Assessment of Factors Affecting Measurement Accuracy for High-Quality Weigh-in-Motion Sites in the Long-Term Pavement Performance Database

Abstract

Weigh-in-motion (WIM) is a primary technology used for monitoring and collecting vehicle weights and axle loads on roadways. Highway agencies collect WIM data for many reasons, including highway planning, pavement and bridge design, freight movement studies, motor vehicle enforcement, and regulatory studies. Therefore, the data collected at WIM systems must be accurate and represent actual field loadings. Several factors or field conditions can affect the WIM system accuracy (i.e., measurement error). The potential site-related factors include road geometry, pavement stiffness, pavement surface distresses, road roughness, and climate. The WIM calibration and equipment-related factors may include sensor type and array, calibration speed and speed points, and sensors’ age. The WIM data for Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) research-quality sites were considered to estimate benchmark accuracies for different sensors and evaluate the effects of different factors on WIM measurement errors. These are the 35 sites with WIM calibration data that meet the ASTM E1318-09 error tolerances for Type I WIM systems and are consistently calibrated using the LTPP protocol with a complete set of supporting data about WIM site performance and WIM site conditions. The data for the LTPP research-quality sites showed that for the sensor arrays utilized, the best achievable total errors based on GVW are ±5% for load cell (LC), ±9% for bending plate (BP), and ±9.8% for the quartz piezo (QP) sensors. These accuracy levels for different sensor types provide highway agencies with the benchmark values demonstrating the practically achievable accuracy of WIM measurements after calibration for different WIM sensor types. Based on available data, WIM sensor accuracy can be significantly affected by climate, especially for QP and polymer piezo sensors. Also, the longitudinal roadway slope at a WIM site, sensor array, and speed points may significantly affect the WIM system accuracy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Selezneva

Mcdonnell

A. M.

Transportation Research Circular E-C227: Weigh-in-Motion, Advancing Highway Traffic Monitoring through Strategic Research. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2017.

Federal Highway Administration. WIM Pocket Guide. Report No.: Publication No. FHWA-PL-018-008. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2018.

Burnos

Rys

The Effect of Flexible Pavement Mechanics on the Accuracy of Axle Load Sensors in Vehicle Weigh-in-Motion Systems. Sensors, Vol. 17, No. 9, 2017, p. 2053.

Jacob

Assessment of the Accuracy and Classification of Weigh-in-Motion Systems Part 1: Statistical Background. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2–3, 2000, pp. 136–152.

Jacob

O’Brien

E. J.

European Specification on Weigh-in-Motion of Road Vehicles (COST323). Proc., 2nd European Conference on Weigh-in-Motion of Road Vehicles, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.

Jacob

O’Brien

E. J.

Newton

Assessment of the Accuracy and Classification of Weigh-in-Motion Systems. Part 2: European Specification. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2–3, 2000, pp. 153–168.

Scheuter

Evaluation of Factors Affecting WIM System Accuracy. Proc., 2nd European Conference on COST, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.

Glover

Newton

Evaluation of a Multiple-Sensor Weigh-in-Motion System. Report No.: 0266-7045. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Wokingham, Berkshire, 1991.

Qin

Lin

Cao

Ding

Effects of Sensor Location on Dynamic Load Estimation in Weigh-in-Motion System. Sensors, Vol. 18, No. 9, 2018, p. 3044.

10.

Darestani

M. Y.

Thambiratnam

D. P.

Nataatmadja

Baweja

Experimental Study on Structural Response of Rigid Pavements under Moving Truck Load. Proc., 22nd ARRB Conference: Research into Practice. ARRB Group Ltd, CD Rom, 2006, pp. 1–14.

11.

Rys

Investigation of Weigh-in-Motion Measurement Accuracy on the Basis of Steering Axle Load Spectra. Sensors, Vol. 19, No. 15, 2019, p. 3272.

12.

Burnos

Gajda

Thermal Property Analysis of Axle Load Sensors for Weighing Vehicles in Weigh-in-Motion System. Sensors, Vol. 16, No. 12, 2016, p. 2143.

13.

Papagiannakis

Johnston

Alavi

Fatigue Performance of Piezoelectric Weigh-in-Motion Sensors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001. 1769: 87–94.

14.

Gajda

Sroka

Żegleń

Accuracy Analysis of WIM Systems Calibrated using Pre-Weighed Vehicles Method. Metrology and Measurement Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2007, pp. 517–527.

15.

Gajda

Sroka

Zeglen

Burnos

The Influence of Temperature on Errors of WIM Systems Employing Piezoelectric Sensors. Metrology and Measurement Systems, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2013, pp. 171–182.

16.

ASTM. Standard Specification for Highway Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems with User Requirements and Test Methods E 1318-09. 2007 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM Committee E17-52 on Traffic Monitoring ASTM International, 2009.

17.

Davies

Sommerville

Calibration and Accuracy Testing of Weigh-in-Motion Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1987. 1123: 122–126.

18.

Federal Highway Administration. LTPP Field Operations Guide for SPS WIM Sites Version 1.0. FHWA-LTPP Technical Support Services Contractor, AMEC Earth and Environmental, MD, 2012.

19.

Bergan

Berthelot

Taylor

Effect of Weigh in Motion Accuracy on Weight Enforcement Efficiency. Proc., Steps Forward. Intelligent Transport Systems World Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 1995.

20.

Prozzi

Hong

Leung

Effect of Traffic Load Measurement Bias on Pavement Life Prediction: A Mechanistic-Empirical Perspective. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2008. 2087: 91–98.

21.

Haider

S. W.

Harichandran

R. S.

Dwaikat

M. B.

Impact of Systematic Axle Load Measurement Error on Pavement Design using Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 3, 2011, pp. 381–386.

22.

AASHTO M331-17 Standard Specification. Smoothness of Pavement in Weigh-in-Motion Systems. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2017.