| |
| FHWA > Engineering > Pavements > Research > LTPP > Feedback |
IMS Feedback Report SummariesFor additional information e-mail: ltppinfo@fhwa.dot.gov. Report Number: AM-1 Subject/IMS Table: Wrong construction numbers
for monitoring data in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report addresses the presence of incorrect construction numbers for a variety of monitoring data. It was noted that, for a number of records in the profile, deflection, and distress monitoring tables, the construction number provided did not appear to be consistent with the construction number information contained in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table, given the testing date. Test section 87780-2 was cited as an example. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A review of the data in the MON_PROFILE_MASTER table indicated that this problem was most likely caused by the Regional Offices not running Construction Number (CN) Assign before each new data release. As a result, changes made to CN in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table are not always transferred to the appropriate tables before distribution. The majority of the test sections that have this problem in DataPave 2.0 do not have the problem in the latest data releases. Report Number: AM-4 Subject/IMS Table: LTPP data users manual for
a user-friendly IMS. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP program contains over 10 years of research experience in different areas that are documented in tens of volumes and thousands of pages. The IMS consists of hundreds of tables and thousands of data elements. This information is not easily conveyed to the LTPP users. Also, as people leave the program and new people join, the problem of technology transfer becomes critical. Currently, it is not possible for a new user to access the LTPP data without spending a great deal of effort. Due to the resource documents being so vast, acquiring the pertinent information for some data elements may be very time consuming. Information regarding the manner in which the data relate to each other is also not very well documented. Also, over two years have past since the last update of LTPP users reference manual. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Development of the latest revision to the IMS User Manual should solve most of these problems. Report Number: AM-7 Subject/IMS Table: Problems in layer data in
the TST_L05B table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Layer data are one of the most important data being recorded in the IMS. Reliable layer data is a requirement for most analysis of pavement performance. Due to the manual entry of data by the different Regional Offices, the possibility of entering inconsistent data exists. The release of data through Datapave 2.0 includes many inconsistencies in the L05B layer data. Following is some of the problems identified in a quick check of L05B data: 1) Inconsistency between layer description and layer type. 2) Zero thickness. 3) Two subgrades. 4) Ambiguous layer type "SB". 5) Embankment layer type ("GS") is sometimes recorded as "SS". Resolution of Problem/Situation: The problems in the 32 test sections identified have been resolved. This does not mean that all problems in Layer Data in TST_L05A and B for all test sections have been corrected. Report Number: AM-9 Subject/IMS Table: Problems in the section's
critical dates in the INV_AGE,
SPS_ID. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: To assess the performance of a section, accurate determination of age is required. The following are possible problems in a section's critical dates: 1) INV_Age, SPS_ID - Construction date after date open to traffic. 2) Construction Date after Assign Date. 3) Suspect Dates. Many assign dates are arbitrarily set to 1/1/87. The assign date could be set to the date the first data was collected on the section. Currently, some sections lack construction dates. Due to the importance of this piece of information, dates may need to be re-verified with the States. Thirty test sections were identified. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The assign date, August 4, 1998, was established early in the program by SHRP. See LTPP Directive I-54. Other suspect dates have been corrected. Report Number: AM-14 Subject/IMS Table: Improving access to the
climatic data through the
CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The link between virtual weather station (VWS) climatic data and the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table is not directly established for all SPS sections. The table CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK is supposed to provide the link between the VWS data and other IMS tables; however, this table currently only includes data for GPS sections and SPS control sections. This makes accessing climatic data for SPS non-control sections and sections that are linked to GPS somewhat confusing, tedious, and time consuming. Also, there is one site that has more than one source of climatic data. SPS site 340900 is both linked to GPS section 341011 and also has a VWS ID. This seems to be redundant and the data may be conflicting. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Including all SPS section level records in CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK might make it easier for casual users to access the climate data. At this time, however, it is not a priority IMS issue. This change will be considered for future IMS enhancements. In the future, removing records for the SPS section 340900 from all CLM_* tables will be considered to be consistent and to avoid confusion. Report Number: AM-15 Subject/IMS Table: FWD_PASS field is
inconsistency in the flexible and rigid backcalculation
tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The new field FWD_PASS is now part of the flexible and rigid backcalculation tables; however, this field is inconsistent with the definition in the flexible tables and is different in the rigid tables. The description provided does not match either data. FWD_PASS is a key field for both the flexible and rigid backcalculation tables. In order to associate the deflection to backcalculation data, this field should also be added to deflection tables. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report has been resolved as recommended. Report Number: AM-16 Subject/IMS Table: Missing layers in the
MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_LAYER table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Without complete layer info (layer types and thickness), the backcalculated moduli will not be useful. Currently, a number of sections are missing layers in the MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_LAYER table. Out of 807 sections, 205 sections (25%) had one or more layers missing. Recommended action: Add the missing layers to the table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: For the most current release of IMS data (Release 10.6, 7/27/00) there is a MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_LAYER.BAKCAL_LAYER_THICKNESS value for each record. It appears, however, that feedback report AM-16 was generated using only level E IMS data, as all the records cited are those records which are not at level E. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: AM-17 Subject/IMS Table: Incomplete layer moduli in
the MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_POINT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Out of about 13,777 sets of moduli (for each basin) examined in MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_POINT, backcalculated moduli for 878 sets was incomplete (i.e. moduli for one or more layer was missing). Recommended Action: Either remove the incomplete moduli data or complete the missing moduli. Resolution of Problem/Situation: For the most current release of IMS data (Release 10.6, dated 7/27/00) there is a MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_POINT.ELASTIC_MODULUS value for each record. However, it appears that AM-17 was generated using only level E IMS data, leading to the appearance of missing data. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: ARA_DAC_T02-1 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect Values or Unit in Table MON_DEFL_BAKCAL_BASIN LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In progress Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved Report Number: ARA_DAC_T02-2 Subject/IMS Table: LANE_NO Mismatches in Backcalculation 'point' and 'basin' tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ARA_DAC_T02-3 Subject/IMS Table: Record Mismatches in Backcalculation 'point' and 'basin' tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In progress Resolution of Problem/Situation:There is a matching layer structure in MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_LAYER for every record in MON_DEFL_FLX_BAKCAL_POINT. This is the layer structure used for backcalculation purposes, which was not necessarily the actual layer structure at the time of testing. Report Number: BRE-2a Subject/IMS Table: Rehabilitation data in the
L05B table do not note presence of PFC (pavement friction course)
in the L05B table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The rehabilitation data does not note the presence of a PFC located above the surface for the Maine SPS-5 sections 230503-9. However the PFC is said to exist in the construction data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The rehabilitation data available prior to construction indicated one layer for the existing asphalt. The construction data sheets received after rehabilitation indicated three layers: binder, surface, and friction course. L05B forms have not been received. They will reflect true layer thickness. The rehabilitation sheets will be changed when the L05B forms are received. In the interim, the construction information should be used for layer thickness. Report Number: BRE-3a Subject/IMS Table: Columns from the
SPS5_OVERLAY table does not match the
schema. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Columns from the SPS5_OVERLAY table do not match the schema from version 8.3 of the IMS. The mismatch becomes apparent at the MAT_TYPE_OTHER column. The ASCII file can not be opened. Resolution of Problem/Situation: EXCEL spreadsheet created successfully from 3/27/97 extraction of data base. Zip file e-mailed to the contractor 3/27/97. Report Number: BRE-3b Subject/IMS Table: Section has not changed
experiment numbers in the L05B table after an
overlay. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 826007 has been overlaid with 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC). This layer is in the L05B table which contains the layer structure recommended for analysis. However the section has not changed experiment numbers. Resolution of Problem/Situation: IMS Form 1 received and section has been changed to proper experiment. Report Number: BRE-3c Subject/IMS Table: Section 185518 is
erroneously put in the GPS-5 experiment in the MON_DIS_AC_REV
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 185518 is in the GPS-5 experiment. GPS-5 is continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). The section has a record in the MON_DIS_AC_REV table which contains distress surveys on AC pavements. The recorded survey was performed 11/15/93. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Superceded by feedback report EBA-4. Report Number: BRE-4b Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate entries for same
layer in the SPS5_PMA_CONSTRUCTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 240503 layer 6, 240504 layer 6, and 240560 layer 7 have two records in the SPS5_PMA_CONSTRUCTION table with different DATE_COMPLETE entries and different data. Similar problems exist on sections 040503, 040504, and 040507. Sections 240507 and 240508 layer 6 have three entries with a different DATE_COMPLETE. The DATE_COMPLETE field should be the date construction is completed on that layer. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Multiple dates have been corrected in the data base. Report Number: BRE-4a Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistency in
DATE_COMPLETE (RHB table) and CN_ASSIGN_DATE (EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 40603 has a DATE_COMPLETE in the RHB_LAYER table of 8/12/90 which is prior to the date assigned to CN 2 in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Sections 2305xx, 300505, 300506 and 0805xx also have problems with critical dates. The Regional Offices need to check the accuracy of DATE_COMPLETE and CN_ASSIGN_DATE in the IMS. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All test sections involved are in the Western Region. Erroneous dates have been corrected in the data base. Report Number: BRE-4c Subject/IMS Table: Request to add field to
indicate divided or undivided
highway. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There is nothing in the data base to indicate whether the highway is undivided or divided. This could be easily rectified by adding one field to the INV_ID table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The presence or absence of a median is indicated in the TRAFFIC table, TRF_BASIC_INFO module. Report Number: BRE-5 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate records in
SPS5_OVERLAY tables for section 080501,
2405xx LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 080501 has duplicate records in the SPS5_OVERLAY tables. The difference between the two records are the DATE_BEGAN and the DATE_COMPLETE fields. The DATE_COMPLETE field in this table for project 2405XX also needs examination. Some of the sections fall in construction event number 2, some fall in event number 1, and some of the sections have two records, each of which falls in a different CN. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The SPS-5 layer table data was reviewed by the North Atlantic and Western Regional Offices and the necessary corrections were made. Report Number: BRE-9 Subject/IMS Table: Correction needed in the
CN_ASSIGN_DATE in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Changes are required for the ASSIGN_DATE in EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Services Support Contractor (TSSC) made necessary changes to the table. Report Number: BRE-8 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data from the
MON_RUT_X_Y table in the IMS. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A review of the data in the MON_RUT_X_Y table revealed that data for the years 1991 and 1993 was not in the data base for the Western and North Central Regions. It is suspected that a round or two of PASCO cross profile data did not get filtered in to the data base. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been added to the data base as required. Report Number: BRE-9 Subject/IMS Table: Correction needed in
CN_ASSIGN_DATE in
EXPERIMENT_SECTION. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Changes are required for the ASSIGN_DATE in EXPERIMENT_SECTION Table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Support Services Contractor made the necessary changes to the table. Report Number: BRE-10 Subject/IMS Table: Missing overlay for section
021008 in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The EXPERIMENT_SECTION table shows that section 021008 is in GPS-6A. However the TST_L05B table does not show an overlay layer for this test section. Resolution of Problem/Situation: TST_L05B table has been corrected to show an overlay. Report Number: BRE-11 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent construction
and traffic opening dates section 046053 in EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table and TRF_BASIC_INFO. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 046053 has several different dates for construction (EXPERIMENT_SECTION) and open to traffic (TRF_BASIC_INFO) none of which match. Section 046060 has similar problems. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Dates were checked by the Western Regional Office and corrected. Report Number: BRE-12 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent construction
and traffic opening dates for section 846804 in the
EXPERIMENT_SECTION and TRF_BASIC_INFO
tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Test section 846804 has a date open to traffic in the TRF_BASIC_INFO table as January 1966. The construction date and open to traffic date in the INV_AGE table are July 1979. The ASSIGN_DATE in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table for this section is January 1979. The INV_AGE table should contain the date the pavement was originally constructed and the date the overlaid pavement was opened to traffic for sections in GPS-6A, -7A or -9. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Dates were checked by the North Atlantic Regional Office and corrected. Report Number: BRE-13 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent usage (between
regions) of date fields in the INV_AGE
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The INV_AGE table currently contains three date fields. The first of these is the date of latest (re)construction. The second is the date subsequently opened to traffic and the third is the year of major improvement since latest (re)construction. These fields do not contain the same information between the various regions, in particular the GPS-6As and -7As. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A directive for Data Resolution was issued to clarify this. Corrected information in database after 2/99 upload. Report Number: BRE-20 Subject/IMS Table: Desirability of summary
statistics for overlay thicknesses. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The mean, standard deviation, and deviation from the planned values of overlay thickness are of considerable interest. But there is currently no place in the database to put these data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: LTPP will consider doing this as part of the planned preliminary analysis of thickness data and in the computed parameter process. Report Number: BRE-28 Subject/IMS Table: Mismatch between the schema
and the MOD_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The schema does not match the MON_DIS_PADIAS42_JPCC table. The ANALYST_NAME according to the schema ends at column 69. In the table it ends at 59. The schema repeats the fields for LONG_JT_SEAL_DAM_L and LONG_SPALLING_L_L but it does not appear that these fields are repeated in the table. The schema also repeats the RECORD_STATUS field, which does not appear to be repeated in the table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The schema has been corrected. Report Number: BRE-41 Subject/IMS Table: Identification of surface
changes through performance data; missing EXS (experiment section)
information in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Fifty three test sections have potentially been overlaid based on the trends observed in the rut depths, distress and roughness. The data in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table needs to be updated for those sections that have been overlaid. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report is to be resubmitted. Report Number: BRE-61 Subject/IMS Table: Data with RECORD_STATUS = !
for section 040501. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 040501 has data in the TRF_MONITOR_BASIC_INFO table with a RECORD_STATUS = !. The ! was to indicate a section that was rejected. The EXPERIMENT_SECTION table shows that this section is Out of Study not rejected. The record status for these data needs to be examined and reset. In addition, it might be necessary to try and determine how they were incorrectly set in the first place. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This situation has been addressed and resolved with Software Problem Report (SPR) 4-319. All records with anything other that the highest value of MODIFICATION_NO have RECORD_STATUS set to ! so that the quality control (QC) will not be run on them. As a result, for all monitoring traffic tables which have MODIFICATION_NO as a field, RECORD_STATUS being set to ! only indicates that the record with that particular MODIFICATION_NO, and not the entire section, is rejected. Report Number: BRE-67 Subject/IMS Table: Missing description for
section 200159's treated subbase in the TST_L05 and TST_L05B
tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In the TST_L05 and TST_L05B tables, the treated subbase for section 200159 has a material code of "Other." There is no comment in either of these tables as to the type of material this is. The comment fields for this layer in both tables state "Treated Subbase." It would be very helpful if some type of description could be added for the material. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has updated the TST_L05 and TST_L05B tables for section 200159 with a material code of 340 (pozzolanic-aggregate mixture). Report Number: BRE-68 Subject/IMS Table: Potential unrecorded
maintenance or rehabilitation. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The following sections appear to have had an unrecorded maintenance or rehabilitation activity based on the International Roughness Index (IRI) data: 041017, 041018, 161009, 175453, 201009, 251003, 271016, 271018, 271019, 271028, 421605 and 562019. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Appropriate actions have been taken by the regional Offices to correct this situation. The North Central office has updated the EXPERIMENT SECTION and RHB_IMP tables with the ACOL information for 175453, 201009, 271016, 271018, and 271028. We have requested and received rehabilitation data for all of these sections. Currently, we are negotiating with MN DOT about whether to reinstate section 271019 after an AC overlay. We will update the regional IMS and solicit the necessary information when the status of this section is finalized. Report Number: BRE-69 Subject/IMS Table: Appropriate actions have
been taken by the regions to correct this
situation. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: It appears that the CN_ASSIGN_DATE for CEN 2 on section 068149 was set too late. The last International Roughness Index (IRI) value of CEN 1 appears like it should belong with CEN 2. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Western Regional Office has submitted an IMS form 1 to correct this situation. Report Number: BRE-70 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect CN_ASSIGN_DATE
for CEN 2 on section 081047. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: It appears that the CN_ASSIGN_DATE for CEN 2 on section 081047 was set to late. The last few International Roughness Index (IRI) values on CEN 1 appear to belong with CEN 2. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The existing date of 10/1/92 for CN2 is correct. Perhaps an old version of the experiment section was used as the October date was established in May of 1999. Report Number: BRE-72 Subject/IMS Table: Addition of maintenance and
rehabilitation work codes to Table A.17 in the data collection
guide. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The maintenance and rehabilitation work codes do not include a code for micro-surfacing. This is a fairly common practice. Five sections in the database have received a micro-surface seal. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should consider adding this to the Work Codes for maintenance and rehabilitation. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data review has been completed and actions have been taken to resolve the issues. Report Number: BRE-75 Subject/IMS Table: Sections with discrepancy
between performance, and maintenance and rehabilitation
histories. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP data analysis project identified test sections with type 1 anomalies. These are sections with recorded maintenance and rehabilitation(s) activities but a performance history that does not reflect the expected change in performance due to the treatment(s). Sections were listed separately for each surface type/region combination. The Regional Offices should check and correct as needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The test sections identified with type 1 anomalies have been reviewed and corrections made where warranted. Report Number: BRE-76 Subject/IMS Table: Sections with significant
performance change and no corresponding maintenance and
rehabilitation records. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP data analysis project identified test sections with type 2 anomalies. These are sections with a significant change in performance history but no recorded maintenance and rehabilitation(s) activities within the appropriate time frame to explain the change. Sections were listed separately for each surface type/region combination. The Regional Offices should check and correct as needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been corrected in the database where warranted for the Southern, Western, North Central and North Atlantic Regions. Report Number: BRE-77 Subject/IMS Table: SPS-3 and SPS-4 sections
without maintenance records corresponding to their designated
treatments. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP data analysis project identified SPS-3 and SPS-4 test sections that had no recorded maintenance and rehabilitation activities corresponding to their assigned maintenance activity. These sections were listed separately for each experiment/region combination. The Regional Offices should check and correct as needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been corrected in the database where warranted for the Southern, Western, North Central and North Atlantic Regions. Report Number: BRE-78 Subject/IMS Table: Sections with surveys and
maintenance and rehabilitation treatments placed on inappropriate
surfaces LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP data analysis project identified test sections with surveys and treatments recorded for inappropriate surfaces (hot-mix asphalt (HMA) surveys recorded for jointed concrete pavement (JCP) sections and JCP treatments recorded for a CRCP section). The Regional Offices should check list and correct as needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices have resolved the anomalies on their test sections. Report Number: BRE-79 Subject/IMS Table: Rehabilitation experiments
sections with no recorded rehabilitation in the
IMS LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The LTPP data analysis project identified test sections corresponding to rehabilitation experiments with no rehabilitation records identified. These were are listed by region. The Regional Offices should check and correct as needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A freeze on the Maintenance and rehabilitation tables in IMS has prevented the updating of the tables with additional data at this time. We expect to be able to place the new information in the IMS in mid-December 2000. Report Number: BRE-96 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data for GPS and
SPS sections LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Feedback report withdrawn. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Feedback report withdrawn. Report Number: BRE-97 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data for GPS and
SPS sections LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Feedback report lists material testing data that we are unable to locate in the database. The data is to be used for the model calibration for the 2002 Design Guide. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Where possible the data was furnished. Other missing data was requested from the States. Report Number: CAR-3 Subject/IMS Table: Unit discrepancy in L05A
(subgrade layer only). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Instructions for completing form L05A clearly indicate that a finite layer thickness is to be recorded to the nearest foot for subgrade layers when boring data indicate the presence of bedrock near the surface, whereas all other layers are entered in inches. While the data for subgrade thickness have been entered in feet, the data dictionary indicates that the units are inches, and makes no reference to a deviation from this for the subgrade. The TSSC should query the IMS for all sections having a finite subgrade thickness and correct this discrepancy. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The correct units for a finite subgrade is inches. The IMS was queried and a listing of sections needing conversion of subgrade thicknesses from feet to inches was generated. The corrections have been made. Report Number: CAR-5 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent data
collection dates. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Table MON_DEFL_DROP_DATA has data for site 091803 with a TEST_DATE of 3/15/95, whereas table SMP_WATERTAB_DEPTH_MAN has data for the same site dated 3/14/95. It seems reasonable to assume that these data were really obtained on the same date. The Regional Office should check and correct as appropriate. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The date in the Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) table is incorrect. It should be 3/14/95. The data has been corrected in the database. Report Number: CAR-11 Subject/IMS Table: Poor table
descriptions LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The schema table descriptions for most of the distress tables (e.g., MON_DIS_AC_REV, MON_DIS_CRCP_REV, MON_DIS_JPCC_REV, MON_DIS_PADIAS_AC, MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRC, MON_DIS_PADIAS_JC, MON_DIS_PADIAS_MAP, etc.) need to be revised to more fully describe the data in each table, and (perhaps most importantly) give some clues as to how they differ from each other. The TSSC should review and revise as appropriate. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The schema table descriptions have been revised to more fully describe the data in each table. Report Number: CAR-20 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect Table Description
for MON_T_PROF_PROFILE LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report suggests the need for a revised table definition for MON_T_PROF_PROFILE. According to CAR-20, the description indicates that the table contains transverse profile data for asphalt concrete (AC) surfaces, even though it contains data for concrete pavements as well. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The current table description for MON_T_PROF_PROFILE is as follows: "Transverse pavement surface profile measurements. The elevation points Y* are normalized to the lane edges." Report Number: EBA-1 Subject/IMS Table: Records in the
MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRC table have CONSTRUCTION_NO (CN) =
0. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Seven Records in MON_DIS_PADIAS_CRC have a value of zero for the CONSTRUCTION_NO (CN). None of them are currently releasable. These are old data loaded in 1993 and 1995. This problem is thought to be either a function of CN_ASSIGN which may have entered 0 if the section was not found in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table or a filter problem. A Software Problem Report (SPR) on CN_ASSIGN has been submitted to look at the program's response for records not in EXS. Running CN_ASSIGN before QC after metrication will take care of these specific records. If it is a filter problem, it is a non-issue since no more data will be filtered into the Round 1 and 2 tables. It is not known, however, how many other data records may be affected by this problem or if they are why the condition exists. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Run CN_ASSIGN for tables/modules with CN values prior to the 3/31/1999 upload and include instructions to run CN_ASSIGN with every upload until further notice. An IMS directive should be developed on all routine processing that must occur for every upload. Report Number: EBA-2 Subject/IMS Table: Data for supplemental
records at RECORD_STATUS = E. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records (over 800) for supplemental sections are at RECORD_STATUS (RS) = E in the various MON_DIS tables. The problem is worst (800) in the manual distress tables for data through 1997. A few records in the Round 1 and 2 tables will be corrected during metrication. Nearly 2 dozen are present in the PADIAS 4.2 tables loaded in early 1998. LTPP policy is that supplemental records will not be processed through QC. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The source of the problem is that early QC programs did not exclude the SPS supplemental sections. The Regional Offices would execute the QC, which often resulted in Software Problem Reports (SPRs) to remove the checks for supplemental sections. We believe all the QC has since been changed; however, there was never a directive to set the RECORD_STATUS of those sections back to 'A'. Report Number: EBA-5 Subject/IMS Table: Change of survey type
without CN=2 record in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several sections have distress records for two different survey types without a record for CN=2 in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. The following test sections are involved: 104002, 2909xx, 295473, 0106xx, 2909xx. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office received the missing rehabilitation data for section 104002 and has corrected the database. The Southern Regional Office has also corrected the database for section 0106xx. Report Number: EBA-6 Subject/IMS Table: Performance data dated
after section out-of-study date in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A handful of sections have distress records with survey dates after the section is listed as out-of-study in Experiment Section (EXS). Due to the lag between field operations, scheduling, and submission of Form 1s, some entry of clearly useless data is going to occur. To date there is no policy for post study data nor a process for purging the system of such information. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Recently, the warrants for the assignment of a new construction number (CN) have been revised. With this revision, the CN assignments for all sections from their inception is in the process of being updated, which should resolve some of the inconsistencies reported in Feedback report EBA-6. Data has been corrected in database where warranted. Report Number: EBA-9 Subject/IMS Table: Entries for linked records
or missing 0*01 entries in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: SPS sections 010501, 120501, 220701, and 240901, in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table, have no distress data. From the available information it cannot be determined if any of these are linked sections. Review of other linked sections in an old copy of SPS_GPS_LINK shows that the linked section SHRP_ID for the SPS equivalent may or may not show up in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Sections 307066 and 481069 are linked to SPS-5 projects without 0501 entries. Similarly 063005 is linked to an SPS-6 project without and 0601 entry. However, 242805 is linked to an SPS-9 which does have an 0901 section. Two other potential linked sections which lack 0901 entries in Experiment section (EXS) are 040900 and 280900. As they also have no distress records, this is not an issue. The question to be resolved is where should the SPS SHRP_ID value of a linked section appear and how can the database be reviewed for consistency with the policy/guidelines. The impact of this on data extraction is unknown. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Of the four 0*01 sections in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table identified as having no distress information, only one is currently present in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. There are no entries for 010501, 120501, or 220701 – only 240901 has an entry at this time. All of these projects other than 120500 currently have an entry in SPS_GPS_LINK. We have come to the conclusion that a new table needs to be created in the IMS in order to link SPS projects co-located at a site. Report Number: EBA-10 Subject/IMS Table: CN_ASSIGN intervals for
SPS-5 and -6 projects. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: At a late summer meeting the Regional Offices were instructed to fill in CN=1 CN_ASSIGN values with 1-Jan-87. The result is that several projections have 7 to 10 year intervals between CN=1 CN_ASSIGN and CN=2 CN_ASSIGN. [0509xx - Nov 96; 05A6xx - Dec 96; 1205xx - Oct 95; 4005xx - Jul 97; 4706xx - Jun 96]. For this type of study, is the interval and its implication on the amount of pre-rehabilitation data available appropriate or should the Regional Offices be asked to modify the Experiment section (EXS) table again? Determine if the instructions on setting CN_ASSIGN for CN=1 for SPS-5 and -6 sections are appropriate. If not indicate a course of action to make the modification and provide appropriate dates for a Form 1. Resolution of Problem/Situation: No action required. Instructions are appropriate. Report Number: EBA-12 Subject/IMS Table: Incomplete changes to the
EXPERIMENT_SECTION table via the Form 1
process. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Problems with the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table were found on a number of sections for the period of April through November 1998 as well as a few prior unresolved items. A problem which is likely to be associated with the sheer volume of requests is the transposition of month and day values in the dates for Standard Query Language (SQL) scripts provided by the TSSC (A Western Region peculiarity.) The other issues are changes requested for sections which are not in EXS, project records not marked out-of-study although all section records are so marked. 1) Have the Regional Offices resubmit the necessary Form 1s to the TSSC or indicate which submissions were wrong. 2) Have the TSSC investigate the QC problem affecting 469106. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The specific problems assigned to the TSSC involve section 469106. The report identifies two quality assurance (QA) related problems with this section: different ASSIGN_DATE for different construction numbers in the same experiment, and different record status for these two construction numbers. Upon investigation, it was determined that the TSSC assigned problems reported in Feedback Report EBA-12 are no longer present in the database (release 10.4). Additionally, section 25 of the July 99 IMS QC document appears to have provisions to prevent both problems. The Regional Offices have corrected specific problems. Report Number: EOL-3 Subject/IMS Table: Manual and infrared (IR)
temperature errors or anomalies in the Southern
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There were a number of manual and IR temperature data errors or status questions in the Southern Region. 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 285 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 Regional Office cannot determine the correct input values; or, enter the correct values if the Regional Office can identify these through their office 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: Appropriate corrections to the manual and IR temperature data errors or status questions in the Southern region have been made. These corrections were made prior to the release of DataPave 3.0. Report Number: EOL-4 Subject/IMS Table: Manual and IR temperature
errors or anomalies in the North Atlantic
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There were a number of manual and IR temperature data errors or status questions in the North Atlantic Region. 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 "R4TERROR" was provided with this list. Either delete or accept each identified incorrect or questionable temperature data element in IMS if the Regional Office cannot determine the correct input values; or, enter the correct values if the Regional Office can identify these through their LTPP office 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: Resolved. Data has been corrected or removed from the data base. Report Number: ERES-BW-5 Subject/IMS Table: The INV_AGE table has
inconsistent construction dates. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The INV_AGE table contains data about the construction date of GPS sections. The dates in this field appear to be inconsistent in what they represent, especially when compared to the CN-ASSIGN_DATE table. The definition of construction date in the schema is the date of latest (re)construction. The CN_ASSIGN_DATE is vaguely defined with the following meanings: the date the construction event was assigned, the date the section is chosen for the LTPP studies, or the date the layer structure is changed. There appears to be inconsistency in CONSTRUCTION_DATE and CN_ASSIGN_DATE. Between the two variables, the analyst may not be clear of when the pavement was overlaid. Recommended Action: Clarify the definitions of the variables. Instead of having 3 possible definitions of one variable, make three variables, each having one definition. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This report reflects a misinterpretation of information. First, the CONSTRUCTION_DATE applies only to new or reconstruction. Rehabilitation (e.g. overlay) does not qualify as new or reconstruction. The date of overlay is found in the rehabilitation table. Second, there are not three definitions of CN_ASSIGN_DATE, there is one definition (the date the construction event number was assigned), with two cases. In case 1 (which applies to the inventory data, or data corresponding to CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1), it is the date the section was chosen for LTPP, and thus has nothing to do with actual construction dates. In case 2 (which applies to construction done after the section was part of the LTPP experiments), it is the date the layer structure changed. We will consider adding a clarifying note to the definition of CONSTRUCTION_DATE, to make it clear that it DOES NOT refer to the date of overlay construction. We will also consider revising the definition of CN-ASSIGN_DATE to replace "For inventory ..." with "Where the construction number is 1..." Report Number: ERES-BW-8 Subject/IMS Table: Incorporation of
measurement unit in the schema
document LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the January 1997 meeting of the LTPP database coordinators, it was requested that the measurement units for the appropriate data items be included within the schema document. Currently, one has to refer to the data dictionary (a very unwieldy document). The inclusion of the measurement unit in the schema document will be very efficient and will eliminate a major nuisance factor for LTPP data users. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-14 Subject/IMS Table: Section 460804 is not
designated as a SMP site in the Experiment_Section
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: SMP site 460804 (South Dakota) is not marked as an SMP site in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Check the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table for SEAS_ID column. Resolution of Problem/Situation: IMS form 1 submitted to correct this situation. Report Number: ERES-BW-15 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect installation date
for section 404165. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR) installation date for site 404165 was off by one month (should have been 3/29/94). This was corrected in the main file some time back, but not in the associated files that access the main file (the date is entered once, but is copied numerous times to other tables by the software). Resolution of Problem/Situation: All associated file have now been corrected. Report Number: ERES-BW-26 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent use of
character and numeric fields for
codes. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In the "Section Presentation" module, some fields contain Code in numbers (numeric) which need to be converted back to its code descriptions. However, in the master CodeList table, the field VarCode which contains all the code values is in character type, while the fields with code values in many IMS tables are in numeric type. This structure is not consistent and poses a problem when joining the tables with the CodeList table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Codes are by definition character fields with alpha codes being the exception rather than the rule. The entire data base is structured that way. Correcting this problem would require major changes to the IMS, which cannot be accommodated. Report Number: ERES-BW-27 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies in codes
between the Data Dictionary and the
Codelist LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Using DataPave97, a comparison was made of the code entries in the Codelist table and entries in the Dictionary field, which indicate that the corresponding field has code values as its content. One would expect the two entries to be identical. However, some fields shown to have code in the Dictionary were not found in the Codelist table. This poses a problem with IMS users who look for code description of these fields. Compare the above mentioned two entries and resolve the difference. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not all codes appear in the codes list. Some short ones are only found in the data dictionary. This problem will be addressed as resources permit. The data dictionary is scheduled to be revised in 2001. Report Number: ERES-BW-28 Subject/IMS Table: Lack of clarity as to
"warrants" for entry of CN 2 and 3. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A better system to clarify the CN 2 and 3 is needed. It is not readily apparent as to what has been done at a section to result in a CN 2 or 3. While some sections are migrated to GPS-6B and GPS-7B, etc, there are a large number of incidences where that is not the case. CN 2 or 3 may have been applied for a variety of reasons - seal coat, maintenance activity, resurfacing, shoulder treatment, etc. However, the user is required to review several tables, some possibly incomplete, to determine the specifics of the CN change. This is not fruitful in all cases. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A CN changes with an activity that changes the pavement surface. Those that have no impact on structure (fog coats and slurry seals being two examples) will leave a project in the same experiment. Anything that results in a change of experiment is rehabilitation. Refer to 'EXPERIMENT_SECTION Change Requests' directive I-53 and I-54. Report Number: ERES-BW-33 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data in the
SPS_GENERAL table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Information useful for faulting analysis (i.e., drainage information, lane width, shoulder surface type) is missing from the SPS_GENERAL table with file extension X02. Contact the States to collect the design or as-built information for the section with missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All of the missing information has been collected and entered into the database. Report Number: ERES-BW-34 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data in the SPS_ID
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Information useful for faulting analysis (Construction completion date and date opened to traffic) is missing from the SPS_ID table with file extension X01. Contact the States to collect the design or as-built information for the section with missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: North Central Regional Office has edited the SPS_ID table to ensure that DATE_COMPLETE and TRAFFIC_OPEN_DATE are present for all sites. The DATE_COMPLETE for 190100 and 380200 are 11/92 and 10/94, respectively. The TRAFFIC_OPEN_DATE for 190100 and 380200 are 6/93 and 11/94, respectively. The SPS-6 sections identified are not required to be in the SPS_ID table. However, their TRAFFIC_OPEN_DATES can be found in INV_AGE, and their rehabilitation completion dates can be found in SPS6_PMA_CONSTRUCTION. No further action appears necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-35 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data in the
INV_PCC_JOINT table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Information useful for faulting analysis (i.e., spacing, skewness, dowel diameter, dowel distance, dowel coating, etc.) is missing from the INV_PCC_JOINT table with file extension I06. Recommend that the Regional Offices contact the States to collect the design or as-built information for the section with missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Much of the information has been collected and entered into the database. Some is simply not available. This is a data resolution issue. Report Number: ERES-BW-36 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data in the
INV_GENERAL table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Information useful for faulting analysis (lane width) is missing from the INV_GENERAL table with file extension I01. Recommend Regional Offices contact the States to collect the design or as-built information for the section with missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The INV_GENERAL table has been updated with the 14-ft lane width of section 273009. Report Number: ERES-BW-37 Subject/IMS Table: Missing data in the
INV_PCC_STEEL table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The following information needed for faulting analysis at crack locations in jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) is missing from the INV_PCC_STEEL table with file extension I07: Reinforcing bar type, bar diameter, percent steel, depth to reinforcement, reinforcement bar yield strength. Contact the States to collect the design or as-built information for the section with missing data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional offices have repeatedly contacted the Agencies listed in this feedback report and have received 77% of the missing data elements. Data sheets and the IMS database have been updated with this new information. Agencies with the outstanding data elements have been contacted repeatedly and have not been able to provide the data. As a result, the remaining elements are considered unavailable and are not expected to be received by LTPP. No further action is anticipated. Report Number: ERES-BW-39 Subject/IMS Table: Out-of-study status
recommended for section LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 553009 has surface layer milled (0.38 inch) in 1995. Due to the change in surface condition, joint faulting data collected for this section after 1995 will not be useful for joint faulting study of the original surface. This section no longer needs to be monitored as it become a case study. This is being sent for information only. Resolution of Problem/Situation: No action required. Report Number: ERES-BW-51 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent data in the
INV_PCC_STEEL. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The table INV_PCC_STEEL contains inconsistencies between DESIGN_%_LONG_STEEL values and values computed using the BAR_DIAMETER and LONG_BAR_SPACING and slab thickness (from TST_L05B). In the table provided, the column shows the differences in the design and computed percent steel. Any difference greater than 0.05 or lower than -0.05 should be investigated. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report has been resolved as recommended. Some values were found to be correct as stated in the IMS. Where necessary the data has been corrected. Report Number: ERES-BW-71 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent lane width
data between Iowa and Michigan SPS-2 Construction report and IMS
database. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Alabama (01) and Arkansas (05) are missing layer thicknesses for the SPS-6 sites. Determine the thickness and add to the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The correct lane widths are: 190216 – 14 ft, 190219 – 12 ft, 260220 – 14 ft. The database has been corrected to reflect this. Report Number: ERES-BW-74 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect county
codes. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In DataPave, the counties for SPS-6 in Arkansas, Indiana, and Missouri are listed as Crittenden, Porter, and Jefferson, respectively. On a highway map it appears that these sections are located in Jefferson, Marshall, and Harrison counties. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have corrected the county codes for the SPS-6 sites. No further action is planned. Report Number: ERES-BW-77 Subject/IMS Table: Section
420659 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Should there be any data in the database for section 420659? It appears that this section was renamed as section 420662. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Section 420659 was formerly 421990. Initial recruitment guidelines of SPS sections required that a GPS section be nearby. If one was not near an auxiliary GPS could be created. After the guidelines changed, GPS sections were renamed *59 sections. The new SPS guidelines required all supplemental sections to be renamed starting at *59. Thus Section 420612 was renamed 420662. This information is in the SPS-6 construction report. Report Number: ERES-BW-79 Subject/IMS Table: Limited rehabilitation
information for SPS-6. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There is very little rehabilitation information about the SPS-6 sections. Based on the performance data, it seems that some rehabilitation activities have occurred since the initial rehabilitation. If additional rehabilitation has been conducted on these sections, this information should be added to the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report involves a routine ongoing activity. No additional action is necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-80 Subject/IMS Table: Missing rehabilitation
dates. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are missing initial rehabilitation dates for SPS-6 sites in California (06), Michigan (26), and Pennsylvania (42). Resolution of Problem/Situation: All missing dates have been entered into the IMS where required. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-96 Subject/IMS Table: Missing supplemental
sections in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In IMS version 2.9, release 11.0, sections 280959 and 350959 contain records in tables TST_L05A and TST_L05B. However, these sections are not present in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-97 Subject/IMS Table: Supplemental sections
classified as regular sections. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In IMS version 2.9, release 11.0, supplemental sections were erroneously classified as regular LTPP sections in the EXPERIMENT_SECTION table: 406**3 (10 Records), 4A4**2 (Many records), 6A4**2 (Several records), 6B4**2 (Several records), 805593, 805603, 8A4**-2 (Several records), 32A4**2 (Several records). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Problem was due to a data extraction error and not an IMS problem. No action is necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-98 Subject/IMS Table: Records of supplemental
sections at Level E in the RHB_LAYER
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In IMS version 2.9, release 11.0, the RECORD_STATUS in table RHB_LAYER is at Level E for 89 records belonging to the following 12 supplemental sections: 0405592, 0405602, 0405612, 0405622, 0405642, 0405652, 0405662, 0405672, 0405682, 0405692, 805592, 805602. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Problem was due to a data extraction error and not an IMS problem. No action is necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-105 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent layer type
information in tables TST_L05B and
TST_L05A. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing layer structure related tables using IMS version 2.9, release 11.0 received on February 1, 2001, the DATS team discovered that the following four pavement structures contain inconsistent layer descriptions between TST_L05B and TST_L05A: Section 35-1002, CN = 2, Layer_NO = 9 (Description = 9 in table TST_L05B but Description = 2 in table TST_L05A), Section 48-1119, CN = 2, Layer_NO = 5 (Description = 8 in table TST_L05B but Description = 2 in table TST_L05A), Section 48-1119, CN = 2, Layer_NO = 7 (Description = 8 in table TST_L05B but Description = 2 in table TST_L05A), Section 18-2008, CN = 1, Layer_NO = 4 (Description = 4 in table TST_L05B but Description = 3 in table TST_L05A). Resolution of Problem/Situation: The descriptions were corrected as necessary to make sure that they were the same between the L05A's and L05B's. Report Number: ERES-BW-106 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent layer type
information in tables TST_L05B and
TST_L05A. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing layer structure related tables using IMS version 2.9, release 11.0 received on February 1, 2001, the DATS team found quite a few pavement structures (Unique combination of State_Code, SHRP_ID, and CN) containing different layer type codes between tables TST_L05B and TST_L05A. A summary of these pavement structures was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A review of the materials data for the noted discrepancies concluded that the values for these discrepancies should be modified. The TST_L05A and TST_L05B tables have been updated. Report Number: ERES-BW-122 Subject/IMS Table: Monitoring Data for Ohio
SPS-8 asphalt concrete (AC) after they went out of study
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report identifies several tables with data for two sections collected after the out of study dates for those sections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This after out of study data, as well as that for many other sections, was identified by the Technical Services Support Contractor during data analysis activities prior to DataPave 3.0, and has subsequently been removed from the database. Report Number: Lendis-21 Subject/IMS Table: Missing SPS information in SPS_GENERAL, SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES Module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of SPS section lane widths in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing information in SPS_GENERAL , SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES Module. Information is missing for the following SPS projects: 120900, 180900, 190100, 240900, 260100, 270900, 460800, 550200, 550900, 55A900 and 55B900. Information is also missing for the following test sections: 190259, 310113, 310114, 310116, 310117, 310118, 310119, 390159 and 390264. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: Lendis-22 Subject/IMS Table: Missing SPS-4 Information in SPS_CONTROL_GENERAL: Table, SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES Module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During the course of a review of SPS section lane widths in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing information in the SPS-4_CONTROL_GENERAL: Table, SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES Module. Information is missing for the following SPS-4 projects: 06A400, 06B400, 08A400, 19A400, 19B400, 20B400, 29A400, 29B400, 32B400, 42A400, 42C400, 46A400, 48A400, 48B400, 48C400, 48D400 and 48E400. There are multiple entries for the control section on project 21A400 with most of the fields left blank. These should be checked. Also there are entries for test sections 18A410, 49D431, 49E431, 49E458 and 49E460. Are these control sections? Also the test section lengths in the SPS-4_CONTROL_GENERAL table for sections 39B430 (580' or 177 m) and 49E431 (550' or 168 m) does not match the information in the SPS_PROJECT_STATIONS table (153 m and 152 m). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: Lendis-23 Subject/IMS Table: Missing SPS-4 Information in INV_GENERAL: Table, INVENTORY Module and the SPS_GENERAL: Table, SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES Module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The INV_GENERAL table has general information on GPS and SPS-5, 6, 7 and 9 projects. During the course of a review of SPS section lane widths in Standard Data Release 20.0, we discovered apparent missing information in the INV_GENERAL: Table, INVENTORY Module. Information is missing for the following SPS-9 projects: 04A900, 04B900, 200900, 3000900, 310900, 390900, 480900, 48A900, 55C900, 81A900, 890900 and 89A9000. There are entries in the SPS_GENERAL table, SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES module, for test sections in all of these SPS projects except 48A900. Also there is no information in SPS_GENERAL for SPS project 460800. There are entries for 08A400 and 32B400 in the INV_GENERAL table. Should this information be in the SPECIFIC_PAVEMENT_STUDIES module with the other SPS-4 information? Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: NAR-1 Subject/IMS Table: Correction of Thermistor lengths
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation:For the 13" stainless steel probes the location of the tip and end of probe below surface is entered and the locations of the thermistors within the bound surface layer is calculated. For the 'piglet' style probes there needs to be the option in the project header input screen to enter the depth from surface for probes 1 to 3. For the NRs the project header was not updated at the time of installing the 'piglet' style probes and currently carries the information that was in the file for the 13" stainless probe Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: NC-6 Subject/IMS Table: Possible unrecorded
rehabilitation or maintenance, subsectioning
errors. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Review of SPS profiles in the IMS indicates that rehabilitation and maintenance for several test sections may not have been recorded. In addition, a few profiles appear to have been tested or subsectioned in the wrong locations. Further regional review is necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices made corrections where necessary. Report Number: NCE-1 Subject/IMS Table: Missing projects in the
CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK table LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The following projects have not been assigned a VWS_ID in the CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK table; 060800, 06A800, 290900, 300900, 481061, 89A900 & 901802. This list was generated from data available in Data Release 17.0. When the CLM module is updated, the CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK table should be modified to include these projects. In addition, virtual weather station data for these projects should be generated and added to the appropriate tables in the CLM module. Resolution of Problem/Situation: It was found that entries in the CLM_SITE_VWS_LINK table were missing for these sites, however, in all cases these sites could be linked to an existing virtual weather station. The following entries were added to the table and included in the July 2004 data release: 06_0800, VWS_ID=060200; 06_A800, VWD_ID=060200; 29_0900, VWS_ID=297073; 30_0900, VWS_ID=300100; 48_1061, VWS_ID=483875;89_A900, VWS_ID=890900; 90_1802, VWS_ID=385002. Report Number: TSSC-20 Subject/IMS Table: Illogical and suspect data
relationships for GPS sections. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In an attached memorandum, GPS test sections with illogical or suspect relationships between key dates are identified. Key dates are defined in the memorandum and include construction date(s) and date opened to traffic. Some of these discrepancies must be corrected in order to make the test sections of use in the simplest of pavement performance analysis. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: TSSC-25 Subject/IMS Table: Date relationships and
other checks on SPS
projects/sections. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: As noted under action item 18 from the January 2000 regional offices meeting held in Washington D.C., the attached memorandum addresses date conflicts found in the IMS for SPS test sections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Full resolution pending. Report Number: TSSC-28 Subject/IMS Table: Review of TST_L05A and
TST_L05B for confirmation with Directive
IMS-72. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Many records are not in compliance with the requirements specified in the Directive IMS-72, as described below: Comment in the COMMENT_NOTE field of TST_L05B does not start with "PRELIMINARY" for records where both REPR_THICKNESS and MATL_CODE are null (Table 1); Comment in the COMMENT_NOTE field of TST_L05B starts with "PRELIMINARY" for records where both REPR_THICKNESS and MATL_CODE are non-null (Table 2); Comment in the COMMENT_NOTE field of TST_L05B starts with "PRELIMINARY" for records where either REPR_THICKNESS or MATL_CODE is non-null (Table 3); Records of IMS-72 specified fields in TST_L05A are null but matching records in the COMMENT_NOTE field of TST_L05B do not contain the word "PRELIMINARY" (Table 4). Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have corrected all divergences from the TST_L05 format provided in directive IMS-72. No further action is expected to be needed. Report Number: TSSC-29 Subject/IMS Table: Missing entry in table
SPS_GPS_LINK. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: According to the Project Deviation Report for project 120500, GPS section 121030 was used as the control section on project 120500. This type of relationship between projects warrants an entry in SPS_GPS_LINK for SPS project 120500 and GPS project 121030. Currently, there is no such entry in SPS_GPS_LINK. Resolution of Problem/Situation: SPS_GPS_LINK updated as requested. Report Number: TSSC-30 Subject/IMS Table: Unmatched records found in the TST_L05A, TST_L05B, and EXPERIMENT_SECTION tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In review of the information for the referenced tables, it was found that many records exist in one table but matching records do not exist in a related table, as described below: Records exist in TST_L05A but matching records do not exist in TST_L05B (Table 1); Records exist in TST_L05B but matching records do not exist in TST_L05A (Table 2); Records exist in TST_L05A but matching records do not exist in EXPERIMENT_SECTION (Table 3); Records exist in TST_L05B but matching records do not exist in EXPERIMENT_SECTION (Table 4). Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices corrected all noted discrepancies in the L05 submissions for the CN change in September-October 2000. We consider this feedback report completed. Report Number: TSSC-31 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent route numbers for SPS-3 sites in INV_ID. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of SPS-3 INV data, it was found that for some sections, the given route number did not match the assigned coordinates. The Regional offices should investigate the locations provided of these sections to determine the correct route number and coordinates, and make changes as necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: ROUTE_SIGNING and ROUTE_NO has been changed as necessary in INV_ID. This feedback report has been resolved as recommended. Report Number: TSSC-44 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent INV, SPS, and
TRF dates LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The Technical Support Services contractor discovered several date inconsistencies between the dates in the INV, TRF, and SPS tables. Two EXCEL spreadsheets – GPS Date Check.xls and SPS Date Check.xls - contain the details of those records with these inconsistencies. The highlighted records in these spreadsheets are those records that have previously been identified as having similar date inconsistencies. The Regional offices should investigate the date inconsistencies and make any necessary changes. In the event that the dates are correct, a comment should be placed in COMMENTS_GENERAL to indicate the anomaly. Resolution of Problem/Situation: As per the recommended action of the Technical Support Services Contractor, the Regional offices have investigated the inconsistencies listed in the feedback report. The Regional offices made corrective actions as necessary, as well as providing comments detailing the specific records in question. Report Number: TSSC-45 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies in RHB and
MNT tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Recently the Technical Support Services contractor discovered several inconsistencies between the records in RHB_IMP and MNT_IMP and the other RHB_* and MNT_* tables, as well as EXPERIMENT_SECTION. The inconsistent records were included in an attached Excel Workbook (MNT_RHB_mismatch.xls) that contains five worksheets. Resolution of Problem/Situation: As outlined in the feedback report, the Regional offices investigated all RHB and MNT inconsistencies reported in the feedback report. Comments were provided on specific actions taken for each issue. Some changes in the RHB_IMP or MNT_IMP tables required modification of the EXPERIMENT_SECTION and/or TST_LO5* tables to maintain consistency. These changes were also noted. All changes were made before the December 2003 upload. Report Number: TSSC-46 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies in
TST_AE02 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are several inconsistencies in the population of the TST_AE02 table regarding the values for PENETRATION_77_F, PENETRATION_115_F, and PENETRATION_INDEX. The inconsistent records were included in an Excel Workbook (TSSC_46_attach.xls) that contains four worksheets. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Per the recommended action of the Technical Support Services Contractor, the Regional offices investigated the problems listed in the feedback report. Corrective actions as well as comments detailing with a specific record was provided. All corrections have been made in the RIMS database. Report Number: TSSC-62 Subject/IMS Table: INV_MAJOR_IMP for section
069048 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There is no data available indicating the timing of the placement of the overlay on section 069048. This section is in experiment GPS-9 and has been since its inclusion in the LTPP program. Therefore, a record should exist in the INV_MAJOR_IMP table for this test section, but does not. Additionally, there is no information in the COMMENTS_GENERAL table providing information about the placement of the overlay, nor is there any information in the RHB_IMP. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional office found 2 records existing in INV_MAJOR_IMP (MAJOR_IMP_TYPE=28 and 20). The MAJOR_IMP_YEAR for these records was previously entered as "70" and has been changed to "1970". The Regional office verified that no records existed in RHB_IMP for the test section. Data from the PCC overlay work that was performed before LTPP monitoring is captured in the INV tables and is not necessary in the RHB tables. Slab replacement activities took place on April 2001 (indicated in EXPERIMENT_SECTION, CN=2). As this type of work is considered a maintenance activity, an entry is required in MNT_IMP and not RHB_IMP. Report Number: TSSC-68 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory Data - Table
INV_AGE and INV_ID LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The feedback report contains a list of 38 records from INV_AGE which has the TRAFFIC_OPEN_DATE occurring over one year after the CONSTRUCTION_DATE. Especially note section 421613 with a span of 23 years between the dates and section 276064 with a span of almost 12 years. There are no GENERAL_COMMENTS in COMMENTS_ GENERAL for this situation. In INV_ID, section 175423 does not have DIRECTION_OF_TRAVEL populated. This item is needed to obtain correct traffic data and for others to correctly locate the section. SPS project 010600 does not have a COLLECT_DATE. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Contact was made with the agencies to verify dates, and changes were made in the RIMS based on the answers received. Report Number: TSSC-69 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory Data -
INV_GENERAL LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report contains a list of 15 records with RECORD_STATUS=A and 6 records with RECORD_STATUS= B. All 21 records are SPS projects except one, which is a SPS section (310115). All of these records are from the North Central (2) Region. These records are failing QC since they do not have entries for NO_OF_LANES, PAVEMENT_TYPE or LANE_WIDTH. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional office has reviewed the data and has the made the necessary corrections to the database. Most of the records were deleted from INV_GENERAL – Record and placed in the SPS_GENERAL where they belong. Report Number: TSSC-70 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory Data -
INV_PCC_STEEL LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The feedback report contains a list of 10 records that are at RECORD_STATUS = C, for no apparent reason. It has two records (376300 and 547008) that are at RECORD_STATUS = E, but they have no data except for the key fields. It has one record, 395003, that has 0.96% DESIGN_PERCENT_LONG_STEEL, which appears to be too high (> 0.9%). All of these records are from the North Central (2) Region. Resolution of Problem/Situation: All the necessary changes have been made to the database. The North Central Regional office considers this Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report to be closed. Report Number: TSSC-77 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies in the MON_DEFL_RGD_BAKCAL tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A large number of records in MON_DEFL_RGD_BAKCAL_BASIN (27,000+) are failing the new Level E checks requiring a match in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO. Most of the failures are due to a mismatch in POINT_LOC. It appears that the metric conversion in each of these tables was done slightly differently, such that a difference of 0.1 meters is present for about 26,000 BASIN records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-78 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies between test date and sampling date in TST LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: A number of records in various TST tables have testing dates that precede the sampling date for the tested sample. Some of the problems are obviously the result of typographical or data entry errors, allowing for easy resolution. For most of the records, this is not the case, and the data in question will need to be investigated to determine the appropriate date(s) to change to resolve the inconsistency. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-81 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate entries in INV_MAJOR_IMP and RHB_IMP LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table lists records in INV_MAJOR_IMP, with MAJOR_IMP_YEAR greater than 1987, which have matching records in RHB_IMP. Records in INV_MAJOR_IMP are supposed to be for events that occurred prior to LTPP monitoring which began in 1988. These records were identified in the January 2005 data release. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the LTPP Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report TSSC-81 and have deleted the records from table INV_MAJOR_IMP. Report Number: TSSC-82 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate entries in INV_MAJOR_IMP and MNT_HIST tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table lists records in INV_MAJOR_IMP, which have matching records for the same improvement type contained the MNT_HIST table. These records are for events that occurred prior to 1990. As per instructions contained in the LTPP data collection guidelines, historical maintenance data should be provided on maintenance data sheet 1. These data are loaded into the MNT_HIST table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed the LTPP Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report TSSC-82 and have deleted the records from table INV_MAJOR_IMP. Report Number: TSSC-83 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate entries in INV_MAJOR_IMP.MAJOR_IMP_TYPE_OTHER LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For section 40_4086, the record with MAJOR_IMP_TYPE=53 and MAJOR_IMP_YEAR=1989, the entry in the field MAJOR_IMP_TYPE_OTHER is “SEE PAPER.” There is no other indication of what the improvement was contained in this record. This is from the January 2005 data release. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern regional office reviewed the current INV_MAJOR_IMP data and found no instance of a MAJOR_IMP_TYPE 53 in 1989 for 404086. A review of RHB_IMP found an overlay CN event in 1989. It would appear that in cleaning up CN event issues after the January 2005 upload, the problem recognized in DAOFR TSSC-83 was addressed. Report Number: TSSC-84 Subject/IMS Table: Maintenance data in INV_MAJOR_IMP LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached Excel spreadsheet lists over 100 records in the INV_MAJOR_IMP table containing entries for maintenance events. The IMP codes contained in Table 6.1 of the LTPP Data Collection Guide were used to identify maintenance treatments. These data should be stored in either MNT_HIST or MNT_IMP tables depending on the date the activity occurred. The query was run on data contained in the January 2005 standard data release. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The records identified were investigated, and appropriately entered in either table MNT_IMP or table MNT_HIST after deletion from table INV_MAJOR_IMP. An attached Excel file documents details of the action taken in resolving the problems identified in report TSSC-84. Report Number: TSSC-86 Subject/IMS Table: Diameter of core samples in TST_SAMPLE_LOG is greater than diameter of hole in TST_HOLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached Excel spreadsheet lists 31 records from sites in the North Central and Southern regions where the diameter of a core sample in TST_SAMPLE_LOG is greater than the diameter of the core hole the sample was obtained from contained in TST_HOLE_LOG. The diameter of a core sample should never be greater than the diameter of the core hole. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The records identified in the feedback report were investigated and tables TST_HOLE_LOG and TST_SAMPLE_LOG were updated as applicable. An attached excel file indicates the changes that were made to each record identified in this report. Report Number: TSSC-87 Subject/IMS Table: Null core diameters in TST_SAMPLE_LOG and related issues LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The diameter of a core sample of bound pavement materials can be a significant consideration for interpretation of material test results. Currently there are more than 6,000 records in TST_SAMPLE_LOG in which the nominal diameter of the core specimen is null. LTPP field material sampling data forms include the nominal diameter for all core specimens. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved. Report Number: TSSC-88 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory data – Table INV_AGE and COMMENTS_GENERAL LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached Excel worksheet (INV_AGE-Check.xls) contains a list of 10 records from INV_AGE highlighted in yellow which has the TRAFFIC_OPEN_DATE occurring over one year after the CONSTRUCTION_DATE. There are no GENERAL_COMMENTS in COMMENTS_ GENERAL for this situation. All records that need comments are from the Southern Region. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern regional office reviewed the available records for the 10 test sections in question, and was able to find information that allowed a change in construction date for 3 of the sections. For the remaining seven test sections, comments were provided to indicate that this was the best information available from the state agency. The specific actions taken are documented on an attached spreadsheet. Report Number: TSSC-89 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory data – Table INV_LAYER LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached Excel worksheet (INV_LAYER-Check.xls) contains a list of three records from INV_LAYER highlighted in yellow. Two which have the LAYER_TYPE as null and one has a zero (0) MEAN_THICKNESS value for LAYER_NO=4. Two of the records are from the Southern Region and the third is from the North Central Region. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed this report and for the records listed, the LAYER_TYPE field has been changed to &qout;A&qout;. Report Number: TSSC-90 Subject/IMS Table: Inventory data – Table INV_LAYER and INV_SUBGRADE LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached Excel worksheets (INV_LAYER-Check2.xls and INV_SUBGRADE-check.xls) contains a list of three records from INV_LAYER and two records in INV_SUBGRADE highlighted in orange. The records in INV_LAYER have multiple LAYER_TYPE=G, which should not happen for GPS sections. This results in extra records (LAYER_Nos greater than 1) in INV_SUBGRADE, which should be removed (the data is different for different records, so it will need to be reviewed and correct information inserted for first LAYER_NO record.. These records are from the Western Region only. Resolution of Problem/Situation: For the GPS projects in question, the subbase layer codes were changed from G to B and the appropriate forms corresponding to LAYER_TYPE were completed. There is no information available beyond what is in INV_LAYER for LAYER_NO=2 on 562019. Report Number: TSSC-91 Subject/IMS Table: SPS sites with test sections on opposite sides of the road LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The following SPS sites have test sections at the project site located on opposite sides of the road 090900, 240900, 370900, 49C400, 49D400, 49E400 and 32A400. There is very little information contained in the database that indicates to a data user that these sites have test sections located on both sides of the road. This can cause confusion and possibly result in inappropriate interpretation of performance data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved.
|
||
|
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This page last modified on 03/22/07 |
