Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
88 A p p e n d i x e Appendix E contains data from the Michigan field demon- stration. The figure plots, which are ProVAL screenshots, show profile elevations, profilograph simulations, ride qual- ity analyses, and power spectral density analyses. Tables con- tain the cross-correlation data from ProVAL. Figure E.1 plots elevation versus distance in the left wheelpath of the passing lane. Real-time data from the Ames Engineering Real Time Profiler (RTP) is in two parts, 1-RTP-Part1âBWHP and 1-RTP-Part2âBWHP. This is because the data were saved and collection restarted about a third of the way into the section. There are three quality assurance (QA) control runs and three runs from a SurPRO 2000 reference profiler. BWHP profiles were high-pass fil- tered at 100 ft. Figure E.2 shows localized roughness of the left wheelpath of the passing lane based on a profilograph simulation with a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.3 plots the international roughness index (IRI) for each profile measured with the various profilers. The set- tings were for continuous IRI with 50-ft segments. QA pro- files included a 250-mm filter. The RTP profiler shows a consistently higher IRI compared with the other profilers. The power spectral density (PSD) analysis for the left wheelpath of the passing lane can be seen in Figure E.4. Figure E.5 shows the power spectral density for the left wheelpath of the passing lane as well, but with the log scale. Values in Table E.1 are the correlation percentages between various profiler runs, with an IRI filter applied. As previously noted, the data from the Ames Engineering RTP is in two parts, 1-RTP-Part1 and 1-RTP-Part2, since the data collec- tion restarted about a third of the way into the section. The cross-correlation data in Table E.1 and in subsequent tables in this appendix present correlation percentages between the real-time profilers (GOMACO GSI or Ames Engineering RTP: 1-RTP-Part1 or 1-RTP-Part2), the QA control profiler, and the SurPRO 2000 reference profiler. No results are pro- vided in cases where both the row and the column pertain to the same device (e.g., 1-RTP-Part1 and 1-RTP-Part2, which is the same device covering different stretches of the test section). In Table E.1, a higher percentage means better correlation. Maximum correlation was between 1-QA Control-1 and 1-SurPRO-1. 1-RTP-Part2 was negatively correlated to both 1-QA Control-1 and 1-SurPRO-1. Values in Table E.2 show how many feet the comparison profile was shifted to best align with the basis profile. Figure E.6 plots elevation versus distance in the right wheelpath of the passing lane. Real-time data from the Ames Engineering RTP is in two parts, 1-RTP-Part1âBWHP and 1-RTP-Part2âBWHP. This is because the data were saved and collection was restarted about a third of the way into the section. There are three QA control runs and two runs from a SurPRO reference profiler. BWHP profiles were high-pass filtered at 100 ft. Figure E.7 shows localized roughness of the right wheel- path of the passing lane based on a profilograph simulation with a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.8 plots the IRI for each profile measured with the various profilers. The settings were for continuous IRI with 50-ft segments. QA profiles included a 250-mm filter. The RTP profiler shows a consistently higher IRI compared with the other profilers. The power spectral density analysis for the right wheelpath of the passing lane can be seen in Figure E.9. Figure E.10 shows the power spectral density for the right wheelpath of the passing lane as well, but with the log scale. Values in Table E.3 are the correlation percentages between various profiler runs, with an IRI filter applied. A higher percentage means better correlation. Maximum correlation was between 2-QA Control-1 and 2-SurPRO-1. 2-RTP-Part2 was negatively correlated to both 2-QA Control-1 and 2-SurPRO-1. Values in Table E.4 show how many feet the comparison profile was shifted to best align with the basis profile. Phase 3âMichigan Field Demonstration Data Reduction and Analysis
89 Figure E.1. Profile elevations Path 1 (real time = RTP and hardened concrete). Figure E.2. Profilograph simulation of Path 1 using a 0-in. blanking band.
90 Figure E.11 plots elevation versus distance in the left wheelpath of the driving lane. The GOMACO GSI was mounted on a work bridge. There are also three QA control runs and one from a SurPRO 2000 reference profiler. BWHP profiles were high-pass filtered at 100 ft. Figure E.12 shows localized roughness of the left wheel- path of the driving lane based on a profilograph simulation with a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.13 plots the IRI for each profile measured with the various profilers. The settings were for continuous IRI with 50-ft segments. QA profiles included a 250-mm filter. Values are similar, but the GSI profiler occasionally shows a higher IRI compared with the other profilers. The power spectral density analysis for the left wheelpath of the driving lane can be seen in Figure E.14. Figure E.15 shows the power spectral density for the left wheelpath of the driving lane as well, but with the log scale. Values in Table E.5 are the correlation percentages between various profiler runs, with an IRI filter applied. A higher per- centage means better correlation. Maximum correlation was between 3-QA Control-1 and 3-SurPRO-1. Values in Table E.6 show how many feet the comparison profile was shifted to best align with the basis profile. Figure E.16 plots elevation versus distance in the right wheelpath of the driving lane. The GOMACO GSI was mounted on a work bridge. There are also three QA control runs and four from a SurPRO reference profiler. BWHP pro- files were high-pass filtered at 100 ft. Figure E.17 shows localized roughness of the right wheel- path of the driving lane based on a profilograph simulation with a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.18 plots the IRI for each profile measured with the various profilers. The settings were for continuous IRI with 50-ft segments. QA profiles included a 250-mm filter. Values are similar, but the GSI profiler occasionally shows a higher IRI compared with the other profilers. The power spectral density analysis for the right wheelpath of the driving lane can be seen in Figure E.19. Figure E.20 shows the power spectral density for the right wheelpath of the driving lane as well, but with the log scale. Values in Table E.7 are the correlation percentages between various profiler runs, with an IRI filter applied. A higher per- centage means better correlation. Maximum correlation was between 4-QA Control-1 and 4-SurPRO-1. Values in Table E.8 show how many feet the comparison profile was shifted to best align with the basis profile. Figure E.3. IRI of Path 1 (real time = RTP and hardened concrete).
91 Figure E.4. Path 1 PSD. Figure E.5. Path 1 PSD, log scale.
92 Table E.1. Path 1 Cross Correlation: Correlation Percentage (Column Used as Basis) 1-QA Control-1 1-RTP-Part1 1-RTP-Part2 1-RTP-Part1 8.4 na na 1-RTP-Part2 -1.9 na na 1-SurPRO-1 70.8 6.9 -2.9 Note: na = not applicable. Table E.2. Path 1 Cross Correlation: Relative Offsetsa 1-QA Control-1 1-RTP-Part1 1-RTP-Part2 1-RTP-Part1 4.2 na na 1-RTP-Part2 2.36 na na 1-SurPRO-1 0 -1.01 1.24 Note: na = not applicable. a Relative offsets are in feet. Figure E.6. Profile elevations Path 2 (real time = RTP and hardened concrete).
93 Figure E.7. Profilograph simulation of Path 2 using a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.8. IRI of Path 2 (real time = RTP and hardened concrete).
94 Figure E.9. Path 2 PSD. Figure E.10. Path 2 PSD, log scale.
95 Table E.3. Path 2 Cross Correlation: Correlation Percentage (Column Used as Basis) 2-QA Control-1 2-RTP-Part1 2-RTP-Part2 2-RTP-Part1 16.8 na na 2-RTP-Part2 -1.8 na na 2-SurPRO-1 84.2 16.1 -2.1 Note: na = not applicable. Table E.4. Path 2 Cross Correlation: Relative Offsetsa 2-QA Control-1 2-RTP-Part1 2-RTP-Part2 2-RTP-Part1 -0.24 na na 2-RTP-Part2 0.25 na na 2-SurPRO-1 -1.38 -1.75 -2.00 Note: na = not applicable. a Relative offsets are in feet. Figure E.11. Profile elevations Path 3 (real time = GSI and hardened concrete).
96 Figure E.12. Profilograph simulation of Path 3 using a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.13. IRI of Path 3 (real time = GSI and hardened concrete).
97 Figure E.14. Path 3 PSD.
98 Figure E.15. Path 3 PSD, log scale.
99 Table E.5. Path 3 Cross Correlation: Correlation Percentage (Column Used as Basis) 3-QA Control-1 3-GSI 3-GSI 32.8 na 3-SurPRO-1 70.9 32.1 Note: na = not applicable. Table E.6. Path 3 Cross Correlation: Relative Offsetsa 3-QA Control-1 3-GSI 3-GSI 0.08 na 3-SurPRO-1 0.08 0.81 Note: na = not applicable. a Relative offsets are in feet. Figure E.16. Profile elevations Path 4 (real time = GSI and hardened concrete). Table E.7. Path 4 Cross Correlation: Correlation Percentage (Column Used as Basis) 4-QA Control-1 4-GSI 4-GSI 30.4 na 4-SurPRO-1 87.9 31.8 Note: na = not applicable. Table E.8. Path 4 Cross Correlation: Relative Offsetsa 4-QA Control-1 4-GSI 4-GSI 0.17 na 4-SurPRO-1 -0.73 -0.68 Note: na = not applicable. a Relative offsets are in feet.
100 Figure E.17. Profilograph simulation of Path 4 using a 0-in. blanking band. Figure E.18. IRI of Path 4 (real time = GSI and hardened concrete).
101 Figure E.19. Path 4 PSD.
102 Figure E.20. Path 4 PSD, log scale.
