Home | Directions | Contact Us | Search  

   
  
Step Over the Line; Beat a Sign
Results from Workshop Participants

Seven sign panel materials were tested for their resistance to specific types of surface graffiti, burns, disfigurement, and breakage.

The following results were compiled from 55 participants who attended the "Step Over the Line" workshop at the National Association for Interpretation (NAI) conference on November 7, 2007. 

Due to time restraints (about 35 minutes for testing) and limited samples, not all materials were tested equally by all groups. Schmeeckle Reserve conducted a follow-up study to generate a comprehensive comparison of materials.
"Step Over the Line" Workshop Participants
Choose a link below for more information:

Disclaimer
Rating System Used
Results

Summary
Cleaners Used for Graffiti
Other Factors to Consider
Sign Fabrication Companies



Return to main workshop page




Disclaimer

The vandalism tests are subjective and non-representative of actual field situations. Many panel fabrication companies produce other grades of products or have newer technologies to prevent against specific types of vandalism. Talk to manufacturers for more information.

Return to top


Rating System

Materials were subjectively tested by participants based on a R.U.F. or R.U.D. rating system.
  • R = Resistance. How resistant is the material to being marked, disfigured, burned, or broken?
    • 5 (most resistant) to 1 (least resistant)
  • U = Usability. Can the sign still communicate its message with this type of vandalism?
    • 5 (still communicates well) to 1 (doesn't communicate)
  • F = Fixable.  How easy is it to fix the sign with cleaning or restoration agents?
    • 5 (easy to fix-cleans quickly) to 1 (impossible to fix-needs replacement)
  • D = Durability.  How durable is the sign after it is broken?
    • 5 (most durable-will resist elements) to 1 (least durable-will deteriorate quickly)

Click here for more detailed information on the rating system for each category of vandalism (PDF File)

Return to top


Results

Results of Sign Vandalism Workshop 

Click here to view the workshop participant results
(PDF File)

Return to top


Summary

Based on the results of this workshop:

Materials that are most resistant to surface graffiti:

Porcelain Enamel and
Etched Anodized Aluminum
2.2
Fiberglass Embedment 1.9
High-Pressure Laminate 1.8
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum and
Laminated Prints
1.6

Materials that are easiest to clean of surface graffiti:

Porcelain Enamel 4.2
High-Pressure Laminate and
Fiberglass Embedment
3.8
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum and
Laminated Prints
3.2

Materials that are most resistant to burning:

Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum and
Etched Anodized Aluminum
5
Porcelain Enamel 4.2
High-Pressure Laminate and
Fiberglass Embedment
2.3
Routed Wood 3
Laminated Prints 1.2

Materials that are most resistant to disfigurement:

Porcelain Enamel 2.8
Fiberglass Embedment 2.6
High-Pressure Laminate 2.4
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum and
Routed Wood
2
Etched Anodized Aluminum 1.9
Laminated Prints 1.5

Materials that are easiest to repair after disfigurement:

Etched Anodized Aluminum 3.2
Fiberglass Embedment 2.8
High Pressure Laminate and
Porcelain enamel
2.7
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum and
Routed Wood
2
Laminated Prints 1.5

Materials that are most resistant to breakage:

Etched Anodized Aluminum 4.75
Routed Wood (esp. gunshot) 4.5
Fiberglass Embedment 4
Porcelain enamel 3.8
High Pressure Laminate 3
Laminated Prints 2.8

Overall vandal resistance scores

Etched Anodized Aluminum 3.5
Porcelain enamel 3.3
Fiberglass Embedment 2.7
High Pressure Laminate 2.4
Laminated Prints 1.8
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum (insufficient data) -
Routed Wood (insufficient data) -

Overall fixable scores

Porcelain enamel 3.6
High Pressure Laminate 3.2
Fiberglass Embedment 3.1
Color-Embedded Anodized Aluminum 2.9
Laminated Prints 2.0
 Etched Anodized Aluminum (insufficient data) -
Routed Wood (insufficient data) -

Return to top


Cleaners Used for Graffiti

The results refer to several cleaners that were used to remove graffiti from the panels. The products are explained in more detail:

  • Wipe: For the first step, most companies recommend attempting to remove the graffiti with mild dish soap and water. In this study, Joy Dish Soap© was used with a gentle cloth. Works well on lip stick for most materials, and for nearly all graffiti on porcelain enamel.

  • Scrub: Another method for removing graffiti is by scrubbing with scouring pads and dish soap. Brillo pads© were used in this study. Works well on pens and crayons for most materials.

  • Goo Gone Citrus: Companies usually suggest a milder citrus/organic cleaner for the next step. We found that Goo Gone Spray Gel© works great for permanent markers and spray paint on many panels.

  • Smooth Max: Dedicated graffiti removers have a higher cost, but may be the best solution when other cleaners don't help. Smooth Max© samples were donated by Pannier for this study, which worked especially well on markers and spray paint for fiberglass and anodized aluminum signs.

  • Mineral Spirits: When other methods can't remove the graffiti, most companies recommend using mineral spirits as a last resort. Usually even the toughest marks can be removed. Do not use any Acetone product on high pressure laminate or fiberglass signs, as it will melt away the surface.

Return to top


Other Factors to Consider

This workshop tested how resistant, usable, and fixable different sign materials are in relation to vandalism. However, there are many other factors to consider when choosing materials, including:

  • How each material is fabricated: If thicker panels are available, they will resist breakage better. If smoother surfaces are available, graffiti can be cleaned more easily.

  • Where the panels will be installed: Near oceans, porcelain enamel and metals will rust faster if broken.

  • Durability to weathering/natural elements: Nature often threatens signs more than vandals. Consider sand, wind, precipitation, UV-light, wildlife.

  • Initial costs and replacement costs: Higher vandal resistance and fixable materials tend to be more expensive. At times, a less expensive alternative may be preferred so a replacement can be made if necessary.

  • Aesthetics: Ensure that the material can communicate your message in a friendly, thematic way. A thin metal road sign may be vandal resistant, but may not be appropriate for your site.

Signs, Trails, and Wayside Exhibits BookFor more information about the advantages of different material types, relative costs, and fabrication techniques, browse through the newly updated Signs, Trails, and Wayside Exhibits handbook.


Return to top


Sign Fabrication Companies
We would like to thank the following companies for donating materials that were used during the vandalism test. Feel free to contact them for more information.

iZone: High Pressure Laminate
505 South General Bruce Dr.
Temple, TX
76504
254-778-0722
scott@izoneimaging.com
 
www.izoneimaging.com

Fossil: High Pressure Laminate
44 Jefryn Blvd.
Deer Park, NY 11729

800-244-9809
631-254-4172
mark@FOSSILinc.com
www.FOSSILinc.com

Pannier: Fiberglass Embedment
345 Oak Road
Gibsonia, PA 15044-9805

800-544-8428 Ext: 220
724-265-4900 Ext: 220
marketing@pannier.com
www.panniergraphics.com

Winsor Fireform: Porcelain Enamel
3401 Mottman Road SW
Tumwater, WA 98512

800-824-7506
360-786-8200
info@winsorfireform.com
www.winsorfireform.com

Interpretive Graphics: Etched Aluminum
3590 Summerhill Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84121

801-942-5812
JimPeters@InterpretiveGraphics.com
www.InterpretiveGraphics.com

Schmeeckle Reserve: Routed Wooden and Laminated
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
2419 North Point Drive
Stevens Point, WI 54481
715-346-4992
schmeeckle@uwsp.edu
www.uwsp.edu/schmeeckle/signs

Return to top

   

UWSP Heritage Interpretation Resources Home

 

 

d

Schmeeckle Reserve - University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point - 2419 North Point Drive - Stevens Point, WI 54481
Phone: 715-346-4992     Fax: 715-295-8918     E-mail:
schmeeckle@uwsp.edu     © 2006