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

net/publication/282186086

Assessing the Performance of Glow in the Dark Concrete

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · November 2015
DOI: 10.3141/2508-04

CITATIONS READS
6 5,336

4 authors, including:

Andrew Wiese Taylor Washington

Purdue University Purdue University
4 PUBLICATIONS   165 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

William Jason Weiss

Oregon State University
521 PUBLICATIONS   10,846 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nanocrystals View project

Deicing Salt Damage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Jason Weiss on 09 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Assessing the Performance of Glow in the Dark Concrete
2
3 Andrew Wiese
4 Graduate Research Assistant, M.S.C.E. Student,
5 School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
6 550 Stadium Mall Drive,
7 West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA,
8 Email: awiese@purdue.edu
9 Phone +1-765-490-5366
10
11 Taylor Washington
12 Undergraduate Research Assistant,
13 School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
14 550 Stadium Mall Drive,
15 West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA,
16 Email: twashin@purdue.edu
17 Phone: +1-317-361-5391
18
19 Bernard Tao
20 Professor Agricultural & Biological Engineering/Food Science
21 School of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University,
22 225 South University Street,
23 West Lafayette, IN 47907,
24 Email: tao@purdue.edu
25 Phone: +1-765-494-1183
26
27 and
28
29 Jason Weiss
30 Jack and Kay Hockema Professor,
31 Director of Pankow Materials Laboratory,
32 School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
33 550 Stadium Mall Drive,
34 West Lafayette, IN 47907,
35 Email: wjweiss@purdue.edu
36 Phone: +1-765-494-2215
37
38
39
40
41
42 Submitted November 3rd, 2014
43 Number of words: Body: 4,731; Figures and Tables: 2,250(9×250) = Total: 6,981 (7,500 max)
44
45
46
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 1

47 ABSTRACT
48 The objective of this research was to develop a soy-based luminescent sealant for use on
49 concrete surfaces. The luminescent sealant is a mixture of soy methyl ester polystyrene (SME-
50 PS) and strontium aluminate; a phosphorescent powder that slowly luminesces after being
51 excited by light. A test procedure was developed to quantify the magnitude and duration of the
52 luminance of the coated concrete surface, which is key to evaluating the performance of the
53 luminescent sealant. The luminescent sealant was excited in a consistent manner with a xenon
54 lighting system that simulates sunlight, a photometer (light measuring instrument) that measures
55 the luminance of the excited concrete surface, and a housing unit to prevent extraneous light
56 from the surroundings to influence the test results. The results of the tests performed indicate that
57 the luminescent surface emits light (i.e., glows) for approximately 24 hours in a dark space after
58 it was excited. It was found that larger particles of strontium aluminate luminesce for a longer
59 time than smaller particles. The excited sealant’s luminance was independent of time exposed to
60 light coming from the xenon lighting system.
61
62 Keywords: Soy-based, soy methyl ester, polystyrene, sealant, glow in the dark powder, strontium
63 aluminate, luminance, luminescent, concrete
64
65 INTRODUCTION
66
67 This project investigated the development of a luminescent (glow in the dark, GITD) sealant that
68 could be applied to the surface of concrete. The GITD concrete sealant could be used to seal
69 concrete for increased service life, to supplement streetlights, and to increase the safety of the
70 travelling public at night. If successful, the GITD sealant could be used to improve safety in
71 construction zones or possibly replace streetlights in certain applications. One such application
72 would include nature preserves where light pollution can be disturbing to local wildlife (1), but
73 pedestrians need to know where they are walking. Since glow in the dark (GITD) powder derives
74 its luminescent qualities from sunlight, it is more efficient than streetlights which are dependent
75 on the electric grid for approximately 2.3% of global electricity consumption (2). Typical
76 unshielded streetlights are also thought to be energy inefficient because approximately 50% of
77 the light is emitted vertically in the air, 10% of the light is emitted horizontally, and only 40% of
78 the light is placed where it is needed (3).
79 Past research has shown that SME-PS increases freeze thaw resistance of concrete (4)
80 reducing the penetration of water into the concrete (5). Ponding tests indicate that there is a
81 reduction in salt ingress compared to plain samples as well. Samples coated with SME-PS
82 showed a reduction in mass absorption of approximately 50% for NaCl solution, 25% for MgCl2
83 solution, and 20% for CaCl2 solution in the absence of cracking(4). Transport studies have
84 shown added benefits of sealed concrete over unsealed concrete (6). The ability to combine
85 luminescence with durability enhancement could provide a sealant with multiple functionalities.
86 It is anticipated that the safety of roadways would be increased by using a glow in the
87 dark sealant since drivers will be able to see the road, its edges, or critical features more clearly.
88 The Netherlands tested this technology and noted that while the glow in the dark application was
89 able to glow for up to 8 hours at night (7), it was unable to glow that long during rain events and
90 some drivers were turning off their headlights to see the glow in the dark lines increasing the
91 potential for accidents (8). This awareness points to the need for a standard to measure the
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 2

92 luminance in different weather conditions to provide a solution that does not compromise the
93 safety of drivers.
94 Roads, pedestrian trails, construction barrier walls, bridge piers, provide just some of the
95 other potential applications for a GITD sealant. Using a luminescent concrete sealant, one
96 achieves a reduction of energy consumption by reducing or replacing streetlights, “placing light”
97 where it is needed, sealing the concrete for a more durable pavement, and increased safety for the
98 public.
99
100 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
101
102 Research Objectives
103
104 The objective of this research was to create a soy-based luminescent sealant and to quantify its
105 performance. A standard testing procedure was developed in this study to condition the
106 luminescent concrete (alternatively other materials could also be tested using this approach), to
107 excite the GITD particles with a light source that mimics that of the sun, and to measure the
108 luminance of the surface after light has been removed as a function of time. The following
109 variables were studied with respect to their initial luminance and glow time: 1) whether the
110 GITD sealant was admixed or applied in topical application, 2) the depth of powder/sealant on
111 the surface, 3) the luminescent particle size, and 4) the duration of the exposure to light. These
112 variables were studied in an effort to optimize the characteristics desired in making a durable
113 luminescent soy-based sealant.
114
115 Testing Design and Procedure
116
117 The experimentation was divided into several different sections as described in Table 1.
118 Luminescent powder tests were performed to measure the particle size distribution for the
119 strontium aluminate powder and to understand how the strontium aluminate powder reacted in a
120 cementitious system using isothermal calorimetry. Luminance tests were performed with a xenon
121 light system and photometer enclosed in a dark box. Luminance and glow times were observed
122 as variables as seen in Table 1 were altered.
123
124 TABLE 1: Summary of Research and Experimental Program
Property Test Method
Luminescent Powder Isothermal Calorimeter
Tests Particle Size Distribution Analysis
Baseline Test
Powder Application Thickness
Particle Size
Luminance Tests Admixed vs Topical (Before vs After Set)
Exposure Time: Xenon Light
Durability: Abrasion and Water Resistance
125
126
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 3

127 Materials
128
129 A typical portland cement based mortar mixture was used for this project with a water to cement
130 ratio of 0.42, and 55% fine aggregate. Ordinary Type I cement was used and oven dried river
131 sand was used as the fine aggregate. Specimens were cast into 3 inch diameter by 6 inch long
132 cylinders, demolded after 1 day, and then placed in an environmental chamber stored at 23° ±
133 1°C and 50% ± 2% relative humidity. The cylinders were sawn into smaller 3 inch by 2 inch
134 cylinders using a wet saw within a week after casting. Two disk samples were taken from each
135 cylinder and the top and bottom of the samples were discarded. After cutting, samples were
136 placed back in the environmental chambers to condition at 23° ± 1°C and 50% ± 2% relative
137 humidity.
138 The soy-based luminescent sealant used in this project are comprised of three materials
139 each produced by different manufacturers: soy methyl ester (SME), polystyrene (PS), and
140 strontium aluminate powder as shown in Figure 1. The typical mixture process of the soy based
141 luminescent sealant begins by massing a certain amount of SME. Then PS is weighed out and
142 mixed into the SME. Once the PS is completely dissolved what remains is the SME-PS (9).
143 Finally the strontium aluminate is added and stirred until a homogenous mixture is created.
144 A PS content of 10% by mass of the SME was selected based on previous work done that
145 indicated this concentration of PS experienced the lowest amount of water absorption (6). A ratio
146 of GITD powder to SME-PS of 10:6 by mass is used according to the recommendation by the
147 GITD powder manufacturer. For consistency in testing these were the proportions of the three
148 components for all the sealant tests performed for this report. In addition to using the SME-PS
149 as a topical sealant, this paper as well as previous research, also investigated this sealant as an
150 admixture or curing agent (4, 6).
151

(a) (b) (c)

152
153
FIGURE 1: a) SME-PS b) SME-PS-GITD c) glowing SME-PS-GITD
154
155 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
156
157 Sealant and Luminescent Property Tests
158
159 Isothermal Calorimetry
160 Isothermal calorimetry tests were conducted to determine if the glow in the dark powder reacted
161 with the water and dry cement powder when mixed into the fresh concrete. In the first phases of
162 this study during mixing a very fast reaction was noticed causing a very noticeable loss in
163 workability. In order to capture and measure this initial reaction between the water, GITD
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 4

164 powder, and cement, the mixing needed to take place within the isothermal calorimeter. The
165 batch weights of each constituent are presented in Table 2. The following procedure was
166 followed for material preparation. First, a 20 mL disposable glass ampoule was placed on a scale
167 with an accuracy of the ten-thousandths place. Then the dry powders were placed into the
168 ampoule and measured to an accuracy of the nearest thousandths. Next DI water was taken into
169 the admix ampoule and measured with the accuracy of the nearest thousandth. A stirrer was
170 placed on the admix ampoule and then the glass ampoule and admix ampoule were attached and
171 ready for placement inside the calorimeter. Once all the materials were batched out, the
172 ampoules were placed in the calorimeter and given 2 hours to establish a baseline and reach
173 equilibrium temperature of 23˚ +/- 0.02˚ C. Once stabilized the isothermal calorimeter data
174 acquisition software was started and the water in the admix ampoule was injected into the glass
175 ampoule. The mix was manually stirred for one minute and then left in the isothermal
176 calorimeter for approximately 5 days. Data collected from the isothermal calorimeter can be seen
177 in Figure 2 in two different time scales to illustrate in greater detail the fast initial reaction of
178 water and dry powder occurring in the first hours. Detailed instructions about the use of the
179 isothermal calorimeter can be found in the operator’s manual (10).
180
181 Table 2: Batch Weights for Isothermal Calorimetry
Mixture GITD Powder (g) Type I (g) DI Water (g) w/c w/dry powder
1 – plain 0 2.816 1.182 0.42 0.42
2 – plain 0 2.672 1.342 0.50 0.50
3 – 25% GITD 0.7 2.115 1.187 0.56 0.42
4 – 25% GITD 0.672 2.006 1.345 0.67 0.50
5 – 40% GITD 1.071 1.605 1.348 0.84 0.50
6 – 10% GITD 0.271 2.411 1.347 0.56 0.50
182
183 The isothermal calorimetry experiment was conducted using cement pastes with a w/c of
184 0.42 and 0.50. The plain pastes and pastes that included the addition of the 25% GITD powder
185 were both analyzed in the isothermal calorimeter to assess the effect of GITD addition. Figure 2a
186 and 2b show the heat flow versus time while Figure 2c shows the heat evolution versus time.
187 Additionally studies were conducted to see if there was a difference in heat release when the %
188 GITD in the system was changed. The heat flow graphs for this study can be seen in Figure 2d
189 and 2e and heat evolution is seen in Figure 2f. Initial heat flow dominates the isothermal
190 calorimetry curves so Figure 2a and 2d are supplemented with Figure 2b and 2e to give a closer
191 look at what is happening in the first hours of the reaction.
192 From Figure 2a, 2b, 2d, and 2e, a reaction is observed to occur very quickly and much
193 more heat is released in the paste mixtures containing the GITD powder than in the plain paste
194 mixtures. The composition of the reaction products being formed is not clear at the current time;
195 however, it may be related to the aluminate that is present in the glow in the dark powder
196 reacting with the sulfates (gypsum) in the cement (11). It is not recommended at the current time
197 to use the glow in the dark powder as a dry additive due to considerable reduction in workability,
198 the decrease in glow time (as seen in Figure 5c), the increase in cost, and the wasted material that
199 is not exposed to light or luminescing underneath the surface of the concrete. This brief study of
200 the isothermal calorimetry, however has not fully evaluated the potential of the SME-PS-GITD
201 powder to be used as an additive which will require further research.
202
203
0.1 0.1 500
w/c 0.42 - plain w/c 0.42 - plain w/c 0.42 - plain
w/c 0.5 - plain w/c 0.5 - plain w/c 0.5 - plain
w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse
0.08 w/c 0.42 - 25% GITD Coarse 0.08 w/c 0.42 - 25% GITD Coarse 400 w/c 0.42 - 25% GITD Coarse

Heat Evolution (J/g)

Heat Flow (W/g)
Heat Flow (W/g)

0.06 0.06 300

0.04 0.04 200

0.02 0.02 100

0 0 0
0 40 80 120 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 40 80 120
Time (hours) Time (hours) Time (hours)
(a) (b) (c)
0.1 0.1 500
w/c 0.5 - plain w/c 0.5 - plain
w/c 0.5 - 10% GITD Coarse w/c 0.5 - 10% GITD Coarse
w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse
0.08 w/c 0.5 - 40% GITD Coarse 0.08 w/c 0.5 - 40% GITD Coarse 400

Heat Evolution (J/g)

Heat Flow (W/g)

Heat Flow (W/g)

0.06 0.06 300

0.04 0.04 200

0.02 0.02 100 w/c 0.5 - plain

w/c 0.5 - 10% GITD Coarse
w/c 0.5 - 25% GITD Coarse
w/c 0.5 - 40% GITD Coarse
0 0 0
0 40 80 120 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 40 80 120
Time (hours) Time (hours) Time (hours)
(d) (e) (f)

204 FIGURE 2: Isothermal Calorimeter Results: a) 120 hour heat flow, b) 2 hour heat flow, c) 120 hour total heat evolution [a-c =
205 plain vs 25% GITD admixed paste & 0.42 vs 0.5], d) 120 hour heat flow, e) 2 hour heat flow, f) 120 hour total heat evolution
206 [d-f = w/c 0.5 & 0, 10, 25, 45% GITD admixed by mass]; all the GITD powder used is coarse (see size range in Figure 3)
207 Particle Size Distribution
208 Particle size distribution (PSD) analysis was performed to determine the size of the particles and
209 correlate them with luminance. There were three types of powders studied, two powders were
210 commercially available and one was engineered in the lab. One was the typical coarse glow
211 powder, the second glow powder was a fine powder, and the finest powder that was made in the
212 lab was the ground fine power. Smaller particle sizes were made by grinding the fine powder
213 using a planetary mono mill. The ball mill contained metal balls of approximately 3.5 mm
214 diameter. The fine powder was then placed on top of the balls until about 40 grams was inside
215 the 250mL grinding bowl. The ball mill ran using a series of 40 minute cycles with 20 minutes of
216 rotation at 250 rpm and 20 minutes of rest, in order to make sure the equipment did not overheat.
217 The 40 minute cycles were run for a period of 18 hours. Every time the mill started a new 40
218 minute cycle the direction of rotation was reversed to ensure even mixing of all sizes of particles
219 (12). The ground powder as well as the other two powders provided by the GITD manufacturer
220 were then taken from the container and then analyzed in the particle size distribution analyzer.
221 The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.
222
223 TABLE 3: PSD of the Luminescent Powder
D50 27.57 µm
Coarse Powder
D90 51.39 µm
D50 3.12 µm
Fine Powder
D90 5.81 µm
Ground Fine D50 1.88 µm
Powder D90 3.49 µm
224
10
coarse
fine
ground fine
8

6
Volume (%)

0
1 10 100
225 Particle Diameter (m)
226 FIGURE 3: Particle Size Distribution obtained by Beckman Coulter Particle Size Analyzer
227
228 As seen in Figure 3, the PSD of the powders is as expected: coarse powder contains powder with
229 the largest particle diameter and the particle diameter of the fine and ground fine is each smaller
230 than the next. One potential use of the finer powders is to enable the fine powder to enter the
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 1

231 pore system on the surface of the concrete in an attempt to increase the longevity of the powders
232 on a surface that experiences abrasion. Considering that roads can have traffic that will wear out
233 paint and other coatings applied to the surface within a period of 0.7-2.5 years depending on
234 where the paint is located on the road (13), having a powder that penetrates the surface to
235 decrease the rate of wear would be advantageous.
236
237 Luminance Tests
238
239 Before luminance of the samples could be measured, the samples needed to be excited by a light
240 source. The light needed to be consistent from test to test in order to provide the same amount of
241 light to the sample. The light source used was a 150 watt xenon arc lamp. The xenon light
242 allowed there to be a light source that was a constant that did not depend on the time of day. The
243 xenon lamp was also used because the light that it emitted closely matched the light that is
244 emitted by the sun based on spectral irradiance vs wavelength of light (14).The light that was
245 given off by the lamp was collimated (all the light beams exiting the device are parallel with one
246 another) which allowed the area that was illuminated with light to be consistent from test to test.
247 The light created a spotlight on the surface of the concrete samples with a mean diameter of 1 ±
248 0.1 in (2.54 ± 0.25cm).
249 The luminescence of the sample is measured using a photometer, a light measuring
250 device used to measure the luminance (brightness) of a surface having units in candelas (cd) per
251 square meter. A photometer was selected for use because of its ability to measure the intensity of
252 visible light over time regardless of the color as seen in Figure 4.
253 The procedure for exciting a sample involved three steps. The first was to condition the
254 sample by keeping it from any light that might charge the GITD particles for a time period of 24
255 hours. This ensured that the only light that would contact the sample was from the xenon light.
256 After the 24 hour period, the xenon lamp was turned on and the sample was exposed to light for
257 5 minutes. At the end of the 5 minutes, the xenon light was shut off (t = 0 seconds) and a
258 stopwatch started recording the time. The photometer was then placed over the sample, the
259 housing unit was sealed so no light could enter, the data acquisition program on the computer
260 was booted, and at time = 30 seconds the computer started recording data once every minute.
261 This exposure procedure was followed for the luminance tests performed for all samples. Other
262 tests where xenon light was not the exposure light the lighting conditions were noted and data
263 luminance values were compared.
264 At the beginning of the luminance tests a baseline measurement was needed in order to
265 compare the luminescent samples with a control that had no GITD powder on them. As seen in
266 Figure 5, the control is under the luminance detection limit which is what one would expect. The
267 luminance detection limit describes the point where the human eye can no longer see, 0.0003
268 cd/m2 (15).
269
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 2

(a) (b)
 

270 (c) (d)

271
272 FIGURE 4: Lighting Setup: a) Overview of Experimental Setup: 1) photometer, 2) xenon
273 light, 3) flexoptometer, 4) data acquisition computer, b) Xenon Light exciting sample with
274 GITD sealant, c) Sample immediately after xenon light turned off, d) Photometer capturing
275 luminance of GITD sealant
276
277
278 Depth of Powder
279 An understanding of the luminance of the powder was needed for these studies. Thickness of
280 powder on a surface was measured by creating a surface for the photometer to measure the glow
281 of the powder as the depth of the powder was changed. The desired thickness of powder was
282 achieved by creating transparent cylinders with specific thicknesses varying from less than 0.5
283 mm to 5 mm and powder filled to the top of the cylinder as seen in Figure 5a. This data
284 summarizes, as expected, that the thicker the depth of powder is the brighter and longer it will
285 glow. However, after the 3 mm thickness the luminance does not increase. This may be due to
286 the particles at the surface blocking light from reaching the underlying portions of the particles.
287
288
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 3

100 100
<0.5mm fine
1mm coarse
10 3mm 10 ground fine
5mm detection limit
detection limit control
1 control 1
Luminance (cd/m2)

Luminance (cd/m2)
0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001

0.0001 0.0001

1E-005 1E-005
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (mins) Time (mins)

(a) (b)
100 100
before set 5 seconds
after set 15 seconds
10 10 30 seconds
admixed
detection limit 1 minute
control 5 minutes
1 1
10 minutes
Luminance (cd/m2)

Luminance (cd/m2)

detection limit
0.1 control
0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001

0.0001 0.0001

1E-005 1E-005
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (mins) Time (mins)
(c) (d)

289 FIGURE 5: Luminance Tables: a) Depth of Powder, b) Particle Size, c) Application of

290 SME-PS-GITD Admixed vs before set (fresh concrete) vs after set (hardened concrete), d)
291 Exposure Time of Xenon Light [note: 100min = 1.67hr, 1000min = 16.7hr, etc.]
292
293 Particle Size
294 According to the data in Figure 5b, the larger the particle the longer it glows. The molecules that
295 make these particles up act as energy storage houses during the time that they are in a lighted
296 environment and then release that energy in a dark environment (15). This phenomenon is
297 expected because the luminescent particle begins to glow from the outside and the particle
298 releases its energy until the last molecules in the middle of the particle are no longer charged.
299 The data from Figure 5a and Figure 5b suggest similar results that as the deeper the light
300 penetrates into a particle or a depth of particles, the longer the time until extinction.
301
302
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 4

303 Admixed vs Topical Application of Sealant (Before and After Set)

304 Three different applications of the sealant were tested on the standard mortar mix for this paper.
305 In both topical applications the sealant was brushed on while the admixed case involved blending
306 the GITD powder with the cement before mixing with water and aggregate. The first method of
307 application was admixed. In the admixed method the GITD powder replaced a 25% by mass
308 portion of the cement. The topical application procedure had two variants: application before and
309 after set. The standard sealant mixture proportions of GITD powder and SME-PS sealant was
310 used in this experiment. The topical application of sealant before set refers to the sealant being
311 applied to the mortar while still in the plastic state; approximately 2 hours after water/cement
312 contact. This time was chosen to give time for the mortar to be properly finished (16). Then
313 while the mortar was still plastic the sealant was brushed onto the surface and effort was made to
314 try and work the sealant into the top layer of the mortar. Finally the sample was covered with
315 plastic to prevent evaporation and placed in a conditioning chamber at 23 ± 1 degrees Celsius
316 and 50% ± 2% RH. The application after set refers to the application of sealant 28 ± 2 days after
317 the mortar was made. As seen in Figure 5c, the longest luminance sealant is the one that is
318 applied before set followed by the sealant applied after set, and then the sealant that is admixed
319 with a 25% replacement by mass of cement with GITD powder.
320
321 Exposure Time: Xenon Light
322 It is important to know what the effects of the exposure time from the xenon light are. As seen in
323 Figure 5d the difference in exposure times had almost no impact on the extinction time of the
324 sample in the range tested from 5 seconds to 10 minutes.
325
326 Durability: Abrasion and Water Resistance
327 An abrasion test was conducted to begin to study the sealants ability to withstand the
328 environmental conditions experienced in the field. The abrasion test involved a grinding process
329 using a 1 inch diameter diamond drill bit while the sample was moved horizontally. The surface
330 was ground down to a depth of 0.5mm which was the smallest increment that the drill bit could
331 pass uniformly. Data collected can be seen in Table 4.
332 The water resistance part of the experiment came in two forms to simulate a light rain and
333 a high pressure exposure to water. The less aggressive test of water resistance uses a hose with a
334 water sprinkler attached. The flow rate is measured and then the amount of rainfall typical to
335 Indiana’s annual rainfall, 50in/year, is applied to the surface of the sample being tested. The time
336 needed to get to the annual rainfall was calculated by taking that annual rainfall and multiplying
337 by the area of the surface being wetted. This volume is divided by the flow rate of the hose to get
338 the exposure time to the water. The second, more aggressive test uses a pressure washer to spray
339 the surface of the concrete. Similarly to the first water resistance test the flow rate is measured
340 and one year’s worth of rain is simulated.
341 According to Table 4, the sealant was not able to withstand power washing or grinding.
342 The least harsh test was spraying which only reduced glow time by an average of around 33%.
343 Both grinding and power washing were very severe tests and this may not be expected in the
344 field.
345 Future studies include studying abrasion, durability of surface texture, friction and water
346 resistance using standard test methods like ASTM. Further work needs to be looked at to
347 determine the similarities and differences between the xenon light used in this paper, sunlight
348 and headlights.
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 5

349 TABLE 4: Extinction Times before and after Durability Tests

baseline  15 
extinction  sprayed  11 
time (hr)  ground  0.0 
power washed  0.1 
% reduction  sprayed  33% 
from  ground  100%
baseline  power washed  99% 
350
351
352 CONCLUSIONS
353
354 In this paper, a soy-based luminescent sealant was developed for use on concrete. The sealant is
355 a mixture of SME-PS and strontium aluminate. The luminance of the sealant on the concrete
356 surface was determined using a test procedure described in this paper. The test procedure
357 developed in this project is repeatable, fast, and reliable. The test procedure for quantifying the
358 brightness (luminance) of the concrete surface involved a xenon lighting system, which excited
359 the glow in the dark particles, a photometer that measured how bright the sample was for the
360 duration of time necessary until extinction, and a housing unit to keep extraneous light from
361 affecting test results. Extinction in this case was measured to be the level at which the human eye
362 can no longer see the luminescence of the sealant, or 0.0003cd/m2. The results indicate that the
363 luminescent surface made using SME-PS with strontium aluminate was found to glow for
364 approximately 24 hours in a dark environment.
365 The effect of several parameters on the luminance were analyzed in this study. Results
366 showed coarse GITD powder glows longer than finer powder. The luminance of the concrete
367 surface is largely independent of the time that the xenon lighting system excites the GITD
368 powder. Other findings suggest the durability of the soy-based sealant needs to be improved to
369 keep the GITD pigment adhered to the concrete surface when exposed to abrasion and water.
370 Isothermal calorimetry data proposes that a quick chemical reaction occurs when the GITD
371 powder is admixed into the cementitious system and the glow time of the hardened system is
372 reduced compared to topical applications of the luminescent sealant.
373
374 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
375
376 This work was supported by the Indiana Soybean Alliance under project number S13-23 and
377 Purdue University. The work described in this paper was conducted in the Pankow Laboratory at
378 Purdue University and the authors would like to acknowledge the support that has made its
379 operation possible. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are
380 responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily
381 reflect the official views or policies of the Indiana Soybean Alliance and Purdue University, nor
382 do the contents constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
383
384
 A. Wiese, T. Washington, B. Tao, and J. Weiss 6

385 REFERENCES

386 1. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the
387 Environment, 2004.
388 2. Kostic, M., and L. Djokic. Recommendations for energy efficient and visually acceptable
389 street lighting. Energy, Vol. 34, No. 10, Oct. 2009, pp. 1565–1572.
390 3. Chepesiuk, R. Missing the dark: health effects of light pollution. Environmental Health
391 Perspectives, 2009.
392 4. Golias, M. R. The use of soy methyl ester-polystyrene sealants and internal curing to
393 enhance concrete durability. Theses and Dissertations Available from ProQuest, 2010, pp.
394 1 – 137.
395 5. Jones, W., P. Imbrock, Y. Farnam, J. Spiro, C. Villani, J. Olek, and J. Weiss. An
396 Overview of Joint Deterioration in Concrete Pavement: Mechanisms, Solution Properties,
397 and Sealers. Joint Transportation Research Board, 2013.
398 6. Coates, K. C. Evaluation of Soy Methyl Ester Polystyrene Blends for Use in Concrete.
399 Purdue University, 2008.
400 7. BBC. Glow in the dark road unveiled in the Netherlands.
401 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27021291.
402 8. BBC. Glow in the dark roads not glowing. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
403 27187827.
404 9. Coates, K., S. Mohtar, A. Peled, W. Weiss, and B. Tao. Soy methyl ester polystyrene
405 blends for use in concrete. US Patent …, 2012.
406 10. TA Instruments. TAM air calorimeter operator’s manual: Revision C.
407 11. Mindess, S., J. F. Young, and D. Darwin. Concrete. Pearson Education, Inc, Upper Saddle
408 River, NJ.
409 12. Fritsch. Operating Instructions: Planetary Mono Mill. www.fritsch.de.
410 13. Sathyanarayanan, S. Semi-parametric Modeling of Pavement Marking Visibility
411 Degradation. 2007.
412 14. ASTM. Standard Tables for Reference Solar Spectral Irradiances: Direct Normal and
413 Hemispherical on 37° Tilted Surface. 2012.
414 15. Matsuzawa, T., Y. Aoki, N. Takeuchi, and Y. Murayama. A New Long Phosphorescent
415 phosphor with high brightness. Vol. 143, No. 5, 1996, pp. 4–7.
416 16. ASTM. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
417 Laboratory. www.astm.org.
418

View publication stats