Yol yüzey işaretlerinde kullanılan malzemeler ve geri yansıma özellikleri üzerine bir literatür taraması

Yıl 2017, , 792 - 805, 01.10.2017

Metin Mutlu Aydın

https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.337271

Öz

Ülkemizde şehiriçi ve şehirlerarası yollar inşaa edildikten kısa bir süre sonra yüzey işaretlemeleri yapılarak hizmete açılmaktadır. Bu yolların hizmete açılmasından belirli bir süre sonra bakımsızlıktan veya diğer sebeplerden dolayı yüzey işaretlemelerinin görünürlüğü azalmakta ya da kaybolmaktadır. Yol yüzeyindeki bu işaretlemeler, sürücülerin şerit kullanımı üzerinde görsel bir rehber olma özelliğinden dolayı kazaları önleme konusunda oldukça hayati bir öneme sahiptir. Ülkemizdeki şehiriçi ve şehirlerarası yollarda yol yüzey işaretlemelerine ne yazık ki yeterince önem verilmemektedir. Yolların büyük bir çoğunluğunun yüzey işaretlenmesinin (yüksek kaliteli yollar hariç) ucuz olması dolayısıyla daha çok soğuk boyalar ile yapılması bu işaretlemelerin çok kısa sürede performansını kaybetmesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu durum sonucunda yollarda oluşan karmaşa, şerit disiplinsizliği vb. nedenlerden dolayı birçok trafik kazası meydana gelmektedir. Hâlbuki gelişmiş ülkelerde ülkemizdeki durumun aksine soğuk boya yerine yol ve çevresel şartlara bağlı olarak en uzun dayanıma ve performansa sahip Epoxy, Methyl Methacrylate, Polyester, Termoplastik, Polyurea vb. malzemeler kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında, gelişmiş ülkelerde yol yüzey işaretlemelerinde aktif olarak kullanılan malzeme türlerinin özellikleri ve kullanım alanları üzerine bir literatür taraması yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar yetkililer ile paylaşılmış ve bu malzemelerin ülkemizde de kullanımı konusunda teşvik edici ve bilgilendirici bir kaynak hazırlanmaya çalışılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yol yüzey işaretlemeleri, Şerit çizgisi, Geri yansıma, Yol karakteristikleri

A literature review on road surface marking materials and retroreflectivity properties

Öz

Urban
and rural roads are opened to service after the application of road surface
markings in Turkey. However, visibility of these roads reduce or disappear
caused by the disrepair in a short time after the construction. These road
surface markings have a mission to be a visual guide on behavior of lane
utilization of drivers. For this reason, it has crucial importance to prevent
traffic accidents. Unfortunately, the necessary importance to road surface
markings are not given by the authorities in urban and rural roads of Turkey.
Generally, standard road marking paint are used in all roads because of its low
price and it loses retroreflectivity performance after short time. As a result
of this situation chaos, lane indiscipline and many traffic accidents occur in
urban and rural roads. Whereas, many different road painting materials are used
such as Epoxy, Methyl Methacrylate, Polyester, Thermoplastic, Polyurea etc. to
obtain higher performance and resistance according to different road
characteristics and environmental conditions. In the scope of this study, a
general information were given about the utilization of different surface
marking materials which is used in developed countries effectively.
Additionally, a number of recommendations and guidance notes have been provided
for road makers and decision authorities wishing to use these materials in
Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Road surface markings, Lane line, Retroreflectivity, Road characteristics

Kaynakça

• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK), Trafik Kaza İstatistikleri, Ankara, 2015. [2] M. M. Aydın, A. Topal ve S. Tanyel, “Çok şeritli yollarda yol yüzey bozukluklarının sürücü davranışları üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi”, TMMOB 10: Ulaştırma Kongresi, Bildiri Kitapçığı, Sayfa 413–425. İzmir, Türkiye, Eylül 2013. [3] M. M. Aydin ve A. Topal, “Effect of road surface deformations on lateral lane utilization and longitudinal driving behaviours”, Transport, cilt 31 no. 2, pp.192-201, 2016. [4] P. Hatzi, “Retroreflectivity: Raising the nighttime brightness of traffic signs and markings”. 2015 FHWA/Safety HAS-1. [Çevrimiçi]. Available: http://www.Safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ fourthlevel/pdf/overview.pdf. [:20 Ekim 2016]. [5] Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDoT) “Minnesota statewide highway systems operation plan 2005”. [Çevrimiçi]. Available: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maintenance/docs/HSOP% 20Final%20Report%208-17-05.pdf. [:20 Ekim 2016]. [6] J. Migletz, ve J. Graham, “Long-term pavement-marking practices (NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 306)”, Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, 2002. [7] A. R. Abbas, P. Sarker ve A. Frankhouser, “Performance evaluation of wet pavement markings in Ohio”. Public Works Management & Policy, cilt 19 no.2, pp. 180-197, 2014. [8] A. M. Pike, H. G. Hawkins ve P. J. Carlson, “Evaluating the retro-reflectivity of pave- ment-marking materials under continuous wetting conditions”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 2015, pp. 81-90, 2007. [9] T. Schnell, F. Aktan ve Y. C. Lee, “Nighttime visibility and retro-reflectance of pave- ment markings in dry, wet, and rainy conditions”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 1824, pp. 144-155, 2003. [10] F. Aktan ve T. Schnell, “Performance evaluation of pavement markings under dry, wet, and rainy conditions in the field”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 1877, pp. 38-49, 2004. [11] P. J. Carlson, J. D. Miles, M. P. Pratt ve A. M. Pike, “Evaluation of wet-weather pavement markings: First year report (Report No. 0-5008-1)”. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2005. [12] P. J. Carlson, J. D. Miles, A. M. Pike ve E. S. Park, “Evaluation of wet-weather and contrast pavement-marking applications: Final report (Report No. 0-5008-2)”. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2007 [13] B. R. Gibbons, C. Andersen ve J. Hankey, “Wet night visibility of pavement mark- ings: A static experiment”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 1911, pp. 113-122, 2005. [14] W. N. Craig, W. E. Sitzabee, W. J. Rasdorf ve J. E. Hummer, “Statistical validation of the effect of lateral line location on pavement-marking retro-reflectivity degradation”, Public Works Management & Policy, cilt 12, pp. 431-450, 2007. [15] B. R. Gibbons ve J. Hankey, “Wet night visibility of pavement markings: Dynamic experiment”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 2015, pp. 73-80, 2007. [16] L. Higgins, J. D. Miles, D. Burns, F. Aktan, M. Zender ve J. M. Kacsmarczik, “Nighttime visibility of prototype work-zone markings under dry, wet-recovery, and rain conditions”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, cilt 2107, pp. 69-75, 2009. [17] J. K. Lindly ve A. Narci, “Evaluation of double-drop beads pavement edge line (UTCA Report Number 05409)” Tuscaloosa: University Transportation Center for Alabama, 2009. [18] L. Sasidharan, V. Karwa ve E. T. Donnell, “Use of pavement-marking degradation models to develop a pavement-marking management system”, Public Works Management & Policy, cilt 14, pp. 148-173, 2009. [19] J. Robertson, W. Sarasua, J. Johnson ve W. Davis, “A methodology for estimating and comparing the lifecycles of high-build and conventional waterborne pavement markings on primary and secondary roads in South Carolina”, Public Works Management & Policy. Advance online publication, 2012. [20] H. Fu ve C. G. Wilmot, “Evaluating alternative pavement marking materials”, Public Works Management & Policy, cilt 18, 279-297, 2013. [21] W. E. Sitzabee, E. D. White ve A. W. Dowining, “Degradation modeling of polyurea pavement markings”, Public Works Management & Policy, cilt 18, pp. 185-199, 2013. [22] ASTM International. “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Retroreflective Pavement Marking Materials with CEN-Prescribed Geometry Using a Portable Retroreflectometer”, Designation E1710-05. West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. [23] Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Pavement Marking Handbook, August 2004. [24] He, Y., T. Schnell, P.J. Carlson ve C. D. Debaillon. Updates to Research on Recommended Minimum Levels to Pavement marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver Night Visibility Needs. Technical Memorandum No. 1. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., September 2006. [25] C. Debaillon, P. J. Carlson, Y. He, T. Schnell ve F. Aktan, “Updates to research on recommended minimum levels for pavement marking retroreflectivity to meet driver night visibility needs (No. FHWA-HRT-07-059)”, 2007. [26] K. Shahata, H. Fares, T. Zayed, M. Abdelrahman ve F. Chughtai, “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, 2008. [27] R. J. Benz, A. M. Pike, S. P. Kuchangi ve Q, Brackett, “Serviceable pavement marking retroreflectivity levels: Technical report (No. FHWA/TX-09/0-5656-1)”. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University System, 2009. [28] W. A. Sarasua, D. B. Clarke ve W. J. Davis, “Evaluation of Interstate Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity”, Clemson University, Report number FHWA-SC-03-01, April 2003. [29] Worldhighways, 2003 “Reflective road markings”. Available from: [Çevrimiçi]. Available: http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-markings-barriers-workzone protection/features/reflective-road-markings-improve-visibility-safety/) [:20 Ekim 2016]. [30] C. Holzschuher ve T. Simmons, “Mobile Retroreflectivity Characteristics for Pavement Markings at Highway Speeds”, Research Report FL/DOT/SMO/05-486. Florida Department of Transportation, May, 2005. [31] Guidemark, Inc. 2016. “Retro-Reflectivity Testing”, [Çevrimiçi]. Available: http://guidemarkinc.com/retro-reflectivity-testing/ [:20 Ekim 2016]. [32] Mainroad 2016. “Mobile retroreflectometers”. [Çevrimiçi]. Available: http://mainroad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/WP_002424.jpg [:20 Ekim 2016]. [33] J. D. Turner, “Pavement marking Retroreflectivity: Research Overview and Recommendations”. Unpublished report, FHWA, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development. 1999. [34] H. T. Zwahlen ve T. Schnell, “Pavement marking Visibility Research and Proposed Values for Minimum Required Pavement marking Retro Reflectivity”. Unpublished report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Ohio University Athens, Ohio. August, 1998. [35] H. G. Hawkins, G. Schertz, J. Carlson ve R. Beck. “Minimum Levels of In-Service Retroreflectivity for Pavement markings: Summary of Workshop Findings”. Federal Highway Administration, August 2000, unpublished report. [36] H. G. Hawkins ve M. P. Pratt, “Impacts of Implementing Minimum Levels of Pavement marking Retroreflectivity”. Draft Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., January 2007. [37] F. Loetterle, R. Beck ve J. Carlson, “Public perception of pavement marking brightness”, Transportation Research Record cilt 1715, pp. 51–59, 2000. [38] J. Migletz, J. L. Graham, D. W. Harwood ve K. M. Bauer, “Service life of durable pavement markings”. Transportation Research Record cilt 1749, pp. 13–21, 2001.