AASHTO TP 103-2013 Standard Method of Test for Detectable Warning Systems.pdf

1、Standard Method of Test for Detectable Warning Systems AASHTO Designation: TP 103-13 (2015)1American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001 TS-4d TP 103-1 AASHTO Standard Method of Test for Detectable Warning Systems

2、AASHTO Designation: TP 103-13 (2015)1INTRODUCTION The use of detectable warning systems at curb cuts and vehicular ways is mandated as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. These detectable warning systems are subject to a variety of environmental conditions that can lead to material degradat

3、ion and reduction in performance. In extreme cases, degradation may occur such that the detectable warning systems become a hazard to pedestrians, for example, by becoming a tripping or slip hazard. This method provides a protocol for testing the durability of detectable warning systems in a repeata

4、ble manner. Laboratory exposures and evaluation tests were developed to simulate the types of damage and degradation anticipated in service. Exposures are conducted cyclically to allow for effects of combined interaction of the simulated environmental exposures. Non-destructive evaluation tests are

5、conducted both before and after exposures to provide comparative values. Destructive evaluation tests are conducted after the exposures. The primary objective of this test method is to provide a repeatable set of tests that can be conducted specifically to evaluate durability of detectable warning s

6、ystems. Each test is suitable for use with any type of detectable warning system, regardless of the material composition or method of attachment. Specimens are attached to concrete slabs to provide a test of the detectable warning system/sidewalk system. Data produced following this method is antici

7、pated to be used for purposes of determining product durability and product comparison. 1. SCOPE 1.1. This method of test covers the specimen fabrication, testing protocols, and laboratory-accelerated weathering of detectable warning systems for the purposes of evaluating durability. This method of

8、test covers the following categories: 1.1.1. Non-Destructive Evaluation Tests: Visual and Microscopic Evaluation (Section 6) Dome Shape and Geometry Measurement (Section 7) Slip Resistance Measurement (Section 8) Color Measurement (Section 9) 1.1.2. Destructive Evaluation Tests: Resistance to Impact

9、 from Falling Tup (Section 10) Resistant to Impact from Simulated Snowplow Blade (Cold Exposure) (Section 11) Wear Resistance (Section 12) Coating and Single Dome Bond (Systems with Coatings or Surface-Applied Single Domes) (Section 13) 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transport

10、ation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-2 AASHTO 1.1.3. Laboratory-Accelerated WeatheringExposure Regime (Hot and Cold Exposure Categories): High Temperature Thermal Cycling (Section 14) Abrasion Exposure (Section 15) FreezeThaw Durability (Cold

11、 Exposure Applications only) (Section 16) Ultraviolet Light Exposure (Section 17) 1.1.4. Figure 1 illustrates the suite of tests that are available to evaluate the durability of detectable warning systems. 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights rese

12、rved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-3 AASHTO Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the section where the evaluation is explained. Figure 1Flowchart for Detectable Warning Systems 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights res

13、erved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-4 AASHTO 1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 1.3. This standard method of test may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. It does not purport to address all safety problems associated

14、 with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard practice to establish the appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: R 39, Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimen

15、s in the Laboratory T 22, Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens T 119M /T 119, Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete T 152, Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method 2.2. ASTM Standards: D1056, Standard Specification for Flexible Cellular MaterialsSponge or Expanded

16、Rubber D2244, Standard Practice for Calculation of Color Tolerances and Color Differences from Instrumentally Measured Color Coordinates D4541, Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers E18, Standard Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Material

17、s F609, Standard Test Method for Using a Horizontal Pull Slipmeter (HPS) G151, Standard Practice for Exposing Nonmetallic Materials in Accelerated Test Devices that Use Laboratory Light Sources G154, Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) Lamp Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetal

18、lic Materials 2.3. Federal Regulation: Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines, July 23, 2004, United States Access Board. 3. TERMINOLOGY 3.1. Definitions: 3.1.1. cast-in-placea detectable warning system that is cast into plastic concrete. 3.1.2. surfa

19、ce applieda detectable warning system that is applied to the surface of cured concrete. 3.1.3. exposure regimea series of tests subjecting the detectable warning system specimens to simulated environmental exposure, including high-temperature thermal cycling, abrasion, freezethaw, and ultraviolet li

20、ght. 3.1.4. evaluation testtests evaluating the performance of the detectable warning systems. These tests include visual and microscopic evaluation, dome shape and geometry measurement, slip resistance measurement, color measurement, resistance to impact from falling tup, resistance to impact from

21、simulated snowplow blade, wear resistance, and coating and single dome bond tests. 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-5 AASHTO 3.1.5. non-destructive evaluation testevaluation t

22、ests that do not require any destruction of the sample. These tests are visual and microscopic evaluation, dome shape and geometry measurement, slip resistance measurement, and color measurement. 3.1.6. destructive evaluation testevaluation tests that involve partial destruction of the sample. These

23、 tests include resistance to impact from falling tup, resistance to impact from simulated snowplow blade, wear resistance, and coating and single dome bond tests. 3.1.7. hot exposure categorya category indicating a set of exposure conditions intended to simulate exterior environments with hot summer

24、 weather and with little to no freezing weather during the winter. 3.1.8. cold exposure categorya category indicating a set of exposure conditions intended to simulate exterior environments with slightly cooler summer weather and with freezing weather during the winter. 3.1.9. irradiancea measure of

25、 power flux. For this method, irradiance is measured over a narrow bandwidth of the peak wavelength for the ultraviolet lights used. 3.1.10. domethe truncated dome on the detectable warning system. 3.1.11. fieldthe space between the domes on the detectable warning system. The field is level with the

26、 surrounding concrete. 3.1.12. surface-applied single domea single truncated dome that is adhered to a concrete substrate as part of an array of separately applied domes composing a detectable warning system. 4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 4.1. This test method is intended to evaluate durability of detecta

27、ble warning systems that are attached to concrete slabs. 4.2. Results obtained are intended to provide data that can be used to determine and compare the durability of detectable warning system products. 5. FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS 5.1. Test specimens consist of nominally 0.6-by-0.6-m (2-by-2-f

28、t) areas of the detectable warning system applied to concrete slabs following manufacturers instructions. 5.2. Number of Specimens: 5.2.1. Two specimens of each type of detectable warning system are required for exposure and evaluation testing. 5.2.2. If required, an additional specimen can be fabri

29、cated for additional destructive evaluation testing of the unexposed specimen. 5.3. Detectable Warning Systems: 5.3.1. A sufficient number of units of each type of detectable warning system is required to cover a nominal area of 0.6 m by 0.6 m (2 ft by 2 ft) for at least two, or more if required, te

30、st specimens. 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-6 AASHTO 5.3.1.1. If the smallest available unit of the detectable warning system undergoing testing is larger than 0.6 m by 0.6

31、 m (2 ft by 2 ft), cut the detectable warning system to produce a nominally 0.6-m-by-0.6-m (2-ft-by-2-ft) sample. Report the fact that the samples were cut as a deviation from the test method during each subsequent test method. Consider the potential effect of this cut on system performance when sel

32、ecting domes for evaluation tests. 5.3.2. Any required method of attachment, including bolts, anchors, adhesives, or other attachment mechanisms. 5.4. Cement Concrete Slabs (“Slabs”): 5.4.1. The slabs for use in the method shall be made in accordance with the applicable requirements of R 39. 5.4.2.

33、Slabs shall measure a minimum of 0.86 m by 0.86 m by 0.1 m high (34 in. by 34 in. by 4 in. high). 5.4.3. Slabs shall be reinforced with a minimum 6 by 6W6 by W6 welded wire reinforcing supported on 13-mm (1/2-in.) bolsters. Note 1It has been found to be useful to place additional reinforcing bars ar

34、ound the perimeter of the sample. Additional or supplementary reinforcement is optional. 5.4.4. The cement concrete mix used to fabricate the slabs shall meet the following specifications: 5.4.4.1. 359 kg of Type I portland cement per m3of concrete (605 lb/yd3). 5.4.4.2. Maximum aggregate size of 19

35、 mm (3/4in.). 5.4.4.3. Slump of 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in.) when tested according to T 119M/T 119. 5.4.4.4. Minimum compressive strength of 24 MPa (3500 psi) at 14 days when tested according to T 22. 5.4.4.5. Five to 8 percent entrained air when tested according to T 152. 5.4.5. The slabs shall be fa

36、bricated with thermocouples placed according to Section 14, “High-Temperature Thermal Cycling.” These thermocouples can be cast into the slab, or can be installed after curing of the slab. Note 2It has been found useful to cast lifting inserts into the concrete slabs near the edges to facilitate mov

37、ing the slabs during the testing process. 5.5. For cast-in-place detectable warning systems: 5.5.1. Fill an appropriately sized form with plastic cement concrete, strike off the surface, consolidate with a hand vibrator, finish to an even surface with floats, and set the detectable warning system in

38、 the concrete according to manufacturers instructions while the concrete is still plastic. 5.5.2. Center the detectable warning system in the form, leaving a uniform concrete border on all sides of the detectable warning system. 5.5.3. Edge finish around the perimeter of the form. 5.5.4. Do not edge

39、 finish around the perimeter of the detectable warning system. 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-7 AASHTO 5.5.5. The final finish shall be done with a wooden float, leaving an

40、even surface. Steel trowels shall not be permitted. After the water sheen has disappeared, the surface shall be given a final finish by brushing with a whitewash brush. 5.5.6. Moist cure the concrete according to R 39 for a minimum of 14 days. 5.5.7. Provide a unique marking to the slab for future i

41、dentification. Ensure the marking is able to sustain the laboratory-accelerated weathering exposure regime (Note 3). 5.6. For surface-applied detectable warning systems: 5.6.1. Fill an appropriately sized form with concrete, strike off the surface, consolidate with a hand vibrator, and finish to an

42、even surface with floats. 5.6.2. Finish the concrete in the area to receive the detectable warning system as directed by the manufacturers instructions. 5.6.3. Moist cure the concrete according to R 39 for a minimum of 14 days. 5.6.4. Apply the detectable warning system to the cured concrete slabs a

43、ccording to the manufacturers instructions. 5.6.5. Provide a unique marking to the slab for future identification (Note 3). Note 3A permanent-ink marker has been found suitable for providing markings on the specimens. It is recommended that both the top surface and side of the detectable warning sys

44、tem specimen be marked. NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION TESTS 6. VISUAL AND MICROSCOPIC EVALUATION 6.1. Scope: 6.1.1. This test method covers visual and microscopic evaluation of detectable warning systems. Visual and microscopic evaluation provide a method to determine the effects of laboratory-accelera

45、ted weathering on detectable warning system specimens that are not readily measured with other standard tests. 6.2. Summary of Test Method: 6.2.1. This test method describes how to conduct a visual and microscopic evaluation of detectable warning systems. 6.3. Significance and Use: 6.3.1. Visual and

46、 microscopic evaluation provides a means to evaluate any degradation of a detectable warning system as a result of laboratory-accelerated weathering. Visual and microscopic evaluation is intended to be carried out prior to laboratory weathering and upon completion of the weathering, prior to any fur

47、ther evaluation. 6.4. ApparatusA hand lens or portable microscope, capable of magnifications of 10X to 30X. 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TS-4d TP 103-8 AASHTO 6.5. Procedure: 6.5.1. Vi

48、sually examine each test specimen for any defects or unusual features, which may include cracks, dents, divots, discolorations, or other features. Also examine the specimens for irregularities in the attachment of the detectable warning system to the slab, such as debonding or displacement of the de

49、tectable warning system. Some defects or features may not be apparent on an unexposed specimen, but may become apparent as a result of the test exposures. (See Appendix X1 for additional information regarding types of degradation.) 6.5.2. Examine the overall specimen from a sufficient distance to observe the entire specimen at once. 6.5.3. Examine the specimen from a distance of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18 in.) from several angles to ensure that all features are observed. 6.5.4. Identify observed features with a c