| |
| FHWA > Engineering > Pavements > Research > LTPP > Feedback |
Materials Feedback Report SummariesFor additional information e-mail: ltppinfo@fhwa.dot.gov. Report Number: AM-6 Subject/IMS Table: Error in recording offset
data (mixed units) in the SPS8_LAYER_THICKNESS
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The offset data seems to be recorded in mixed units (feet and inches) in SPS8_Layer_Thickness table. For some SPS sections, offsets values are recorded as 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and for others 0, 36, 72, 108 and 144. Other SPS?_Layer_Thickness tables may have also been affected. For consistency, fix the data to show offset in one unit (inches). Sections involved include 35802 and 36802. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The OFFSET values for SPS8_LAYER_THICKNESS have been corrected to show one unit (inches). Report Number: BRE-1 Subject/IMS Table: Missing materials
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Asphalt concrete (AC) grade and viscosity data are missing for sections 171002, 291005, 211034, 271028, 291029, 404164, 404165, 196150, 361008, 482133, 501681, and 892001. There is no Materials data in the IMS for sections 271003, 271004, 272017, 272018, 901802, and 906420. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Missing data has been entered into database where possible. Report Number: BRE-15 Subject/IMS Table: Material code 700 for
sections 2705XX and 8305XX. Are data valid in the TEST_L05B
tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In reviewing thickness data it was found that sections 2705ZZ and 8305XX had layer material codes of 700, indicating that the data had been manually upgraded. Some thickness data were available for most of these layers. The North Central Regional Office should review these data and determine if the thickness data are of good quality and, if so, change the material code to the appropriate value. If the data are not of good quality, the RECORD_STATUS should be set back to a more appropriate level. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has reviewed the thickness data for these test sections and has made the appropriate corrections. Report Number: BRE-27 Subject/IMS Table: Implausible layer thickness
for 3101XX sections in the L05B
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The SPS-1 project 3101XX, in Nebraska, has thickness values at level E in the data base that exactly match the experimental plan. This seems unlikely. The thickness should be checked. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been corrected as necessary. Report Number: BRE-32 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent layer
thickness data in L05A and B tables. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The L05B tables for test section 046055 are not consistent. The thickness on the L05B other than layer 2 are not in the same range as those on the L05A. The Regional Office should review and make necessary corrections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Forms L05A and B for Section 046055 are different, but both were completed according to proper LTPP procedure, with L05A matching field measurements and L05B matching the most representative section given all information. No action is necessary. Report Number: BRE-36 Subject/IMS Table: Material codes in TST_L05
and L05B for sections 3802XX and
1902XX. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Projects 3802XX and 1902XX both have material codes of 720 for the portland cement concrete (PCC) layers. It would be helpful if these were more specific. The Regional Office should review these projects and change the material codes to either jointed concrete pavement (JCP) or jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) whichever is appropriate. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has updated the TST_L05A and TST_L05B tables to include a specific JCP material code for the sections in 190200 and 380200. No additional action is believed needed. Report Number: BRE-37 Subject/IMS Table: Material codes in the
TST_L05 and L05B tables for sections
3908XX. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Project 3908XX has a subgrade material code for a layer above the subgrade. Are not the 100 and 200 level material codes to be used for layer 1 only? The Regional Office should review this project and change to material code 309 to keep it in accordance with procedures. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has reviewed the TST-L05 data for the SPS-8 in Ohio. Each section has a subgrade listed as layer 1 with material code 131. Above that is an embankment made up of the same material as the subgrade. The North Central Regional Office has listed the material code for layer 2 as 131 with a layer description as 11 (embankment). This is based on our understanding of section 3.2.2.3 of the SPS Pavement Layering Methodology, January 1994. This section recommends that the layer description for embankment (fill) be 11, and that valid material codes for embankment materials are 100 to 178 and 200-294. It is believed that this interpretation is correct and there are no plans to modify the TEST_L05 tables at this time. Report Number: BRE-38 Subject/IMS Table: Material codes in TST_L05
and L05B tables for sections 2002XX. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Project 2002XX has a material code of 360 in the TST_L05A and L05B tables. This code is not defined in the Laboratory Testing and Handling Guide. The Regional Office should review this project and assign a correct material code. Resolution of Problem/Situation: No action is required. The code is correct. Code 360 is found in Table D.4 of the guide as the code for "other" and should be specified, if possible, or identified as unknown. Report Number: BRE-58 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrectly built SPS-1
test sections in the Ohio SPS-1. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Test section 390105 shows a permeable asphalt treated base (PATB) layer where an asphalt treated base (ATB) layer should be. Sections 390110, 390111, and 390112 all show the PATB layer on top of the ATB layer. For these sections the specifications show that the ATB layer should be on top of the PATB layer. The Regional Office should review the data. There is a possibility that there was some confusion in the entry of the material codes. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has updated the TST_L05A and TST_L05B tables for sections 390105, 390110, 390111, and 390112 to correct the material codes and layer orders. No further action regarding this feedback report is expected. Report Number: BRE-59 Subject/IMS Table: Data in the TST_AC04 table
for layers that are not asphaltic. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Project 3101XX has 4 entries in the TST_AC04 table for layers that are not asphaltic. Section 310114, Layer 3, Location B52 - Material Code 303; Section 310117, Layer 3, Location B42 - Material Code 303; Section 310122, Layer 2, Location B33 - Material Code 131; and Section 310123, Layer 2, Location B32 - Material Code 131. Have the Regional Office review and correct data as necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has updated the TST_AC04 table for sections 310114, 310117, 310122, and 310123 to provide correct material and layer data. No further action regarding this feedback report is expected. Report Number: BRE-62 Subject/IMS Table: Data for soil aggregate
mixture in the SPS1_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 100104 has a record for layer 2 in SPS1_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP. The material code for this layer in the SPS1_LAYER table is 26 (Soil Aggregate Mixture). The Regional Office needs to remove record from the SPS1_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP table and re-enter for appropriate layer or correct the material code in the SPS1_LAYER table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office has deleted the asphalt placement data for section 100104 and re-entered the data using the correct layer structure. Quality control (QC) checks were run and the data are now at level E. Report Number: BRE-63 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate test data on
section 190110 in the TST_AC03
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 190110 has data in the TST_AC03 table for the same SAMPLE_NO (BT01). The LOC_NO's are different, but the MAX_SPEC_GRAVITY and the TEST_DATE are the same. It is suspected that the same data were entered twice for different LOC_NO's. If the data are truly a duplicate, the data with the incorrect LOC_NO should be deleted. If the data are not duplicates, then the SAMPLE_NO for one of the LOC_Nos should be changed to ensure differentiation between the test results. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has reviewed the AC03 laboratory test data sheets for section 190110 and determined that the record for layer 3 with a LOC_NO of B101 is a duplicate of the layer 3 record for LOC_NO B103. The B101 record has been deleted from the TST_AC03 table. Report Number: BRE-64 Subject/IMS Table: Duplicate SAMPLE_Nos on
sections 340503, -07, and -08 in the TST_AC03
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Sections 340503, -07, and -08 have data in TST_AC03 for three different locations. The SAMPLE_Nos for these locations are all the same. The locations are B4 through B15. The test results are quite different for each of these locations. The SAMPLE_Nos should be changed so that it is easier to differentiate between the results. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office has renamed all the SAMPLE_Nos from section 340500 to reflect the standard naming convention used on all SPS-5's. The IMS data in question was deleted and re-entered using the new SAMPLE_Nos. Report Number: BRE-65 Subject/IMS Table: Data for soil aggregate
mixture in the SPS1_PMA_COMPACTION
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Section 100104 has a record for layer 2 in SPS1_PMA_COMPACTION. The material code for this layer in the SPS1_LAYER table is 26 (Soil Aggregate Mixture). The Regional Office either needs to remove record from SPS1_PMA_COMPACTION and re-enter for appropriate layer as necessary or correct the material code in the SPS1_LAYER table. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office has deleted the asphalt compaction data for section 100104 and re-entered the data using the correct layer structure. QC checks were run and the data are now at level E. Report Number: BRE-66 Subject/IMS Table: Layers above layer 1 with
100 and 200 level material codes in the TST_L05B
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are a number of test sections (Iowa SPS-1, Kansas SPS-1, Louisiana SPS-1, and Nebraska SPS-1) for which the material codes recorded in the TST_L05B table are in the 100 and 200 range. These layers are all above layer 1. Only 300 level codes should be used for layers above layer 1 and below the surface layer(s). The Regional Office should review and change codes to the appropriate 300 level code. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern Regional Office has corrected the layer codes as required for project 2201 in Louisiana. Report Number: BRE-73 Subject/IMS Table: Addition of layer number to
table TST_ISD_MOIST. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The only way to match the in situ densities and moisture contents in the TST_ISD_MOIST table is through the depth from surface field. However, these depths are often based on the design thickness (for new construction projects where no digging was involved) or on the depth at that location. Hence, these depths must be matched to the layers by examining the thicknesses. In some instances, the variability associated with the thickness causes the user to mis-apply the in situ density to the layer. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should consider adding the layer number to the TST_ISD_MOIST field. Resolution of Problem/Situation: While adding LAYER_NO to this table would improve its user friendliness and utility to link with other related tables, this type of linkage can be performed within the present structure of the IMS, although an intermediate complexity level query is required. The addition of LAYER_NO would improve the user friendliness of other tables such as SMP_TDR_AUTO_MOISTURE. It is under consideration. Report Number: BRE-80 Subject/IMS Table: Missing resilient modulus
testing of unbound pavement materials and subgrade soils for the
LTPP test sections in the Southern
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The resilient modulus tests in the April 2000 LTPP data release were cross-checked with the required number of resilient modulus tests for each project to determine the number of missing resilient modulus tests. Please note that the resilient modulus tests in the database have passed all levels of the QC checks, therefore, the number of missing tests may include those tests that have been completed but have not passed the QC. The Southern Regional Office needs to review the Regional Information Management System (RIMS) to determine whether the data are still in the QC process, or have the tests been scheduled to be performed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: A complete review of all sections was completed to check QC status and availability. Report Number: BRE-81 Subject/IMS Table: Missing resilient modulus
testing of unbound pavement materials and subgrade soils for the
LTPP test sections in the Western
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The resilient modulus tests in the April 2000 LTPP data release were cross-checked with the required number of resilient modulus tests for each project to determine the number of missing resilient modulus tests. Please note that the resilient modulus tests in the database have passed all levels of the QC checks, therefore, the number of missing tests may include those tests that have been completed but have not passed the QC. The Western Regional Office needs to review the RIMS to determine whether the data are still in the QC process, or have the tests been scheduled to be performed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The resilient modulus data were reviewed. The data were checked for each layer. There was a recent data upload so much of the data were in the database and at level E. Data failing QC and missing were noted. Report Number: BRE-82 Subject/IMS Table: Missing resilient modulus
testing of unbound pavement materials and subgrade soils for the
LTPP test sections in the North Atlantic
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The resilient modulus tests in the April 2000 LTPP data release was cross-checked with the required number of resilient modulus tests for each project to determine the number of missing resilient modulus tests. Please note that the resilient modulus tests in the database have passed all level of the quality control (QC) check, therefore, the number of missing tests may include those tests that have been completed but have not passed QC. The North Atlantic region needs to review the Regional Information Management System to determine whether the data is still in QC process, or have been scheduled to be performed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: An extensive review of unbound resilient modulus data in the Information Management System (IMS) was conducted. Records not at level 'E' cannot be moved to level 'E' at this time. A list of current samples and record status of data in IMS was provided. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: BRE-83 Subject/IMS Table: Missing resilient modulus
testing of unbound pavement materials and subgrade soils for the
LTPP test sections in the North Central
Region. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The resilient modulus tests in the April 2000 LTPP data release were cross-checked with the required number of resilient modulus tests for each project to determine the number of missing resilient modulus tests. Please note that the resilient modulus tests in the database have passed all levels of the QC checks, therefore, the number of missing tests may include those tests that have been completed but have not passed the QC. The North Central Regional Office needs to review the RIMS to determine whether the data are still in the QC process, or have the tests been scheduled to be performed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The missing resilient modulus test data has been supplied where available. Report Number: BRE-84 Subject/IMS Table: Potential damage or
excessive distortion of the specimen during the resilient modulus
test LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data where there was potential damage or excessive distortion of the specimen during the testing. These tests show characteristics of exhibiting test specimen distortion or excess softening before all the data could be obtained from that sample. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: BRE-85 Subject/IMS Table: Large gap between resilient
modulus data or merging data LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data. These data exhibit large gaps between the data for different confining pressures (i.e., significant effect of confining pressure on resilient modulus). The moduli for some of these tests merged at the end of the test. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Peter Schmalzer of the Technical Support Services Contractor notes in his response to BRE-85 that there is no discernible error in the data listed in this feedback report. We concur with this conclusion, and have elected to not downgrade the noted sections. No further action is planned. Report Number: BRE-86 Subject/IMS Table: Sudden drop and then
increase in resilient modulus LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data where there was a sudden drop and then increase in resilient modulus. The resilient moduli from these tests exhibited a sudden drop in the middle of the test. As testing progresses, the moduli return to values more in line with those exhibited at the beginning of the test. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. The Regional offices have completed all actions regarding BRE-85 in accordance with the Technical Support Services Contractor's recommendations. Report Number: BRE-87 Subject/IMS Table: Curves (resilient modulus
versus vertical stress for a specific confining pressure) cross or
weave in and out LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data. The change in resilient moduli with increases in repeated vertical stress for the different confining pressures do not follow the same trend. In fact, they cross at least once. These tests show characteristics of exhibiting localized softening or disturbance of the specimen during the test or linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) movement. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Per Technical Support Services Contractor's recommendations, we added comment and moved RECORD_STATUS to level 'D' for sections 341033, 371024, 371352, 371803, 371992, 372825, 373011, 375037, 421597, 421598, 421605, 421690, 427037, 429027, 515009, 541640, 544003, 547008, 871620 and 872811. Report Number: BRE-88 Subject/IMS Table: Curves for different
confining pressures are out of order. Higher confining pressures
result in lower resilient modulus. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data. The curves of resilient moduli for the different confining pressures are out of order. For example, the curve of moduli for the highest confining pressure may be below the curve of moduli for one of the mid-level confining pressures. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. The Regional offices have completed all actions regarding BRE-88 in accordance with the Technical Support Services Contractor's recommendations. Report Number: BRE-89 Subject/IMS Table: All confining pressures
show nearly the same resilient modulus at the beginning of the
test. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data where all confining pressures show nearly the same resilient modulus at the beginning of the test. The resilient modulus is independent of confining pressure at the lowest vertical stress. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Per the Technical Support Services Contractor's recommendations, we added comment and moved RECORD_STATUS to level 'D' for applicable sections. Report Number: BRE-90 Subject/IMS Table: Potential data entry error
for resilient modulus LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table to the feedback report lists the State, SHRP ID, layer, and sample with a potential anomaly in the resilient modulus data. There appears to be a data entry error with both the resilient modulus and the vertical stress at zero. Graphical examples are also attached to the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. The Regional offices have completed all actions regarding BRE-90 in accordance with the Technical Support Services Contractor's recommendations. Report Number: BRE-92 Subject/IMS Table: No boring logs available
for 8 GPS test sections proposed for use in National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
1-37A. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are no shoulder probes available for 8 test sections, including: 169034, 341638, 480001, 481076, 483669, 511464, 512004, and 881647. These sites are planned for use in the validation of the performance models for NCHRP project 1-37A. Without this basic information, these sites will have to be omitted. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been furnished to the researchers where possible. Report Number: BRE-93 Subject/IMS Table: No boring logs available
for 3 SPS-1 projects proposed for use in NCHRP project
1-37A. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are no shoulder probes available for 3 SPS-1 projects, including: Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. These sites are planned for use in the validation of the performance models for NCHRP project 1-37A. Without this basic information, these sites will have to be omitted. The Wisconsin site is very new and has very little data in the IMS. It is possible that the data are available, but just not entered. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been furnished to the researchers and entered into data base where possible. Report Number: BRE-94 Subject/IMS Table: No rubblized PCC layers
noted in table TST_L05B. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are no sections noted in the TST_L05B table as having a rubblized PCC layer. We know this is not the case as both the Arkansas and Oklahoma SPS-6 projects have sections with a rubblized layer. These sites are planned for use in the calibration and validation of the performance models for NCHRP project 1-37A. Without this basic information, this entire base class will have to be omitted. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been corrected were necessary and all rubblized SPS-6 layers are reported according to the layering manual. No further action is necessary. Report Number: CAR-2 Subject/IMS Table: Questionable data for
finite thickness for table TST_L05A, Section
91803. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Table TST_L05A, section 091803, fields LAYER_THICK_STATION0 and LAYER_THICK_STATIONS5 show a finite thickness for the subgrade soil. Data in the seasonal monitoring tables show instrumentation installed at a depth below 4 feet and the water table is more than 4 feet deep at times. The Regional Office should investigate the reason for assigning the finite thickness and correct if necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The original shoulder probe during field sampling for site 091803 showed a rigid layer at 4 feet below the surface level. This layer was identified as bedrock at that time. Based on data in the Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) tables the Regional Office has reviewed and updated the TST_L05A and TST_L05B forms to reflect no rigid layer present. Report Number: CAR-8 Subject/IMS Table: Impact of missing Subgrade
Data for SMP II Site 91803. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There is little or no materials test data for the subgrade at site 91803 because a bolder encountered in the initial sample was originally taken to be shallow bedrock. As a result materials samples sufficient for laboratory characterization were not obtained. The absence of materials test data for the subgrade limits the value of this site in many analyses one would like to conduct with the seasonal monitoring data. If this site is going to be used as an SMP II site, arrangements should be made to obtain and test material samples. As a minimum, laboratory resilient modulus and sieve analysis should be conducted. Ideally, the full suite of GPS materials test data should be obtained. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This site was investigated under feedback report ERES-BW-17. The initial drilling and sampling testing crew did not reach subgrade due to the amount of rock encountered. This information was provided to the Technical Services Support Contractor (TSSC) and A. Lopez as input for the SMP II selection process. No other action is required. Report Number: CAR-9 Subject/IMS Table: Possible duplicative data
in table TST_ISD_MOIST. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Table TST_ISD_MOIST (as represented in DataPave 1.1) has two entries for site 1005 in Georgia (state 13) that are identical except for the precision of the entry in the field DEPTH_TOP_STRATA. Do we really have two data points? Have the Regional Offices should check and correct as necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern Regional Office located the records for 131005. The record with the DEPTH_TOP_STRATA of 6.96 was an extraneous record and has been deleted from the RIMS. This deletion will not be reflected in the IMS until the next upload of the TST data. Report Number: CAR-13 Subject/IMS Table: Laboratory materials data
for site 91803. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An earlier report noted the absence of laboratory materials data for the subgrade at site 91803. This was because a boulder encountered in the original sampling operation precluded obtaining samples for laboratory testing. Some materials data for this soil (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) class, gradation, and Atterberg limits) is/may be available in the SMP installation report for the site. Add the subgrade materials data from the SMP installation report for this site to the pertinent tables of the database where available and feasible. Consider similar action it there are any other SMP sites for which laboratory materials data were not obtained via the original drilling and sampling. This recommendation presumes that standard LTPP protocols were followed in the SMP sampling and testing, such that the data obtained will be consistent with that already in the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Corrective action has been taken by the Regional Office. Report Number: CAR-15 Subject/IMS Table: Soil Specific Gravity
Data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: At least one of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) LTPP testing labs determined the soil specific gravity of unbound granular base, subbase, and subgrade soils. The values obtained are reported on Sheet 1 of Worksheet T46. However, the values obtained were not entered into the LTPP database. Soil specific gravity is important in many analyses - especially those looking at the effect of moisture on pavement materials (i.e., analyses of the seasonal monitoring data). Add all available soil specific gravity data to the database, so that they are readily available to all users of the data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The TSSC agrees that this data element is useful, particularly for interpretation of Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR) measurements from SHRP test sections. However, SMP sections are a relatively small subset of the LTPP test sections. The usefulness of this parameter for the planned analysis activities on non-SMP sites is not certain. To add this data element to the IMS, it is recommended that a new, relatively small table be created. At this point, it is unknown how much of this data are available or what laboratory test protocol was used. There are also detailed LTPP TST IMS table structure issues that have to be addressed, such as SAMPLE_NO, LAYER_NO, etc. Resolution pending decision from FHWA. Report Number: CAR-16 Subject/IMS Table: Soil class
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In many records in table TST_SS04_UG08, the field for AASHTO_SOIL_CLASS is blank. However, the data required to determine the AASHTO class are present in other tables in the TST module (e.g. TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 and TST_UG04_SS03). Thus, it would appear that the missing soil class data could be determined and added to the table. Complete the AASHTO_SOIL_CLASS data in TST_SS04_UG08 to the extent feasible with the available supporting data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Feedback report CAR-16 recommends that the AASHTO soil class data be entered into the data base. This is not current practice. The TSSC has suggested that this could be done as a computed parameter if desired by the FHWA. This requires a decision by FHWA. The recommendation was reviewed by the Computed Parameter Task Group for consideration as a computed parameter and was rejected. No further action required on this feedback report. Report Number: CAR-17 Subject/IMS Table: Implausible moisture
data. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In table SMP_GRAV_MOIST, the moisture content for TDR No 10 at site 63042 is reported as 0. By itself, this is implausible, particularly as the moisture contents at the other depths are ~18-20%. SMP_COMMENT contains the following comment: "TDR probe 10 shows 104% moisture content; must be some error." Check data sheets/records to determine whether the correct moisture content can be determined and entered. If not, replace current zero entry with null entry. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Western Regional Office checked the records as recommended and found the moisture content to be 104%, thus the comment. Record changed from zero to null. Report Number: CAR-18 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect depth in table
TST_SAMPLE_LOG. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In table TST_SAMPLE_LOG, the data for site 41024 include several entries where the DEPTH_TOP_STRATA is greater than the DEPTH_BOT_STRATA. Have the Regional Offices review and correct data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been corrected in the database. Report Number: ERES-BW-17 Subject/IMS Table: Missing gradation data for
sites 40113, 40215, 40114, 91803, 281016, 370205, 460804, 46918,
484142, and 831803, tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 and
AG04. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: SMP sites 40113, 40215, 40114, 91803, 281016, 370205, 469187, 484142, and 831803 do not have any gradation data in tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG_02 and AG04 (This data are needed for the volumetric moisture content models). Check the above mentioned sections for gradation data. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-18 Subject/IMS Table: Missing Atterberg limit
data for sites 370201, 469187, 281016, 370212, 370208, 370205,
460804, 484142, 40113, 831801, and 40215 in table
TST_UG04_SS03. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: SMP sites 370201, 469187, 281016, 370212, 370208, 370205, 484142, 40113, 831801, 40215, and 40114 do not have any liquid limit or plastic limit data in table TST_UG04_SS03. This data are needed for volumetric moisture content models. Check with the Regional Offices to see if the data exists. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Liquid and plastic limit data currently exist in the data base for all cited test sections except 370205. This site is a part of a SPS-2 site. The nearest section with liquid and plastic limit data is 370201. Report Number: ERES-BW-19 Subject/IMS Table: Gradation data for AC
layers in tables TST_SS01_UG02 and
TST_AG04. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Some SMP sites have gradation data in the tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 or TST_AG04 for AC layers, e.g. 161010, 81053, 131005, etc. Review and correct if necessary. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The scope of this problem is broad enough that a general review is warranted. Referred to the TSSC for study. Report Number: ERES-BW-20 Subject/IMS Table: Missing L05B layer information. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Some SMP sites do not have layer information in the L05B table. e.g. 483739, 484142, 533813, 561007, 831801. The Regional Offices need to resolve this. (For our data analysis for SMP sections, we could use the layer information provided in the installation reports. However, this information is not considered "Quality Checked".) Resolution of Problem/Situation: Missing layer data for cited test sections now exist in the data base. General review as part of the LTPP data resolution effort is ongoing. Report Number: ERES-BW-21 Subject/IMS Table: Missing dry density data
for SMP sites in table
SMP_DRY_DENSITY. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The following SMP sites do not have any dry density information from the following sources: SMP Installation Report (priority 1), SMP_DRY_DENSITY (file extension .S04, priority 2), TST_ISD_MOIST (priority 3), TST_UG05_SS05 (priority 4), INV_SUBGRADE (priority 5): For Base course: 01101, 01102, 364018, 37212, 469187, 51113, 51114, for subbase, 469187, for cement treated soil, 51113, 51114, for lime treated soil, 37201, 37205, 37208, 37212, 481060, 484143. The dry density information is needed to connect volumetric moisture content to gravimetric moisture content. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Field measurement of dry densities were not required in the beginning of the SMP program. Data now exist in the data base for test section 469187. Report Number: ERES-BW-22 Subject/IMS Table: Data for layers above the
subgrade in tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 and
TST_AG04. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG_02 and TST_AG04 contain data for layer_no 2, 3, 4, 5 in many cases. Some of the layer_no's represent AC layers. The problem appears to be broad enough to warrant central review/reconsideration of QC checks. Resolution of Problem/Situation: After an examination of the records in TST_SS01_UG01_UG02, and the accompanying information in TST_L05B, it was determined that one record represents an AC layer, and three records represent bound layers. Because the tests in TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 are for unbound aggregates, these layer types are unlikely. Three inconsistent Western Region records are identified in Table 1, and one inconsistent North Central Region record is identified in Table 2. No other regions have records with this problem. Given that only four such records were found, it was determined that changes to the current QC checks are not in order. Report Number: ERES-BW-23 Subject/IMS Table: Absence of dry density as a
function of depth for SMP sites. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Dry density information is available for only 1 to 2 depths at each SMP site. Ideally, dry density at each TDR probe place should be available for the accurate estimate of gravimetric moisture content. Currently, we use the same dry density value for all the subgrade or base sensors as appropriate. Recommend selecting a few SMP sites to go back and do the dry density test with all 10 depths and identify the variation of the dry density with depth. Resolution of Problem/Situation: While we understand the need for this data in converting from volumetric to gravimetric moisture contents, measurement of in-situ dry densities at all TDR depths is not practical. During the second round of SMP site installations, a field density measurement using a modified version of the proctor procedure was performed. Due to time constraints, only one sample of the subgrade was tested during installation. In performing this test, it was recognized that it served only as a relative indication since the specimen was remolded. Report Number: ERES-BW-24 Subject/IMS Table: Large differences are
observed in results for TEST_NO 1 and 2 in tables
TST_SS01_UG01_UG02, TST_AG04, and
TST_UG04_SS03. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Data in tables TST_SS01_UG01_UG_02, TST_AG04, and TST_UG04_SS03 are reported for TEST_NO 1 and 2. The difference for the results from the two samples are very large in some cases, e.g. for liquid limit and plastic limit, sections 533813, 481122, 906405, 281802, 41024, etc; and for gradation data, sections 231026, 871022, 251002, 231026, 91803, etc. A single good set of data are needed for the volumetric moisture content models (TDR study). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Included in plan for future preliminary analysis. Report Number: ERES-BW-49 Subject/IMS Table: Incorrect material codes in
table TST_L05B. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In table TST_L05B, for GPS-5 sections 47079 and 67455, the material codes are 5 (JRCP)) and 4 (JPCP), respectively. These codes should be 6 (CRCP). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been corrected. Report Number: ERES-BW-50 Subject/IMS Table: Implausible LON_BAR_SPACING
for section 375037. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In table INV_PCC_STEEL, for GPS-5 section 375037, the LON_BAR_SPACING value is 30.0 in. This cannot be. Values should be between 6 and 9 in. Resolution of Problem/Situation: After consulting with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, it was determined that the correct LON_BAR_SPACING is 6 inches. The data base has been corrected. Report Number: ERES-BW-60 Subject/IMS Table: Sections without level
subgrade type data in table
TST_L05B. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In the Information Management System (IMS) upload for the DataPave 2.0 beta version, many sections were found not to have subgrade material type data at level E from table TST_L05B. Please see the attached table for a list of the sections. Review the layer structure data in table TST_L05B for the listed sections. Resolution of Problem/Situation: DataPave 2.0 (Beta Version) has been superceded by DataPave 3.0 and now by DataPave Online. Many of the problems described have been resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-64 Subject/IMS Table: Questionable shoulder type
data in the table INV_SHOULDER (fields SH_SURFACE_TYPE and
SH_REINFORCED). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Data in the table INV_SHOULDER were reviewed regarding shoulder surface type for all concrete LTPP sections. It was found that some sections had unusual types of shoulders reported in the table INV_SHOULDER. For example, jointed portland cement pavement (JPCP) sections with either JRCP or continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) shoulders or JRCP sections with CRCP shoulders. Also, no CRCP sections with CRCP shoulders were found in the LTPP database. Tables with list of sections and questionable shoulder types were provided. Correct shoulder type data are crucial for the calibration of the mechanistic pavement design models. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The surface type codes for the shoulder are not the same as for the pavement surface. The relevant INVENTORY SHEET 2 is in Chapter 2 of the Data Collection Guide (DCG). No action is necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-67 Subject/IMS Table: Review of TST_PC01 IMS data
table (PCC compressive strength). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In reviewing the information for the referenced table, it was difficult to ascertain the specimen age at the time of testing. The lack of this information makes it very difficult to analyze the data. The research team tried to calculate the specimen age information from the PCC placement date (from the relevant SPS tables) and the TEST_DATE (from the TST_PC01 table) but were not always successful in obtaining meaningful numbers. Resolution of Problem/Situation: We have investigated the problem reported and have concluded that all the data needed to determine specimen age are stored in the LTPP Information Management System (IMS) database. However, since the data in question are stored in two separate tables (TST_PC01 and TST_FRESH_PCC), the user must link through appropriate data fields between these two tables to determine specimen age. Report Number: ERES-BW-69 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent subgrade
material types between Washington State SPS-2 construction report
and the IMS database. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: From the Washington State SPS-2 project final report, the subgrade material was described as "fine grained sandy-silt material". However, from the TST_L05B table, the material type is shown as "coarse-grained soil: poorly graded gravel", which contradicts the construction report. Contact the Regional Office to review the data and make corrections where needed. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The L05's are correct. The construction report will be modified to correct the error. Report Number: ERES-BW-75 Subject/IMS Table: Missing thickness
information in table TST_L05B. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Alabama (01) and Arkansas (05) are missing layer thicknesses for the SPS-6 sites. Resolution of Problem/Situation: No testing has been conducted for samples taken from 05A6 and 0105. We are unable to complete the TST_L05B without this information. The States are aware of the lack of testing and have been working for over a year to get this matter resolved. The Southern Regional Office considers this data feedback report complete. Report Number: ERES-BW-76 Subject/IMS Table: Table TST_L05B
observations. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For section 040602 there is an additional granular subgrade of 21.6 mm that is not included in the other 0406** sections. We understand that all sections within a site are supposed to be on a uniform pavement structure. With this additional subgrade, it is not uniform. In addition, section 180601 does not have a subgrade material layer. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional Offices have reviewed the TST_L05* data and ensured that a subgrade layer is present. However, after repeated requests, the North Central Regional Office has not been able to obtain materials data for this site from the Indiana Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, the materials data in the IMS for this site are incomplete and remain under a "preliminary" status. We will continue to work with Indiana DOT to obtain this information. Report Number: ERES-BW-78 Subject/IMS Table: TST_L05B for 260604
thickness variations. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are material thickness discrepancies between construction layer 1 and 2 thicknesses. For the PCC layer, construction no. 1 is 9 and for construction no. 2 it is 9.2. For the treated base, construction no. 1 is 4.9 and for construction no 2. it is 4. We believe the thicknesses of the PCC and treated base materials should remain constant for both construction numbers. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional Office has corrected the thickness values in the TST_L05* tables to 4 and 9.2 inches. No further action is believed necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-83 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_AC01_LAYER. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in table TST_AC01_LAYER as a result of the materials data review work under the Data Analysis Technical Support (DATS) contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-84 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_AC02. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in table TST_AC02 as a result of the materials data review work under the DATS contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved for the Regional Offices as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-85 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in the
table TST_AC03. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in table TST_AC03 as a result of the materials data review work under the DATS contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report was reviewed by the TSSC and actions were recommended for each of the anomalies identified in table TST_AC03. The Regional Offices have completed the recommended actions. Report Number: ERES-BW-86 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_AC04. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in the table TST_AC04 as a result of the materials data review work under the DATS contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved for the Regional Offices. Report Number: ERES-BW-87 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_AC05. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in the table TST_AC05 as a result of the materials data review work under the DATS contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report was reviewed by the TSSC and actions were recommended for each of the anomalies identified in table TST_AC03. The Regional Offices have completed the recommended actions. Report Number: ERES-BW-88 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_UG04_SS03. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several types of anomalies were found in the table TST_UG04_SS03 as a result of the materials data review work under the DATS contract. The descriptions of these anomalies and the identified records were provided in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data has been reviewed and changes made where warranted. Report Number: ERES-BW-89 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_SS10. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In table TST_SS10, one record for section 200208 (subgrade layer, LOC_NO = A10, TEST_NO=3, FIELD_SET=1) shows non-compliance with the test protocol. The average strain rate (field AVERAGE_RATE_OF_STRAIN_TO_FAIL = 2.4%) is higher than the protocol requirement which is between 0.5% and 2.0%. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data was checked by the North Central Regional Office and deemed correct as reported. No further action necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-91 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_TB02. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of LTPP materials data under the DATS contract, the following anomaly in table TST_TB02 was discovered: missing compressive strength values. The TST_TB02 records that exhibit this anomaly were listed in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Western Regional Office reviewed this feedback report and, where errors were found, they were corrected. Missing data are commented on in the comments column for the record in the TST_TB02 table with COMMENT_CODE=91 which means the layer thickness was less than 3 inches and the test could not be performed. Report Number: ERES-BW-92 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_PC01. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of LTPP materials data under the DATS contract, the following anomalies in table TST_PC01 were discovered: no corresponding L05B information to reconfirm material type definitions, material type (i.e., non-PCC materials), layer number assignment (the layer number does not match with the material type); missing values of compressive strength; specimen age could not be computed because placement dates were missing from TST_PCC_FRESH and SPS2_PCC_PLACEMENT_DATA tables for SPS-2 data; Zero, negative, or non-standard specimen ages computed for both SPS-2 and SPS-7 data; and layer type and material type information did not match sample type information for SPS-2 data. The TST_PC01 records exhibiting these anomalies were listed in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed and resolved all items listed in this feedback report. Items that were corrected, deleted, or added to the TST tables were recorded. Report Number: ERES-BW-93 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_PC06. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of the LTPP materials data under the DATS contract, the following anomalies in table TST_PC06 were discovered: wrong material type (i.e., non-PCC materials), and missing values of thickness. The TST_PC06 records that exhibit these anomalies were listed in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-94 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_AG04. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of LTPP materials data under the DATS contract, the following anomalies in table TST_AG04 were discovered: missing gradation test data, erroneous material type descriptions, and missing corresponding L05B information. The TST_AG04 records that exhibit these anomalies were listed in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data was reviewed and any entry errors found were corrected. Missing data has been collected where possible. No further action is possible on this report. Report Number: ERES-BW-95 Subject/IMS Table: Anomalies found in table
TST_SS01_UG01_UG02. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During a review of LTPP materials data under the DATS contract, the following anomalies in table TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 were discovered: erroneous material type descriptions, missing corresponding L05B information, and gradation test results not at level E. The TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 records that exhibit these anomalies were listed in an attached memorandum. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-104 Subject/IMS Table: Pavement structures that do
not have any data in either TST_L05B or TST_L05A
table. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing layer structure related tables using IMS version 2.9, release 11.0, the DATS team found that many pavement structures (unique combination of State_Code, SHRP_ID, and CN) do not have any records in either TST_L05A or TST_L05B. A summary of these pavement structures is provided in the feedback report. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Missing layer data has been entered into the data base except in instances where it is not yet available. 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 Information Management System (IMS) version 2.9, release 11.0 received on February 1, 2001, the Data Analysis Technical Services 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 Information Management System (IMS) version 2.9, release 11.0 received on February 1, 2001, the Data Analysis Technical Services 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-113 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent layer
correspondence between TST_L05B and INV_LAYER tables
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the Level E data in the TST_L05B and INV_LAYER tables, using Information Management System (IMS) release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that 222 layer records in INV_LAYER table 1, are not referenced in TST_L05B table. Analysis of these records shows that the majority of layers (122 records) that are not referenced are base, subbase, or binder courses. In 26 cases, the surface course from the INV_LAYER table was not referenced. This appears to be a mistake. Furthermore, in 18 cases TST_L05B table contained references to the non-existing INV_LAYER records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Layer data for the selected items has been corrected in the data base where necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-114 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent description of
layer functional type between different tables
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E Information Management System (IMS) data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that for some records layer description codes are inconsistent between TST_L05B, TST_L05A, INV_LAYER, and RHB_LAYER. Tables with records for the sections with inconsistent functional layer descriptions were provided. Functional layer description codes should be reviewed and discrepancies should be resolved. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed and resolved appropriate layer discrepancies noted in this report. Per directive from LTPP headquarters, no corrections were made to discrepancies between INV_LAYER and TST_L05B found in the Tables. INV_LAYER information is furnished by the States and does not necessarily match test data. Report Number: ERES-BW-115 Subject/IMS Table: Missing layers between
TST_L05B and TST_L05A tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E Information Management System (IMS) data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found that some records included in TST_L05A are excluded from TST_L05B table and vice versa. It is our understanding that these two tables should include the same layer numbers. Lists of missing pavement layers for TST_L05B and TST_L05A tables were furnished. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report is a result of not having all LO5A and LO5Bs at level E. The reasons for this have been discussed in ERES_BW_60. We used an SQL developed previously for ERES_BW_60 to check these discrepancies in the database and did an extensive search to bring as much data as possible to level E using as many resources as possible. No further action contemplated. Report Number: ERES-BW-116 Subject/IMS Table: Questionable layer
thickness records in TST_L05B table LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E Information Management System (IMS) data release (11.5/NT 3.0), it was found that some records included in TST_L05B have unreasonable layer thickness. Acceptable layer thickness ranges were evaluated based on Operational Guide No. SHRP-LTPP-OG 004. A list of questionable layer thickness records from the TST_L05B table was provided. Some of these records have zero thickness that could be a valid number (removed layer) but requires Regional office confirmation. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed and resolved appropriate layer discrepancies noted in this report. Report Number: ERES-BW-127 Subject/IMS Table: Site level records in
tables SPS8_PMA_AC_PROPERTIES, SPS8_PMA_AGGREGATE_PROP, and
SPS8_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the Level E data for SPS-8 sections in the SPS8_PMA_AC_PROPERTIES, SPS8_PMA_AGGREGATE_PROP, and SPS8_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP tables, using Information Management System (IMS) release (11.5/NT 3.0), it was found that data exist on site basis instead of section basis for sections on sites 34-0800 and 36-0800. Records for sites 34-0800 and 36-0800 in tables SPS8_PMA_AC_PROPERTIES, SPS8_PMA_AGGREGATE_PROP, and SPS8_PMA_MIXTURE_PROP should be replaced with appropriate records for sections 34-0801, 34-0802, 36-0801, and 36-0802. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Data Collection guide allows for the entry of similar AC layers on a project level as well as a site level basis for SPS-8 projects. The North Atlantic regional office feels that no changes are needed to this data and no changes were made prior to the June upload. Upon reflecting on that decision, the North Atlantic regional office feels, as a benefit to the program as a whole, consistency should be considered in deciding the appropriate coarse of action. The North Atlantic regional office has now changed the data in the IMS to site level basis to keep consistent with data entry in other regions. Report Number: ERES-BW-129 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent description of
layer functional type between TST_L05B and TST_AC01_LAYER tables
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E Information Management System (IMS) data release (11.5/NT 3.0), it was found that for some records layer description codes are inconsistent between TST_L05B (field: DESCRIPTION) and TST_AC01_LAYER (field: LAYER_DESCRIPTION) tables. A table containing records for the sections with inconsistent functional layer descriptions found in these tables was provided. In addition, in four instances, more than one layer description was provided for the same layer. Resolution of Problem/Situation: ERES_129 was reviewed and all data entry errors and discrepancies between the LO5A and ACO1 tables have been corrected and submitted for reentry. A list is available upon request. An SQL has been developed to catch these errors in an effort to reduce the number of future occurrences. Report Number: ERES-BW-130 Subject/IMS Table: Thickness data in field
MEAN_THICKNESS in table SPS8_LAYER LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing the Level E data for SPS-8 sections in the SPS8_LAYER table, using the LTPP database, release (11.5/NT 3.0), it was found that some MEAN_THICKNESS values were not accompanied by Standard Deviation and appeared to be design instead of as-constructed values. Additionally, we reviewed the SPS8_LAYER in the latest release 13.1, and found that this problem persists for all sections listed in table provided. In addition, the North Carolina sections (for which data were not available in release 11.5) appear to have the same problem. Resolution of Problem/Situation: In order for any data from SPS sections to reach level 'E', they must have data at level 'E' in a few core tables. SPS8_LAYER is one of the critical data tables. Design thickness was used in this table early on in order to get other data at level 'E' when the construction data had not fully arrived. These values should have been replaced when the construction data sheets arrived and were input into the IMS. The regional offices have now updated the SPS8_LAYER table. Report Number: ERES-BW-138 Subject/IMS Table: Multiple FIELD_LAYER_NO for
same samples in TST_AC01_LAYER and TST_PC06 tables
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E Information Management System (IMS) data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found doubled records with the same LAYER_NO, CONSTRUCTION_NO, LOC_NO, TEST_NO, and FIELD_SET, and different FIELD_LAYER_NO that exist in table TST-AC01_LAYER for SPS-1 and SPS-5 experiments. Only one section (38-0213) has double record for surface layer in table TST_PC06. All records are on level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-139 Subject/IMS Table: Cores with data missing
from table TST_HOLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found that for some cores, with data records available in tables TST_PC06 and TST_AC01, data were missing in table TST_HOLE_LOG. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional office has reviewed and resolved the issues listed in this feedback report as follows: The LOC_NO for 190708 was corrected in TST_HOLE_LOG and in TST_PC06. For 270702, the LOC_NO data were associated with 270703. Therefore, the PC06 data in 270702 was deleted and then reentered for 270703. LOC_NO in sections 290708 and 290709 are indeed missing station and offset data. This data will remain at Record Status B because of the missing information. For section 380217, C203 data was added to IMS. For the other sections, the data had previously been entered into RIMS. Report Number: ERES-BW-140 Subject/IMS Table: Invalid material codes
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing information about pavement layer material types using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that based on criteria outlined in table 1 (reference: LTPP SPS Pavement Layering Methodology), some records from the tables identified in table 2 had invalid material codes. Detailed lists of records with invalid material codes identified in each LTPP table were provided. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional offices investigated the records in question and took necessary corrective action. Several of the identified records, including those with description =4 and material code = 28, are not errors. The authors only looked at level E data, and reported problems may not be inclusive; also, later data releases may have solved some of these problems. Report Number: ERES-BW-141 Subject/IMS Table: Missing material codes
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing information about pavement layer material types using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that some records from the tables identified in table 1 were missing material codes. Although the material codes field is identified as a "conditional" field, this information is very important to data users. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Support Services contractor recommends that the Regional offices investigate the records in question and take any necessary corrective action. The Regions should be aware that the authors only looked at level E data, and reported problem may not be inclusive. Also Release 11.5 may have solved some of these problems. Resolved as recommended. Report Number: ERES-BW-142 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent material codes
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing information about pavement layer material types using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that some records from the LTPP tables identified in table 1 had material codes inconsistent with those in TST_L05B. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Data collected by a State Agency and received by a Regional office is reviewed prior to entry into the IMS database. Discrepancies between regional collected data and Agency provided data will always occur. The Regions have reviewed the differences and corrected any errors found. There are however still differences in material codes between the various tables. These differences are valid. Report Number: ERES-BW-143 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent material codes
within the section for TST_L05A LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing information about pavement layer material types using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that 448 records from the LTPP table TST_L05A had material codes that differed significantly along the section. While some natural variation may be expected, some differences are so significant (silt vs. rock) that data review may be warranted. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The TST_L05A table reflects data collected along the section. This data will differ slightly in most sections and in some it will significantly differ due to situations that are out of the control of the Regional office. If a 'pocket' of different material exists in the section and the sampling is done on this 'pocket' then the TST_L05A table will reflect this as only actual values are used in this table. The Regions have reviewed the attached list of sections and corrected any errors that were found but the majority of the sections remained unchanged. Report Number: ERES-BW-144 Subject/IMS Table: Outlier thickness points in
SPS*_LAYER_THICKNESS tables LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: During evaluation of layer thickness data obtained from elevation measurements along the LTPP sections and stored in the SPS*_LAYER_THICKNESS tables, several questionable layer thickness values were identified. The data set used in analysis was from the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The regional offices investigated the records in question and took necessary corrective action. The authors only looked at level E data, and reported problem may not be inclusive. Also, later releases may have solved some of these problems. Report Number: ERES-BW-145 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent representative
layer thickness values between LTPP tables
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layering information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that some records from the LTPP tables identified in table 1 had representative layer thickness values inconsistent with those in TST_L05B. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This report requires no action. Differences in thickness values between tables are allowable. The 'SHRP-LTPP Interim Guide for Laboratory Material Handling and Testing' (the Lab Guide), in reference to variation between inventory data and LO5B data, states, "In no case should the inventory data be changed to conform to Form LO5B results." Variation between TST_LO5B and the other tables listed is similarly allowable. Report Number: ERES-BW-146 Subject/IMS Table: Multiple records in
RHB_LAYER table LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layering information in RHB_LAYER table using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that for 73 records identical information (except for the DATE_COMPLETE field) was repeated two times or more. Detailed list of LTPP sections, layers, and construction event numbers with multiple identical records in RHB_LAYER table was provided. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-148 Subject/IMS Table: SPS-5, -6, -7, and -9
sections included in INV_LAYER table
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layering information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found that pavement layering data for 85 SPS-5, -6, -7, and -9 sections are included in the INV_LAYER table. INV_LAYER table generally contains layer thickness data for the GPS sites. 35 of the identified SPS-5 and -6 sections also have pavement layering data in SPS5- and SPS6_LAYER tables. In some cases, these data are identical to the data in INV_LAYER table, and in some cases there are data discrepancies. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This report does not require any action. The existence of SPS data in INV_LAYER is not a problem, and is in fact required for certain SPS projects. Report Number: ERES-BW-149 Subject/IMS Table: Zero thickness records for
removed and thin layer in RHB_LAYER table
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layering information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that in the RHB_LAYER table, thickness values of 0 were used to identify: 1. Thin layers (friction course, surface treatment, seal coat) with a thickness that cannot be established; 2. Removed layers. This creates some confusion because it is unclear whether the layer is removed or whether it is too thin to establish representative thickness. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-150 Subject/IMS Table: Unreasonable layer
thickness values LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layering information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that some records included in TST_L05A, INV_ LAYER, RHB_ LAYER, and SPS*_LAYER tables have unreasonable layer thickness. Acceptable layer thickness ranges were evaluated using criteria outlined in table 1. Lists of records with questionable layer thickness records from each of the above tables are attached in an Excel file. Some of these records have zero thickness that could be a valid number (removed layer) but require Regional office confirmation. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: ERES-BW-151 Subject/IMS Table: Recommendations for future
improvements of the LTPP layer thickness data
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: As part of the LTPP layer thickness evaluation project, several recommendations for future improvement of the LTPP layer thickness data were identified. A summary of the recommended future data improvements was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Technical Support Services contractor recommended that the recommendations in this feedback report be referred to the Computed Parameters Committee for consideration. No action can be taken until new funding is provided. Report Number: ERES-BW-152 Subject/IMS Table: Cores with different values
in FIELD_SET field in tables TST_PC06 or TST_AC01 and TST_HOLE_LOG
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that for some cores, with data available in tables TST_AC01 or TST_PC06, values in FIELD_SET field didn't match the values in the same field in table TST_HOLE_LOG. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices investigated the records in question and took necessary corrective action. The authors only looked at level E data, and the reported problem may not be inclusive. Release 11.5 solved some of these problems. Report Number: ERES-BW-153 Subject/IMS Table: Questionable PATB layer
thickness in table TST_AC01 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information in table TST_AC01 using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that some PATB layer cores had thickness significantly lower than the target thickness. Elevation measurements for the same layers did not show significant deviation from the target thickness. For some cores the reason for the lower thickness can be additional compaction of PATB layer that occurred during the placement of surface layer(s). However, for a number of cores, the PATB layer thickness was less than 1 in, although the target thickness was 4 in. One explanation could be that the entire thickness of PATB layer was not obtained from the core. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The cores in question from the Southern Region are partial cores. These thicknesses were removed from the database. The problem with core # C28 for section 550121 was resolved by correcting AC01 LAYER_NO and DESCRIPTION. The TST_AC01 and TST_AC01_LAYER now have binder and surface thickness and no permeable asphalt-treated base (PATB) layer. Report Number: ERES-BW-154 Subject/IMS Table: Data in table SPS5_LAYER_THICKNESS for control section 35-0501 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that data in table SPS5_LAYER_THICKNESS indicate that section 35-0501 was overlaid. This conclusion was based on non-zero values in the fields SURFACE_COURSE and SURFACE_FRICTION. Section 35-0501 is a control section that should not been overlaid. All records are at level E. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern regional office has confirmed that section 350501 was overlaid. No further action is necessary. Report Number: ERES-BW-155 Subject/IMS Table: Null thickness values for surface layer in tables SPS*_LAYER_THICKNESS LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, it was found that for a number of records in tables SPS1_LAYER_THICKNESS, SPS2_LAYER_THICKNESS, and SPS5_LAYER_THICKNESS, no surface layer thickness records were available, while thicknesses of the base layers were provided in some cases. Surface layer thickness is required field for all three tables. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Sections 040121 and 080221 had one station where surface thickness information was not available (e.g., due to a lost control point), but layer thicknesses for subsurface layers were measured. No action was necessary for these two projects. There is no survey information to create the layer thicknesses for the Arizona SPS-5, and therefore all offset values were deleted from RIMS. These comments have been added to tables 1-3, respectively. For the missing thicknesses in the southern region, either the State highway agencies didn't provide the elevation data or the measurements could not be taken. These records were manually upgraded to level E so that the thicknesses for other layers can be released. Report Number: ERES-BW-156 Subject/IMS Table: Zero layer thickness values
in tables SPS*_LAYER_THICKNESS LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: While reviewing pavement layer information using the Level E LTPP data release (11.5/NT 3.0) received on June 8, 2001, we found zero layer thickness values for nine records in table SPS5_LAYER_THICKNESS, and one zero thickness record in table SPS8_LAYER_THICKNESS. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The dense graded aggregate base thickness on section 48A808 was found to be unreliable for the first 200 ft. This data has been removed from the database. Elevation surveys were performed pre- and post-construction, with no surveys performed after the milling of sections 080506, 080507, 080508 and 080509 (the analysts should account for the milling and rut leveling information as reflected in SPS5_MILLED_SECTIONS and SPS5_RUT_LEVEL_UP). In all cases, the measured values in the IMS match those on the data sheets. Further investigation of the project files indicated that the two data points identified for 080505 were questionable and therefore will be removed from RIMS. Discussion with FHWA will determine the action taken by the Western regional office to address ALL SPS5_LAYER_THICKNESS data for 080506, 080507, 080508 and 080509 and also for 300506, 300507, 300508 and 300509 (where there were also only pre-and post-construction surveys performed). Report Number: ERES-IL-1 Subject/IMS Table: Numerous LTPP data
anomalies for all 4 regions. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Missing or anomalous data (i.e., base and subgrade layer information, coring/boring data, shoulder data, joint data, reinforcing steel information, drainage, strength testing data, and cracking and spalling data) as described in an attachment. See feedback report archive. Resolution of Problem/Situation: This feedback report is resolved. Data has been corrected or entered into the database where warranted. Report Number: TSSC-19 Subject/IMS Table: Hydraulic conductivity of
the QC range in tables TST_SS11 and
TST_UG09. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The average hydraulic conductivity is out of the QC range in tables TST_SS11, and TST_UG09. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have corrected and completed the TST_SS11 and TST_UG09 tables for the sections listed in this report with available data. We have determined the exponentiation for each hydraulic conductivity value and made the necessary changes in TST_UG09. Corrections were made to the database as necessary. Report Number: TSSC-26 Subject/IMS Table: Review of specimen age data
in the IMS TST_PC01 and TST_PC09 tables (relates to feedback
report ERES-67). LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are a number of records in table TST_PC01 where the computed specimen age does not equal the number of curing days prior to testing specified in the protocol and that there are several records where test date occurs before or on the day the sample was taken. Similarly, in table TST_PC09, there are a number of records where the computed specimen age is different from the specimen age entered by the Regional Offices. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The data has been reviewed by the regional offices and corrected where necessary. This feedback report is considered resolved. Report Number: TSSC-34 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent
TST_L05B.REPR_THICKNESS values LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: For several records in TST_L05B, the REPR_THICKNESS values are inconsistent for consecutive CNs. A list was provided. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The thicknesses have been reviewed by the regional offices and errors found have been corrected. This feedback report is resolved. Report Number: TSSC-42 Subject/IMS Table: Potential data errors in
TST_HOLE_LOG and TST_SAMPLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: In an investigation of TST_HOLE_LOG and TST_SAMPLE_LOG, several errors and inconsistencies were discovered. An attached spreadsheet (TST_problems_2.xls) identifies records with suspect values. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have reviewed all records listed in the feedback report. Corrections or deletions were made where necessary. Some records were determined to be correct as shown. All changes were made before the December 2003 data upload. Report Number: TSSC-55 Subject/IMS Table: Project layer codes in
TST_L05 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several of the SPS-9 projects use the same project layer code for the surface layer on all test sections on the project. These different sections should each be using a different binder and therefore a different mix. The following projects were noted to have this issue: 040900, 04A900, 04B900, 120900, 180900, 240900, 280900, 300900, 350900, 390900, 480900. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Project layer codes have been added to the TST_L05 table for each unique mix in 120900, 280900, 350900, and 480900 projects and the L05A and L05B tables have been updated with the corrections. Report Number: TSSC-56 Subject/IMS Table: Project layer codes in TST_L05 for project 040100
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Project layer code I as defined in table TST_L05 for project 040100 is not used in the TST_L05B or TST_L05A table. Correct the TST_L05 table by removing this layer code or correct the appropriate layers in TST_L05A and TST_L05B to illustrate that this material does exist on this project. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Per the recommended action, the Western regional office has investigated the project layer codes on the TST_L05 tables for SPS-1 project 040100 and removed the project layer code I from the TST_L05 table. The change to the TST_L05 table has already been made in the RIMS database. Report Number: TSSC-57 Subject/IMS Table: Absolute viscosity in TST_AE05 for section 06A805
LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The absolute viscosity from sample B14 from section 06A805 is nearly twice as large as the other two values from mix samples from this project. The value should be checked to make sure that a typographical error was not made in entering the data into the database. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The value for absolute viscosity was verified with the hard copy sent by the lab. No changes were made on the hard copy or in the database. Report Number: TSSC-58 Subject/IMS Table: Tensile strength for 080800
in TST_PC02 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The tensile strength recorded for location B203 sample GX216 in table TST_PC02 seems very low in comparison with the other two values in the table from this material on the Colorado SPS-8. Review data to determine if error has been made in data entry. Resolution of Problem/Situation: In reviewing the hard copy, the tensile strength value was updated from 120 to 240 in the database. Report Number: TSSC-59 Subject/IMS Table: Tensile strength in
TST_PC02 for project 100200 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The layer number associated with location C123 sample CL123 is layer number 4 for section 100205. According to the TST_L05B table, this layer is the surface layer. The tensile strength and sample number for this test correspond to data for the lean concrete base. Data should be deleted from the database and re-entered with the appropriate layer number. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic regional office has reviewed the data and corrected the LAYER_NO field to reflect the true value. Report Number: TSSC-60 Subject/IMS Table: Data for project 120500
from the porous friction course LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Twelve sets of test results are provided in tables TST_AG01, TST_AG02, and TST_AG04 for the porous friction course from project 120500. These sets of test results are all from construction event 2. The porous friction course was not noted as being present on the project for construction event 1 and was noted as having a 0-inch thickness for construction event 2. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Southern regional office has reviewed the data in error. It was due to a layer structure change and not all data was updated. L05s are currently showing the OGFC in construction event 1. All test data has been updated to show the correct layer number. Report Number: TSSC-63 Subject/IMS Table: Data in table
TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 for project
230500 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Data from section 230506, layer 2, location TP1, sample BG56 are much more similar to the gradations from layer 3 than layer 2. Data from section 230508, layer 3, location BA4, sample BG04 are much more similar to gradations from layer 2 than layer 3. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office has reviewed all of the data from section 230500 in table TST_SS01_UG01_UG02 and feels that no changes should be made to the data. Report Number: TSSC-64 Subject/IMS Table: Absolute viscosity in
TST_AE05 for project 240500 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The absolute viscosity for section 240559, layer 7, location T2, sample KA02 in table TST_AE05 is 1,242,150. The other values from this material range from 35,000 to 40,000. The data for this sample should be reviewed and re-entered. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Atlantic Regional Office has reviewed all of the data from section 240559 in table TST_AE05 and has the following comments: The original data forms were reviewed and no data entry error was found. The Flow Time is drastically high and may have been reported incorrectly. The regional office believes that this record should be deleted from the IMS database and has removed it. Report Number: TSSC-65 Subject/IMS Table: Age of test samples in
TST_PC01 for project 290700 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Sixty of the bulk samples from the overlay layer on project 290700 have test dates in TST_PC01 that are the same day as the samples were taken. Thirty of the bulk samples from the overlay layer in TST_PC01 have test dates that are one day after the date the samples were taken. Data should be reviewed and the test dates or sample dates in TST_FRESH_PCC should be corrected. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional office has reviewed the data for section 290700 in table TST_PC01. Comments in the table indicate that 12 through 30 hour tests were done on these samples and, thus, the TEST_DATE in TST_PC01 is the same day or one day after for 30 samples. No changes are required. The regional office considers this feedback report to be closed. Report Number: TSSC-66 Subject/IMS Table: Layer type in
TST_UNCOMP_BITUMINOUS and LAYER_NO in TST_AG04 for
310100 LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Data from sample B53 for section 310121 is entered in TST_AG04 as layer number 4 which corresponds to the permeable asphalt treated base layer. Sample B53 in TST_UNCOMP_BITUMINOUS has surface layer type code of a surface layer. The gradation in TST_AG04 for this sample is much more similar to that for the surface materials. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional office has reviewed the data and has changed the LAYER_NO field in table TST_AG04 for section 310121 to 5. Report Number: TSSC-72 Subject/IMS Table: Layering issues in the TST module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: This feedback report identifies various layering inconsistencies present in the TST module. The inconsistent records are included in an attached Excel Workbook (tssc_72_attach.xls) that contains three worksheets. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional offices have made corrections where necessary on the questionable records. Specific actions taken are documented in a spreadsheet next to each record. Report Number: TSSC-85 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistencies between SPS layer tables and TST_L05B LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An investigation of the SPS layer tables (SPS*_LAYER) has yielded several inconsistencies in relation to TST_L05B. An attached spreadsheet (TSSC-85_attach.xls) contains three sheets, each containing records having one of these problems, as well as an example SQL used to identify the offending records. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Per the recommended action, the Regional offices investigated the issues listed in the attached tables. Included in the tables are the actions as well as comments regarding the specific records. All changes have been made in the database. Report Number: TSSC-94 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistency in TEST_NO in TST_AC01 and TST_AC01_Layer and TST_SAMPLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a listing of records in TST_AC01 and TST_AC01_LAYER, where TEST_NO indicates the sample came from the approach side of the section, but the location of the core in TST_SAMPLE_LOG indicates the core came from the leave side of the section and vice versa. If TEST_NO=1, the sample should come from the approach, if TEST_NO=2, the sample should come from the leave side of the section. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The proper core location was confirmed in the Material Sampling records. Where errors in stations were found they were corrected. Proper core locations were then confirmed in the Materials testing data, as indicated by the TEST_NO value. Where errors were found they were corrected. Most errors were identified in TEST_NO value specified by the lab data. All recognized issues were addressed and corrections were made in the database. Report Number: TSSC-95 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistency in TEST_NO in TST_PC01 and TST_PC06 and TST_SAMPLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a listing of records in TST_PC01 and TST_PC06, where TEST_NO indicates the sample came from the approach side of the section, but the location of the core in TST_SAMPLE_LOG indicates the core came from the leave side of the section and vise versa. If TEST_NO=1, the sample should come from the approach, if TEST_NO=2, the sample should come from the leave side of the section. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Regional office investigated the sections in question and has made the necessary changes to TST_PC01 and TST_PC06 tables to resolve the problem identified. An attached spreadsheet provides details of the changes made. Report Number: TSSC-96 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistency in TEST_NO in TST_SS10 and TST_SAMPLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached table provides a list of records in TST_SS10, where TEST_NO=1, but the location of the sample in TST_HOLE_LOG indicates it came from a location within the limits of the test section. If TEST_NO=1, the sample should come from the approach end of the test section outside the monitoring area. In all of these cases it appears that TEST_NO should be set to 3. These problems exist only for test sections located in the North Central region. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved as recommended. Report Number: TSSC-97 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistency of TEST_NO in TST_AC07_V2_SPECIMEN_INFO and TST_HOLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides a list of records in TST_AC07_V2_SPECIMEN_INFO, where TEST_NO has an inconsistency with the location of the three core samples used for the test. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The Northern Regional offices have reviewed the issues listed in this feedback report. All items were addressed and corrections are now complete in the IMS database. All actions taken are listed in the 'NRO COMMENTS' field of an attached spreadsheet. Report Number: TSSC-102 Subject/IMS Table: Non-matching LOC_NO values in the TST module LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: An attached spreadsheet provides lists of 280 records from 28 tables (from Release 20) that have a LOC_NO value that does not have a match in any of the sampling tables (TST_ASPHALT_CEMENT, TST_FRESH_PCC, TST_SAMPLE_BULK_AC_AGG, TST_SAMPLE_COMBINE, TST_SAMPLE_LAB_AC_MIX, TST_SAMPLE_LOG, TST_SAMPLE_LOG_LAB, TST_SAMPLE_LOG_SPS_3_4, and TST_UNCOMP_BITUMINOUS). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Not resolved.Report Number: TSSC-105 Subject/IMS Table: Location in TST_HOLE_LOG in the wrong section LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: Several (44) SPS LOC_NO's are shown as being in another section when the location recorded in TST_HOLE_LOG is compared to SPS_PROJECT_STATIONS. A list of these records was included as an attachment (TSSC-105_attach.xls). Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved. Report Number: TSSC-110 Subject/IMS Table: Suspect diameters for samples CA140A and CA143A on section 31_0902 in TST_SAMPLE_LOG LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: There are suspect diameters for samples CA140A and CA143A on section 31_0902 in TST_SAMPLE_LOG. The diameter for these core samples appear suspect based on the diameter of the other nearby cores taken from this end of the test section. Sample CA140A has a diameter of 5" and sample CA143A has a 4" diameter. Most of the other cores taken from this end of the test section have 6" diameters. Resolution of Problem/Situation: The North Central Regional office has reviewed the data and corrected the diameter. The diameter has been changed to 6" in TST_SAMPLE_LOG for both samples. Report Number: TSSC-111 Subject/IMS Table: Inconsistent entries in TST_PC05 for sections in North Atlantic and North Central Regions. LTPP Analysis/Operations Situation: The TST_PC05 table contains density measurements on PCC cores. According to Protocol T65, the density is 62.36 times the bulk specific gravity dry. The test results listed have an inconsistency between the dry specific gravity and the density fields. Resolution of Problem/Situation: Resolved.
|
||
|
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This page last modified on 03/22/07 |
