| |
| FHWA > Engineering > Pavements > Research > LTPP > Feedback |
Distress Feedback Report SummariesFor additional information e-mail: ltppinfo@fhwa.dot.gov. Report Number: BRE-16 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect values in transverse profiles for site 501683 on the survey date 4/30/1991. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Test section 501683 has 6 transverse profiles that were taken on 4/30/1991 which do not end with y = 0. The final x is 3353. These profiles were taken with the Dipstick. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Superceded by BRE-40. Report Number: BRE-30 Subject/IMS Table: Transverse profiles for portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the MON_RUT_X_Y table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In the MON_RUT_X_Y table there are profiles for PCC sections as well as asphalt sections. This data should be flagged, placed in a separate table, or moved off line. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The collection of transprofile data on PCC was deliberate to allow examination of abrasive wear issues. No action is necessary. Report Number: BRE-35 Subject/IMS Table: The schema for MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC and MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRC tables are not consistent with the data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The schema for MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC and MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRC tables do not match files received. The schema for the MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC table shows the state code uses column 5-8. The schema for the MON_DISPADIAS_CRC table has two sets of columns for punchouts. The schema needs to be reviewed by SAIC. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Problem was corrected with Version 2.2 of the schema. Report Number: BRE-40 Subject/IMS Table: Lack of closure on transverse profile dipstick data (site 501683). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Dipstick data collected on site 501683 in Vermont on 4/30/1990 did not have the last y-value as 0 for each of the stations for which data was collected. All of the other transverse profiles collected have a final and initial y-value of 0. The data needs to be reviewed and either re-entered or removed from the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data was reviewed by the Regional Office and re-processed. Old data was removed from the database. Report Number: BRE-42 Subject/IMS Table: No distinction between wheelpath and nonwheelpath longitudinal cracking in PASCO rounds 1 and 2 of the MON_DIS_PADIAS_AC table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The MON_DIS_PADIAS_AC table does not distinguish between wheelpath and non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking for rounds 1 and 2. Consider reviewing the films and reclassifying the longitudinal cracks. Resolution of Problem/Situation:The film for PASCO rounds 1 & 2 is being re-interpreted using current Distress Identification Manual (DIM) procedures. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: BRE-47 Subject/IMS Table: Resolution of discrepancies for the asphalt concrete (AC) consolidated data set. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the development of the AC consolidated data set, a number of discrepancies were noted in the distress data in the Information Management System (IMS). Lists of discrepancies were provided to each Regional Office. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic, Southern and Western Regional Offices have reviewed the lists and corrected distress data where possible. Report Number: BRE-48 Subject/IMS Table: Resolution of discrepancies for the jointed concrete pavement (JCP) consolidated data set. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the development of the JCP consolidated data set, a number of discrepancies were noted in the distress data in the IMS. Lists of discrepancies were provided to each Regional Office. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the lists and corrected distress data where possible. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: BRE-49 Subject/IMS Table: Resolution of discrepancies for the continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) consolidated data set. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the development of the CRCP consolidated data set, a number of discrepancies were noted in the distress data in the IMS. Lists of discrepancies were provided to each Regional Office. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices have reviewed the lists and corrected distress data where possible. Report Number: BRE-52 Subject/IMS Table: Odd transverse profiles noted on section 300507, taken on 5/17/1991. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Three profiles were found on section 300507 in Montana, taken on 17 May 1991, for which all of the y values for the profile were 0. The stations where this occurred are 91.5 m, 137.2 m, and 152.4 m. The profiles were taken with a Dipstick. The Regional Office should review this data and correct as necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Surveyor ran out of time and did not collect data at these stations. Zero values have been deleted from the database. Report Number: BRE-53 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect survey date in MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC for section 310121. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The section 310121 has a survey obtained on April 8, 1997 in the MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC table. All of the other sections on the 3101XX project have a survey obtained on April 8, 1996 but none in 1997. It appears that an error has been made in the survey date for 310121. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The date has been corrected in the database. Report Number: BRE-54 Subject/IMS Table: Transverse profile survey taken prior to construction of section 190104. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The section 190104 has a record in MON_T_PROF_MASTER with a date November 18, 1992. The project has no completion date in the SPS_ID table, but has a completion date of June 1, 1993 in the final report. None of the other sections on this project has 1992 data in the MON_T_PROF tables. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional office has investigated the data in MON_T_PROF_MASTER for November 18, 1992 and discovered that this is not PASCO data. It has a DEVICE_CODE of 'D' which means it is a dipstick survey and not a PASCO profile. Further review revealed the data in MON_T_PROF_PROFILE is in fact a valid dipstick survey. Report Number: EBA-4 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect surface type or CN_ASSIGN for CN=2 for PADIAS round 1 and 2 data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The sections listed in the attached table have surveys for AC overlays prior to the CN_ASSIGN date for CN=2 as listed in EXPERIMENT_SECTION (EXS) from the October upload. The data is generally at E, meaning that anomalies in amounts of distresses and their presence or absence are possible. Uncertainty about correct data is holding up final steps of metricating round 1 and 2 PADIAS tables. Have Regional Offices review respective CN_ASSIGN values. Get files deleted and refiltered as needed or submit a Form 1 to correct EXS. SAIC will coordinate with the Regional Offices to get revised files prior to metricating the MON_DIS_PADIAS_* tables. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All required actions have been taken by the Regional Offices and the Technical Services Support Contractor (TSSC) to correct the surface type or CN_ASSIGN for CN=2 for PADIAS round 1 and 2 data identified in this report. Report Number: EBA-7 Subject/IMS Table: Distress surveys with possible errors in survey date LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A review of SPS project distress data en masse enabled review of dates for surveys without actually checking the original files. All surveys for a site were assumed to take place within a 7-day period and all sites were only surveyed once during a site visit. Any site visit which did not conform to the 7-day interval and any section with 2 surveys of the same type (both film or both manual) was identified along with its survey date. Resolution of Problem/Situation:Test Sections which did not conform to the 7-day interval and any section with 2 surveys of the same type (both film or both manual) were identified along with its survey date. These sites were reviewed by the regional offices and erroneous dates and/or duplicate entries in the database were corrected. Report Number: EBA-8 Subject/IMS Table: Orphan Records in distress for EXPERIMENT_SECTION. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Distress records exist for 5 sections (115004, 115005, 414155, 414158, and 414166) which have no counterpart for EXPERIMENT_SECTION. The data are all in PADIAS round 1 and 2 tables affected by metrication. Have the Regional Offices delete records or change the STATE_CODE value as applicable. Have SAIC verify removal of orphan records prior to metrication. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Recommended actions required by Regional Offices and TSSC to resolve this feedback report have been completed. Discussed sections 4155, 4158 and 4166 with the Southern regional office. These sections are in Oklahoma, and have changed the state codes to 40. Report Number: EBA-11 Subject/IMS Table: SPS projects lacking distress records. CN_ASSIGN date. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In reviewing the distress records 4 projects were found to be totally lacking in distress data. The CN_ASSIGN date for each is early enough that at least 3 uploads of distress data have occurred in the interval. The projects are 18A900, 300100, 300900 and 350800. If data are not present in the 11/30/1998 upload, determine whether any initial condition surveys have been done. If they have not been done, indicate when they are scheduled. If they have been completed prior to the end of October 1998, explain why they failed to make the upload. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-3 Subject/IMS Table: Missing PASCO "Shoulder Drop-Off" data in the MON_SHOULDER_DROPOFF table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For rounds 4 and 5 of the Transverse Profile data, PASCO tabulated the shoulder drop-offs by measuring the vertical depths at 76.2, 228.6, and 304.8 mm away from the edge of the traffic lane/longitudinal shoulder. These data were included in the upload data files provided by PASCO to the Regional Offices in Fields 6, 7, and 8. Field 9 contained the computed shoulder drop-off, The MON_RUT_DEPTHS (m24) data table does not contain any of the shoulder drop-off related data. Apparently the upload filter program was never updated to accommodate the change in the PASCO's upload data file. Recommended actions: 1. The MON_RUT-DEPTHS table should be modified or a new MON_SHOULDER_DROPOFFS table be created. 2. Allow the Data Analysis Technical Support (DATS) team to request the drop-off data directly from PASCO to facilitate the work of Work Order No.7, Task 4, (Note: The individual regional data files could also be requested from the four Regional Offices.) Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report has been resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-12 Subject/IMS Table: Ambiguities with respect to definition of punchout distress in CRCP. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: CRCP Punchout Definition - When random longitudinal cracking is extensive, several tens of meters, the PADIAS interpretation records punchouts in excess of 100. This may be misleading to analysts. In practice agencies consider reconstruction when the number of punchouts exceeds about 15 per/km. Punchouts are a traffic load related phenomenon and punchouts typically develop after many years of service. Under the current definition, punchouts could exist within the first month if random longitudinal cracking is present, even before any traffic has been applied. Allow PASCO to revisit the interpretation of CRCP sections with punchouts in excess of 3 per section and re-interpret the distresses after considering the cause of the longitudinal cracking. Resolution of Problem/Situation: In the analysis of the existing LTPP punchout data, the total number of punchouts do not relate to the numbers which would be obtained using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) distress survey procedure. However, it is expected that LTPP high severity level punchouts would more closely correspond to the AASHTO definition and classical use of the term. We recommended that high severity punchouts be considered to represent the more classical definition of a punchout. This will taken care of in the Distress Identification Manual Revisions. Report Number: ERES-BW-13 Subject/IMS Table: Transverse crack lengths and numbers of punchouts greater than IMS table structure will accommodate. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The PADIAS42 data upload files for CRCP sections - The IMS table structure needs to be modified to allow reading of files that contain transverse crack lengths in excess of 999.9 m or the number of punchouts in excess of 99. It is possible to have more than 300+ cracks in a 152 m section. As such, total transverse cracking length can be in excess of 1200 m. With respect to the number of punchouts, the current Distress Identification Manual (DIM) definition allows the recording of more than 99 punchouts per section. Recommended Action: Modify the IMS table structure, as appropriate. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report was resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-30 Subject/IMS Table: Incomplete distress data for selected survey dates in the MON_DIS_PADIAS table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The total length of longitudinal cracking per section is graphed in the DataPave program. We recently noticed that some distress data are not consistent in the sense that the data of certain distress type are not complete for a certain survey date. For example, for section 18-3002, construction number = 1, survey date 30_Nov_88, Long_crack_L_L=152.5, Long_crack_L_M=0, but Long_crack_L_H=NULL. What should the total longitudinal cracking be? 152.5? or Null? Resolution of Problem/Situation: The MON_DIS_PADIAS tables are being metricated. When this is done, all null values will be converted to zero. Null is not an acceptable value for distress surveys. Report Number: ERES-BW-40 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent joint locations for fault measurement in the MON-DIS_JPCC_FAULT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are 137 sections that have mismatched joint locations (mismatched greater than 0.5 m) in the faulting table MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT with file extension M09. This is 52% of all sections with recorded faulting information or 76% of the sections with data from two faulting surveys or more. Correcting this situation will greatly facilitate analysis of faulting trends at specific joint and crack locations. It is recommended that the Regional Offices use a template for each section to record the joint faulting data. This way, the same joint and crack locations will be used in every survey. Resolution of Problem/Situation: See resolution of ERES-BW-70. This report was referred back to the regions. North Central regional office has reviewed the 37 sections identified where joint mismatch was greater than 0.5 m. Standard locations for the joints of these sections have been established, and the IMS files have been edited to ensure that POINT_LOC joint stations for these sections are within 0.4 m for all visits. Report Number: ERES-BW-41 Subject/IMS Table: Counter intuitive trends in faulting with time LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Average wheelpath and edge faulting values were evaluated for each section at each survey date. These values were used to develop time-series charts for faulting trend analysis. Time-series charts indicated that several sections have average faulting values decreasing or fluctuating with time. These sections are 05-3074, 12-4138, 27-4040, 32-3010, 34-4042, 40-4160, 46-0601, 46-6600, 48-4143, 49-3011, 53-3813, and 83-3802. Resolution of Problem/Situation: These faulting values were checked by the Regional Offices and corrected where warranted. Report Number: ERES-BW-42 Subject/IMS Table: Negative faulting observations in the MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Negative faulting values were recorded for 160 of the 264 sections evaluated. Time-series plots for these sections were created and analyzed to determine the reasons for negative faulting. In most cases, time-series plots indicated a random nature of negative faulting with negative values on the order of 1 mm. These negative faulting values can be attributed to the limits of precision measurement of Georgia Faultmeter (&#plusmn; 1mm). Several special cases involving high values of negative faulting were identified. Regional Offices should investigate these instances. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as prescribed. Report Number: ERES-BW-43 Subject/IMS Table: Negative faulting equal to positive faulting measured on different dates. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: On certain survey dates, sections 06-7456, 34-4042, 36-4018, 49-7085, 53-3019, 53-3813, and 83-3802 exhibited negative faulting profiles that are mirror images of the positive faulting profile measured on a different date. Contact the Regional Offices to review the data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices have reviewed and corrected these erroneous entries. Report Number: ERES-BW-44 Subject/IMS Table: High negative faulting values. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are several sections that consistently show high negative faulting values from visit to visit at the same locations. These sections are: 06-3010, 18-0602, 18-0606, 55-3010, and 89-3016. Also, section 18-0602 exhibits faulting of almost 20 mm at one edge joint location. This appears to be too high a value. On certain survey dates, sections 06-7456, 34-4042, 36-4018, 49-7085, 53-3019, 53-3813, and 83-3802 exhibited negative faulting profiles that are mirror images of the positive faulting profile measured on a different date. Contact the Regional Offices to review the data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices reviewed the data and found that the values entered were correct. No changes were made to the data. Report Number: ERES-BW-45 Subject/IMS Table: Missing faulting data for some joint and crack locations in the MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of survey dates were excluded from the faulting analysis database due to a large amount of missing or excessive negative faulting data. Survey data were dropped from the analysis database for any section that had more than 25% of missing or negative joint faulting observations. The 25% filter was applied only for missing joint faulting information. Mismatches in joint mapping from one survey to another was overlooked, provided that the total number of joints were the same and the joint/crack pattern were consistent between consequent surveys. Only sections with negative faulting values exceeding -1 mm were considered. A total of seven survey dates were excluded from the faulting analysis table due to a large amount of high-value, negative faulting data, and 52 survey dates were excluded due to large amount of missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: See resolution of ERES-BW-70. Directives prior to May 1, 1992 did not require that wheelpath fault measurements be collected. Therefore, there is currently only edge faulting data for sections 174074 (5/8/91), 174082 (5/7/91), 183031 (5/1/91), and 294069 (2/4/91). No faulting data were collected in the April 1993 surveys of the 200201-200208 sections and the June 1993 survey of 833802. The North Central Regional Office has deleted all data from MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT table where no fault data (only ancillary data) are available for an entire section survey. The North Central Regional Office has reviewed and upgraded, as necessary, the quality of fault data where the values are less than — 2 mm. Report Number: ERES-BW-46 Subject/IMS Table: Fault measurement counts inconsistent with the number of joints. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the process of valid faulting data evaluation, a large number of sections were encountered for which the number of joints from the faulting surveys didn't match with the number of joints computed, based on inventory joint spacing data. For some sections, the number of joints from PASCO distress maps was different from the number from the faulting survey records. A list of sections and survey dates for which the number of joints from the faulting survey table was different from the number evaluated, based on inventory record, or was different from the number of joints calculated, using distress maps, was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices reviewed the data and provided appropriate feedback to the DATS team. Corrections were made as necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-47 Subject/IMS Table: Discrepancies in number of joints identified and number from distress survey data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the process of reviewing the transverse joint spacing, a large discrepancy in joint spacing between faulting survey data and inventory data was found for jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) sections from the GPS-4 experiment located in Arkansas and Texas. Both faulting survey data and PASCO distress maps gave an unusually large number of joints for the above JRCP sections (resulting average joint spacing was found around 4.5-6 m [15-20 feet]). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Consideration of intermediate sawed joints resolved discrepancies. Report Number: ERES-BW-48 Subject/IMS Table: Joint information on 404160 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the review of the joint faulting records, three sections (843803, 213016, and 404160) were found with faulting measured at fewer locations than the number of joints indicated, as available in inventory data and on PASCO distress maps. Please, contact the Southern Regional Office to review and update the data. If no update is available, we recommend the removal of the above records or to maintain them at non-level E quality control. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The procedure in effect at the time of the 2/18/91 survey on 404160 required faulting at only 10 locations. This was changed shortly after that time. Data for the other test sections has been removed from the IMS. Report Number: ERES-BW-55 Subject/IMS Table: Differences in results of manual and photographic surveys on GPS-5 sections. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are significant discrepancies in the results of the manual and photographic distress surveys, especially for key distress items. This is based on data available in DataPave97 and as recently noted in a report on GPS-5 data by ERES Consultants, Inc. This is for information only. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Work performed by the TSSC is addressing this issue. Also, work under the DATS Contract, Work Order 12, is addressing this issue with the development of the consolidated data set. Report Number: ERES-BW-58 Subject/IMS Table: GPS-7 crack spacing data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The GPS-5 distress maps (manual and PADIAS) should be used to identify locations of transverse cracks. These data are needed to develop crack spacing characteristics such as moving "average spacing of the five closest cracks" and cumulative crack-spacing plots. These characteristics are needed to understand why different CRC pavements perform differently. Develop required crack spacing data. These data could be developed as computed parameter later. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The development of CRCP crack spacing as a computed parameter is under consideration. Report Number: ERES-BW-59 Subject/IMS Table: Outlier Faulting Data LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The computed faulting statistics were used to determine the outlier faulting observations. Outlier data testing was performed based on ASTM E-178 guidelines. Outlier faulting data for each section survey have been identified using the following criteria: any point from a faulting survey was considered as an outlier if its value was outside the region bounded by the values of the section average faulting for the survey date &#plusmn; two standard deviations. Only non-negative faulting observations were tested. Review faulting data at the locations identified to make sure that the data is valid. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices have reviewed the faulting data for the noted "outlier" POINT_LOC values. The incorrect data entries that resulted in these outliers have been corrected in Regional Information Management System (RIMS). After confirming that faulting data at the specified POINT_LOC stations for other dates were similar to the noted values, we consider the remaining "outlier" data to be related to variability within the pavement section at the time of the survey. Report Number: ERES-BW-70 Subject/IMS Table: Recommendations to improve the reliability of the faulting data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: As a result of the research study entitled "Assessment Of LTPP Faulting Data", several recommendations for improvement of the reliability of the faulting data have been developed (faulting needs to be given a high priority, more accurate faulting measurements should be obtained, use of automated profilometer data, joint location consistency, time of day of measurement, etc.). Recommended for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Regional Offices' consideration. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Faulting measurements have been given high priority. They are being emphasized at the annual distress workshops and are mandatory for all distress surveys. It is the belief of the Distress Expert Task Group (ETG) that a more accurate device is not warranted. The use of profile data is being explored, although it will not be as accurate as the Georgia Faultmeter. The Regional Offices have been instructed to use prior surveys to verify joint locations and to correct any errors in location data. The pavement temperature is recorded at the time of each survey. It is believed that this is a better factor to consider than time of day. Joint and crack-load transfer efficiency, etc., is beyond the scope of LTPP's data collection effort. Report Number: ERES-BW-119 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies in punchout counts between IMS and PASCO maps LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A review of punchout data in the Information Management System (IMS) tables MON_DIS_PADIAS42_CRCP, MON_DIS_CRCP_REV (Quarter 4, 2001 data release), and selected PASCO survey map sheets has revealed major inconsistencies in the way punchouts are being rated. The IMS table MON_DIS_PADIAS42_CRCP has fewer punchouts reported than the numbers obtained from the maps for the same time period. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All punchout data has been reviewed and corrections made where necessary. There are inherent differences between manual and film surveys. Care is taken to minimize these differences. This feedback report is considered resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-120 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent time series of distress data in tables MON_DIS_AC_REV and MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC for SPS-8 AC sections LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the Level E data for SPS-8 asphalt concrete (AC) sections in the MON_DIS_AC_REV and MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC tables, using Information Management System (IMS) release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found that there is big variability in the data for some sections, and many of the distresses abruptly decrease with time. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices reviewed the survey maps and photographs for the sections listed in the feedback report discrepancies list. Following review, corrections were made to the survey maps, data summary sheets, and the IMS database prior to the June 2002 upload. The affected survey maps have been re-scanned. Report Number: ERES-BW-121 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent time sets of distress data in tables MON_DIS_JPCC and MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC for SPS-8 PCC sections LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the Level E data for SPS-8 portland cement concrete (PCC) sections in the MON_DIS_JPCC_REV and MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC tables, using Information Management System (IMS) release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found that there is big variability in the data for some sections and many of the distresses abruptly decrease with time. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices reviewed the survey maps and photographs for the sections listed in the feedback report discrepancies list. Following review, corrections were made to the survey maps, data summary sheets, and the IMS database prior to the June 2002 upload. The affected survey maps have been re-scanned. Report Number: Lendis-1 Subject/IMS Table: Pre-1992 faulting measurements in the MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Prior to 1992, faulting measurements were made with a straight edge and a ruler. Early in 1992, the Georgia faultmeter became the standard method for faulting measurements on LTPP JPCC test sections. The pre-1992 faulting measured with a straight edge and a ruler are not identified in the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Faultmeter device code fields have been added to table MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT. These fields will be populated by the May 2005 data upload. Report Number: Lendis-2 Subject/IMS Table: GPS Transverse Joint Sealant Data in the MON_DIS_JPCC_REV table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of our review of joint sealant data on GPS-3, 4 and 9, we discovered a number of inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on transverse joints. Attached are three Excel spreadsheets enumerating these inconsistencies. In summary, we found the following: joints rated sealed initially then unsealed on subsequent surveys, no data in the joint sealed column, inconsistent joint counts from survey to survey, sections rated as unsealed with joint seal damage data indicated. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved by the Regional Offices as recommended. Report Number: Lendis-3 Subject/IMS Table: SPS Transverse Joint Sealant Data in the MON_DIS_JPCC_REV table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of our review of joint sealant data on SPS-2, 4, 6, 7 and 8, we discovered a number of inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on transverse joints. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet enumerating these inconsistencies. In summary, we found the following: joints rated sealed initially then unsealed on subsequent surveys, no data in the joint sealed column, inconsistent joint counts from survey to survey, sections rated as unsealed with joint seal damage data indicated. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved by the Regional Offices as recommended. Report Number: Lendis-4 Subject/IMS Table: GPS Longitudinal Joint Sealant Data in the MON_DIS_JPCC_REV table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of our review of joint sealant data on GPS-3, 4, 5 and 9, we discovered inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on longitudinal joints. Attached are three Excel spreadsheets enumerating these inconsistencies. In summary, we found the following: inconsistencies in the number of joints rated sealed initially then rated unsealed on subsequent surveys, no data in the joint sealed column. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved by the Regional Offices as recommended. Report Number: Lendis-5 Subject/IMS Table: SPS Longitudinal Joint Sealant Data in the MON_DIS_JPCC_REV table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of our review of joint sealant data on SPS-2, 4, 6 and 7, we discovered inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on longitudinal joints. Attached are four Excel spreadsheets enumerating these inconsistencies. In summary, we found the following: inconsistencies in the number of joints rated sealed initially then rated unsealed on subsequent surveys, no data in the joint sealed column. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved by the Regional Offices as recommended. Report Number: Lendis-6 Subject/IMS Table: Longitudinal Reflection Cracking Data in the MON_DIS_AC_REV and MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of reflection cracking data on SPS-6, GPS-7a and 7b, we discovered many inconsistencies in the way NWP longitudinal cracking and longitudinal reflection cracking are being rated on these projects. In summary, we found the following: NWP longitudinal cracking along the centerline and edge stripe called on sections where longitudinal reflection cracking is expected and vice versa. Reflection cracking at centerline rated as fatigue cracking. Cracking occurring outside of stripes not being picked up on some surveys or being miscalled. Resolution of Problem/Situation: As a result of this review and recommendations from the Distress and Data Analysis Expert Task Groups (ETGs), 'Reflection Cracking at Joints' data is no longer called on asphalt concrete (AC) overlays of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. These cracks are now called longitudinal cracking or transverse cracking. Report Number: Lendis-7 Subject/IMS Table: CRCP Punchout data in
MON_DIS_CRCP_REV and
MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRCP LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) Punchouts data, we discovered many inconsistencies in the way the definition of what constitutes a punchout has been applied. In summary, we found the following instances. Low severity punchouts not being recorded as punchouts. Un-distressed areas wider than the 0.6 meter transverse crack spacing being recorded as low severity punchouts. Areas with map cracking possibly being recorded as having punchouts. We suspect that un-distressed "Y" cracks were recorded as punchouts on early surveys. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Punchout data was reviewed in all regional and distress contractor offices, and errors were corrected where found. This feedback report is considered resolved. Report Number: Lendis-8 Subject/IMS Table: Transverse Joint Sealant Data in MON_DIS_JPCC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of joint sealant data we discovered a number of inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on transverse joints. In summary we found the following: joints rated sealed initially then unsealed on subsequent surveys, joints rated sealed with no data (zero entries) in the joint sealed column, inconsistent joint counts from survey to survey, joints at patches not rated or rated as one joint, desk audit inexplicably changing data to incorrect values. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the surveys in question and corrections made where necessary. Report Number: Lendis-9 Subject/IMS Table: Longitudinal Joint Sealant Data in MON_DIS_CRPC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of joint sealant data in Standard Data Release 19.0, on JCP, we discovered inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on longitudinal joints. In summary we found the following: apparent maintenance activities (joint sealing) not reported, inconsistencies in the number of joints rated sealed initially then rated unsealed on subsequent surveys, large changes in ratings from survey to survey indicating maintenance activities or erroneous surveys, longitudinal joint sealant not rated on surveys, longitudinal joint sealant data reported in 1990 and 1991 before it was a data element. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the inconsistencies reported in this feedback report plus additional records identified via query. Some values were found to be erroneous and were corrected. Some inconsistencies were due to Maintenance or Rehab events; forms were submitted to report those events. They were unable to validate some of the inconsistencies; those values were set to “null”. Report Number: Lendis-10 Subject/IMS Table: Longitudinal Joint Sealant Data in MON_DIS_JPCC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of joint sealant data in Standard Data Release 19.0, on CRCP, we discovered inconsistencies in the way joint sealant has been rated on longitudinal joints. In summary we found the following: apparent maintenance activities (joint sealing) not reported, inconsistencies in the number of joints rated sealed initially then rated unsealed on subsequent surveys, large changes in ratings from survey to survey indicating maintenance activities or erroneous surveys, longitudinal joint sealant data reported in 1991 before it was a data element. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the surveys (including additional surveys identified via query) having the referenced inconsistencies. Surveys with errors were re-summarized. Form 1s were submitted for maintenance and rehab activities not reported. Some data elements were set to null, as they were not estimated. Report Number: Lendis-11 Subject/IMS Table: CRCP Data in MON_DIS_CRPC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of CRCP data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way punchouts and longitudinal cracking have been rated. In summary we found the following: Longitudinal cracking within 0.3 meters of centerline joint being rated as longitudinal cracks instead of longitudinal joint spalling, low severity punchouts drawn on maps not being recorded as punchouts, missing maps and photos on distress CDs, cracking missed in summarizing and distress outside centerline counted. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices reviewed the surveys with the referenced inconsistencies and corrected and re-summarized the maps. Report Number: Lendis-12 Subject/IMS Table: JPCC Data in MON_DIS_JPCC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of JPCC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way longitudinal spalling and longitudinal cracking have been rated. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet enumerating these instances. In summary we found the following: Longitudinal cracking within 0.3 meters of a longitudinal joint being rated as longitudinal cracks instead of longitudinal joint spalling, map cracking rated as longitudinal cracks, transverse cracks rated as longitudinal cracks, spalls rated as a percentage rather than actually being measured, spalls in the database not on survey maps, missing maps on distress CDs, cracking missed in summarizing, etc. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices reviewed the surveys in question. Some decreases in distresses were due to maintenance on the sections. All incorrect or missed distresses were re-summarized. Report Number: Lendis-13 Subject/IMS Table: Fatigue and longitudinal cracking data in MON_DIS_AC_REV (southern region) LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of southern regional AC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way fatigue and longitudinal cracking have been rated. In summary we found the following: non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as wheelpath longitudinal cracking, non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking but reported in the database as wheelpath cracking, inconsistencies in the way fatigue and wheelpath longitudinal cracking has been rated survey to survey. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data identified as part of this feedback report have been reviewed and edited where necessary. Report Number: Lendis-14 Subject/IMS Table: Fatigue and longitudinal cracking data in MON_DIS_AC_REV (western region) LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of western regional AC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way fatigue and longitudinal cracking have been rated. In summary we found the following: wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking, non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as wheelpath longitudinal cracking, inconsistencies in the way fatigue and wheelpath longitudinal cracking has been rated survey to survey, data entry and/or summarization errors, differences in wheelpath widths from survey to survey, wheelpaths not drawn on maps, distress recorded on maps not in IMS, fatigue cracking erroneously rated block cracking in wheelpath, deteriorating centerline construction joints rated as fatigue cracking, numerous instances of apparent unreported maintenance/rehabilitation activities. Resolution of Problem/Situation: As per the recommended action, the Western regional office has investigated the inconsistencies listed in the referenced table involving sections in the Western Region. Included in the table are any corrective actions as well as comments detailing the specific record in question. Report Number: Lendis-15 Date Submitted: 8/24/2005 Subject/IMS Table: Fatigue and longitudinal cracking data in MON_DIS_AC_REV (North Atlantic region) LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of North Atlantic regional AC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way fatigue and longitudinal cracking have been rated. In summary we found the following: wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking, inconsistencies in the way fatigue and longitudinal cracking has been rated survey to survey, data entry or summarization errors, wheelpaths not drawn on maps, distress recorded on maps not in IMS, deteriorating centerline construction joints rated as fatigue cracking, apparent unreported maintenance/rehabilitation activities, map sheets missing on DVD. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic regional office has reviewed the issues listed in this feedback report. All items were addressed and any corrections are now complete in the IMS database. All actions taken are listed in the ‘NARO COMMENTS’ field of the referenced spreadsheet. Report Number: Lendis-16 Subject/IMS Table: Fatigue and longitudinal cracking data in MON_DIS_AC_REV (North Central region) LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of North Central regional AC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way fatigue and longitudinal cracking have been rated. In summary we found the following: wheelpath longitudinal cracking rated as non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking, data entry or summarization errors, wheelpaths not drawn on maps, distress recorded on maps not in IMS, deteriorating centerline construction joints rated as fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracks at edgeline rated as edge cracking, edge cracking rated as fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracks at centerline and edge line not rated, apparent unreported maintenance/rehabilitation activities, map sheets missing or mis-filed on DVD. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central regional office has reviewed the issues listed in this feedback report. All items were addressed and corrections are completed in the IMS database. Report Number: Lendis-17 Subject/IMS Table: Edge cracking data in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of AC data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way edge cracking has been rated. In summary we found the following: edge cracking rated on pavements with paved AC shoulders, non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking on the edge of the pavement rated on pavements that do not have shoulders, data entry or summarization errors, distress recorded on maps not in IMS, apparent unreported maintenance/rehabilitation activities, map sheets missing or mis-filed on DVD. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The southern regional office reviewed the data, and made edits, or comments where appropriate. A spreadsheet of actions taken was provided. Report Number : Lendis-18Date Submitted: 1/19/2006 Subject/IMS Table: Survey data inconsistencies in MON_DIS_PADIAS42_* and MON_DIS_PADIAS_*, Release 20.0 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Three spreadsheets provided a list of 86 duplicate records in MON_DIS_PADIAS_42_* and MON_DIS_PADIAS_* with problem survey dates. A date range of about one month was used, so the list is not inclusive. There could be more. The correct survey date according to LTPP office records is on the spreadsheet. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Unresolved. Report Number: Lendis-19 Subject/IMS Table: Block Cracking Data in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of manual distress survey data in Standard Data Release 19.0, we discovered inconsistencies in the way fatigue and block cracking have been rated. In summary we found: inconsistencies in the way block and fatigue cracking have been rated survey to survey, fatigue cracking erroneously rated block cracking in wheelpath, deteriorating centerline construction joints rated as block cracking, occurrences of block cracking not long enough to report as block cracking, areas of cracking that should have been reported as block cracking, several instances of unreported maintenance/rehabilitation activities and other inconsistencies. Resolution of Problem/Situation: As per the recommended action, the regional offices investigated the inconsistencies listed in the attached table. The regional offices included in the table the corrective actions as well as comments detailing the specific record in question. Report Number: Lendis-20 Date Submitted: 2/23/2006 Subject/IMS Table: Missing Construction Numbers in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of Southern regional manual distress surevey data in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing construction numbers on 13 test sections. We also found other problems during the course of the review. Attached is a spreadsheet enumerating these. In summary we found: missing construction numbers, inconsistencies in the way non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking have been rated survey to survey, suspected corrupted files, poor map scanning, missing maps. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The sections listed on the feedback report were reviewed and corrected as appropriate. An attached file "Lendis-20_SRSC_Response.xls" provides details regarding the action taken. Report Number: Lendis-24 Subject/IMS Table: Missing Construction Numbers in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of Western regional manual distress survey data in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing construction numbers on 8 test sections. We also found other problems during the course of the review. Attached is a spreadsheet enumerating these. In summary we found: missing construction numbers, summarization errors, missed distress and missing maps on DVDs. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Unresolved Report Number: Lendis-25 Subject/IMS Table: Missing Construction Numbers in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of North Central regional manual distress survey data in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing construction numbers on 16 test sections. We also found other problems during the course of the review. Attached is a spreadsheet enumerating these. In summary we found: missing construction numbers, summarization errors, metrication errors, missed distress, missing maps on DVDs, etc. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Unresolved Report Number: Lendis-26 Subject/IMS Table: Missing construction numbers in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of North Atlantic regional manual distress survey data in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing construction numbers on 27 test sections. We also found other problems during the course of the review. Attached is a spreadsheet enumerating these. In summary we found: missing construction numbers, summarization errors, missed distress, and incorrect ratings. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Unresolved Report Number: Lendis-27 Subject/IMS Table: Metrication in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In progress Resolution of Problem/Situation: Unresolved Report Number: SR-1 Subject/IMS Table: DIVA Review and Reconciliation LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A Distress Survey (481094, 9/19/95) has been identified that is clearly inconsistent, however not beyond allowable variability. Longitudinal cracking is shown along entire center line. No other longitudinal cracking noted. Both observations differ significantly from all preceding and subsequent surveys. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data in question set to a 'null' value. Report Number: TSSC-32 Subject/IMS Table: Improper analyst names in PASCO/CGH data LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Upon review of MON_DIS_PADIAS42_* tables we found several analyst names that are obviously incorrect, some that are missing, and several others that are questionable. A list was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: TSSC-43 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate POINT_LOC in MON_T_PROF_PROFILE. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An investigation of MON_T_PROF_PROFILE uncovered several instances where the testing on a section included essentially duplicate POINT_LOC entries, while missing another POINT_LOC altogether. For instance, the data set for 014127 has two profiles from approximately 122 meters, but no profile from 137 meters. The suspect data sets were identified in an accompanying spreadsheet (duplicate point_loc in profile.xls). Resolution of Problem/Situation:Transverse profile data was compared to the data hard copy. Corrected data sets were sent with the upload on December 1, 2003. Report Number: TSSC-67 Subject/IMS Table: PASCO/CGH/ERES transverse profile measurements with different measurement widths LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A spreadsheet file was provided with a list of 88 transverse profile data sets from measurements performed by PASCO/CGH/ERES where all of the measurements on the measurement day do not have the same width. Differences in the measurement width can affect the transverse profile distortion statistics computed from these measurements. These records are from the June 2004 upload. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-73 Subject/IMS Table: Agreement between numbers of distress and measurement of distress - Northern region LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation:For the distresses where both a number and an actual measurement of the distresses are recorded, there are several surveys where one of these is zero and the other is non-zero. For instance, the survey performed on test section 261013 on 17-JUL-91 has a non-zero value for the number of transverse cracks. However, all of the severity levels for the lengths of that field are 0. Resolution of Problem/Situation:The regional office reviewed the data and made corrections to resolve all the issues that have been identified. The actions taken are listed with each identified issue. The feedback report is still under review by the TSSC. Report Number: TSSC-74 Subject/IMS Table: Agreement between numbers of distress and measurement of distress - Southern region LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation:For the distresses where both a number and an actual measurement of the distresses are recorded, there are several surveys where one of these is zero and the other is non-zero. For instance, the survey performed on test section 485284 on 05-NOV-02 has a non-zero value for the number of transverse cracks. However, all of the severity levels for the lengths of that field are 0. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern regional office created another SQL to identify all distress agreement errors to date. Most are due to data entry errors and all have been corrected. We will continue to monitor for these conditions until the QC is updated. Report Number: TSSC-75 Subject/IMS Table: Agreement between numbers of distress and measurement of distress - Western region LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For the distresses where both a number and an actual measurement (length or area) of the distresses are recorded, there are several surveys where one of these is zero and the other is non-zero. For instance, the survey performed on test section 320107 on 17-APR-01 has a non-zero value for the number of transverse cracks. However, all of the severity levels for the lengths of that field are 0. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Section 49D461 was reported to have non-zero number fields and zero area fields. In actuality, the opposite was true (number fields had zero values while area fields had non-zero values). Therefore, changes made to the number fields will resolve the issue. All changes made were incorporated in the August 2005 upload. Report Number: TSSC-76 Subject/IMS Table: Agreement between numbers of distress and measurement of distress - PADIAS surveys LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation:For the distresses where both a number and an actual measurement (length or area) of the distresses are recorded, there are several surveys where one of these is zero and the other is non-zero. For instance, the survey performed on test section 060562 on 09-FEB-92 has a non-zero value for the number of transverse cracks. However, all of the severity levels for the lengths of that field are 0. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-98 Subject/IMS Table: Data Inconsistencies in MON_DIS_PADIAS42_AC LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a list of 37 records in MON_DIS_PADIAS_42_AC with questionable dates. Included in this list are records with the analysis date before the survey date (impossible) or the analysis date the same as the survey date (highly improbable). Most of the dates however were deemed to be questionable by comparison to other surveys performed on the same date or same project, and survey dates in MON_T_PROF_MASTER. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The LTPP office reviewed their records to determine actual survey dates. Their recommendations are on an attached spreadsheet. The TSSC will make the necessary changes. Report Number: TSSC-99 Subject/IMS Table: Data Inconsistencies in MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a list of 11 records in MON_DIS_PADIAS_42_JPCC with questionable dates. Included in this list are records with the analysis date before the survey date (impossible) or the analysis date the same as the survey date (highly improbable). The remaining records listed were found to have questionable dates by manual comparison to other surveys performed on the same date or project. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The LTPP office reviewed their records to determine actual survey dates. Their recommendations are on an attached spreadsheet. The TSSC will make the necessary changes. Report Number: TSSC-100 Subject/IMS Table: Data Inconsistencies in MON_DIS_PADIAS42_CRCP LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a list of 3 records in MON_DIS_PADIAS_42_CRCP with questionable dates. Of the three records listed, one has an obviously incorrect analysis date (2092), one has the analysis and survey dates transposed, and one has a date that appears to be incorrect by comparison to other surveys performed on the same project. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The LTPP office reviewed their records to determine actual survey dates. Their recommendations are on an attached spreadsheet. The TSSC will make the necessary changes. Report Number: TSSC-101 Subject/IMS Table: Non-matching SAMPLE_NO values in the TST module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides lists of over 600 records in 32 tables that have a SAMPLE_NO value that does not have a match in any of the sampling tables (TST_ASPHALT_CEMENT, TST_FRESH_PCC, TST_SAMPLE_BULK_AC_AGG, TST_SAMPLE_COMBINE, TST_SAMPLE_LAB_AC_MIX, TST_SAMPLE_LOG, TST_SAMPLE_LOG_LAB, TST_SAMPLE_LOG_SPS_3_4, and TST_UNCOMP_BITUMINOUS). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-103 Subject/IMS Table: All zero transverse profiles LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: More than 550 records in MON_T_PROF_PROFILE have all zero y values for a given cross-slope measurement. All zero profile indicates a perfectly flat (to the nearest 0.1mm) profile - which is basically impossible for pavement. This problem only affects Dipstick data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data for the affected sections identified in this feedback report was deleted and reloaded, which resolved the issue. Report Number: TSSC-106 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect data in MON_DIS_AC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Eighteen records in MON_DIS_AC_REV are identified as having suspect data. Three of the records have both BEFORE_TEMP and AFTER_TEMP equal to zero - which is a suspect temperature given the time of year and location of the section. The remaining records have data that is suspect given the comments provided in the OTHER category. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional office has reviewed the data issues identified by this report and made necessary corrections. Comments for 483559 were shortened to fit allocated space. Indications of raveling on 131031 were removed due to existence of surface treatment, in accordance with LTPP directive D-22. Before and after temperatures for 481168 were set to null. Report Number: TSSC-107 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect data in MON_DIS_CRCP_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Ten records in MON_DIS_CRCP_REV are identified in the attached spreadsheet (TSSC-107_attach.xls) as having suspect data. Eight records from the early June 1992 survey of the 270700 project are included because the comment indicates that not all the information is available, yet all the fields have a value. If the information is not available, the field should contain a null, not a zero. The remaining records have data that is suspect given the comments provided in the OTHER category. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional office reviewed the issues listed in this Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report and have made corrections as necessary. Report Number: TSSC-108 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect data in MON_DIS_JPCC_REV LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Eleven records in MON_DIS_JPCC_REV are identified as having suspect data as a result of information included in the OTHER field. Additionally, two data sets that have questionable data when viewed as a time series are included. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional office reviewed the issues listed in this feedback report. All items were addressed and corrections are now complete in the IMS database. Report Number: TSSC-109 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect identification of crack/joint in MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are 140 locations in MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT that are identified as both a crack and a joint. Depending on the intended use of the data, the distinction can be significant, and a single point obviously cannot be both. The list included on the attached page includes only those locations where a single POINT_LOC is identified as both a crack and a joint on different survey dates. It does not include those that are very close and probably represent the same location (i.e. a crack at 30 and a joint at 30.1). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. |
||
|
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This page last modified on 03/22/07 |
