You are on page 1of 10
Advanced Testing and Characterization of Bituminous Materials ~ Loizos, Partl, Scarpas & Al-Qadi (eds) © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-55854-9. Investigation of friction properties of various road surfaces affecting road safety T. Pellinen Helsinki University of Technology, Finland M. Currie University of Strathelyde, Scotland J. Valtonen Helsinki University of Technology, Finland ABSTRACT: In this study, three different pavement surfaces were investigated to assess their friction properties in terms of traffic safety. The study was initiated after a fatal traf- fic accident that occurred when a motorcyclist was changing lanes in a motorway in rainy weather. The studied circumstances included longitudinal joint patching with fine asphalt mastics with and without chippings, random pavement patches, and road markings. Meas- urements were done using the pendulum test (PVT) and using the Portable Friction Tester (PFT). Friction was measured by obtaining the dry and wet surface friction values and a ref- erence friction value from intact pavement adjacent to the patched areas. The study findings generally confirmed the visual assessment of surface slipperiness; and the friction values were generally lower for the wet surfaces than for the dry surfaces. In addition, the longitudinal joint strips without chippings had lower friction values compared to the sanded strips. Due to the lack of proper criteria, it was not possible to judge if the measured friction values were acceptable. However, this preliminary study is the first step in the development of friction criteria for pavement rehabilitation work to ensure the safety of road users. 1 INTRODUCTION In this study, different pavement surfaces were investigated to assess their friction properties in terms of road safety. This study was initiated after a fatal traffic accident in Finland where a motorcyclist was killed when changing lanes in a motorway at high speed (120 km/h) in wet conditions. The longitudinal joint between the two lanes had been patched by applying a 330 mm wide strip of fine asphalt mixture. However, chippings or sand were not applied to the hot-laid material to form a skid-resistant surface. To investigate this matter, the Finnish Road Administration requested Helsinki University of Technology to measure the friction properties of the various materials used in road rehabilitation work. The targets were selected based on their visual appearance of slipperiness. The investigation took place in the Helsinki metropolitan area and the central Uusimaa in summer 2007. The aim of the survey was to identify the slipperiness and friction of various road materials/surfaces during wet and dry conditions. This information would then be used to develop guidelines or criteria for the assessment of rehabilitation work in terms of road safety. Three cases, with different materials/surfaces and work methods, were studied, and included the patching work of the longitudinal joints with and without application of chippings or sand (Case-I), random pavement patches with various sizes (Case-I), and road markings (Case-IID). Friction was measured for three different conditions, obtaining dry surface, wet surface, and reference surface friction values. The reference value was obtained from the intact pavement adjacent of the patched area studied. 251 Figure I. Test equipments (a) Pendulum tester (PTV) and (b) Portable Friction tester (PFT). Measurements were done using two devices and methods, the European standard EN 13036-4 method (EN, 2003) for measurement of slip/skid resistance of a surface, the pendulum test, and using the Portable Friction Tester (PFT) developed by VTI, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (Bengstém et al. 2003, Wallman & Astrém, 2001). The skid resistance tester (PTV) device or pendulum is shown in Figure 1a. The use of the pendulum tester is time consuming as each measurement must be conducted separately. The PFT, shown in Figure 1b, is a friction measuring device for continuous measurements at walking speed designed for measurements on road markings. It is easy to operate and calibrate in the field. ‘The PFT measurements are based on the fact that the front wheel spins at a different speed than that of the pushed rear wheels. The friction is calculated by the machine by using the different speeds at which the front and rear wheels turn (front wheel ratio). The PFT uses fixed longitudinal slip (21%) with a friction number defined as the friction force/test wheel load. In this study, the device measured friction at intervals of 26 mm and was able to store 50 meters of measured friction values. The wheel used on the device was at atmospheric pressure. Measurement errors due to the tire pressure were negligible. The device was pushed with a speed of 0.5 v/s, a slow speed due to it been pushed by hand. Both the PFT and the PTV devices produce their own friction values and they do not directly measure the physical friction coefficient, Therefore, the test results are relative and not directly comparable to eri- teria for skid resistance for asphalt pavements by the Finnish Pavement Technology Advisory Council (PANK, 2000) For measuring the friction of the longitudinal joints, five-meter long test strips were used; and for the patching and road markings, two-meter long test strips were used. The Pendulum. tests and the PFT runs were repeated several times in each test location. In addition, continu- ous profile measurements were undertaken at some of the test sites using the PTF apparatus The purpose of these repetitive measurements was to investigate if the apparatus was able to distinguish surfaces that were visibly different in appearance. 2. TESTED SURFACES 2.1 Longitudinal joint patching (Case-I) Longitudinal joint patches are a common rehabilitation procedure when the joints between the two adjacent traffic lanes are deteriorating. This is primarily caused by frost action and water damage, with poor quality paving work contributing to the problem. Joint patching of the arterial motorway Vt4 in the Lahti—Firvenpaa road section north of Helsinki was completed in spring 2007. Patching was laid in the joint between the two adjacent traffic lanes. The material used was a fine mastic asphalt (MA) mixture with a maximum aggregate size of 6 mm. A total of four test locations were selected that were 1.2. km south of the Mantsala interchange, north of Helsinki (see ‘Table 1). Measurement 252 Table 1, Test conditions and locations for longitudinal joint patches at the time of testing. Ain/Surface temp. Test Joint patch Age of Road no. (CO) weather Mix type locations width (mm) patch motorway 18/24 MAG 1 250 <6mo vid overcast but dry 2 250 <6 mo 3 550 <6 mo 4 550 <6mo motorway 18/21 mastics with == 1 330 <6mo v8 overcast but dry chippings 2a 330 <6mo 2b 330 <6mo 45 2230-35 masties 1 330 lyr sunshine 2 330 lyr Figure 2. Test sites for joint patches, (a) d/l & 2, (b) VI3/I, (6) Road 45/2. points were selected in such a way that a single pass with each measuring device was sufficient for each surface. Figure 2a shows the joint patch and measurement arrangements. On motorway Vt3 from Helsinki to Tampere, the joint rehabilitation work was conducted in spring 2007. The material used was fine mastics, The applied joint patch was approxi- mately 4-5 mm higher than the surrounding pavement surface, Later on, the joint patching was found to be very slippery when it rained, and it was decided to roughen the surface by adding chips and pressing strips to the surface, as shown in Figure 2b, In addition, some roughening touch up work was carried out later. Joint patching of road 45 in Tuusula was completed during the summer of 2006. The edges of the patch joints were at level with the pavement surface. Material used was fine mastics, as shown in Figure 2c. 2.2. Gussasphalt patches (Case-II) Another common method of road rehabilitation is the use of gussasphalt in various dis- tuesses, such as filling rutted wheel paths and sealing the openings of joints between the travel lane and the shoulder. Gussasphall is a type of fine masties asphalt, which has certain composition specified by PANK (PANK, 2000). As gussasphalt looks visibly very slippery, it 253 ‘Table 2, Test conditions and locations for gussasphalt patching. Ai/Surface temp. Test Description Age of Roadno, (*C)/weather ——-Mixtype —ilocations of patch ~—patch_—_-Notes 140 136 guss-asphalt 1 rut >lyr variable types overcast but dry 2 rut plyr 3 edge repair >1 yr 4 rut plyr 192 18 guss-asphalt nit, Slyr wheel path sunshine 500 mm patching Figure 3. ‘Test sites for gussasphalt patches: (a) on road 140/4, (b) on road 152, (c) on road 140/2 and (d) on road 1403. was decided to measure some of these patches for reference purposes. Table 2 shows the test conditions for measurements at two locations on roads 140 and 152. ‘At Road 140 in Jokivarsi, four locations were measured, including patching of ruts on wheel paths (Figures 3a and c) and edge repair (Figure 3d). Figure 3b shows 500 mm wide rut repair on Road 152. All patches were more than one year old. As a close-up picture of the pavement patches show, the surface texture is quite different in different materials. 2.3 Road markings (Case-HI) Similarly, the road markings were studied at two locations to obtain some reference informa- tion about the friction of these types of surfaces. The materials used for road markings can be thermoplastics or paint. Table 3 gives the test conditions and locations. On Road 140 there were three locations for pedestrian crossing, see Figure 4, and one sideline measurement. On Vi and Road 45, the thermoplastic side lines with different ages were measured. TEST RESULTS 3.1 Average friction values at each test location Tables 4 and 5 show the number of replicates/runs, average test results, and standard devia- tions for all locations for the PTV and PFT measurements, respectively. The Pendulum results 2s4 Table 3. Test conditions and locations for road markings. Road Air/Surface Test Description of Age of no, temp.((C) Mix type locations patch patch Notes wo 22 thermoplastic 1 pedestrian crossing >I yr pedestrian crossing 2 pedestrian crossing >1 yr 3 pedestrian ctossing <6 mo 4 side line <6 mo ve thermoplastic 5 side line <6mo —_ new/old sideline 6 side line pl yr 45 thermoplastic 7 side line lyr sideline Figure 4. Test sites for road markings, (a) Road 140/1, (b) Road 140/3, were rounded up or down to the nearest ten, The temperature of the rubber foot used in the measurements Was approximately 20°C. A correction due to temperature was therefore not necessary as described in the standard (EN, 2003), Tables 4 and $ show that the lowest wet friction values were measured, by both devices, ‘on Vtd (Case-I) for locations 2 and 3 and on road 140 (Case-II) at location 3. These loca- tions also appeared to be more slippery during the initial visual inspections. Vt3 was the road where the motorcyclist had run off the road after running over the fresh joint rehabilitation. The joint patches on Road 3 were roughened after the accident and the measurements pre- sented here were taken from the roughened surfaces. On Vt3 (Case-I) the measurement points were chosen to highlight areas where the rough- ening might have been poor. As Table 4 shows, there were no differences for the dry meas- urements but wet surface 3/2b, which received poor sanding, had lower wet friction values However, these results were not confirmed by the PTV results shown in Table 5. The meas- urements of dry surfaces are logical, but the measurements for the wet surfaces are contro- versial; the poorly roughened surface had a higher friction value than the properly treated surface, The PFT was however not suited for measuring small areas of poorly sanded patches compared to the pendulum. The PFT is meant to be used for continuous measurements for longer areas while the PTV is better suited for discrete locations. 3.2. Continuous friction profile measurements by PET tester Figures 5 and 6 show the continuous profile measurements for the longitudinal joint patching (Case I) for sites Vid and road 45, Figure 5 shows that on Vt4, about five meters from the start of measurements, the PFT values of the dry surface fell sharply. This is the area that also visually appeared to be slippery (location 2). The wet PFT value, however, did not decrease as 255 ‘Table 4, Pendulum test values (PTV) averaged over replicate measurements (n) Dry Wet Tested surfaces Adjacent surface Tested surfaces Adjacent surfaces Road/Loc. 1 Avg, StDe no Avg. StDe n Avg StDe a Avg StDe ci val So l0s1S GD SST DL vid2 5 1202.7 10 40027 v3 402.2 8 50 1a vad 51022 10 8 8B val 8 «130 O78 DS 8 8 OF VB2a 412013 3 9017 van 4 120 28 5 7 25 45/1 8 0 58 7 9 18 45/2 3 10 65 8 100 3.2 Mean 46 1S 29 16 120 22 63 78 19 2 88 19 cH 140/1 5 13 140/2 5 70 18 14013 6 4 I ca wol so SS SSD 1024 1202.4 1403 «6 =~ «100-88 6 1 33 6 1 34 40/4 1 60 32 vs/s 1 6 0 Vi3/6 1 9 0 much as the PTV values shown in Table 4 would suggest. The slippery surface continued over a 10 m length, after which the friction value slowly increased. The friction value decreased again when the next patch (location 3) began at about 50 m. For road 45, the results contradict each other as the dry friction is higher for the Pendulum test, as expected, but for the PFT test the wet friction is higher. The most likely source of this anomaly is the surface temperature difference. The wet surface was about five degrees cooler than the dry surface and this may have affected the readings taken by the PFT. The sunny weather during the measurements made the joint patches quite soft, which consequently affected the measurements. 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION It was not feasible to analyze the variance of the data as the testing was not systematic (i.c., some areas were tested with one but not both equipment). Others were tested in the dry, but not in the wet, conditions. Therefore, error bars were used to indicate the statistical significance of test results. Figures 7 and 8 show the average test values for Case I for each test location with error bars. Error bars were calculated using the variation of two times the standard deviation. The figures show that the PTV measurements seem to be less variable compared to the PFT measurements. As the error bars do not overlap for the PTV values, the wet and dry measurements also are statistically significantly different. Lower variation is confirmed by the coefficient of variation (CV), which was calculated for both sets of meas- urements, The average CV for the PTV value for dry and wet surfaces was 2.51% and 2.71%, respectively, and for the PFT 4.80% and 5.44%, 256 Table 5. Portable friction tester (PFT) test results averaged over repeated runs (n) Dry Wet Tested surfaces Adjacent surfaces Tested surfaces Adjacent surfaces Road/Loc. n Avg, StDe no Avg StDe n Avg StDe n Avg. StDe cr vis 2105 ons 2 Lo one 3000s Wun 2095 oo 2 10s 003-3 04 05 Om 005 vis 308s os 4075 os Vis 3108 OOF 1 Lo 00¢ $08.04 7070005 Vil 3 Loy ons 3 Los One) 0990s Vt3/2a 2 106 0.09 2 0.86 0.04 vim 3 Ost 00s 3095 ns isl 4 085 0023 105 006 6 OS OO1 «2 060 O08 452 082 003 2 089 Ons 2 090 nos 9 OM Os cu 140-7 LOL 00-3113 006-2 087 003-2 O81 00s wao2— «3104003 208s 003 1403-206 05 2049 os Mins 21174 2 085 4 15254042 008-1 ost 008 3 076 Ok 055 008 cam MOL 4091 005-4103 0054 O78 a2 84008 la2—«2 094 003-3 a5) 007 4 Om aot 2 082005 403 S118 00H ToT 003-2 O75 aus O80 005 las 7052 004-2 0 003 vais 1 ost 0 Vuis i oosr 0 asi 107 0 oy —wee 1 = location 2 location 3 > a2 ra 3 $8 oy 5 # 06 E04 oa 0 0 ww Distance (m) Figure 5. Friction profile on motorway Vid, picture of test site is shown in Figure la. Figure 9 shows the wet/dry ratios for both measurements. The two bars rising above a ratio of one demonstrate poor results where the friction was greater for the wetted surface. Instances of this only occurred with the PFT, ‘A recent study was undertaken in Sweden by Bergstrém et al, (2003) to measure friction on cycleway surfaces using PFT equipment. When compared to values from Bergstrom et al. 287 Figure 6, Figure 7. Figure 8. PFT Friction value ° 5 20 a5 20 25 Distance (m) Friction profile on road 45; photo of test site is shown in Figure 2c. 140 ~ 120 100 ~ 80 60 40 20 PTV Value 4l1 4/2 4/3 4/4 3M 3/2a 3/2b 45/1 45/2 all Road Numb ‘Average PTV values and error bars for longitudinal joint patching (Case-1). poke ty s noe te 4l1 4/2 413 4/4 3/1 3i2a 3/2b 45/1 45/2 all Road Number Average PFT values and error bats for longitudinal joint patching (Case-1) 258 PIV MPTVReference mPFT MPFTReference ‘Wet/Dry Ratio be bs Mas 4aDFas2 aaa Figure 9. Ratio of wet and dry measurements. © Dry DryReference Wet < WetReference Linear (Ory) ~=— Linear (Wet) R=0,0187 y= 193,728= 86,882 RP=0,6899 06 07 08 09 1 aa 12 PET Value Figure 10, Correlation between the PTV and PFT measurements for Case-1 obtained from wetted bare cycleway surfaces, the PFT measured values were comparable ‘The EN 1436 standard states that the lowest acceptable friction PTV value for road marking material is 45. Another study by Wallman and Astrém (2001) correlated the PFT and PTV measurements in such a way that a PVT value of 45 would correspond to a PFT value of 0,60. Comparing the two types of equipment in Figure 10 shows that the wet measurements are more related than the dry measurements, which is shown by the greater R? value, How- ever, the linear regression line between the PVT and PFT values for the asphalt patches devi- ates from that developed for the road marking materials in terms of bias and steepness of the regression slope (PANK 2000, Bengstrim et al. 2001). The PFT value for mastics patches corresponding to the PFT value of 0,60 for road marking materials is approximately 0,68 based on the regression line shown in Figure 10. The value of slip is difficult to define, For example, on the wet reference surfaces, the value of friction is quite small for the PFT device. This is due to the fact that the device meas- ures friction over the smooth surface of polished aggregate particles, which are, of course, slippery. The spacing between aggregate particles and the size also may have some effect on friction values. 259 During the investigation, the equipment operators felt that surface temperature could have an impact on measurements. They claimed that the most suitable climatic conditions for obtaining friction values were dry and cloudy and at a temperature of approximately 15-20 °C. The PFT operated best in dry, clear weather, and the operators felt that use of the PFT device should not be recommended during periods of rain. 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS After concluding friction measurements for this study, all slippery patches on motorways were roughened to improve traffic safety. Generally, all the points which visually appeared slippery were proven to be slippery by the PFT and PTV tests. During the investigation, the lowest friction values were measured on road 140 at Jokivarsi for the edge repairs where gussasphalt was used. When assessing measurements with the help of the criteria devel- oped for road marking materials, it appears that both devices were able to identify the infe- rior surfaces, although overall the PFT measurements showed more variation and some anomalies in the results that could not be explained. Although traffic control was needed to safely operate both devices, the use of PTF device was slightly handier than the use of PTV device. ‘When measuring friction using the PFT machine, it may be necessary to undertake further investigation into the effects of temperature on the friction values, Certain surfaces displayed higher friction values in the wet, which is highly unlikely. The surface temperatures could also be the cause of the anomalies in the data. Itis important to push the handle of the PFT at the correct angle or the wheel otherwise has a tendency to lift. It would be recommended that a modification to the PFT device would ease this problem. The advantage of the PFT device is that its use is faster and simpler than the PTV device. Rough surfaces also proved difficult to measure effectively using the PTV device. Although there were problems associated with the PFT device, it could be used as a quick tool to identify the problem areas to ensure the safety of road users, Ultimately, having clear criteria for acceptable road surface friction would facilitate the use and development of port- able and easy to use devices for quality control and quality assurance work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Finnish National Road Administration for the financial support. Also, the authors wish to thank Master’s student Sauli Sainio from Helsinki Uni- versity of Technology and M.Sc. student Ilkka Taipale from Ramboll for conducting the measurements and the initial analysis of research data REFERENCES Bergsteim, A, Astrima, H, & Magnusson, R 2003, Friction Measurement on Cycleways Using a Port able Friction Tester. Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, 17, 1, 37-57. EN13036-4 (2003). European Standard EN 13086-4 Road and airfield surface characteristics Test tethods Part 4: Method for measurement of slp/skid resistance ofa surface —The pendulum tes. British Standards Finnish Pavement Technology Advisory Council 2000. Finnish Asphalt Specifications 2000, Helsinki: Edita Ltd. Wallman, C. & Astrém, H. 2001. Friction Measurement Methods and Correlation between Road Fi tion and Traffie Safety. VTI Meddelande 911A. 260

You might also like