See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249959177

High Speed Weigh-in-Motion Calibration Practices

Article · September 2010

DOI: 10.1520/JTE101836

CITATIONS READS
4 778

1 author:

A. T. Papagiannakis
University of Texas at San Antonio
148 PUBLICATIONS   1,730 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

• Evaluation of Comparative Damaging Effects on Flexible Pavements from Multiple Truck Axles View project

Pavement Design and Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. T. Papagiannakis on 24 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HIGH SPEED WEIGH-IN-MOTION CALIBRATION PRACTICES
by:
A.T.Papagiannakis, PhD PE
Professor and Dept. Chair
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Texas-San Antonio
San Antonio TX, 78249
Voice (210) 458 7071
Fax (210) 458 6475
at.papagiannakis@utsa.edu

Abstract
This paper provides a summary of the weigh-in-motion (WIM) calibration practices
used by State highway and load enforcement agencies in the United States. The detailed
statistical data presented were collected through a web-based survey questionnaire. It
covers three common WIM calibration practices, namely utilizing multiple passes of test
trucks, utilizing traffic stream vehicles of known static weight and employing only WIM
data quality control (QC) techniques. To put the actual practice in perspective, an
overview is provided of the current WIM calibration standard (ASTM E1318-02) and the
new provisional standard for quantifying pavement roughness at the approach to WIM
systems (AASHTO MP 14-05). Most agencies use a combination of two or more of
these methods for WIM system calibration. The majority of agencies uses WIM data QC
on a routine basis and they resort to one of the other two calibration methods when WIM
data quality deteriorates. Test truck calibration typically involves 1 or 2 Class 9 trucks
running at several speeds. Few of these agencies, however, perform actual pavement
roughness measurements on the approach to the WIM sites. Agencies that use traffic
stream vehicles of known static weight for WIM calibration obtain static weights
manually using permanent static scales. The method involves up to 100 trucks selected by
class, speed or both class and speed. Agencies use a variety of traffic elements and
formulas for computing calibration factors. Similarly, a variety of traffic data element
errors are computed and various approaches are used for computing calibration factors. In
the light of these findings, the paper provides a number of recommendations for
improving current WIM calibration practices.

Keywords: Weigh-in-Motion, WIM, calibration, practice, test truck, quality control.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 1

1. Background-Objectives

Since their inception, the performance of weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems in

capturing truck weight data has been the focus of considerable investigation. There has
been a multitude of reports documenting WIM system calibration methods and practices
in the United States (e.g., National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Synthesis 124, McCall and Vodrazka, Jr. 1997). Recently, the deployment of WIM
systems has proliferated through initiatives such as the Long Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP) and the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks
(CVISN) programs. Additionally, WIM data are used extensively for other purposes,
such as pavement design, bridge design, highway cost allocation and so on. High quality
truck axle load data are essential to these applications. The new mechanistic-empirical
pavement design guide (NCHRP Study 1-37A) for example, requires WIM data for
predicting performance in terms of the number of years it takes for pavement distresses to
become critical. Poor quality of WIM data may lead to significant overestimation of this
performance period and hence, lead to premature failures. Axle load data are also crucial
in conducting pavement or bridge related research. There is therefore need to ensure
WIM data accuracy. This is accomplished through routine WIM system calibration
involving test trucks, traffic stream vehicles of known static weight or simply WIM data
quality control (QC). This paper provides an overview of the high speed WIM calibration
practices used by highway and load enforcement agencies in the United States. The
source of the data presented herein is a recently completed NCHRP study (NCHRP
Synthesis 386).

2. Current WIM Calibration Standard

The ASTM Standard E1318-02 (ASTM 2002) describes test methods for evaluating
and calibrating WIM systems using test vehicles of known static weights and dimensions.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 2

WIM system evaluation encompasses on-site activities for ascertaining compliance of
WIM system measurements to error tolerances. Both evaluation and calibration require
two test trucks of known weights and dimensions making multiple runs over the WIM
system sensors at prescribed speeds in each lane. This standard allows the user to modify
WIM system performance requirements through the equipment procurement process.
The ASTM Standard E1318-02 distinguishes four generic types of WIM systems on
the basis of operational and performance requirements:
• Type I that have the ability to collect individual wheel load data at vehicle speeds
ranging from 16 to 130 km/h.
• Type II that have the ability to collect individual axle load data at vehicle speeds
ranging from 24 to 130 km/h.
• Type III that have a load enforcement screening or sorting function and operate at
vehicle speeds from 16 to 130 km/h. They are installed on the approaches to truck
inspection stations, either on freeway lanes or ramps to identify trucks that are likely
to be over the legal load limits and need to be weighed statically. It is noted that the
earlier version of this standard (i.e., E1318-98) limited the performance speed for
these systems to 80 km/h so these systems did not qualify as high speed.
• Type IV, intended for load enforcement at vehicle speeds up to 16 km/h, are not yet
used in the United States.
WIM system accuracy is evaluated using a minimum of two test trucks, one each of
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classes 5 and 9, performing several runs over
the system at each of three vehicle speeds (i.e., minimum and maximum operating speeds
at a site as well as an intermediate speed). These test vehicles “shall have a suspension
type (leaf spring, air, other) that is deemed by the user to be representative of most
vehicles of their type operating at the site”. The static axle loads of all these vehicles are
established through static weighing using certified static scales. Axle spacings of the test
trucks are to be measured at a resolution of 0.03 m. Weights should be measured a

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 3

minimum of three times. Limits are set for the range in replicate axle weight
measurements (e.g., static tandem-axle weight measurements must be within ± 3 % from
the mean). The percent error in individual measurements, e, is defined with reference to
the static measurements using:

WIM − static
e= 100 (1)
static

where WIM and static are the measurements obtained with the WIM system and the static
scale, respectively. Calibration consists of adjusting the WIM output to achieve a zero
mean for the errors. The standard does not specify the actual measurement element(s) to
be used for this computation. WIM accuracy is defined in terms of the probability that
individual axle load measurement errors are within prescribed limits. At 95% confidence,
these tolerance limits are +20%, +30%, +15% for Type I, II and III, respectively. For axle
groups and gross vehicle weight (GVW), these tolerance limits are lower, due to the fact
that axle errors induced by axle dynamics to some extent compensate for each other.
Each WIM type is to meet the specified load tolerances, provided that the pavement
at the WIM site satisfies certain smoothness requirements. Smoothness is specified for a
length of 60 m upstream from the WIM sensors and a length of 30 m downstream of
them. For a new installation, smoothness is measured using a 6.1 m long straightedge
and a 0.15 m diameter 3 mm thick circular plate. The pavement passes the smoothness
requirement (i.e., meets the on-site acceptance requirements) if the disk does not fit under
the straightedge positioned skewed across the pavement from one lane edge to the other.
Prior to calibration, the location and magnitude of pavement surface deviations from the
smoothness requirement should be documented. After initial calibration, “alternative
means of measuring the surface smoothness of the paved roadway … may be used to
avoid closing the traffic lane. Data from suitable inertial profiling instruments analyzed

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 4

via computer simulation of the 20-ft (6-m) straightedge and circular plate is suggested”.
A WIM installation is deemed acceptable, if it yields measurement errors within the
prescribed tolerances for the particular WIM Type.
This standard has a provision for additional testing involving traffic stream vehicles
of known static weight for the purpose of ascertaining the capabilities of new WIM
systems, a process called “type approval”. Type approval testing involves at least 51
traffic stream vehicles of known static weight and dimensions (i.e., this number is the
result of selecting a given number of vehicles from each vehicle class). For these tests,
pavement smoothness needs to be exceptional. This allows establishing the capabilities of
new technology in terms of meeting the prescribed tolerances.

3. Forthcoming Standard for Pavement Smoothness at WIM Approaches

(AASHTO MP 14-05)

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) is currently considering a standard for quantifying pavement smoothness at
the approaches to WIM systems. It is based on simulating the axle dynamic behavior of
5-axle semi-trailers using a plane (i.e., bounce and pitch) vehicle simulation model over a
number of representative pavement profiles (Karamihas and Gillespie, 2002 and 2004).
Pavement roughness induced axle dynamics contribute significantly to the differences
between in-motion axle loads and static axle loads and hence, affect the magnitude of
WIM errors as defined by Equation 1. A variety of pavement roughness indices were
considered and evaluated on the basis of their correlation to the 95th percentile of the
difference between in-motion axle loads and static axle loads.

Through this process, two pavement roughness indices were identified, referred to as
the Short-range Roughness Index (SRI) and the Long-range Roughness Index (LRI).
They are computed on two segments of the pavement profile, one from -2.8 m to +0.5 m

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 5

and the other from -25.8 m to +3.2 m, where the minus/plus signs signify locations
upstream/downstream from the middle of the WIM sensor(s). Butterworth filters are
applied to the pavement profile in these two segments to eliminate wave lengths outside
the range of 1.6 m/cycle to 16.5 m/cycle and 1.1 m/cycle to 11.4 m/cycle, respectively.
The two resulting filtered profiles are summarized in terms of their average rectified (AR)
velocity (m/km) using:

N2
1
AR = ∑ Fi Wi
N 2 − N1 + 1 i = N1
(2)

where, Fi is the elevation at profile location i after Butterworth filtering, Wi is a weighing

function (i.e., selected as equal to 1.0 for all locations) N1 and N2 are the profile location
limits identifying the profile range selected. The Butterworth filtering and the AR
computations are performed in the distance domain using a state-transition algorithm.
In addition, a Peak Short-range Roughness Index was defined to account for the
potential localized roughness created by the installation of the WIM sensors themselves.
The rationale is that this localized roughness needs to be considered, despite the fact that
it does not affect the overall SRI for the site. The Peak Short-range Roughness Index is
defined as the maximum SRI value for a distance ranging from -2.45 m to 1.5 m. These
algorithms were implemented into a non-proprietary software package available though
the LTPP product delivery team. Thresholds for these three indices were established
through a parametric study using as a guideline the error tolerances for WIM Types I and
II. The results are given in Table 1 for Type I and II WIM systems. Sites with pavement
roughness below the lower threshold are “very likely to produce an acceptable level of
weighing error”, while sites with pavement roughness above the upper threshold are
“very likely to produce unacceptable levels of weighing error”. A WIM site should

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 6

located on a pavement who’s roughness is below the lower thresholds given in Table 1
over a length of at least 30 m upstream of the WIM sensors.

4. The Survey Questionnaire

The main goal of the survey questionnaire was to synthesize the state-wide practice
for high speed WIM system calibration. For the purpose of this study, high speed WIM
was defined as the Type I and II WIM systems, as defined by ASTM Standard E1318-02.
These systems are equipped with pressure cell or strain gauged supported plates and
piezoelectric or quartz strips, respectively. The general structure of the survey included
three groups of questions dealing with:
• on-site calibration using test trucks,
• calibration using traffic stream vehicles of known static weight and,
• calibration through traffic stream WIM data QC,
The first two groups of questions were formulated to capture the details of the
methodology actually used by State agencies in implementing the current ASTM E1318-
02 standard. The last group of questions was formulated to define which components of
the WIM data QC procedures developed by the LTPP study (FHWA 2006) States use as
a means of tracking and adjusting WIM calibration.
The survey was web-based and was conducted in the spring of 2007. Fifty two
questionnaires were distributed to DOTs (i.e., 50 States, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico). A total of 41 responses were received (i.e., the Connecticut DOT submitted
two responses, one from their data collection branch and another for their research
branch). Seven of these responders indicated that they use WIM for both data collection
and enforcement screening, while the rest reported using WIM for data collection only.
Another set of 15 questionnaires were distributed to State agencies that utilize WIM
systems for load enforcement screening. Overall, agencies use a combination of the three
WIM calibration methods described earlier, as shown in Table 2. The majority of States

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 7

utilizing WIM systems for data collection only use a combination of test trucks and an
alternative method, most often WIM data QC. Four of these States use WIM data QC as
the only means of calibrating their WIM systems, while only 2 use traffic stream vehicles
of known static weight only. Agencies that utilize WIM in enforcement screening rely
mostly on either traffic stream trucks of known static weight or WIM data QC
techniques. Only 3 of them use test trucks for WIM calibration. The following sections
summarize the survey response results by method of WIM calibration.

4.1 WIM Calibration Using Test Trucks

Under this questionnaire segment, agencies were asked details on their method used
to calibrate their most common WIM systems utilizing test trucks. The number of
agencies utilizing test trucks for WIM calibration varies depending on the application:
• 22 of the 34 agencies managing traffic data collection WIM systems use test
trucks for WIM calibration. Six of these agencies report that their most common
WIM systems are Type I, while the remaining sixteen report that their most
common systems are Type II.
• 6 of the 7 agencies managing traffic data and enforcement screening WIM
systems use test trucks for WIM calibration. Four of these agencies report that
their most common WIM systems are Type I, while one reports that their most
common systems are Type II.
• 2 of the 11 agencies managing only enforcement WIM systems use test trucks for
WIM calibration. Their most common WIM system is Type I.
Details of the responses are given in Table 3. These data suggests that the majority of
WIM data collection agencies that perform test truck calibration do so on a routine basis.
Agencies that use WIM in load enforcement screening are more reactive, that is about
half of them undertake test truck WIM calibration only after there is an indication of
calibration drift, as detected by one of the other two methods. The majority of the

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 8

agencies using this method use only one test truck, which is typically a 5-axle semi-trailer
(i.e., Class 9) and prescribe an air suspension. The majority perform test runs at a single
speed. Interestingly, although the large majority of agencies using test trucks for WIM
calibration report that they always consider pavement roughness, only about 34% of them
does so objectively through pavement profile measurements. Only about 14% performs
the straight edge/disk test described by ASTM standard E1318-02.
Table 3 also suggests that agencies compute WIM data errors for multiple traffic
elements. These most commonly include the GVW, the individual axle loads and the
tandem axle loads. The majority of agencies compute calibration factors by setting the
mean GVW error equal to zero, or by setting a combination of the mean GVW error and
the mean axle load error equal to zero. Several agencies compute calibration factors by
minimizing the least square errors between WIM and static axle load measurements
through zero-intercept regression. Overall, agencies seem to be selectively implementing
parts of the ASTM E1318-02 standard. Furthermore, there seems to be no uniformity in
the process used for deriving calibration factors.

4.2 WIM Calibration Using Traffic Stream Trucks of Known Weight

Under this questionnaire segment, agencies were asked to respond to questions

related to calibrating their most common WIM systems utilizing traffic stream trucks of
known static weight. The total number of agencies utilizing this WIM calibration
approach varies depending on the application:
• 7 of the 34 agencies managing traffic data collection WIM systems utilize traffic
stream trucks for WIM calibration. Four of these agencies use Type I systems
while the remaining three use Type II systems.
• 4 of the 7 agencies managing traffic data and enforcement screening WIM
systems utilize traffic stream trucks for WIM calibration. All four of these
agencies use Type I systems.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 9

 • 10 of the 11 agencies managing only enforcement WIM systems utilize traffic
stream trucks for WIM calibration. Nine of these agencies use Type I systems,
while the remaining one uses Type II systems.
Details of their responses are given in Table 4. These data suggests that most often,
calibration using traffic stream trucks of known static weight is triggered by indications
of WIM data drift obtained from data QC methods. Only in about 30% of the cases, this
type of calibration is scheduled routinely with an average interval of 6 months. The
number of traffic stream trucks used for this purpose varies by application. Enforcement
agencies use a larger sample size, since they have more data on statically weighed trucks.
Where a fixed time interval is used, it ranges between 1 and 168 hours. The type of
vehicles included in this sample varies; the majority of agencies using WIM for traffic
data or traffic data/enforcement favors selecting vehicles in certain classes regardless of
speed, while the majority of agencies using WIM for enforcement screening most often
use a random selection of vehicle classes. The actual method for performing the
calculations varies; most often vendor software is used. The most common traffic
elements for which errors are computed are the GVW and the load of individual axles
and tandem axles. The most commonly used approach for computing calibration factors
for traffic data WIM systems is by setting the mean GVW error to zero. For traffic
data/enforcement and enforcement only WIM systems, the most common calibration
approach is by setting the combined errors for GVW and individual axle loads to zero.
About 16% of the agencies that operate traffic data WIM use regression for computing
calibration factors. Overall, the lack of uniformity in performing this type of WIM
calibration is evident. There is an obvious need for developing a standardized
methodology for carrying out this type of WIM calibration.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 10

4.3 WIM Calibration Using Traffic Stream Data

WIM data collection involves a number of quality control (QC) checks examining the
reasonableness of the data, such as for example checking steering axle load data and the
GVW distribution of 5-axle semi-trailer trucks against their established patterns at a
particular WIM site. These procedures have been established through the efforts of the
LTPP program (LTPP, 2006). Where this process suggests a drift in calibration,
corrective action is needed. This may involve one of the other two calibration
techniques, namely use of test trucks or traffic stream vehicles of known static weight. A
less rigorous alternative is to use the WIM QC data to adjust the WIM system calibration
remotely. This part of the survey dealt with WIM calibration based solely on the traffic
stream WIM data routinely collected. The total number of agencies utilizing this
approach varies depending on their function:
• 20 of the 34 agencies managing traffic data collection WIM systems
• 6 of the 7 agencies managing traffic data and enforcement screening WIM
systems and,
• 6 of the 11 agencies managing only enforcement WIM systems.
A summary of their responses on the methodology used in doing so are given in
Table 5. The frequency of performing WIM data QC ranges from daily to monthly,
while some agencies check different data elements at different frequencies. Typically,
WIM data QC involves monitoring distinct data elements of 5-axe semi-trailer trucks. It
can be seen that the most commonly monitored data element is the average steering axle
load of these trucks. Agencies appear confident that these QC checks are capable of
identifying WIM system operational problems (more than 80% of agencies agree that this
is done effectively). This table also summarizes the type of action agencies take when
WIM data QC suggests calibration drift. Most of them respond by performing test truck
WIM calibration. Several others attempt to correct the problem remotely and if
unsuccessful, perform an on-site calibration. Interestingly, one of the agencies that

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 11

collect traffic data takes no action when WIM data QC indicates calibration drift.
Overall, agencies recognize the need for WIM data QC as an integral part of maintaining
WIM calibration. Clearly, there is a need to standardize this process and formalize its
role as a trigger of one of the two more accurate WIM calibration methods.

5. Summary-Recommendations

This paper provided a state-of-the art review of the WIM calibration practices used by
highway and load enforcement agencies in the United States. It presented details of the
actual methodology used by highway and load enforcement agencies in applying the
current ASTM E1318-02 standard, as well as the details of the methodology used for
performing WIM data QC. Analysis of the survey questionnaire results revealed the
following:
• Most agencies use a tiered WIM calibration approach involving a combination of
the three methods described herein. For traffic data collection WIM systems, the
best practice is to conduct routine WIM data QC and perform test truck
calibration when data quality goes below a selected threshold. For load
enforcement screening systems, WIM data QC is best complemented by analysis
of traffic stream vehicle of known static weight.
• The majority of traffic data collection agencies perform test truck WIM
calibrations routinely at constant intervals that range from 6 months to 24 months.
Typically, one or two Class 9 trucks are used running at several speeds. Few of
these agencies, however, perform actual pavement roughness measurements on
the approach to the WIM sites. Agencies use a variety of traffic elements and
formulas for computing calibration factors.
• Agencies that use traffic stream vehicles of known static weight for WIM
calibration obtain static weights manually from permanent static scales at truck

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 12

 inspection stations. They involve up to 100 trucks selected by class, speed or both
class and speed. Similarly, errors are computed for a variety traffic data elements
and several approaches are used for obtaining calibration factors.
• The majority of agencies use WIM data QC on a routine basis and they resort to
one of the other two calibration methods when WIM data quality deteriorates.
Unfortunately, some agencies use WIM data QC as the sole WIM calibration
method and attempt to correct calibration problems remotely without an on-site
inspection.
The results of this study suggest the following recommendations for improving and
automating the WIM calibration process:
• There is a need to modernize the current WIM calibration standard. It needs to
incorporate
o an updated pavement roughness specification (i.e., a proven version of the
AASHTO MP 14-05 standard),
o a simple procedure for utilizing WIM data QC as a guideline for performing
more trough WIM calibration and,
o a clear description of the way WIM calibration factors are to be calculated
(i.e., zero GVW errors for selected vehicle classes).
• There is a need to establish simplified WIM data QC criteria for triggering test
truck WIM calibration. Standardized software flagging WIM data QC issues
would reduce subjectivity in identifying WIM calibration problems.
• Similarly, there is a need to develop software standardizing the WIM system
calibration process involving test trucks. This software, developed in
coordination with WIM vendors, will facilitate and homogenize on-site WIM
system calibration and reduce operator variability.
• Where possible, it is recommended to develop automated means of recording
static axle load data form traffic stream vehicles and software to compare them

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 13

 automatically with WIM measurements for WIM error and calibration
calculations.
• Finally, it is recommended developing a system for training and certifying WIM
system technicians. This will ensure a minimum level of understanding of the
issues involved. It could be organized along the lines of the AASHTO R18
accreditation process, which covers a variety of laboratory testing procedures.

6. References

• AASHTO Smoothness of Pavement at the Approaches to WIM Scales, AASHTO

Standard Specification MP 14-05, 2006.
• Karamihas, S.M and T.D. Gillespie, Smoothness Criteria for WIM Scale
Approaches, University of Michigan Transportation research Institute, Report
UMTRI-2002-37, Sept. 2002.
• Karamihas, S.M and T.D. Gillespie, Advancement of Smoothness Criteria for
WIM Scale Approaches, University of Michigan Transportation research Institute,
Report UMTRI-2004-12, April 2004.
• McCall W. and W.C. Vodrazka, Jr., States’ Successful Practices Weigh-in-Motion
Handbook FHWA, December, 1997.
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2002 Design Guide: Design
Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Draft Final Report,
NCHRP Study 1-37A, Washington DC, July 2004.
• Cunagin, W.D., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 124: Use of Weigh-in-
Motion Systems for Data Collection and Enforcement, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 1986, 34 pp.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 14

 • Papagiannakis, A.T., R. Quinley and S.R. Brandt, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway
Practice 386: High Speed WIM Calibration Practices, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 2009, 55 pp.
• Standard Specification for Highway Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems with User
Requirements and Test Method, American Society of Testing of Materials, ASTM
E 1318-02, 2002.
• Traffic Analysis Software, User’s Guide, Version 1.6.2, Long Term Pavement
Performance, Federal Highway Administration, April 2006.

Acknowledgments
Thanks are expressed to Mr. R. Quinley and Ms. S. Brandt for their contribution in
developing the survey questionnaire.

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 15

 Table 1 - Roughness Index Thresholds for WIM Sites (AASHTO 2006)
Lower Threshold m/km Upper Threshold m/km
LRI 0.5 2.1
Type I WIM SRI 0.5 2.1
Peak Short Range 0.75 2.9
LRI 0.9 3.8
Type II WIM SRI 1.25 5.7
Peak Short Range 1.6 6.6

Table 2 – Summary of WIM Calibration Method Used by Agency Type

WIM System Application
Both Data and
Traffic Data Enforcement
Enforcement
Collection Only Screening Only
Screening
(34 Responders) (11 Responders)
(7 Responders)
Test Trucks Only 7 0 0
Traffic Stream Trucks Only 2 0 6
WIM Data QC Only 4 0 1
Test Trucks and Traffic Stream Trucks 3 0 0
Test Trucks and WIM Data QC 8 3 0
Traffic Stream Trucks and WIM Data QC 2 1 3
All three methods 4 3 1
Other 4 0 0

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 16

 Table 3 – Summary of WIM Calibration Survey Responses Related to Test Trucks
WIM System Application
Both Data and
Traffic Data Enforcement
Enforcement
Questions Collection Only Screening Only
Screening
(22 Responders) (1 Responder)
(6 Responders)
What Triggers Test Truck WIM Calibration?
Routine Schedule 15 3 0
Drift Indication 5 2 1
Other (some combination of above) 2 1 0
What Test Speed is Used?
Median Speed at Site 9 2 1
Posted Speed 7 0 0
Multi-speed Selected by Agency 6 4 0
Multi-speed Selected by Driver 1 0 0
Is Pavement Smoothness Being Considered?
Always 13 6 1
Only if WIM Tolerances Are Not Met 6 0 0
Never 3 0 0
What Method is Used to Quantify Pavement Smoothness?
Visual 15 2 1
Straight Edge/Plate 2 2 0
Profile + IRI 3 1 0
Profile + LTPP software 1 0 0
Other (some combination) 1 1 0
Which Data Elements Are WIM Errors Computed For? (Some agencies may use multiple elements)
Total Length 5 3 0
Axle Spacing 16 3 0
GVW 22 6 1
Tandem Axle loads 9 2 0
Individual Axle Loads 16 3 0
Speed 7 3 0
What Formula is Used for Computing WIM Calibration Factors?
Mean Axle Error = 0 2 0 0
Mean GVW = 0 9 2 0
Combination of Previous 2 3 1 0
Slope WIM versus Static 2 1 0
Software Computed/Do not Know 5 2 1

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 17

Other/no reply 1 0 0

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 18

 Table 4 - Summary of WIM Calibration Survey Responses Related to Traffic Stream
Trucks
WIM System Application
Both Data and
Traffic Data Enforcement
Enforcement
Questions Collection Only Screening Only
Screening
(11 Responders) (10 Responders)
(4 Responders)
What Triggers WIM Calibration Using Traffic Stream Trucks of Known Weight?
Routine Schedule 4 2 4
Drift Indication 6 1 6
Other (some combination of above) 1 1 0
If Routinely, How Often?
1 Months 1 0 0
3 Months 0 0 1
6 Months 2 1 3
9 Months 0 0 0
12 Months 1 1 0
If a Fixed Number of Trucks is Used, Specify How Many?
1 3 0 0
5 4 0 0
10 0 0 3
20 4 2 0
26 0 0 2
75 0 2 0
100 0 0 5
If a Fixed Time Interval is Used, Specify How Long?
1 hr 0 0 10
4 hrs 5 0 0
168 hrs 6 0 0
What Criteria are Used for Selecting Trucks from the Traffic Stream?
None (Random) 3 0 6
Class Only 6 2 3
Class and Speed 2 1 1
Other (e.g., vehicles screened only) 0 1 0
Which Data Elements Are WIM Errors Computed For? (Some agencies may use multiple elements)
Total Length 2 1 2
Axle Spacing 3 3 6
GVW 11 4 10
Tandem Axle loads 2 3 6

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 19

Individual Axle Loads 8 4 8
Speed 2 1 3
What Formula is Used for Computing WIM Calibration Factors?
Mean Axle Error = 0 2 1 0
Mean GVW = 0 5 1 3
Combination of Previous 2 2 2 4
Slope WIM versus Static 2 0 0
Software Computed/Do not Know 0 0 3

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 20

 Table 5 - Summary of WIM Calibration Survey Responses Related to WIM Data QC
WIM System Application
Both Data and
Traffic Data Enforcement
Enforcement
Questions Collection Only Screening Only
Screening
(18 Responders) (5 Responders)
(7 Responders)
How Often is WIM Data QC Being Performed?
Daily 4 2 2
Weekly 7 2 1
Monthly 6 3 1
Depends on the Traffic Data Element 3 0 1
Which 5-axle Semi-trailer Properties Are Monitored? (Some agencies may use multiple elements)
Vehicle Length versus Axle Spacing 3 1 2
Other Axle Spacing Property 2 2 3
Tractor Tandem Axle Spacing 4 2 4
Steering Axle Left/Right Side Load
Comparisons 0 5 2
Steering Axle Load Average 8 7 3
Steering Axle Load Standard Deviation 3 0 4
GVW Empty versus Loaded 4 4 1
GVW Average by speed 3 4 2
Other GVW Property 2 0 1
GVW Standard Deviation 3 2 5
Which WIM Errors Does WIM Data QC Capture? (A QC technique may capture multiple errors)
Vehicle Errors 12 6 5
System Errors 12 6 4
Unclassified Vehicles 16 6 4
Bad Class Counts 16 5 3
Bad Vehicle Counts 14 5 3
What Action is Taken if WIM Data Analysis Indicates Calibration Drift?
Test Truck Evaluation 10 1 1
Remote Calibration Adjustments 4 5 3
Do Nothing 1 0 0
Other (possible combination of above) 3 1 1

Paper JTE 101836-08R resubmitted September 2009 21

View publication stats