameters.

Parameter Minimum Median Maximum

Condition rating left line 1 3 5
AGE (left line) 2.1 6.1 11.7
No. of lanes 1 2 5
Pavement condition 2 2 2
PCT trucks 0.01 0.14 0.42
AADT 0.0036 0.03298 0.4896
salt 0.08 0.44 0.7
Abrasives 0.4 0.6 0.9
Snow removal 28 43 52 Figure 9. Centre line performance curves for alkyd paint
(average conditions).
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1077

the option to consider the result without changing or corresponding figures are not presented. However, a
to round it (up or down). Figure 11 shows a step by sample of these is shown in Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10.
step methodology in selecting the correct equation and Table 9 can be used to assume any missing data.
how to use it. Due to paper size limitations, the

Development of performance (deterioration) curves

Based on the 22 regression models, different pavement
marking performance curves are designed. The perfor-
mance curves represent all road types under considera-
tion. The performance curves are designed by varying
one factor at a time; while other factors are kept
constant under three levels of condition (minimum,
average, and maximum) as shown in the previous
section.

The use of performance (deterioration) curves

Performance curves are designed to define the dete-
rioration profile for pavement marking. The perfor-
Figure 10. Centre line performance curves for alkyd paint mance curves (samples are shown in Figures 7, 8, 9,
(maximum conditions). and 10 out of 18 performance curves) are developed for

Figure 11. The various steps of using regression equations.

1078
Figure 12. The various steps of using the developed performance curves.
left, centre, and right lines of both alkyd and epoxy
paint under minimum, average, and maximum envir-
onmental conditions. In order to pick up the right
performance curve, one needs to answer the following
questions in sequence as shown in Figure 12:
(1) What is the type of marking material? (The
answer is alkyd or epoxy).
(2) What is the environmental condition? (The
answer is minimum condition, average condi-
tion, or maximum condition).
(3) What is the line type? (The answer is left line,
centre line, or right line).
The second step after choosing the suitable
performance curve is to estimate or predict the
condition of the pavement marking using age and
type of road. As stated before, these performance
curves are developed under three different conditions;
H. Fares et al.
minimum, average, and maximum. These conditions
are derived by assuming values for the pavement
marking deterioration factors, thereby eliminating the
need to input these values that renders the process
more user-friendly. In order to use these curves, the age
value in months is used in the abscissa axis going
vertical to hit the curve of the desired type of road and
then going horizontal toward the ordinate axis to read
the condition rating of the pavement marking material.
Using the scale shown in Figure 2, one can determine
the condition of the pavement marking material.
To give an example of how to use these perfor-
mance curves, a scenario is given to solve. The scenario
declares a need to estimate the condition of the left line
of highway painted with alkyd paint material at age of
7 months while the ambient environmental condition is
estimated as average.
To solve this problem, one needs to choose the
correct performance curve using the chart shown in
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 12, which shows a step by step performance
curve methodology. The methodology provides a
detailed explanation of how to select the right
performance curve and how to use it. The problem
characteristics are as follows:
(1) Paint material is alkyd.
(2) Environmental condition is average.
(3) Line location is left.
Figure 7 shows the selected performance curves
according to the given problem definition. Next, one
needs to choose the performance curve that is specific
to the road type. Using the age value of 7 months at
the abscissa, one draws a vertical line until it intersects
with the highway performance curve, a horizontal line
goes toward the ordinate axis to read the performance
of that paint marking. The condition of that paint
marking reads 3.4. Using the scale in Figure 2, the
condition of the paint marking is found to be (poor
condition) with approximate remaining marking strips
(visual inspection) from 15% to 50%.
Conclusions
Performance models were developed for various
pavement marking materials based upon data collected
from the Province of Quebec using regression analysis.
These models considered the different contributing
factors to the pavement marking conditions. Classifi-
cation of data was based on three main parameters: (1)
location of the marking line (e.g. left line, centre line,
or right line), (2) category of the road (e.g. highways,
arterial roads, secondary streets or collectors), and
finally (3) marking material (e.g. alkyd paint, or
epoxy). The condition rating values range from 1 to
5 where 1 is excellent and 5 is critical. The average
percent validity of the models ranged from 87% to
99%, which was considered satisfactory. These models
were designed to define a deterioration profile for
pavement marking with a detailed methodology. The
models are expected to benefit academics and practi-
tioners (municipal engineers, consultants, and contrac-
tors) so that they can prioritise inspection, planning,
stripping and re-stripping procedures for various
pavement markings.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Infrastructure Canada for
their support and funding of this research project. The
authors also would like to express their appreciation for the
View publication stats
1079
help of Mr. Michel Tremblay for his support to this research
by providing Quebec data.
References
Al-Barqawi, H. and Zayed, T., 2006. Condition rating model
for underground infrastructure sustainable water mains.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20 (2,
May), 126–135.
Campbell, J.F. and Langevin, A., 1995. Operations manage-
ment for urban snow removal and disposal. Transporta-
tion Research A, 29a (5), 359–370.
City of Ottawa, 2006. Maintenance quality standards – roads
[online]. Available from: http://ottawa.ca/residents/on
themove/driving/road_sidewalk/plowing_salting/when_
how_en.html [Accessed May 2007].
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M., and Kisiltas, S., 2005. Prediction
of organisational effectiveness in construction compa-
nies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, 131 (February), 252–261.
Hatzi, P., 2005. Retroreflectivity: Raising the nighttime
brightness of traffic signs and markings [online]. FHWA/
Safety HAS-1. Available from: www.Safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/fourthlevel/pdf/overview.pdf [Accessed September
2007].
Kutner, M., Neter, J., Nachtsheim, C., and Wasserman, W.,
2005. Applied linear statistical models. 5th edn. USA:
McGraw-Hill.
Martin, P.T., Perrin, T., Jitprasithsiri, S., and Hansen, B.,
1996. A comparative analysis of the alternative pavement
marking materials for the State of Utah [online].
Available from: http://www.trafficlab.utah.edu/research/
projects/current/acrobat/UDOTfin.pdf [Accessed August
2007].
Migletz, J. and Graham, J., 2002. Long-term pavement
marking practices: A synthesis of highway practice.
NCHRP Synthesis 306. Project 20-5. TRB Washington,
US, January.
Migletz, J., Graham, J.L., Harwood, D.W., and Bauer,
K.M., 2001. Service life of durable pavement markings.
Transportation Research Record No. 1749, 13–21.
Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan, 2005. Target-
setting framework, performance measures, targets and
policy guidance [online], Minnesota Legislative Library.
Chapter 6. Available from: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/
lrl/lrl.asp [Accessed September 2007], 6-1 to 6-81.
Shahata, K., Fares, H., Zayed, T., Abdelrahman, M., and
Chughtai, F., 2008. Condition rating models for sustain-
able pavement marking. Transportation Research Board
2008 annual meeting. January 2008, US. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board, Paper #08-0018.
Transport Canada, 2004. Annual Report 2002: Road Safety
Vision 2010. Catalogue No. T45-1-2002-1E, TP 13347 E.
February, Canada.
Transport Canada, 2008. Canadian motor vehicle traffic
collision statistics: 2006 [online]. Available from: http://
www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2006/page1.htm [Ac-
cessed 24 May 2008].
Wylie, K., 2006. Program Manager: Signs and Pavement
Markings Division. Ontario, Canada. Phone: (613) 580-
2424 ext. 19013. Email: Kevin.Wylie@ottawa.ca.