| |
| FHWA > Engineering > Pavements > Research > LTPP > Feedback |
FWD Feedback Report SummariesFor additional information e-mail: ltppinfo@fhwa.dot.gov. Report Number: AM-2 Subject/IMS Table: Missing pertinent information for some sections in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report lists 20 sections having monitoring data released through DataPave (Pre-release Version 2.0) but no entry in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Sections involved: 4A330-2, 4B330-2, 4C310-3, 4C330-2, 4C340-2, 4D330-2, 6A330-2, 121030-2, 16A330-2, 16B330-2, 16C330-2, 32C330-2, 482108-2, 48N330-2, 53A330-2, 53B330-2, 53C330-2, 561007-2, 56A330-2, and 56B330-2. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This problem was fixed in the final release version of DataPave 2.0. Report Number: AM-3 Subject/IMS Table: Dead FWD sensors in the
MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are a number of records with potentially dead sensors in the MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA table. The records were identified on the basis that they contain either extremely low or zero PEAK_DEFL_* values. Upon further investigation, approximately 275 records representing deflection tests were found to have sensors with zero deflections, and more than 4500 more were found with deflections under 3 microns. However, it was determined that not all of the records with low deflections contained a dead sensor, in many cases (about half), the low deflection value was consistent with the rest of the deflections in the basin. Resolution of Problem/Situation: In order to identify the records with potentially dead sensors, the Level D quality control (QC) checks on the MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA table have been revised so that a zero deflection is no longer acceptable. Additionally, each sensor has been assigned a lower limit intended to identify a majority of the dead sensors without failing a large number of appropriate records. New Level E QC checks, intended to identify non-decreasing deflections, should also identify records with dead sensors in any position other than that furthest from the load (typically sensor seven or eight, depending on software). The combination of these two checks should effectively resolve any problems associated with the presence of dead sensors. Report Number: AM-8 Subject/IMS Table: Error in temperature data
for FWD testing in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Without reliable temperature data collected during FWD testing, the interpretation of the deflection data is impossible. Reliable air and pavement surface temperatures allow for pavement deflection correction. A relatively significant number of deflections testing temperature data appear to have problems. The majority of air and pavement temperature data that are recorded as zero (0) degrees centigrade should actually be marked as missing. There are unrealistically high or low air and pavement temperatures and differences between air and pavement temperature. Some of the temperatures are not reasonable for the time and place of testing. Identify those zero temperatures that are actually missing values and convert them to null. Remove unrealistic temperatures from the database. The data quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) should have eliminated these records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Seventy-six problems were identified on 46 test sections in the four regions. These problems have been addressed by the Regional Offices. Report Number: BRE-33 Subject/IMS Table: Surplus FWD
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Test section 204052 has two complete passes of FWD data on 11/2/1993. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Only one set of testing was performed on the day in question. The duplicate set of data has been removed from the database. Report Number: BRE-34 Subject/IMS Table: FWD data imply simultaneous
testing at two locations. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Test section 213016 has duplicate data for the same stations on 8/6/1991. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Only one set of testing was performed on the day in question. The duplicate set of data has been removed from the database. Report Number: BRE-56 Subject/IMS Table: Review of SPS-1 data show
conflicting requirements for FWD
testing. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An apparent conflict in the FWD testing requirements for SPS-1 sections was identified. The SPS-1 data collection guidelines state that testing is to be performed 1-3 months after construction, and the FWD operational field guidelines show that testing needs to be done 3-6 months after construction. Resolution of Problem/Situation: LTPP protocol dictates that the most recently issued directive controls. In this case, (though it was not available when BRE-56 was submitted) the FWD Operational Field Guidelines V3.0 (issued under directive FWD-19, January 2000), states that testing should be done 3-6 months after construction. Because this directive was issued long after the SPS-1 data collection guidelines, the time frame of 3-6 months is the appropriate time frame to use. Report Number: CAR-1 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect CENTER_OFFSET values in the MON_DEFL_DEV_SENSORS table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Three CONFIGURATION_Nos in the MON_DEFL_DEV_SENSORS table have inappropriate CENTER_OFFSET values. The assumption was made that, because the records were at level E and the offset values were not in the expected positions, they must have either been manually upgraded or managed to slip through the QA checks. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Upon investigation, it was determined that the QA procedures in effect when Feedback Report CAR-1 was generated did not include a check for proper sensor offset values. Recent changes to the QA procedures for MON_DEFL_* tables will ensure that sensor offsets are appropriate for both the test performed and the software version used at the time of the test. Report Number: DEFL-1a Subject/IMS Table: Erroneous height data in
IMS *.M06 files of the MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For the North Central and Western Regions, in some cases "X" has been stored in the height field. It is recommended that all "X"s be changed to the correct numerical drop height. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved Report Number: DEFL-1b Subject/IMS Table: Erroneous height data in
the IMS *.M06 files of the MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Some lines of deflection data in all 4 regions are erroneous with respect to one or more deflections (~0.1%). It is recommended that the suspect lines of data be removed (~0.1% of each M06 file.) from the IMS and stored in another file. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This affects 5365 records of 5.1 million. It was decided that it is not worth fixing. No action will be taken. Report Number: EOL-1 Subject/IMS Table: Manual temperature errors
or anomalies in North Central Region
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There were a number of manual and infrared (IR) temperature data errors or status questions in the North Central Region data. These may have been caused through a variety of means, such as faulty IR sensor, transposition of digits, faulty manual readings, keying-in errors, missing data, incorrect header info, inconsistent units, etc. There are 264 data elements or items identified in these categories of errors or status questions. An Excel file "R1TERROR" was provided with this list. Either delete or accept each identified incorrect or questionable temperature data element in IMS if the North Central Regional Office cannot determine the correct input values, or enter the correct values if they can be identified through the office archives. Please note that some of the identified data errors or status questions may also be accompanied by other related data discrepancies, such as FWD data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has reviewed and resolved all items listed in the "R2TERROR" workbook, included in this feedback report. This resolution includes, correction, deletion, and confirmation of the listed questionable data sets. The attached Excel workbook "EOL01_NCR_Data.xls" lists the activities completed for the resolution of each of the 479 data sets. Report Number: EOL-2 Subject/IMS Table: Manual temperature errors
or anomalies in the Western Region
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There were a number of manual and IR temperature data errors or status questions in the Western Region data. These may have been caused through a variety of means, such as faulty IR sensor, transposition of digits, faulty manual readings, keying-in errors, missing data, incorrect header info, inconsistent units, etc. There are 650 data elements or items identified in these categories of errors or status questions. An Excel file "R4TERROR" was provided with this list. Either delete or accept each identified incorrect or questionable temperature data element in IMS if the correct input values can not be determined or enter the correct values if these can be identified through the archives. Please note that some of the identified data errors or status questions may also be accompanied by other related data discrepancies. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Most of these problems were addressed in feedback reports TSSC-11 through -14 and AM-8, or as a result of data being set back to level A. Other issues have also been addressed. Report Number: ERES-BW-73 Subject/IMS Table: Misnamed MON_DEFL_DRP_DATA
lane numbers for state 1906** on
9/22/92. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The annual ESAL values (field ANNUAL_ESAL_W4 in table TRF_MONITOR_BASIC_INFO) for the following sections are suspiciously low: Sections 19-0213 to 19-0224 in 1997: Annual ESALs are approximately 56,400. This is much lower than the required traffic level (>200,000) at SPS-2 sites. Section 53-0201 in 1997: Annual ESAL = 819. This value is way too small. Additionally, the annual ESAL at the same section 53-0201 is 455,328 for 1998. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data for 1902** is correct as entered in to the Information Management System (IMS). Data for sections 530201 in 1997 has been corrected. This error was due to a site coding problem which has been corrected. Report Number: ERES-BW-110 Subject/IMS Table: Sites with limited data
points in IMS table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release (11.5/NT 3.0), we found several sites with extremely low (1 or 2) number of measurement point locations (POINT_LOC). The identified records should be reviewed, and either updated or comments should be provided in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All suspect data has been updated or flagged with appropriate comments as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-111 Subject/IMS Table: Sites with FWD measurement
time out of order in IMS table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release 11.5/NT 3.0, we found several sites with FWD measurement time out of order for consecutive point locations (POINT_LOC) for some surveys. List of sites, survey dates, and out-of-sequence measurement time and point location records were provided. The identified records should be reviewed, and either updated or comments should be provided in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table explaining the reason for out-of-sequence time records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All suspect data has been reviewed, updated, if necessary, or flagged with appropriate comments. Report Number: ERES-BW-112 Subject/IMS Table: Sites with missing
deflection data for one out of two LANE_NO in IMS table
MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release (11.5/NT 3.0), we found several sites with missing deflection data for one out of two LANE_NO. The identified records should be reviewed, and either updated or comments should be provided in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table explaining the reason for out-of-sequence time records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All suspect data has been reviewed, updated, if necessary, or flagged with appropriate comments. Report Number: ERES-BW-134 Subject/IMS Table: Additional sites with FWD
measurement time out of order in table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In addition to the sites reported in ERES_BW_111, we discovered several other sites with FWD measurement time out of order for consecutive point locations (POINT_LOC) for some surveys, while reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release 11.5/NT 3.0. List of sites, survey dates, and out-of-sequence measurement time and point location records is provided in table 1. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report was resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-135 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect sensor
configurations LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA and MON_DEFL_DEV_SENSORS, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release (11.5/NT 3.0), we found several sites with incorrect FWD sensor configurations, as shown in the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices investigated the identified data sets. Corrections were made where possible. If the functionality to revise the configuration numbers is established at a later date, then this isue will be revisited. Report Number: ERES-BW-136 Subject/IMS Table: Missing records in
MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the data in the table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA and MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO, using Information Management System (IMS) Level E release (11.5/NT 3.0), we found several sites with missing information in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO, as listed in the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional office has reviewed the listed data and found that all requested files were at level D. Further review indicated that missing layer temperature data was the reason for the data not reaching level E. The regional office identified and entered temperature data for sections 190707, 200207, and 550219, resulting in the data reaching level E. Field notes indicated that temperature data was not obtained for sections 260601, 260602, 290701, 390201, 390204, 390809, and 390810 due to rain, drill failure, and probe failure. MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA for these sections missing temperature data was upgraded to level E. As a result, all of the data identified in this report are now at level E in IMS. Report Number: ERES-BW-137 Subject/IMS Table: Recommendations from
Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer Study
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Needs for additional data collection and analyses were identified. A summary of the recommended future data collection and analysis efforts was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: LTPP generally agrees with the computed parameters tables and will implement subject to funding availability. LTPP will continue to collect deflection and joint opening data until the end of the program. Future analysis recommendations will be addressed outside the process and through the Strategic Analysis Plan. Report Number: JAS-1 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent data between
Tables INV_PCC_JOINT and MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT and
MON_DEFL_RGD_BAKCAL_BASIN for experiment number 4 jointed
reinforced concrete pavements. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Table INV_PCC_JOINT gives the distance between joints (slab lengths) in feet. Note for JRCP (GPS-4), there are no randomly spaced joints. It is impossible to have more closely spaced joints. Yet in Table MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT, there are some sections with more closely spaced joints. A second problem appears to be the different measures of the POINT LOCATIONS used in the two tables MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT and MON_DEFL_RGD_BAKCAL_BASIN. This problem arose when the analyst tried to compare the deflections at joints and cracks to the faults. The objective was to determine if somehow Falling Weight Deflectometer measurements indicate the future magnitude of faults. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Services Support Contractor reviewed this report and recommended that the slab lengths be determined using the faulting table. Data in INV_PCC_JOINT is as furnished by States and not subject to change. Slab lengths determined during FWD testing is determined by FWD tow vehicle DMIs and are not precise. Slab lengths are actually measured with a tape or measuring wheel during faulting measurements. The regional offices checked slab length data for GPS-4 projects to insure that they were correct. Report Number: RNS-1 Subject/IMS Table: FWD load-deflection
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For several periods, it appears that several of the regional FWDs tested non-jointed pavement sections with the sensors in incorrect and unrecorded positions relative to the loading plate. This data appears good, otherwise. Since the data, apart from the deflection sensors which were left in the correct and reported positions, is virtually useless unless one knows the positions the deflections were measured, it is of paramount importance to find out were the sensors were positioned. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Replaced by RNS-2. Report Number: RNS-2 Subject/IMS Table: FWD load-deflection
configuration data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For several distinct time periods for certain Federal Highway Administration-owned and non-owned FWDs, it is certain that several of these units were used with the deflection sensors placed incorrectly along the raise-lower bar. These non-protocol sensor spacings, furthermore, were not recorded as such in the Level E Information Management System (IMS) database. The measured deflections, by and large, appear correct; however, large errors in, for example, backcalculation will occur if the actual sensor positions are not recorded and used together with the measured deflections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolution pending verification of SLIC algorithms. Report Number: RNS-2M Subject/IMS Table: FWD load-deflection
configuration data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For several distinct time periods for certain Federal Highway Administration-owned and non-owned FWDs, it is certain that several of these units were used with the deflection sensors placed incorrectly along the raise-lower bar. These non-protocol sensor spacings, furthermore, were not recorded as such in the Level E Information Management System (IMS) database. The measured deflections, by and large, appear correct; however, large errors in, for example, backcalculation will occur if the actual sensor positions are not recorded and used together with the measured deflections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have resolved the configuration items listed in this feedback report. Items completed include reviewing available information and determining that sensor errors cannot be absolutely confirmed. Next, we split the configuration number of the questionable data sets into two numbers. We then populated the MON_DEFL_EST_ SENSOR_OFFSET table with estimated sensor offsets for the records in question. Report Number: RNS-3 Subject/IMS Table: More load-deflection
configuration data errors. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In addition to the sensor positioning errors outlined in Feedback Report RNS-2, there are approximately 140 instances where a single set of data (non-time dependent) had one reported set of sensor positions in the configuration records, while in the field clearly another set was used. In most but not all cases, these errors were related to joint testing (J4, J5, C4 and C5). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Almost all of the problems presented in RNS-3 have been addressed by Technical Services Support Contractor (TSSC) feedback reports and the new MON_DEFL IMS specifications. The remaining problem sections were investigated. Of the five sections with proposed sensor offset changes, it is recommended that only two have changes to sensor offsets made. Because these two sections (021008 F1 and F3, 8-29-91) have the same CONFIGURATION_NO (shared by no other sections), only one set of sensor offsets needs to be changed. Report Number: RNS-4 Subject/IMS Table: Random error lines of
load-deflection data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are a total of 7,045 individual records of data in the *.M06 files, organized by region, which have significant random or other errors in one or more of the recorded Level E deflection readings. Generally, when these are eliminated, this will result in three of the (usually) four lines of data still remaining unchanged in the database. The resulting (normalized) average of the remaining lines of data, at the same test point, drop height, and time of test, will be much more reliable after the recommended anomalous load-deflection records are deleted from the IMS. There are 7,045 records which correspond to 0.16% of the total volume of data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been corrected in the database. Report Number: RNS-4M Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent Deflection
Basins of FWD Load-Deflection Records in the Current IMS Data
Tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: As a result work on RNS-4, a new list of 2,642 records of inconsistent deflection basins has now been re-identified for flagging in the FWD database. Please note that some of these 2,642 records, where single deflection readings were excessively large or small, may have already been altered in the current LTPP database using a blank field in the appropriate deflection column. Also please note that a few of these records may have already been deleted from the database, as previously suggested. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Support Services Contractor response to report RNS-4M is contained in the response to report RNS-7, which addresses the inclusion of additional codes in of column 24 of the FWD Load-Deflection IMS Data Table (MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA.NON_DECREASING_DEFL), and specifically addresses the issues raised in report RNS-4M. Report Number: RNS-5 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect duplicate data
and other error lines of load-deflection
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are approximately 12,000 individual records of data in the *.M06 files, organized by region, test site and date of test, which are erroneous. The two main reasons for this are: 1) duplicate records of data with incorrect time stamps or other errors in data entry, and 2) five occurrences of an entire day's FWD tests conducted at the wrong test site. Other reasons include systematic deflection errors plus a few other infrequently occurring errors. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Services Support Contractor and regional offices have reviewed and resolved all pertinent items from this feedback report. A list of the actions taken to complete the resolution of each item is available. Report Number: RNS-6 Subject/IMS Table: Data input errors in the
load-deflection records. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are approximately 7,600 individual cells contained in about the same number of records of data in the *.M06 files, organized by region and error type, which are erroneous. Most of these errors were manual data entry errors, such as Lane or Station Number. In many other instances, the date of test was incorrect due to reopening of an existing FWD data file on two successive dates. Finally, some time stamps were also incorrect, usually by one hour. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been corrected in the database. Report Number: RNS-7 Subject/IMS Table: Lane Designation Errors for
State 16 (Idaho) Section 5025 continuously reinforced concrete
pavement (CRCP) FWD Test Site. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There were three test dates for test section 165025 in Idaho. Two of the three test dates utilized Lane Designation "J*" in Column H instead of the requisite "C*" as should be used for CRCP tests. The third date correctly identified the pavement as CRCP (C*) in Column H. This was the case for all lanes tested, whether C0, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 or C6. The incorrect test dates were: 17 May 1989 and 20 March 1992. The correct date was: 1 August 1995. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been corrected in the database. Report Number: RNS-7M Subject/IMS Table: Use of Column X or 24 in the FWD Load-Deflection IMS Data Tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Recently, Column 24 (or X) in the current Information Management System (IMS) database has been used to place a numeral "1" in cases of increasing deflections for non-joint associated FWD test results. It is recommended that this concept be expanded through the use of this column for a series of deflection basin codes, or warning flags. Resolution of Problem/Situation:The Technical Support Services Contractor does not recommend adding new flags to NON_DECREASING_DEFL. If all five flags suggested are wanted, at least three new flag fields should be created, one to represent each type of problem not currently covered. Identifying records with sensor positions suspected of being incorrect does not require a flag, though MON_DEFL_EST_SENSOR_OFFSET and MON_DEFL_DEV_SENSORS would have to be populated to alert the user of such a condition. Report Number: TSSC-11 Subject/IMS Table: FWD layer temperature
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records in the MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES table contain layer temperature values at RECORD_STATUS = E that are significantly over or under the allowable temperature range of 12-122° F. The temperature values that are equal to or below 0° F, or equal to or above 130° F are the only ones that have been considered. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been reviewed by the Regional Offices and corrections or deletions made where necessary. Report Number: TSSC-12 Subject/IMS Table: FWD layer and pavement
surface temperature data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A comparison study of LAYER_TEMPERATURE1 values in MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES and PVMT_SURF_TEMP in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO reveals that, for a number of records, the layer and surface temperature values do not seem to correspond. For the purpose of this exercise, an absolute difference of 15° C or more between LAYER_TEMPERATURE1 and PVMT_SURF_TEMP was considered. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: TSSC-13 Subject/IMS Table: Orphan records in the
MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES and MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS
tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records exist in MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES for which there are no corresponding records in MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS and MON_DEFL_MASTER. Similarly, MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS also contains a number of records for which corresponding entries in MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES and MON_DEFL_MASTER do not exist. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: TSSC-14 Subject/IMS Table: Records where
TEST_HOUR_MINUTE in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table fails
reasonableness checks. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For a number of records in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table, the TEST_HOUR_MINUTE field contains values that do not seem to be reasonable. For this purpose all TEST_HOUR_MINUTE values that are not between >0700' and >1900' are deemed not reasonable. It is understood that some values at the fringe of this boundary may actually be accurate; however, values equal to or close to >0000' or >2400' may not be. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: TSSC-15 Subject/IMS Table: Records where two different
sections have overlapping TEST_HOUR_MINUTE values in the
MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table for the same deflection
equipment. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For a number of test sections, data exists in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table where two separate sections tested on the same day and with same deflection equipment have matching or overlapped test time (a physical impossibility). Test times on two different sections are considered to overlap if for matching TEST_DATE, DEFLECTION_UNIT_ID and CONFIGURATION_NO, the TEST_HOUR_MINUTE for one or more drops on one section is within two minutes of the TEST_HOUR_MINUTE for the drops on the other section. Four separate tables, one for each region, containing identification information for these records was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional offices have reviewed the data sets listed in this feedback report. In some cases, the times were corrected and the data was reloaded. In other cases, the sections were actually tested over two days and the times were confirmed. In addition, one set of sections was collected using State DOT deflectometers. The regional offices do not have the raw data files or paperwork for these tests and are unable to further resolve the discrepancy. A list of the reviewed and corrected files is available. Report Number: TSSC-16 Subject/IMS Table: Basin testing with load
transfer sensor configuration. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records exist in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table where deflection basin testing has been conducted using load transfer (LT) sensor configurations. Four separate tables, one for each region, containing identification information for these records was provided. Records included identify only a section for a particular TEST_DATE and CONFIGURATION_NO. For each of these records, one or more records in the corresponding tables will need review and correction. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Feedback report retracted. Report Number: TSSC-17 Subject/IMS Table: Load transfer testing (LT)
with the basin sensor configuration. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records exist in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table where LT deflection testing has been conducted using basin sensor configurations. Four separate tables, one for each region, containing identification information for these records was provided. Records included identify only a section for a particular TEST_DATE and CONFIGURATION_NO. For each of these records, one or more records in the corresponding tables will need review and correction. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional offices have reviewed the problems listed in this feedback report. All items were addressed and corrections are now complete in the database. All actions taken were recorded and we consider this report to be closed. Report Number: TSSC-18 Subject/IMS Table: Basin testing with LT
sensor configuration. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For two CONFIGURATION_Nos values in the MON_DEFL_DEV_SENSORS table, SENSOR_Nos 3 and 4 have the same CENTER_OFFSET value. Both of these CONFIGURATION_Nos correspond to the North Atlantic Region and have been used for conducting LT testing. A single table for the North Atlantic Region, containing identification information for these records was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Corrections were made to the database as necessary. Report Number: TSSC-33 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent temperature
depths in MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The Regional offices should investigate records identified to determine if either MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS or TST_L05B contain incorrect data and to correct it as necessary. Each Regional office should also investigate their data collection procedures to determine why the inconsistent depths exist, and develop a plan to prevent them from occurring in the future. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This list was thoroughly reviewed, and comments provided as applicable. Generally speaking, the TST_L05B information and MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS values were correct (and in some cases, holes were drilled through the AC layer and into the unbound layers). The importance of taking the most recent layering information to the field and of being sure that the temperature holes are drilled according to LTPP protocols has been stressed. Report Number: TSSC-47 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect calibration values in MON_DEFL_DEV_CONFIG. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While investigating the MON_DEFL_DEV_CONFIG table, several records with suspect calibration values in DMI_CALIBRATION, PVMT_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_0C, PVMT_SENSOR_VOTLAGE_100C, AIR_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_0C, and AIR_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_100C were found. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices checked the raw data and the problematic values are as collected. All incorrect values have been set to null. Report Number: TSSC-48 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect air temperature
values in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While investigating the data in Release 17 regarding the issues raised in the feedback report TSSC-47, several data sets with inconsistent air temperature values in AIR_TEMP_TEST were found in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO. This prompted further investigation of MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO, and the development of a list of data sets where there is an air temperature differential of more than 10 degrees centigrade in less than 10 minutes. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Per the recommended action, the Regional offices investigated all sections identified. All corrections have been made in the database. Report Number: TSSC-80 Subject/IMS Table: Records with DROP_HEIGHT=0 in MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA table LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet lists records in MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA where DROP_HEIGHT=0. The value for drop height should be a 1, 2, 3, or 4. These problems exist for sites only in the North Central and Southern regions. These records were identified in the January 2005 data release. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have compared the raw data against the database. It seems that the loader program adds data or assign drop height “0” when the number of drops is less or more than the expected number, respectively. Extra records added by the loader program were removed and drop height values corrected where necessary. Report Number: TSSC-92 Subject/IMS Table: FWD measurements performed at different locations at the same time LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a list of over 2000 records in the MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO table whose information indicates that the same FWD was testing two different locations on the same day at the exact same time. This list was developed from the Pre-release version of the August 2005 upload. The SQL script used in MS Access to detect these records is appended to this report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: TSSC-104 Subject/IMS Table: One FWD in multiple locations at the same time LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several FWD units in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO are shown to be in more than one location at a given time. This problem occurs in data from all regions. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. |
||
|
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This page last modified on 03/22/07 |
