Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Long-Term Pavement Performance 

Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 Dynamic 

Load Response Data Processing

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-14-088 MARCH 2015
FOREWORD

This report documents the reinterpretation of the dynamic load response (DLR) traces for 

selected Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) test sections in Ohio. The report also 

describes the work performed to correct data issues such as trace peak time lag shifts, sensor 

locations, and wheelpath offsets for asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete pavements. 

The reinterpreted DLR data have been made available in the LTPP program’s Standard Data 

Release 27.0 and later versions.(1) This new LTPP DLR data will serve as a unique resource for 

researchers in investigating the dynamic interaction between truck axle loads and pavements, 

validating their pavement dynamic loading models, and developing mechanistic pavement 

performance prediction models.

Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz 

Director, Office of Infrastructure 

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use 

of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-14-088

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Long-Term Pavement Performance Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 

Dynamic Load Response Data Processing

5. Report Date 

March 2015

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Mahesh Agurla and Sean Lin 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Engineering & Software Consultants, Inc. 

14123 Robert Paris Court

Chantilly, VA 20151

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-12-C-00002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Research Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) was Aramis Lopez, and the Task Manager was Larry Wiser,

HRDI-30.

16. Abstract

The dynamic load response (DLR) Study Team reinterpreted 4,290 Ohio Specific Pavement Studies (SPS)-1 (asphalt 

concrete pavements) raw traces and 9,240 Ohio SPS-2 (portland cement concrete pavements) raw traces, correcting 

the data issues identified by Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) data analysis/operations feedback reports

and the technical memorandum, Investigation of Ohio DLR data in LTPP Database for LTPP Standard Data 

Release (SDR) 22.0, including trace peak time lag shifts, incorrect sensor locations, and wheelpath offsets.

(See references 2–6.) The team calibrated and smoothed the SPS-1 and SPS-2 raw traces before categorizing those 

traces into three categories: good, maybe, and not good. For the SPS-1 data, approximately 24 percent of strain gauge 

traces, 55 percent of linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) traces, and 99 percent of pressure cell traces were 

categorized as good. For the SPS-2 data, only smoothed traces were categorized due to significant noise in the raw 

traces. Approximately 

61 percent of strain gauge traces and 15 percent of LVDT traces were categorized as good. Only good traces were 

used for further extraction of trace peaks and valleys for SDR 27.0.

(1) In addition, the sensor locations and the 

corresponding wheelpath offsets were also corrected.

The reinterpreted DLR data resolved the data issues and have been published in SDR 27.0.

(1) To aid future DLR data 

users in identifying the layout and status of each sensor from one test visit or run to another, appendices A through E

show the sensor layouts in the Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR test sections as well as the results of the 23 Ohio SPS-1 

DLR tests and the 24 Ohio SPS-2 DLR tests.

17. Key Words

Dynamic load response, Strain gauge, Linear variable 

differential transformer, Pressure cell, Pavement 

deflection peak and valley, Raw trace, Test run, Truck 

axle load

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161.

http://www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classification (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

169

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................1

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT.......................................................................................................7

3. OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................13

4. DLR DATA...............................................................................................................................15

OHIO SPS-1 DATA.............................................................................................................. 15

OHIO SPS-2 DATA.............................................................................................................. 16

5. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................19

DLR DATA CALIBRATION.............................................................................................. 19

Ohio SPS-1 Data Calibration............................................................................................ 19

Ohio SPS-2 Data Calibration............................................................................................ 19

GAIN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR........................................................................................ 20

Ohio SPS-1 Gain Adjustment Factor................................................................................ 20

Ohio SPS-2 Gain Adjustment Factor................................................................................ 20

SMOOTHING RAW TRACES........................................................................................... 21

Smoothing SPS-1 DLR Data Traces................................................................................. 21

Smoothing SPS-2 DLR Data Traces................................................................................. 21

EXTRACTING TRACE PEAKS AND VALLEYS .......................................................... 22

Extraction of Ohio SPS-1 Trace Peaks and Valleys......................................................... 22

Extraction of Ohio SPS-2 Trace Peaks and Valleys......................................................... 23

QC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 24

Ohio SPS-1 QC Analysis.................................................................................................. 25

Ohio SPS-2 QC Analysis.................................................................................................. 25

CORRECTING SENSOR LOCATIONS AND WHEELPATH OFFSETS ................... 30

6. QC RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................31

OHIO SPS-1 DATA QC RESULTS.................................................................................... 31

Smoothed Trace Processing.............................................................................................. 31

Raw (Unsmoothed) Trace Processing............................................................................... 35

OHIO SPS-2 DATA QC RESULTS.................................................................................... 42

7. DLR TRACE ISSUES .............................................................................................................45

OHIO SPS-1 TRACE ISSUES............................................................................................. 45

LVDT Trace Pattern Issue ................................................................................................ 45

Strain Gauge Trace Pattern Issue...................................................................................... 46

OHIO SPS-2 TRACE ISSUES............................................................................................. 48

8. UPDATES TO THE OHIO SPS-1 AND SPS-2 DLR TABLES ..........................................53

9. SAMPLE RESULTS................................................................................................................57

OHIO SPS-1 DATA SAMPLE PLOTS .............................................................................. 57

OHIO SPS-2 DATA SAMPLE PLOTS .............................................................................. 59

iii
10. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................61

OHIO SPS-1 DATA ISSUES ............................................................................................... 61

OHIO SPS-2 DATA ISSUES ............................................................................................... 63

OHIO SPS-1 AND 2 COMMON DATA ISSUES.............................................................. 64

APPENDIX A. SENSOR LAYOUT IN THE OHIO SPS-1 DLR SECTIONS ......................65

APPENDIX B. SENSOR STATUS OF THE 23 OHIO SPS-1 DLR TESTS..........................69

APPENDIX C. SENSOR LAYOUT AND QC STATUS FOR OHIO SPS-2 DLR 

SECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................93

APPENDIX D. SENSOR NUMERICAL STATUS FOR 23 OHIO SPS-1 DLR 

TESTS.........................................................................................................................................119

APPENDIX E. SENSOR NUMERICAL STATUS FOR 24 OHIO SPS-2 DLR 

TESTS.........................................................................................................................................133

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................159

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Illustration. SHRP test pavement layout ......................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390102 sensor layout ............................................ 2

Figure 3. Illustration. Ohio SPS-2 test section 390212 sensor layout ............................................ 4

Figure 4. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for test section 390102 test J2C run 1 with 

2,000.579 Hz................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5. Illustration. Dyn12 strain gauge locations and wheelpath offsets for 

test section 390102.......................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for test section 390201 test J1A run 2....................... 11

Figure 7. Graph. Normalized Dyn8 strain gauge raw traces for Ohio SPS-2 test 

section 390201 test J1A run 27..................................................................................................... 21

Figure 8. Graph. Magnified view of the three trace peaks in figure 7.......................................... 22

Figure 9. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-1 test run ....................... 23

Figure 10. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-2 test run ..................... 24

Figure 11. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 transverse strain gauge trace categorization................................ 26

Figure 12. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 LVDT trace categorization.......................................................... 27

Figure 13. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 longitudinal strain gauge trace categorization............................. 28

Figure 14. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 LVDT trace categorization.......................................................... 29

Figure 15. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F...................... 34

Figure 16. Graph. Transverse LVDT3 longitudinal strain gauge trace that assumes valleys....... 45

Figure 17. Graph. Unresponsive strain gauge trace...................................................................... 46

Figure 18. Graph. Longitudinal Dyn17 strain gauge trace exhibiting an upside down 

transverse pattern .......................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 19. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C 

run 1 on August 5, 1996................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 20. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on 

August 5, 1996.............................................................................................................................. 58

Figure 21. Graph. PC1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on August 5, 1996.... 59

Figure 22. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on 

August 12, 1996............................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 23. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on 

August 12, 1996............................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 24. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390104 sensor layout ........................................ 65

Figure 25. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390108 sensor layout ........................................ 66

Figure 26. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390110 sensor layout ........................................ 67

Figure 27. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2A..................... 69

Figure 28. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2C..................... 70

Figure 29. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2D..................... 71

Figure 30. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2E ..................... 72

Figure 31. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F...................... 73

Figure 32. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2G..................... 74

Figure 33. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4A..................... 75

Figure 34. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4B..................... 76

Figure 35. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4C..................... 77

Figure 36. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4D..................... 78

v
Figure 37. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4E ..................... 79

Figure 38. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4F...................... 80

Figure 39. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4G..................... 81

Figure 40. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8A..................... 82

Figure 41. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8D..................... 83

Figure 42. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8E ..................... 84

Figure 43. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8G..................... 85

Figure 44. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10A................... 86

Figure 45. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10C................... 87

Figure 46. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10D................... 88

Figure 47. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10E ................... 89

Figure 48. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10F.................... 90

Figure 49. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10G................... 91

Figure 50. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1A..................... 94

Figure 51. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1B..................... 95

Figure 52. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1C..................... 96

Figure 53. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5A..................... 97

Figure 54. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5B..................... 98

Figure 55. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5C..................... 99

Figure 56. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1M............... 100

Figure 57. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1N ............... 101

Figure 58. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1O ............... 102

Figure 59. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1P................ 103

Figure 60. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8A................... 104

Figure 61. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8B................... 105

Figure 62. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8C................... 106

Figure 63. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3M.............. 107

Figure 64. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3N............... 108

Figure 65. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3O............... 109

Figure 66. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3P ............... 110

Figure 67. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12A................. 111

Figure 68. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12B................. 112

Figure 69. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12C................. 113

Figure 70. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10M........... 114

Figure 71. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10N ........... 115

Figure 72. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10O ........... 116

Figure 73. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10P............ 117

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Dyn12 strain gauge data for test section 390102.............................................................. 8

Table 2. Strain gauge locations for SDR 22.0 and Ohio raw data ................................................ 10

Table 3. SPS-1 DLR data trace count ........................................................................................... 16

Table 4. SPS-2 DLR data trace count ........................................................................................... 17

Table 5. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in Ohio SPS-1 test J2F ............................ 32

Table 6. Peaks and valleys extracted for smoothed traces in test J2F ( e)................................... 33

Table 7. Summarized QC results for raw traces in test J2F.......................................................... 35

Table 8. Peaks and valleys extracted for raw traces in test J2F.................................................... 36

Table 9. Comparison of first peak smooth and raw peak values with Ohio peak values ............. 37

Table 10. PC sensor begin offset, end offset, and range values.................................................... 38

Table 11. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 smoothed traces..................................................... 39

Table 12. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 raw traces.............................................................. 40

Table 13. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 smoothed traces............................................ 41

Table 14. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 raw (unsmoothed) traces.............................. 41

Table 15. Comparison of first peak smooth values with Ohio peak values.................................. 42

Table 16. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces............................................ 43

Table 17. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces............................................ 44

Table 18. Sample Ohio SPS-1 truck peak data for test J2F.......................................................... 48

Table 19. Ohio SPS-2 inconsistencies between test section visits and subseries......................... 49

Table 20. Strain gauge sensors with time history data for each test............................................. 50

Table 21. Sample Ohio SPS-2 truck peak data for test J1A ......................................................... 50

Table 22. Raw Dyn8 strain gauge values of test J5J1P ................................................................ 51

Table 23. Records in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 with no source data ........... 55

Table 24. TruckPass.txt records for run 1..................................................................................... 55

Table 25. Sample data from Ohio data for test section 390108.................................................... 63

Table 26. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2A............ 119

Table 27. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2C............ 120

Table 28. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2D............ 120

Table 29. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2E............ 121

Table 30. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2F ............ 121

Table 31. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2G............ 122

Table 32. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4A............ 122

Table 33. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4B............ 123

Table 34. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4C............ 123

Table 35. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4D............ 124

Table 36. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4E............ 124

Table 37. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4F ............ 125

Table 38. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4G............ 125

Table 39. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8A............ 126

Table 40. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8D............ 127

Table 41. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8E............ 127

Table 42. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8G............ 128

Table 43. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10A.......... 128

Table 44. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10C.......... 129

μ

vii
Table 45. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10D.......... 129

Table 46. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10E.......... 130

Table 47. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10F .......... 130

Table 48. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10G.......... 131

Table 49. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 Test J1A .......... 133

Table 50. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1B............ 135

Table 51. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1C............ 136

Table 52. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5A............ 137

Table 53. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5B............ 139

Table 54. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5C............ 140

Table 55. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1M ....... 141

Table 56. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1N........ 142

Table 57. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1O........ 143

Table 58. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1P......... 144

Table 59. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8A............ 145

Table 60. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8B............ 146

Table 61. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8C............ 147

Table 62. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3M....... 148

Table 63. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3N ....... 149

Table 64. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3O ....... 150

Table 65. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3P ........ 151

Table 66. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12A.......... 152

Table 67. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12B.......... 153

Table 68. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12C.......... 154

Table 69. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10M ... 155

Table 70. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10N.... 156

Table 71. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10O.... 157

Table 72. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10P..... 158

viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC Asphalt concrete

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange

CL Center lane

DAOFR Data analysis/operations feedback report

DLR Dynamic load response

LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance

LVDT Linear variable differential transformer

OU Ohio University

PATB Permeable asphalt treated base

PC Pressure cell

PCC Portland cement concrete

QC Quality control

SDR Standard Data Release

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program

SPS Specific Pavement Studies

TCS Test control software

ix

1. BACKGROUND

The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program conducted an internal review of the 

dynamic load response (DLR) data collected in 1996–1997 from Route US-23 in Delaware 

County north of Columbus, OH. Figure 1 shows the layout of the Strategic Highway Research 

Program (SHRP) test pavement for Specific Pavement Studies (SPS).

(7) Forty test sections were 

constructed by the Ohio Department of Transportation on 3.5 mi of US-23. The test sections 

encompassed the SPS-1, SPS-2, SPS-8, and SPS-9 experiments. This study focused on the DLR 

data collected on Ohio SPS-1 (asphalt concrete (AC)) and SPS-2 (portland cement concrete 

(PCC)) test sections.

Figure 1. Illustration. SHRP test pavement layout.

(7)

Figure 2 shows the instrumentation layout in plan and profile views as well as the pavement 

layer structure in profile view for Ohio SPS-1 test section 390102. The instrumentation consisted 

of strain gauges (transverse and longitudinal), linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs), 

and pressure cell (PC) sensors. In the plan view, the LVDTs are capped with a single-layer 

deflectometer. The sensors were deployed on the defined right wheelpath, which was 30 inches 

from the right pavement edge. A total of 12 sensors were deployed on test section 390102: 

4 LVDTs (LVDT1 through LVDT4), 2 PCs (PC1 and PC2), and 6 strain gauges (Dyn7 through 

Dyn12).

1
Figure 2. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390102 sensor layout.

2
Each of the other SPS-1 test sections (390104, 390108, and 390110) had a total of nine strain 

gauge sensors, Dyn10 through Dyn18 (see appendix A). The number of LVDTs and PCs for 

those sections were the same as for test section 390102.

The profile view in figure 2 shows that Dyn7, Dyn9, and Dyn11 were buried in the transverse 

direction, whereas Dyn8, Dyn10, and Dyn12 were buried in the longitudinal direction. The trace 

pattern for a strain gauge sensor is contingent on the direction in which the sensor is laid. If a 

strain gauge is buried in the transverse direction, then the sensor would only display peaks 

(compressive strains) but not valleys (tensile strains) in a raw trace. In contrast, if a strain gauge 

is buried in the longitudinal direction, it would display both peaks and valleys in a raw trace.

In terms of sensor locations, the metrics for the SPS-1 (AC) test sections are as follows: X_AC is 

the distance along the direction of traffic as referenced from the start of the southernmost first 

LVDT gauge in the section; Y_AC is the distance from the shoulder joint as referenced from the 

start of the southernmost first LVDT gauge in the section; and Z is the distance from the 

pavement surface to the measurement point of the sensor. (Sensor layouts of Ohio SPS-1 test 

sections 390102, 390104, 390108, and 390110 are shown in figure 2 and figure 25 through 

figure 27.)

Figure 3 shows the instrumentation layout in plan and profile view as well as the pavement layer 

structure in profile view for Ohio SPS-2 test section 390212. The instrumentation consisted of

strain gauges (Dynatest®), LVDTs, PCs, rossettes PMR-60, KM-100B gauges, Carlson A-8 

gauges, and VCE-1200 VW gauges. The raw DLR traces for Ohio SPS-2 test jobs show time 

history data only for strain gauge and LVDT sensors; recorded time history data do not exist for 

the other sensors. A total of 16 LVDTs (LVDT1 through LVDT16) and 8 strain gauges (Dyn1 

through Dyn8) were deployed on SPS-2 test sections. Test sections 390201, 390205, and 390208 

had similar sensor instrumentation to that of test section 390212.

In terms of sensor locations, the metrics for the SPS-2 (PCC) test sections are as follows: X is the 

distance in millimeters along the direction of traffic as referenced from the entry slab corner; Y is 

the distance in millimeters from the shoulder joint as referenced from the entry slab corner; and 

Z is the distance in millimeters from the pavement surface to the measurement point of the 

sensor. (Sensor layouts of Ohio SPS-2 test sections 390201, 390205, 390208, and 390212 are 

shown in figure 50, figure 53, figure 60, and figure 67 in appendix C.)

3
Figure 3. Illustration. Ohio SPS-2 test section 390212 sensor layout.

4
Since the completion of the Ohio SHRP test site in 1996, nine series of controlled vehicle tests 

have been conducted to monitor DLR under known vehicle parameters and environmental 

conditions. For the SPS-1 test sections, a series II test truck with a single or tandem rear axle was 

used in different tests (i.e., one rear axle configuration with load parameters was used in each test 

job). For the SPS-2 (PCC) test sections, series II and IV test trucks (each of which had a single or 

tandem rear axle configuration) were used in different test runs (i.e., within one test job, one test 

run used a single rear axle test truck, while the other test run used a tandem rear axle test truck).

Appendices A through E in this report show the sensor layouts in the Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 

DLR test sections as well as the results, both numerically and in color-coded graphic form, of the 

23 Ohio SPS-1 DLR test jobs and the 24 Ohio SPS-2 DLR test jobs.

5

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Several DLR data inconsistencies were identified by the data analysis/operations feedback 

reports (DAOFRs) Ecompex-75–77 and the technical memorandum, Investigation of Ohio DLR 

data in LTPP Database. (See references 2–5.) The inconsistencies were between SPS-1 DLR 

raw data and SPS-1 DLR data in LTPP Standard Data Release (SDR) 22.0 and concerned 

differences in strain gauge trace peaks and related time stamps, sensor locations, and wheelpath 

offsets.(6) Similar inconsistencies were also found between SPS-2 DLR raw data and SPS-2 DLR 

data in SDR 22.0.

Ecompex-75 and 76 and the technical memorandum indicated that the SPS-1 DLR data in 

SDR 22.0 had time lag shifts in pavement deflection peak strains when compared to the DLR 

raw data (i.e., the test control software (TCS) data in American Standard Code for Information 

Interchange (ASCII) format). (See references 2, 3, 5, and 6.) A time lag shift is defined as the 

difference in time stamps between two peak strains.

For test section 390102, figure 4 and table 1 compare the Dyn12 strain gauge peaks for a 

tandem-axle truck between SPS-1 DLR data in SDR 22.0 and raw DLR data. The data are from 

test J2C run 1. In figure 4, the Dyn12 raw data trace has three peaks. The first peak on the left 

was generated by the front axle, and the next two peaks were generated by the two rear axles. 

The SDR 22.0 Dyn12 trace has only two rear-axles peaks; the trace does not contain the frontaxle peak. 

Figure 4. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for test section 390102 test J2C run 1 with

2,000.579 Hz.

7
Table 1. Dyn12 strain gauge data for test section 390102.

Test 

Name Run

Test 

Date

Truck ID

Dyn12 

Peak 

No.

TCS Raw SDR 22.0 Raw TCS Raw 

Versus 

SDR 22.0 

Raw

Time Lag 

TCS Shift Factor

SDR 

22.0

Dyn12

( e)

Time

(s)

Dyn12

( e)

Time

(s)

J2C 1 8/5/1996 2B 2 1 1,210.00 1.94 1,245.20 3.89 1.92 J2C 1 8/5/1996 2B 2 2 1,180.00 2.06 1,232.70 4.12

J2C 2 8/5/1996 2B 2 1 1,180.00 1.83 1,282.70 3.81 N/A J2C 2 8/5/1996 2B 2 2 1,300.00 1.94 1,315.20 N/A

J2E 2 8/6/1996 2C 1 1 1,270.00 1.43 1,282.70 2.85 2.01 J2E 2 8/6/1996 2C 1 2 1,540.00 1.70 1,537.70 3.39

J2E 3 8/6/1996 2C 1 1 999.00 0.87 1,015.20 1.74 1.97 J2E 3 8/6/1996 2C 1 2 1,440.00 1.15 1,455.20 2.29

J2E 10 8/6/1996 2C 1 1 472.00 1.24 480.10 2.49 2.01 J2E 10 8/6/1996 2C 1 2 1,650.00 1.40 1,650.30 2.81

J2G 1 8/9/1996 2D 1 1 736.00 1.13 740.10 2.25 2.00 J2G 1 8/9/1996 2D 1 2 1,110.00 1.41 1,117.70 2.81

N/A = Data not available.

Note: For SDR 22.0 Truck ID, 1 refers to a single rear axle truck, and 2 refers to a tandem rear axle truck.

The time lag shift factor was computed by comparing strain gauge Dyn12 peak value time 

stamps between the TCS raw data and SDR 22.0 raw data. For example, for test J2C run 1, the 

time lag shift factor of 1.92 was computed as follows: (4.12 − 3.89)/(2.06 − 1.95) = 1.92.

The inconsistencies involving strain gauge locations and wheelpath offset values between the 

SPS-1 raw DLR data and DLR data in SDR 22.0 were reported in Ecompex-77.

(4) Figure 5

shows a sample sketch of Dyn12 strain gauge locations using data from table 2. The strain gauge 

location of Dyn12 in the raw data was 16 ft from the end station of test section 390102; the

Dyn12 strain gauge in SDR 22.0 was 8 ft from the end station of the section.

Inconsistent wheelpath offsets between the raw DLR data and DLR data in SDR 22.0 are shown 

in figure 5 and listed in table 2. The wheelpath offset data were measured from the defined 

wheelpath, which was 30 inches from the right pavement edge. The SDR 22.0 wheelpath offset 

data were measured from the right pavement edge. Figure 5 shows the wheelpath offset data 

(the raw data) as 23 inches and the SDR 22.0 wheelpath offset data as 21 inches. Thus, the 

total of the two offsets is 44 inches, which is inconsistent with 30 inches, the width of the 

defined wheelpath.

In the table, X_AC is the distance along the direction of traffic as referenced from the start of the 

first LVDT gauge in the section; Y_AC is the distance from the shoulder joint as referenced from 

the start of the first LVDT gauge in the section; and Z is the distance from the pavement surface 

to measurement point of sensor. For the Ohio raw data, X is the X-coordinate measured from 

southernmost joint of first instrumented slab in PCC sections or from southernmost deep LVDT 

in AC sections and increases to the north; Y is the y-coordinate measured from the right edge of 

μ μ

8
pavement and increases to the left; and Z is the z-coordinate measured from surface of pavement 

and increases downward, which makes a left-handed coordinate system in the northbound lane.

Figure 5. Illustration. Dyn12 strain gauge locations and wheelpath offsets for 

test section 390102.

9
Table 2. Strain gauge locations for SDR 22.0 and Ohio raw data.

Test 

Section ID

Test 

Name Tag ID

DLR AC Strain 

Configuration for SDR 22.0 Ohio Raw Data 

X_AC 

(inches)

Y_AC 

(inches)

Z 

(inches)

X 

(inches)

Y 

(inches)

Z 

(inches)

390102 J2B Dyn1 216 30 0 72 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn2 192 30 0 96 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn3 168 30 0 120 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn4 144 30 0 144 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn5 120 30 0 168 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn6 96 30 0 192 30 2

390102 J2B Dyn7 96 30 0 72 30 4

390102 J2B Dyn8 96 30 0 96 30 4

390102 J2B Dyn9 96 30 0 120 30 4

390102 J2B Dyn10 96 30 0 144 30 4

390102 J2B Dyn11 96 30 0 168 30 4

390102* J2B Dyn12 96 30 0 192 30 4

390102 J2B Dyn13 96 72 0 72 72 4

390102 J2C Dyn12 96 30 0 192 30 4

390102 J2C Dyn13 96 72 0 72 72 4

390102 J2E Dyn12 96 30 0 192 30 4

390102 J2E Dyn13 96 72 0 72 72 4

390102 J2G Dyn12 96 30 0 192 30 4

390102 J2G Dyn13 96 72 0 72 72 4

390104 J4B Dyn1 216 30 0 72 30 2

390104 J4B Dyn2 192 30 0 96 30 2

390104 J4B Dyn10 96 30 0 72 30 7

390104 J4B Dyn11 96 30 0 96 30 7

390104 J4B Dyn12 96 30 0 120 30 7

390104 J4B Dyn13 96 30 0 144 30 7

390104 J4B Dyn14 96 30 0 168 30 7

390104 J4B Dyn15 96 30 0 192 30 7

*Indicates this scenario was plotted in figure 5.

Note: Bold text indicates inconsistent strain gauge locations.

10
Similar to the data for SPS-1, the SPS-2 (PCC) DLR data in SDR 22.0 had time lag shifts in 

pavement deflection peak strains when compared to raw DLR data and also had inconsistent 

sensor locations and wheelpath offset values. Figure 6 compares the Dyn5 strain gauge peaks for 

a tandem-axle truck between SPS-2 DLR data in SDR 22.0 and SPS-2 raw DLR data for Ohio 

test section 390201.

Figure 6. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for test section 390201 test J1A run 2.

11

3. OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to address the SPS-1 (AC) and SPS-2 (PCC) DLR 

data issues in SDR 22.0, which were identified in Ecompex-75–77 and the technical 

memorandum, Investigation of Ohio DLR data in LTPP Database, by re-interpreting the 

SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR raw traces. (See references 2–6.) Processing the DLR raw data involved

the following steps:

1. Smoothing the raw traces.

2. Performing quality control (QC) analysis for strain gauge, LVDT, and PC sensors by 

categorizing them as producing “good,” “maybe,” and “not good” traces and graphically 

depicting the results in the profile view of a test section’s sensor layout.

3. Extracting trace peaks and valleys.

4. Correcting sensor locations and wheelpath offsets.

5. Populating the DLR tables in the next SDR using this study’s processed DLR data.

13

4. DLR DATA

Ohio University (OU) submitted two datasets: the Ohio raw DLR data and the OU-processed 

DLR data. The raw DLR data contained the raw traces from each test job collected on SPS-1 and 

SPS-2 DLR test sections. The OU-processed DLR data had text files (e.g., EmbeddedSensor.txt, 

TruckPass.txt, TruckPeak.txt, etc.) pertaining to truck pass, truck run, truck peak, axle spacing, 

embedded senor, truck geometry, surface temperature, etc., for SPS-1, SPS-2, SPS-8, and SPS-9 

test sections.

In this study, the DLR raw traces were collected by OPTIM Corporation’s MEGADAC SERIES 

3100 data acquisition system from the strain gauge, LVDT, and PC sensors for SPS-1 and SPS-2 

test sections and were first converted to ASCII data format using TCS. To maintain consistency 

and clarity throughout this report, the term “DLR data” is used instead of ASCII formatted Ohio 

raw DLR data, and the term “Ohio data” is used for OU-processed DLR data in text files.

OHIO SPS-1 DATA

In the test summary provided in table 3, the SPS-1 DLR data contain a total of 34 tests, of which 

tests J2B, J8B, J8C, and J8F were empty, and tests J6J4K, J6J4L, J8J5K, J8J5L, J10BX, J10J9K, 

and J10J9L did not have information pertaining to sensor locations as was in OU text files 

EmbeddedSensor.txt, TruckPass.txt, and TruckPeak.txt in the SPS-1 data. Therefore, these 

11 tests were excluded from processing due to incomplete information. A total of 23 tests were

used for the SPS-1 DLR data processing. Each test had test files or runs in ASCII format. For 

example, test J2A had a total of 16 test runs named AJ2A.001 to AJ2A.016. Each test run 

contained raw traces collected by strain gauge, LVDT, and PC sensors.

The naming convention for a test run such as AJ2A.001 is as follows: 

• The first letter, A, does not represent anything, as it is the same for all test runs.

• The second letter represents the test.

• The following number refers to the section (e.g., the “2” in J2 refers to test section 

390102). 

• The third letter represents visits to the site in alphabetical order (e.g., A for the first visit, 

B for the second visit, C for the third visit, etc.).

• The numeric extension is the test run number for that particular visit to that particular 

site. 

Table 3 shows the test names, test run count, sensors count (number of sensors deployed for a 

particular sensor type for a particular test section), and sensors trace count.

15
Table 3. SPS-1 DLR data trace count.

Test 

Job

Test 

Section

Test 

Date

No. 

of 

Test 

Runs

No. of 

Strain 

Gauges 

(Count)

No. of 

LVDTs

(Count)

No. of 

PCs

(Count)

No. of 

Strain 

Gauge 

Traces 

(Sum)

No. of 

LVDT 

Traces 

(Sum)

No. of 

PC 

Traces 

(Sum)

J2A 390102 8/2/1996 16 6 4 2 96 64 32

J2C 390102 8/5/1996 10 6 4 2 60 40 20

J2D 390102 8/6/1996 16 6 4 2 96 64 32

J2E 390102 8/6/1996 13 6 4 2 78 52 26

J2F 390102 8/7/1996 8 6 4 2 48 32 16

J2G 390102 8/9/1996 12 6 4 2 72 48 24

J4A 390104 8/2/1996 16 9 4 2 144 64 32

J4B 390104 8/3/1996 13 9 4 2 117 52 26

J4C 390104 8/5/1996 10 9 4 2 90 40 20

J4D 390104 8/6/1996 15 9 4 2 135 60 30

J4E 390104 8/6/1996 13 9 4 2 117 52 26

J4F 390104 8/7/1996 12 9 4 2 108 48 24

J4G 390104 8/9/1996 12 9 4 2 108 48 24

J8A 390108 8/2/1996 16 9 4 2 144 64 32

J8D 390108 8/6/1996 15 9 4 2 135 60 30

J8E 390108 8/6/1996 13 9 4 2 117 52 26

J8G 390108 8/9/1996 12 9 4 2 108 48 24

J10A 390110 8/2/1996 16 9 4 2 144 64 32

J10C 390110 8/5/1996 10 9 4 2 90 40 20

J10D 390110 8/6/1996 16 9 4 2 144 64 32

J10E 390110 8/6/1996 12 9 4 2 108 48 24

J10F 390110 8/7/1996 13 9 4 2 117 52 26

J10G 390110 8/9/1996 12 9 4 2 108 48 24

Total 2,484 1,204 602

Grand Total 4,290

OHIO SPS-2 DATA

The SPS-2 DLR data contained a total of 24 tests. All of the tests were used for data processing. 

Table 4 shows the test names, test run count, sensor count (number of sensors deployed for a 

particular sensor type for a particular test section), and sensor trace count. The SPS-2 DLR data 

did not contain any data from PC sensors.

16
Table 4. SPS-2 DLR data trace count.

Test Job

Test 

Section

Test 

Date

No. 

of 

Test 

Runs

No. of 

Strain 

Gauges

(Count)

No. of

LVDTs

(Count)

No. of Strain 

Gauge 

Traces 

(Sum)

No. of 

LVDT 

Traces 

(Sum)

J1A 390201 8/12/1996 28 4 16 112 448

J1B 390201 8/13/1996 24 4 16 96 384

J1C 390201 8/14/1996 14 4 16 56 224

J5A 390205 8/12/1996 29 4 16 116 464

J5B 390205 8/13/1996 25 4 16 100 400

J5C 390205 8/14/1996 14 4 16 56 224

J8A 390208 8/12/1996 26 4 16 104 416

J8B 390208 8/13/1996 26 4 16 104 416

J8C 390208 8/14/1996 17 4 16 68 272

J12A 390212 8/12/1996 4 4 16 16 64

J12B 390212 8/13/1996 26 4 16 104 416

J12C 390212 8/14/1996 14 4 16 56 224

J5J1M 390205 7/29/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J5J1N 390205 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J5J1O 390205 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J5J1P 390205 8/06/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J8S3M 390208 7/29/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J8S3N 390208 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J8S3O 390208 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J8S3P 390208 8/06/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J12J10M 390212 7/29/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J12J10N 390212 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J12J10O 390212 7/30/1997 18 4 16 72 288

J12J10P 390212 8/06/1997 17 4 16 68 272

Total 1,848 7,392

Grand Total 9,240

17

5. METHODOLOGY

This section presents a step-by-step approach of the study methodology used to process the Ohio 

SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR data using Matlab®.

(8) For the SPS-1 data that had relatively distinct 

pavement deflection signal peaks and valleys, a peak finding algorithm was developed using the 

tools available in Matlab® to perform the first five steps of the methodology. For the SPS-2 data 

that had indistinctive pavement deflection signal peaks and valleys with significant noise, a 

bandpass filter algorithm was developed using the Matlab® toolbox to perform the methodology. 

The methodology was as follows:

1. Calibrate the DLR data.

2. Apply gain adjustment factors.

3. Smooth the raw traces.

4. Extract trace peaks and valleys.

5. Perform a QC analysis.

6. Correct sensor locations and wheelpath offsets.

DLR DATA CALIBRATION

Ohio SPS-1 Data Calibration

The Ohio SPS-1 DLR data had two sensor types in need of data calibration: LVDTs and PCs. 

Calibration factors were obtained from OU, and the LTPP team clarified that all LVDT 

calibrations (approximately 600 LVDTs) were linear and passed through the origin with slopes 

ranging from 19.5 to 20.5 V/inch. Therefore, an average value of 20.0 V/inch was used to 

convert LVDT traces from voltage to pavement deflection in inches. For all the PC sensors, a 

factor of 10 psi/V was used, which was generally correct to within ±2 percent according to OU.

(9)

Dynatest® strain gauges were calibrated using the MEGADAC data acquisition system in the 

one-fourth Wheatstone bridge setup and did not require any calibrations. Units of strain gauge 

traces were in microstrain ( e). All calibrations for LVDT and PC sensors were computed 

in Matlab®.

(8)

Ohio SPS-2 Data Calibration

For the Ohio SPS-2 data, only the LVDT sensor type was in need of data calibration. As 

with LVDT calibration in the SPS-1 data, LVDT calibration factors with an average value of 

20.0 V/inch were used to convert LVDT traces from voltage to pavement deflection in inches.

LVDT data calibrations were also completed using Matlab®.

(8)

μ

19
GAIN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

Following calibration, the sensor traces were normalized to base zero on the y-axis (pavement 

deflection) so that the resulting peak values represented the change due to load response. Base 

zero was under no load conditions. A gain adjustment factor was calculated as the average of the 

first 500 data points in a calibrated raw trace. The factor was subtracted from each trace data 

point to normalize the trace to zero on the y-axis. Theoretically, the number of data points 

needed to determine a gain adjustment factor is about 10 percent of the data collection frequency 

for each sensor. If data collection frequency is 2,000 Hz, the number of data points needed to 

determine a gain adjustment factor is 10 percent of 2,000 Hz, or 200 data points per second. If 

data collection frequency is 500 Hz, the number of data points needed to determine a gain 

adjustment factor is 10 percent of 500 Hz, or 50 data points per second. In this study, the DLR 

study team decided to use the first 500 data points to average a gain adjustment because the 

SPS-1 gain adjustment factors appeared to stabilize when the number of data points was about 

500. Similarly, the team used the first 500 data points to determine a gain adjustment factor for 

the SPS-2 data.

Ohio SPS-1 Gain Adjustment Factor

Each SPS-1 time history dataset in the majority of the DLR raw trace files contained, on 

average, 5,000 data points. A sample size of 10 percent (500 data points) of the time history 

measurements was considered reasonable to calculate the gain adjustment factor. The DLR study 

team also computed the gain adjustment factor considering 200, 300, and 400 data points at the 

start of the trace, but there was not any significant difference in mean values for these sets of 

data points. For example, the computed mean values for the AJ2A.007 test run were -1.0470, 

-1.1168, -1.1345, and -1.1326 for 200, 300, 400, and 500 data points, respectively. The mean 

value of the first 500 data observations was subtracted from each observation of a sensor raw 

trace to normalize the trace to zero on the y-axis (pavement deflection). For example, assuming 

that the Dyn12 strain gauge trace in test J2F had a total of 6,000 observations, the mean value of 

the first 500 observations was subtracted from each observation of the total 6,000 observations. 

The algorithm adjusted all sensor traces to base zero on the y-axis for all files in test J2F.

Ohio SPS-2 Gain Adjustment Factor

Each SPS-2 time history dataset in the majority of the DLR raw trace files contained, on average, 

close to 7,000 data points. Due to stiffer PCC sections compared to the SPS-1 AC sections, the 

SPS-2 data had significantly more noise and lower pavement deflection magnitudes. 

Nevertheless, the mean value of the first 500 data observations—the same number used to 

normalize the SPS-1 datasets—was subtracted from each observation of a sensor raw trace to 

normalize the trace to zero on the y-axis (pavement deflection). In retrospect, due to significant 

noise in the SPS-2 data, the first 500 data points may not have been sufficient. In future research, 

the first 700 data points is recommended for determining a gain adjustment factor for the SPS-2

data. A total of 700 data points amount to approximately 10 percent of each SPS-2 time 

history dataset. Furthermore, due to significant noise in the SPS-2 data, it is extremely difficult to 

identify peaks and valleys in raw traces of the data. Thus, smoothing the SPS-2 raw traces 

become necessary; only from a smoothed trace can peaks and valleys be extracted.

20
SMOOTHING RAW TRACES

Smoothing SPS-1 DLR Data Traces 

Smoothing of raw sensor traces was necessary to eliminate redundant local minima, local 

maxima, and noise. The DLR tables in SDR 22.0 have time stamp columns and location 

(pavement deflection value) stamp columns for both raw and smoothed traces for all strain 

gauge, LVDT, and PC sensors. In this study, the mslowess function available in the Matlab®

bioinformatics toolbox was explored to smooth sensor traces, where “ms” stands for mass 

spectrometry and “lowess” stands for locally weighted scatterplot smoothing method and

assumes a default span of 10 data samples.(10) For the SPS-1 raw traces collected by strain 

gauge, LVDT, or PC, the mslowess function was used for smoothing.

Smoothing SPS-2 DLR Data Traces

The SPS-2 strain gauge raw traces were significantly noisier and of lower deflection magnitude 

due to stiffer PCC sections. Thus, it was extremely difficult to extract pavement deflection peaks 

and valleys. Figure 7 shows a comparison plot of a normalized raw trace in red versus a moving 

median-smoothed trace in blue versus a bandpass filter-smoothed trace in green as sampled from

Dyn8 strain gauge in SPS-2 test section 390201 test J1A run 27. The figure demonstrates the 

level of noise and magnitude of the signal associated with a typical SPS-2 raw trace collected 

from a strain gauge compared to the signals associated with smoothed traces. The SPS-2 LVDT 

raw traces did not appear to be as noisy as did the strain gauge traces; therefore, the moving 

median function was used to smooth SPS-2 LVDT raw traces.

Figure 7. Graph. Normalized Dyn8 strain gauge raw traces for Ohio SPS-2 test 

section 390201 test J1A run 27.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

Microstrain (ue)

390201 J1A Run27

Normalized raw trace in red

Moving Median (MM): Time Window: 20 milliseconds; MM-smoothed trace in blue

Bandpass Filter (BP): Optimal Frequency Range: 1 to 50 Hertz; BP-smoothed trace in green

Dyn8

21
The bandpass filter function in Matlab® appears to be a feasible solution for filtering out the 

significant noise in SPS-2 strain gauge raw traces, as shown in figure 8. Before the noise is 

filtered, the power density function in Matlab® can be used to identify an optimal bandpass 

filtering frequency range by plotting the power density of a raw trace. The optimal range can be 

further tightened by comparing bandpass filter-smoothed trace plots created within various 

narrower frequency ranges. In general for the SPS-2 strain gauge raw traces, 1 to 50 Hz appeared 

to be the optimal filtering frequency range for the bandpass filter. Thus, it was the filtering 

frequency range chosen for the bandpass filter to smooth the SPS-2 strain gauge raw traces. 

Figure 8 shows a magnified view of the three trace peaks in figure 7: a normalized raw trace 

(red), a moving median-smoothed (with a moving average window of 20 ms) trace (blue), and a 

bandpass filter-smoothed trace (green). The bandpass filter-smoothed trace in green appears to 

approximate the raw trace peaks in red better than the moving median-smoothed trace in blue. 

Also, the bandpass filter-smoothed trace in green appears to demonstrate the least noise.

Figure 8. Graph. Magnified view of the three trace peaks in figure 7.

EXTRACTING TRACE PEAKS AND VALLEYS

Extraction of Ohio SPS-1 Trace Peaks and Valleys

The mspeaks function of Matlab® was used to extract the trace peaks and valleys from both the 

raw and smoothed traces from strain gauges, LVDTs, and PCs for the SPS-1 data.(11) The 

function finds the relevant peaks in raw noisy peak trace data and creates a peak list, which is a 

two-column matrix containing the time stamp value and magnitude (location stamp) value for 

each peak. The mspeaks function has input arguments such as height filter value and oversegmentation filter value to locate peaks. The height filter value is a positive real value that 

specifies the minimum height for reported peaks, and the over-segmentation filter value is a 

positive real value that specifies the minimum distance in time stamp units between neighboring 

peaks. When a trace is not smoothed appropriately, multiple maxima can appear to represent the 

1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (s)

Microstrain (ue)

390201 J1A Run27

Normalized raw trace in red

Moving Median (MM): Time Window: 20 milliseconds; MM-smoothed trace in blue

Bandpass Filter (BP): Optimal Frequency Range: 1 to 50 Hertz; BP-smoothed trace in green

Dyn8

22
same peak. Increasing the filter value helps to join over-segmented peaks into a single peak. The 

default value for both arguments is zero. The extracted trace peaks and valleys identified from 

the mspeaks function are used in QC analysis to categorize the sensor traces. Figure 9 shows the 

extracted peaks (red stars), valleys (green stars) and identifying information for a smoothed 

longitudinal trace from a Dyn11strain gauge sensor.

Figure 9. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-1 test run.

Extraction of Ohio SPS-2 Trace Peaks and Valleys

The mspeaks function of Matlab® was used to extract the trace peaks and valleys from only the 

smoothed traces for the SPS-2 data because the raw traces were too noisy for extraction.

(11)

Figure 10 shows the bandpass filter-smoothed trace from test J1A run 27 for Dyn8. The red stars 

in the figure indicate the pavement deflection signal peaks, and the blue stars indicate the signal 

valleys. The local valley (blue star) near 2 s was manually removed before incorporating the 

extracted peaks and valleys and their time stamps into the DLR_STRAIN_TRACE_SUM_PCC 

table in SDR 27.0 database.

(1)

23
Figure 10. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-2 test run.

QC ANALYSIS

QC analysis is a process used to assess data quality. It provides insight into data quality issues 

and helps in decisionmaking. In this study, a QC analysis was performed to categorize the sensor 

raw and smoothed traces into three quality categories: good, maybe, and not good. The QC 

analysis was based on the number of peaks and the difference between the beginning and the 

ending offset of a trace. A peak occurs with the passage of an axle. Thus, the passage of a singleaxle dump truck ideally produces two peaks (the single front axle and the single rear axle), and 

the passage of a tandem-axle dump truck ideally produces three peaks (the single front axle and 

the two rear axles). An offset is a reference point of value averaging two hundred data points 

in a trace.

The three criteria used to categorize DLR raw and smoothed traces include the following:

• Good: Number of peaks is equal to the number of test truck axles, and the difference 

between the beginning and the ending offset is less than 10 percent of the first peak.

• Maybe: Number of peaks is equal to the number of test truck axles, and the difference 

between the beginning and the ending offset is more than 10 percent of the first peak.

• Not good: Number of peaks is less than or greater than the number of test truck axles.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

Microstrain (ue)

390201: J1A-Run27

Truck Actual Speed: 49.93 (mph)

X=264,Y=30,Z=7(inches)

Tandem Axle Load: 42.52 (Kips)

Layer Type: PCC (8"), DGAB (6"), Subgrade

Offset1=7, Offset2=8.5, OffsetX1=120, OffsetX2=312 (inches)

Dyn8: Longitudinal Strain Gauge Sensor

Dyn8

24
Ohio SPS-1 QC Analysis

Figure 11 has three transverse strain gauge trace charts for good, maybe, and not good traces. 

The graph on the left satisfied the good trace criterion: the number of peaks (two) was equal to 

the number of test truck axles (a single-axle truck (two axles) made the test run), and the 

difference in the beginning and ending offset was less than 10 percent of the first peak. The 

middle graph satisfied the number of peaks (three; a tandem-axle truck with a total of three axles 

made the test run) but failed to satisfy the difference in the beginning and ending offset of less 

than 10 percent of the first peak. The difference in the beginning and ending offset was more 

than 10 percent, satisfying the maybe trace criterion. The graph on the right did not satisfy the 

number of peaks (three) for a tandem-axle truck; it had multiple peaks. Thus, it was categorized 

as a not good trace.

Figure 12 shows SPS-1 LVDT trace categorization. There is no figure for SPS-1 PC traces; 

almost all (99 percent) of the raw and smoothed traces from SPS-1 PCs were categorized as 

good traces.

Ohio SPS-2 QC Analysis

Due to significant noise in SPS-2 strain gauge and LVDT raw traces, only smoothed SPS-2 strain 

gauge and LVDT traces were categorized using the trace categorization approach. Figure 13

and figure 14 show sample categorization results for longitudinal strain gauge and LVDT 

traces, respectively.

25
26

Figure 11. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 transverse strain gauge trace categorization.
27

Figure 12. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 LVDT trace categorization.
28

Figure 13. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 longitudinal strain gauge trace categorization.
29

Figure 14. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 LVDT trace categorization.
CORRECTING SENSOR LOCATIONS AND WHEELPATH OFFSETS

Inconsistent sensor locations between SPS-1 and SPS-2 data and SDR 22.0 were corrected using 

the embedded sensor data in the OU dataset (EmbeddedSensor.txt). An inner join procedure, 

based SDR 22.0 tables on STATE_CODE, SHRP_ID, and TAG_ID as matching columns, was 

used that joined all the columns in the DLR_STRAIN_CONFIG_AC table with the strain gauge 

sensor location (columns X, Y, and Z) in the embedded sensor data. LVDT and PC sensor 

locations in the DLR_LVDT_CONFIG_AC and DLR_PC_CONFIG_AC tables were also 

corrected using the same embedded sensor data.(6)

Similarly, the inconsistent wheelpath offset data in DLR_TEST_MATRIX table were updated 

using the OU truck pass (TruckPass.txt) data, OU truck run (TruckRun.txt) data, and raw DLR 

ASCII data.(6) However, the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 has wheelpath offset 

records for both Ohio and North Carolina test sections. Only Ohio wheelpath offset records were 

inner joined with STATE_CODE, SHRP_ID, SUBSERIES, and RUN_NUMBER as matching 

columns in the Ohio TruckPass.txt data. Since the wheelpath offset data for North Carolina test 

sections were not available, the North Carolina wheelpath offset records were not updated.

30
6. QC RESULTS

OHIO SPS-1 DATA QC RESULTS

This section presents the results from the application of the methodology described in chapter 5 

to process DLR raw data. The results were useful in making decisions as to which quality 

DLR data (good and maybe traces by test job and by sensor type) should be included into 

SDR 27.0.

(1) Also, the QC-processed DLR data can be used to determine the approaches and 

methodologies most appropriate for applications in pavement analysis and design processes.

Smoothed Trace Processing

Each of the 23 tests in the SPS-1 DLR data was separately processed using Matlab®.

(8) Test J2F, 

which had eight test runs (AJ2F.001 through AJ2F.008) is used to illustrate the working of the 

methodology described in chapter 5 in Matlab®. The peak finding algorithm developed was test 

specific; that is, the algorithm ran through all the test runs (files) in a particular test. It imported

all the runs in test J2F into the Matlab® environment. Calibration factors discussed in the first 

step of the methodology were applied to LVDT and PC sensors to convert them into pavement 

deflection in inches and test vehicle loading in pounds per square inch. As discussed in the third 

step of the methodology, sensor traces for three sensor types—strain gauge, LVDT, and PC—

for all runs in test J2F were smoothed using the mslowess function available in the Matlab®

bioinformatics tool box.(10)

The QC part of the methodology checked trace quality categorization for all smoothed sensor 

traces in test J2F based on three criteria: good, maybe, and not good. The QC results were saved

separately into a Microsoft Excel® file using sensor type and test name as the file name (e.g.,

LVDT_J2F_QC for an LVDT sensor in test J2F). QC results in the Microsoft Excel® file were

checked manually for each smoothed trace to correct any improperly categorized traces.

Table 5 shows the summarized QC results for each run number and sensor type for test J2F. 

Numbers 1 through 3 for strain gauge (Dyn7 to Dyn12), LVDT (LVDT1 to LVDT2), and 

PC (PC1 and PC2) sensors in table 6 represent the trace quality in good, maybe, and not food 

trace categories respectively. In test J2F, there were 48 strain gauge traces of which 16 traces 

were good (the eight “1s” or good traces in the Dyn9 column plus the eight “1s” in the 

Dyn12 column).

31
Table 5. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in Ohio SPS-1 test J2F.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 8 0 0 8 8 5 8 8 8 8

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Not good 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32
33

Table 6. Peaks and valleys extracted for smoothed traces in test J2F ( e).

Tag ID

Test 

Name Run

Time 

Smooth 

1

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

1

Time 

Smooth 

2

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

2

Time 

Smooth 

3

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

3

Time 

Smooth 

4

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

4

Time 

Smooth 

5

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

5

Time 

Smooth 

6

Strain 

Value 

Smooth 

6

Dyn9 J2F 1 1.58 228.28 1.85 333.01

Dyn9 J2F 2 1.59 759.57 1.84 296.37

Dyn9 J2F 3 1.52 709.65 1.76 301.81

Dyn9 J2F 4 1.50 718.30 1.74 276.85

Dyn9 J2F 5 1.60 1067.32 1.83 341.22

Dyn9 J2F 6 1.52 822.41 1.71 281.21

Dyn9 J2F 7 1.53 293.97 1.72 245.72

Dyn9 J2F 8 1.43 481.43 1.62 228.29

Dyn12 J2F 1 1.43 433.04 1.70 796.86 1.40 -110.72 1.47 -58.19 1.67 -196.59 1.75 -119.02

Dyn12 J2F 2 1.44 677.99 1.72 893.38 1.41 -173.41 1.49 -60.70 1.69 -214.46 1.77 -123.61

Dyn12 J2F 3 1.38 636.70 1.65 872.43 1.36 -167.57 1.43 -70.65 1.62 -229.22 1.70 -122.18

Dyn12 J2F 4 1.35 641.91 1.62 937.55 1.33 -179.50 1.40 -75.22 1.59 -225.53 1.67 -129.91

Dyn12 J2F 5 1.47 766.11 1.72 967.68 1.45 -217.15 1.51 -83.93 1.69 -242.25 1.77 -118.40

Dyn12 J2F 6 1.41 627.06 1.62 1086.41 1.39 -225.64 1.45 -86.46 1.60 -277.34 1.66 -117.95

Dyn12 J2F 7 1.42 441.83 1.62 1089.63 1.40 -185.48 1.46 -77.49 1.60 -280.45 1.66 -108.65

Dyn12 J2F 8 1.32 547.97 1.52 1141.55 1.30 -212.76 1.36 -79.22 1.50 -284.95 1.56 -119.13

Note: Dyn 9 sensor which is laid in transverse direction for test section J2 has two trace peaks. Time stamp and strain value information for those two peaks is presented and 

remaining cells are shown as blank cells. Whereas, Dyn 12 sensor which is laid in longitudinal direction for the same test section has two peaks and four valleys. A total of 

six time stamps and strain values are shown.

μ
The QC results obtained for test J2F are shown in figure 15. The trace quality obtained from the 

two sensor types (strain gauge and LVDT) are graphically presented either in combination or 

separately in green, orange, and red colors to represent good, maybe and not good sensors. For 

example, strain gauge sensors Dyn7, Dyn8, Dyn10, and Dyn11 are in red, indicating data in the 

not good category, whereas Dyn9, Dyn12, LVDT1, LVDT3, and LVDT4 are in green indicating 

data in the good category. The LVDT2 sensor is in a combination of orange and green, meaning 

that the data obtained from this sensor was of good quality for some runs and of maybe quality 

for the remaining runs. Except for three traces, the QC results obtained for PC sensors were in 

the good category for all of the traces; they are not represented in colors in the drawings. 

Graphical representation of QC results for all 23 tests are in appendix B.

Figure 15. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F.

The peaks and valleys for the smoothed traces in test J2F were extracted using the mspeaks 

function discussed in the fourth step listed in the methodology in chapter 5.(11) These extracted 

peaks and valleys for each trace were directly saved into a separate Microsoft Excel® file using a 

34
file name of sensor type, sensor number, test name, and run number (e.g., Dyn12_J2F1 is Dyn12 

sensor in test J2F for run 1). Based on the QC results, the peaks and valleys extracted for good 

traces for test J2F are summarized in table 6. For test J2F, a two-axle test truck was used. 

Because sensor Dyn9 was laid in a transverse direction, it had only two peaks, whereas sensor 

Dyn12 was laid in a longitudinal direction and therefore had two peaks and four valley points.

Raw (Unsmoothed) Trace Processing

The same processing steps were applied to raw (unsmoothed) traces for test J2F. The results are 

shown in table 7 and table 8. Table 7 has the summarized QC results for raw traces. Similar to 

table 5, numbers 1 through 3 for strain gauge, LVDT, and PC sensors represent good, maybe, 

and not good trace categories respectively. There were no differences between the QC results for 

raw traces and the QC results for smoothed traces. Table 8 shows the summarized peaks and 

valleys extracted for good raw traces.

Table 7. Summarized QC results for raw traces in test J2F.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 8 0 0 8 8 5 8 8 8 8

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Not good 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35
36

Table 8. Peaks and valleys extracted for raw traces in test J2F.

Tag 

ID

Test 

Name Run

Time 

Raw 

1 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 1 

( e)

Time 

Raw 

2 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 2 

( e)

Time 

Raw 

3 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 3 

( e)

Time 

Raw 

4 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 4 

( e)

Time 

Raw 

5 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 5 

( e)

Time 

Raw 

6 (s)

Strain 

Value 

Raw 6 

( e)

Dyn9 J2F 1 1.58 229.81 1.85 333.57

Dyn9 J2F 2 1.59 761.85 1.84 297.43

Dyn9 J2F 3 1.52 712.71 1.76 302.67

Dyn9 J2F 4 1.50 719.66 1.74 278.99

Dyn9 J2F 5 1.60 1070.29 1.83 343.34

Dyn9 J2F 6 1.52 825.52 1.71 282.34

Dyn9 J2F 7 1.53 295.44 1.72 247.31

Dyn9 J2F 8 1.43 483.47 1.62 229.69

Dyn12 J2F 1 1.43 435.75 1.70 801.42 1.40 -111.18 1.47 -59.30 1.67 -196.81 1.75 -119.30

Dyn12 J2F 2 1.44 682.82 1.72 898.46 1.41 -174.14 1.49 -61.63 1.69 -214.77 1.77 -124.14

Dyn12 J2F 3 1.38 641.79 1.65 878.06 1.36 -168.92 1.43 -71.41 1.62 -230.17 1.70 -122.66

Dyn12 J2F 4 1.35 647.40 1.62 942.43 1.33 -180.81 1.40 -75.80 1.59 -226.44 1.67 -130.18

Dyn12 J2F 5 1.47 773.32 1.72 973.96 1.45 -218.65 1.51 -84.27 1.69 -243.03 1.77 -118.64

Dyn12 J2F 6 1.41 635.66 1.62 1095.08 1.39 -226.93 1.45 -86.91 1.60 -278.18 1.66 -118.17

Dyn12 J2F 7 1.42 446.82 1.62 1100.64 1.40 -186.37 1.46 -78.23 1.60 -282.00 1.66 -109.48

Dyn12 J2F 8 1.32 556.01 1.52 1152.32 1.30 -214.07 1.36 -79.68 1.50 -285.95 1.56 -119.68

Note: Dyn 9 sensor, which is laid in the transverse direction for test section J2, has two trace peaks. Time stamp and strain value information for those two peaks is 

presented, and the remaining cells are left blank. Whereas the Dyn 12 sensor, which is laid in the longitudinal direction for the same test section, has two peaks and 

four valleys. A total of six time stamps and strain values are shown.

μ μ μ μ μ μ
The first peaks extracted for good sensor traces in test J2F in table 6 and table 8 were used 

to check how close the processed J2F data were to the data in the Ohio data peak file 

(TruckPeak.txt). Table 9 shows the comparison of data peak values with first peak values 

of smoothed and raw traces for strain gauges Dyn9 and Dyn12 in test J2F. The column labeled 

“X” is the estimated x-coordinate position of the front-axle at the time the peak occurred. The 

X-coordinate was measured from the southernmost deep LVDT in the AC sections. For Dyn9 

strain gauge, the smoothed and raw peak values were close to the Ohio data peak values. For 

Dyn12 strain gauge, however, there was more divergence between the smoothed and raw peak 

values and the data peak values.

Table 9. Comparison of first peak smooth and raw peak values with Ohio peak values.

Test 

Job Run

Test 

Section 

Sensor 

Name

X 

(inches)

Ohio 

Peak 

Value 

( e)

Smooth 

Peak 

Value ( e)

Raw 

Peak 

Value 

( e)

J2F 1 390102 Dyn9 118.3 224.30 228.28 229.81

J2F 2 390102 Dyn9 121.8 751.90 759.57 761.85

J2F 3 390102 Dyn9 121.5 702.10 709.65 712.71

J2F 4 390102 Dyn9 121.0 709.90 718.30 719.66

J2F 5 390102 Dyn9 121.8 1,048.00 1,067.32 1,070.29

J2F 6 390102 Dyn9 121.5 814.60 822.41 825.52

J2F 7 390102 Dyn9 118.5 289.50 293.97 295.44

J2F 8 390102 Dyn9 120.5 475.60 481.43 483.47

J2F 1 390102 Dyn12 194.7 411.40 433.04 435.75

J2F 2 390102 Dyn12 195.4 629.80 677.99 682.82

J2F 3 390102 Dyn12 195.5 585.00 636.70 641.79

J2F 4 390102 Dyn12 194.5 591.60 641.91 647.40

J2F 5 390102 Dyn12 194.8 683.80 766.11 773.32

J2F 6 390102 Dyn12 195.2 581.80 627.06 635.66

J2F 7 390102 Dyn12 194.8 418.80 441.83 446.82

J2F 8 390102 Dyn12 195.2 509.90 547.97 556.01

Dyn9’s actual location was X = 120 inches, and Dyn12’s actual location was X = 192 inches. 

The Ohio peak data, however, showed multiple locations for sensors, the locations being 2 to 

3 inches off the actual sensor location (see table 18 in chapter 7). It was observed that the 

smoothed and raw peak values are close to the Ohio data peak values such that X values are 

closer and below the actual sensor location. For example, the Dyn9 sensor for run 1 had a peak 

value of 224.30 e at X = 118.3 inches. The X value was close to and below the actual sensor 

location of X = 120 inches, and the smoothed and raw peak values of 228.23 and 229.81 e, 

respectively, were very close to the data peak value of 224.30 e. Conversely, the Dyn12 sensor

for run 1 had a location at X = 194.7 inches and a peak value of 411.40 e. The location of 

X = 194.7 inches was above the actual location of X = 192 inches. The first peak values of the 

smoothed and raw traces, 433.04 and 435.75 e, respectively, were considerably removed from 

the peak value of 411.40 e.

μ μ μ

μ

μ

μ

μ

μ

μ

37
Beginning offset, ending offset, and range values were computed for all sensor traces in test J2F. 

Table 10 shows beginning and ending offset and range values for a PC sensor in test J2F.

Table 10. PC sensor begin offset, end offset, and range values.

Test 

File

PC1 PC2

Beginning

Offset

Ending

Offset Range

Beginning

Offset

Ending

Offset Range

AJ2F001 0.0000206 0.0172634 1.227 0.0000000 0.0223676 1.215

AJ2F002 0.0000675 0.0140629 1.300 -0.0000228 0.0189775 1.387

AJ2F003 -0.0000184 0.0141437 1.330 0.0000303 0.0200913 1.490

AJ2F004 0.0000341 0.0096094 1.329 0.0000631 0.0128362 1.495

AJ2F005 0.0000228 0.0115536 1.344 0.0000078 0.0179510 1.576

AJ2F006 -0.0000250 0.0099899 1.082 -0.0000269 0.0131659 1.336

AJ2F007 0.0000203 0.0076421 1.035 0.0000162 0.0112694 1.328

AJ2F008 0.0000191 0.0092828 1.126 -0.0000325 0.0102851 1.392

The preceding data processing steps for smoothed and raw traces in test J2F were repeated one 

by one for the remaining 22 tests. The QC results summarized for all 23 tests for both smoothed 

and raw traces are shown in table 11 and table 12. Similar to table 6 and table 8 for test J2F, 

DLR data tables were created separately for good traces of each sensor type for the 23 tests and 

will be included in future SDRs.

38
39

Table 11. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 smoothed traces.

Test 

Job 

Name

No. of 

Test 

Runs

Strain Gauge

Total

LVDT

Total

PC

Good Maybe Total

Not 

Good Good Maybe

Not 

Good Good Maybe

Not 

Good

J2A 16 32 13 51 96 39 7 18 64 32 0 0 32

J2C 10 12 0 48 60 26 4 10 40 20 0 0 20

J2D 16 17 8 71 96 45 11 8 64 32 0 0 32

J2E 13 15 0 57 72 41 7 0 48 24 0 0 24

J2F 8 16 0 32 48 29 3 0 32 16 0 0 16

J2G 12 16 8 48 72 38 10 0 48 24 0 0 24

J4A 16 46 5 93 144 32 32 0 64 32 0 0 32

J4B 13 30 5 82 117 24 24 4 52 26 0 0 26

J4C 10 15 9 48 72 16 12 4 32 14 0 2 16

J4D 15 30 15 90 135 32 27 1 60 30 0 0 30

J4E 13 26 15 76 117 40 12 0 52 26 0 0 26

J4F 12 24 33 51 108 24 24 0 48 24 0 0 24

J4G 12 24 7 77 108 24 24 0 48 24 0 0 24

J8A 16 48 48 48 144 21 43 0 64 31 1 0 32

J8D 15 45 45 45 135 22 38 0 60 30 0 0 30

J8E 13 39 44 34 117 23 29 0 52 26 0 0 26

J8G 12 36 37 35 108 36 12 0 48 24 0 0 24

J10A 16 15 5 115 135 26 15 19 60 30 0 0 30

J10C 10 10 0 80 90 6 19 15 40 20 0 0 20

J10D 16 19 21 104 144 13 43 8 64 32 0 0 32

J10E 12 12 17 79 108 27 15 6 48 24 0 0 24

J10F 13 61 12 44 117 31 16 5 52 26 0 0 26

J10G 12 12 34 62 108 36 12 0 48 24 0 0 24

Total 301 600 381 1,470 2,451 651 439 98 1,188 591 1 2 594
40

Table 12. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 raw traces.

Test 

Job 

Name

No. of 

Test 

Runs

Strain Gauge

Total

LVDT

Total

PC

Good Maybe Total

Not 

Good Good Maybe

Not 

Good Good Maybe

Not 

Good

J2A 16 32 13 51 96 39 7 18 64 32 0 0 32

J2C 10 12 0 48 60 26 4 10 40 20 0 0 20

J2D 16 17 8 71 96 45 11 8 64 32 0 0 32

J2E 13 14 0 58 72 39 9 0 48 24 0 0 24

J2F 8 16 0 32 48 29 3 0 32 16 0 0 16

J2G 12 16 8 48 72 38 7 3 48 24 0 0 24

J4A 16 46 2 96 144 32 32 0 64 32 0 0 32

J4B 13 30 2 85 117 24 24 4 52 26 0 0 26

J4C 10 15 2 55 72 14 14 4 32 14 0 2 16

J4D 15 30 15 90 135 32 27 1 60 30 0 0 30

J4E 13 26 15 76 117 39 13 0 52 26 0 0 26

J4F 12 24 1 83 108 24 24 0 48 24 0 0 24

J4G 12 24 7 77 108 24 24 0 48 24 0 0 24

J8A 16 48 48 48 144 21 43 0 64 31 1 0 32

J8D 15 45 45 45 135 22 38 0 60 30 0 0 30

J8E 13 39 44 34 117 23 29 0 52 26 0 0 26

J8G 12 36 37 35 108 36 12 0 48 24 0 0 24

J10A 16 15 5 115 135 24 18 18 60 30 0 0 30

J10C 10 10 0 80 90 6 19 15 40 20 0 0 20

J10D 16 19 21 104 144 13 43 8 64 32 0 0 32

J10E 12 12 17 79 108 27 15 6 48 24 0 0 24

J10F 13 61 12 44 117 30 17 5 52 26 0 0 26

J10G 12 12 34 62 108 36 12 0 48 24 0 0 24

Total 542 599 336 1,516 2,451 643 445 100 1,188 591 1 2 594
Table 13 shows the summarized QC results for smoothed traces for strain gauge, LVDT, and 

PC sensors with percentages in parentheses. Of the three sensor types, PCs had the highest 

percentage of good traces with 99 percent, followed by LVDTs with 55 percent, and strain 

gauges with 24 percent.

Table 13. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 smoothed traces.

Sensor Type Good Maybe 

Not 

Good 

Total 

Traces 

Completed

Strain gauge 600

(24.48%)

381

(15.54%)

1,470

(59.98%)

2,451

(100%)

LVDT 651

(54.80%)

439

(36.95%)

98

(8.25%)

1,188

(100%)

PC 591

(94.49%)

1

(0.17%)

2

(0.34%)

594

(100%)

Total 4,233

Similarly, table 14 shows the summarized QC results for raw traces for strain gauge, LVDT, 

and PC sensors with percentages in parentheses. No significant difference in percentage was

observed when compared to the QC results of smoothed traces. Similar to table 13, of the 

three sensor types, PCs had the highest percentage of good traces with 99 percent, followed by 

LVDTs with 54 percent, and strain gauges with 24 percent.

Table 14. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 raw (unsmoothed) traces.

Sensor 

Type Good Maybe

Not 

Good

Total 

Traces 

Completed

Strain gauge 599

(24.44%)

336

(13.71%)

1,516

(61.85%)

2,451

(100%)

LVDT 643

(54.12%)

445

(37.46%)

100

(8.42%)

1,188

(100%)

PC 591

(99.49%)

1

(0.17%)

2

(0.34%)

594

(100%)

Total 4,233

41
OHIO SPS-2 DATA QC RESULTS

Table 15 shows the comparison of SPS-2 first peak smooth values of test J1A and the Dyn1 

sensor with Ohio data peak values. The extracted smooth values of test J1A and the Dyn1 sensor 

closely match the Ohio peak values.

Table 15. Comparison of first peak smooth values with Ohio peak values.

Test 

Job Run Test Section 

Sensor 

Name

X 

(inches)

Ohio 

Peak 

Value 

( e)

Smooth 

Peak 

Value 

( e)

J1A 1 390201 Dyn1 82.3 -22.07 -22.53

J1A 2 390201 Dyn1 85.2 -38.20 -38.68

J1A 3 390201 Dyn1 82.6 -20.62 -20.22

J1A 4 390201 Dyn1 85.0 -36.42 -36.75

J1A 5 390201 Dyn1 82.5 -20.48 -20.07

J1A 6 390201 Dyn1 85.7 -34.08 -34.64

J1A 7 390201 Dyn1 82.4 -20.74 -20.73

J1A 8 390201 Dyn1 85.0 -34.25 -34.15

J1A 9 390201 Dyn1 82.4 -21.29 -21.28

J1A 10 390201 Dyn1 84.4 -35.69 -35.75

J1A 11 390201 Dyn1 81.8 -18.50 -18.05

J1A 12 390201 Dyn1 85.3 -36.14 -35.73

J1A 13 390201 Dyn1 82.8 -21.16 -20.77

J1A 14 390201 Dyn1 85.0 -32.30 -31.41

J1A 15 390201 Dyn1 82.1 -20.61 -20.16

J1A 16 390201 Dyn1 85.0 -34.77 -34.12

J1A 17 390201 Dyn1 82.1 -20.10 -19.69

J1A 18 390201 Dyn1 85.1 -32.73 -32.08

J1A 19 390201 Dyn1 82.2 -20.49 -19.45

J1A 20 390201 Dyn1 84.3 -30.04 -29.23

J1A 21 390201 Dyn1 82.7 -22.58 -21.49

J1A 22 390201 Dyn1 84.3 -33.11 -31.97

J1A 23 390201 Dyn1 82.1 -22.10 -20.99

J1A 24 390201 Dyn1 84.8 -28.67 -27.59

J1A 25 390201 Dyn1 82.2 -21.36 -19.78

J1A 26 390201 Dyn1 83.9 -30.20 -29.13

J1A 27 390201 Dyn1 84.3 -35.76 -34.43

J1A 28 390201 Dyn1 85.1 -33.05 -32.11

μ μ

42
Table 16 shows summarized QC results for smoothed traces for all 24 Ohio SPS-2 tests.

Table 16. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces.

Test Job

No. of 

Test 

Runs

Strain Gauge

Total

LVDT

Good Maybe Total

Not 

Good Good Maybe

Not 

Good

J1A 28 112 0 0 112 103 7 282 392

J1B 24 96 0 0 96 30 28 278 336

J1C 14 56 0 0 56 55 34 107 196

J5A 29 9 0 107 116 45 4 357 406

J5B 25 75 0 25 100 46 18 286 350

J5C 14 42 0 14 56 23 12 161 196

J8A 26 78 0 26 104 68 13 283 364

J8B 26 87 0 17 104 70 6 288 364

J8C 17 52 0 16 68 55 12 171 238

J12A 4 16 0 0 16 9 5 42 56

J12B 26 102 2 0 104 75 10 279 364

J12C 14 51 3 2 56 68 3 125 196

J5J1M 18 72 0 0 72 67 8 177 252

J5J1N 18 72 0 0 72 52 8 92 152

J5J1O 18 49 3 20 72 58 5 189 252

J5J1P 18 64 0 8 72 53 5 194 252

J8S3M 18 16 0 56 72 10 7 235 252

J8S3N 18 20 9 43 72 3 9 240 252

J8S3O 18 17 1 54 72 12 2 238 252

J8S3P 18 15 2 55 72 0 2 250 252

J12J10M 18 0 11 61 72 24 20 208 252

J12J10N 18 11 7 54 72 15 9 228 252

J12J10O 18 9 15 48 72 21 2 229 252

J12J10P 17 0 0 68 68 25 50 163 238

Total 462 1,121 53 674 1,848 987 279 5,102 6,368

43
Table 17 shows summarized QC results for smoothed traces for all 24 SPS-2 tests with 

percentages in parentheses. A total of 61 percent of strain gauges had good traces, whereas 

only 15 percent of LVDTs had good traces.

Table 17. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces.

Sensor 

Type Good Maybe 

Not 

Good Total

Strain gauge 1,121

(60.66%)

53

(2.87%)

674

(36.47%)

1,848

(100%)

LVDT 987

(15.50%)

279

(4.38%)

5,102

(80.12%)

6,368

(100%)

Total 8,216

44
7. DLR TRACE ISSUES

Some dubious sensor trace patterns were encountered in the processing of the Ohio SPS-1 and 

SPS-2 DLR data. For example, some sensor traces exhibited a flat unresponsive pattern. Other

sensor traces indicated the mislabeling of a transverse strain gauge as a longitudinal 

strain gauge.

OHIO SPS-1 TRACE ISSUES

LVDT Trace Pattern Issue

All of the LVDTs were buried deep in the subgrade or close to the interface between the 

subgrade and the base layer in the Ohio test sections. Thus, LVDT traces should not contain any 

trace valleys (no tensile strains) but only peaks (compressive strains). However, the LVDT3 

sensor for tests J2A, J2C, J2D, J2E, J2F, and J2G (test section 390102) showed a trace pattern 

similar to a longitudinal strain gauge trace that assumes valleys. Figure 16 shows LVDT3 trace 

in test J2A with a trace pattern similar to a longitudinal strain gauge trace.

Figure 16. Graph. Transverse LVDT3 longitudinal strain gauge trace that assumes valleys.

45
Strain Gauge Trace Pattern Issue

Strain gauge sensors Dyn10 and Dyn11 for tests J2A, J2C, J2D, J2E, J2F, and J2G in test section 

390102 showed a flat unresponsive trace pattern. The assumption was that the sensors were not 

connected properly. Figure 17 shows flat strain gauge sensor Dyn10 trace in test J2A.

Figure 17. Graph. Unresponsive strain gauge trace.

Longitudinal strain gauges are expected to assume trace valleys, whereas transverse strain 

gauges are not. However, longitudinal strain gauge sensor Dyn17 for tests J8A, J8D, J8E, and 

J8G (test section 390108) showed a trace pattern that, if flipped, is similar to a transverse strain 

gauge trace that assumed no valleys. Figure 18 shows the longitudinal Dyn17 strain gauge trace 

in test J8A exhibiting an upside down transverse strain gauge trace pattern.

46
Figure 18. Graph. Longitudinal Dyn17 strain gauge trace exhibiting an upside down 

transverse pattern.

The LVDT3 and Dyn17 strain gauge sensors for test sections 390102 and 390108 may have been 

mislabeled inadvertently. The data collection dates match for tests in both test sections. For 

example, the data collection date for tests J2A (LVDT3) and J8A (Dyn17) were the same. 

Similarly, data collection dates for tests J2D, J2E, and J2G (LVDT3) were the same as for tests 

J8D, J8E, and J8G (Dyn17), respectively.

The peak data information contained in Ohio truck peak (TruckPeak.txt) file was unclear. The 

data have peak values recorded for the same sensor number and run number but at different 

sensor locations. Table 18 shows sample truck peak data for test section 390102 strain gauge 

sensor Dyn12 run 1. The column labeled “X” represents the estimated position of the front-axle 

at the time when the peak occurred. Specifically, it is the X-coordinate measured from the

southernmost deep LVDT in the AC sections. The column labeled “Peak Value” shows the 

recorded front-axle peak values. The actual location of strain gauge sensor Dyn12 from the 

measured southernmost deep LVDT in the AC sections was 192 inches (X = 192 inches), but the 

truck peak data showed multiple sensor locations (X values). Also, the peak value of 411.40 e 

at X = 194.7 inches closely matched the first peak value extracted from the DLR data process, 

which was 433.04 e at X = 192 inches.

μ

μ

47
Table 18. Sample Ohio SPS-1 truck peak data for test J2F.

Series Subseries Run Section

Sensor 

Name

Sensor 

Number

X 

(inches)

Peak Value 

( e)

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 30.0 -118.60

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 55.8 758.00

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 71.0 -203.30

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 120.1 5.03

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 171.5 -57.61

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 194.7 411.40

2 F 1 390102 Dyn 12 209.9 -114.10

The beginning offset, ending offset, and range values for strain gauges, LVDTs, and PCs 

obtained from the DLR raw traces did not match the beginning and ending offset and range 

values in SDR 22.0.

(6) Per the technical support service contractor’s recommendations, the 

beginning offset, ending offset, and range columns were removed and do not show up in 

SDR 27.0.

(1)

OHIO SPS-2 TRACE ISSUES

The DLR SPS-2 data information was reviewed for data discrepancies before processing. Data 

information included the SPS-2 TCS raw data, the OU data, SDR 22.0 DLR data, and 

information from Evaluation of Pavement Performance on DEL 23.

(12) Site visits A, B, and C of 

SPS-2 tests J1, J5, J8, and J12 (test sections 390201, 390205, 390208, and 390212, respectively) 

were inconsistent with SPS-2 subseries H, I, and J of the OU file. In contrast, site visits A

through G of SPS-1 tests J2, J4, J8, and J10 (test sections 390102, 390104, 390108, and 390110,

respectively), had matching subseries in the OU data file. The data collection dates of the SPS-2 

test section visits A, B, and C, however, matched subseries H, I, and J, respectively, of the OU 

data file. Since subseries A through G had already been used for SPS-1, the assumption is that 

OU assigned H, I, and J in place of A, B, and C for SPS-2. Also, the wheelpath offset values in 

SDR 22.0 for SPS-2 were populated from subseries H, I, and J of the data file for test sections A, 

B, and C, respectively. Table 19 shows the inconsistencies between the SPS-2 test section visits 

and the OU subseries.

μ

48
Table 19. Ohio SPS-2 inconsistencies between test section visits and subseries.

Raw Ohio-TCS Data Test Truck 

Series from 

Sargand et al. (12)

OU Data

Test Job

No. of 

Files/Runs

Test 

Date Subseries

Start Time for 

Run 1*

J1A 28 8/12/1996 2 H 15:15:00

J1B 26 8/13/1996 2 I 11:00:00

J1C 14 8/14/1996 2 J 10:11:00

J5A 29 8/12/1996 2 H 15:15:00

J5B 26 8/13/1996 2 I 11:00:00

J5C 14 8/14/1996 2 J 10:11:00

J5J1M 18 7/29/1997 4 M 13:10:00

J5J1N 18 7/30/1997 4 N 10:20:00

J5J1O 18 7/30/1997 4 O 13:32:00

J5J1P 18 8/06/1997 4 P 07:18:00

J8A 26 8/12/1996 2 H 15:15:00

J8B 27 8/13/1996 2 I 11:00:00

J8C 17 8/14/1996 2 J 10:11:00

J8S3M 18 7/29/1997 4 M 13:10:00

J8S3N 18 7/30/1997 4 N 10:20:00

J8S3O 18 7/30/1997 4 O 13:32:00

J8S3P 18 8/06/1997 4 P 07:18:00

J12A 4 8/12/1996 2 H 15:15:00

J12B 27 8/13/1996 2 I 11:00:00

J12C 14 8/14/1996 2 J 10:11:00

J12J10M 18 7/29/1997 4 M 13:10:00

J12J10N 18 7/30/1997 4 N 10:20:00

J12J10O 18 7/30/1997 4 O 13:32:00

J12J10P 17 8/06/1997 4 P 07:18:00

*The dates of the runs in this column are the same as the test dates listed in column 3.

Note: Test truck series 2 and 4 were used for Ohio SPS-2.

SPS-2 DLR sensors LVDT5 and LVDT6 were unresponsive for all tests; LVDT5 and LVDT6 

records all had zero values.

The ASCII files for SPS-2 tests J5J1M, J5J1N, J5J1O, J5J1P, J8S3M, J8S3N, J8S3O, J8S3P, 

J12J10M, J12J10N, J12J10O, and J12J10P had 32 LVDT sensors (LVDT1 through LVDT32). 

The other tests (J1A, J1B, J1C, J5A, J5B, J5C, J8A, J8B, J8C, J12A, J12B, and J12C) had

only 16 LVDT sensors (LVDT1 through LVDT16). The DLR study team processed only 

the first 16 LVDTs (LVDT1 through LVDT16) based on information present in the OU

EmbeddedSensor.txt file, which showed only the first 16 LVDTs.

Table 20 shows strain gauge sensors for each SPS-2 test that had time history data. For example, 

test J1A had eight strain gauge sensors of which only four sensors (Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and 

Dyn8) had time history data. The other strain gauge sensors (Dyn2, Dyn3, Dyn6, and Dyn7) did

not have time history data.

49
Table 20. Strain gauge sensors with time history data for each test.

Test Job

Test 

Section

Strain Gauge Sensors that 

have Time History Data

J1A 390201 Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and Dyn8

J1B 390201 Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and Dyn8

J1C 390201 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5A 390205 Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and Dyn8

J5B 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5C 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8A 390208 Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and Dyn8

J8B 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8C 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12A 390212 Dyn1, Dyn4, Dyn5, and Dyn8

J12B 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12C 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5J1M 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5J1N 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5J1O 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J5J1P 390205 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8S3M 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8S3N 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8S3O 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J8S3P 390208 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12J10M 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12J10N 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12J10O 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

J12J10P 390212 Dyn1, Dyn2, Dyn7, and Dyn8

Note: All Ohio SPS-2 test sections had eight strain gauge sensors deployed.

Table 21 shows multiple peak values for Dyn1 run 1. Based on the Embeddedsensor.txt file, the 

location of the Dyn1 sensor was 84 inches from the southernmost first LVDT (the coordinate 

reference point), so the first peak value of -22.07 was compared to the smooth first peak values

extracted from SPS-2.

Table 21. Sample Ohio SPS-2 truck peak data for test J1A.

Series Subseries Run Section

Sensor 

Name

Senor 

Number

X 

(inches)

Peak Value 

( e)

2 H 1 390201 Dyn 1 18.6 3.00

2 H 1 390201 Dyn 1 82.3 -22.07

2 H 1 390201 Dyn 1 153.9 11.14

2 H 1 390201 Dyn 1 222.0 -44.72

2 H 1 390201 Dyn 1 311.9 4.95

Note: Subseries “H” infers “A.” Please see the second bullet under Ohio SPS-2 data issues in chapter 10.

μ

50
In table 22, Dyn8 strain gauge from test J5J1P runs 1–10 collected at 499.964 Hz on August 6, 

1997, had significantly larger raw strain values compared to other SPS-2 strain gauge values, 

which were mostly less than 100 e. Thus, further investigation is needed for this strain gauge.

Table 22. Raw Dyn8 strain gauge values of test J5J1P.

State 

Code

SHRP

ID

Run 

Number

Minimum 

Strain Raw 

Value ( e)

Maximum 

Strain Raw 

Value ( e)

39 0205 1 19,939.61 19,974.62

39 0205 2 20,024.00 20,058.39

39 0205 3 19,990.25 20,027.13

39 0205 4 20,066.51 20,097.77

39 0205 5 20,164.66 20,200.29

39 0205 6 20,224.04 20,257.80

39 0205 7 20,269.05 20,307.19

39 0205 8 20,340.94 20,372.82

39 0205 9 20,386.58 20,422.21

39 0205 10 20,458.47 20,483.47

The first 500 trace data points were used to average a gain adjustment factor for SPS-2 data. On 

average, each SPS-2 time history dataset contains close to 7,000 data points, whereas each SPS-1 

time history dataset contains about 5,000 data points. Due to significant noise in the SPS-2 data, 

the first 500 data points may not be enough. For future research, the first 700 data points should 

be used to determine a gain adjustment factor for SPS-2 data, where 700 is approximately

10 percent of each SPS-2 time history dataset.

As with the SPS-1 data, the SPS-2 beginning offset, ending offset, and range values for 

strain gauges and LVDTs obtained from the DLR raw traces did not match the beginning and 

ending offset and range values in SDR 22.0. Per the technical support service contractor’s 

recommendations, the beginning offset, ending offset, and range columns were removed and did

not show up in SDR 27.0.

μ

μ μ

51

8. UPDATES TO THE OHIO SPS-1 AND SPS-2 DLR TABLES

This chapter summarizes the key updates made to the Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR tables in 

SDR 27.0.

(1) The following updates were made to the five trace tables:

• A new gain adjust factor (average of the first 500 trace data points) column was added. 

A gain adjustment factor was subtracted from each raw trace data point to generate a 

normalized trace base zero on the y-axis—that is, under no load conditions—so that the 

resulting peak values represented the change due to load response. For the SPS-1 data, 

normalized raw or smoothed traces were used to extract the trace peaks and valleys. For

the SPS-2 data that had significant noise in the raw traces, only normalized smoothed 

traces were used to extract the trace peaks and valleys even though the gain adjustment 

factor was determined using the raw trace data.

• A new data collection frequency column was added for the frequency at which the 

trace data point was collected by the corresponding sensor identified by the tag ID 

(sensor ID) field.

• For the SPS-1 data, TIME_RAW_* (timestamps) and STRAIN/LVDT/PRESSURE_

VALUE_RAW_* (trace peak and valley location values) were updated using the data 

extracted from SPS-1 normalized raw traces.

• Also for the SPS-1 data, TIME_SMOOTH_* (timestamps) and STRAIN/LVDT/

PRESSURE _VALUE_SMOOTH_* (trace peak and valley location values) were

updated using the data extracted from SPS-1 smoothed traces.

• For the SPS-2 data, TIME_RAW_* and STRAIN/LVDT_VALUE_RAW_* columns 

were removed from the DLR database because the SPS-2 raw traces were too noisy to 

extract any meaningful peaks and valleys.

• Also for the SPS-2 data, TIME_SMOOTH_* (timestamps) and STRAIN/LVDT 

_VALUE_SMOOTH_* (trace peak and valley location values) were updated using the 

data extracted from SPS-2 smoothed traces.

In the five configuration tables, the following updates were made:

• Initially, some newly added SPS-1 and SPS-2 tests had missing sensor calibration 

information such as channel number, record status, input card, card gain, post gain, and 

gauge resolution. By matching State code, SHRP ID, and Tag ID (sensor ID) of existing 

tests that had sensor calibration information, those tests that had missing information 

could be populated regardless of test names.

• The sensor locations in terms of X, Y, and Z coordinates were updated using the X, Y, 

and Z data by matching section ID and sensor ID.

53
• The sensor layer number column was updated using the Z (sensor depth in inches) data 

and the layer column.

• The strain gauge orientation column in the DLR_STRAIN_CONFIG_AC/PCC tables 

was updated using the DirCosX (1 for longitudinal) and DirCosY (1 for transverse) data.

In the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table, the following updates were made:

• Run time (the time of the test as determined by the data acquisition computer's internal 

clock) was updated using the timestamp in cell A3 of each AJ*.* raw trace file by 

matching STATE_CODE, SHRP_ID, TEST_NAME, and RUN_NUMBER.

• Revision date (Date of latest revision to the information stored in the 

DLR_TEST_MATRIX table) was set to August 24, 2012, the date when the DLR study 

team submitted the newly created SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database.

• Actual speed (actual speed of the test truck) was newly added and populated using the 

Speed data in TruckPass.txt. The DLR study team believed that this column, in addition 

to the desired speed column, will provide valuable information for data users when 

interpreting DLR traces.

• WHEEL_PATH_OFFSET1_M (distance from the edge of pavement to the outside of the 

front tire track for OH data) was updated using the OFFSET1 data in TruckPass.txt.

• WHEEL_PATH_OFFSET2_M (distance from the edge of pavement to the outside of the 

rear tire track for OH data) was updated using the OFFSET2 data in TruckPass.txt.

• WHEEL_PATH_OFFSETX1_M (distance along the direction of traffic as referenced 

from the start of the southernmost first LVDT in the section to the location where the 

front axle wheelpath offset was measured) was newly added using the OFFSETX1 data 

inTruckPass.txt.

• WHEEL_PATH_OFFSETX2_M (distance along the direction of traffic as referenced 

from the start of the southernmost 1st LVDT in the section to the location where the rear 

axle wheelpath offset was measured) was newly added using the OFFSETX2 data in 

TruckPass.txt.

• When comparing the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 to the five trace tables, 

the DLR study team found that 9 of the 724 records in DLR_TEST_MATRIX did not 

have any source data to populate the following columns: ACTUAL_SPEED, 

WHEEL_PATH_OFFSET1_M, WHEEL_PATH_OFFSET2_M, 

WHEEL_PATH_OFFSETX1_M, WHEEL_PATH_OFFSETX2_M, and 

MATRIX_INDEX. Consequently, the nine records, which are listed in table 23, were 

removed and are not in the final DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 27.0.

54
Table 23. Records in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 with no source data.

State Code SHRP ID Test Name Run Number

39 104 J4A 7

39 104 J4D 12

39 104 J4F 9

39 108 J8D 3

39 110 J10E 1

39 201 J1B 6

39 205 J5A 29

39 205 J5B 5

39 212 J12J10P 2

Run 1 of test J10E in table 23 is an example of a missing record. The available records in 

TruckPass.txt for run 1 are listed in table 24. Test section 390110 (test J10E run 1) is not on 

the list. Because the nine records in table 23 were removed from the DLR_TEST_MATRIX 

table, 54 traces that did not have a matching record in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX were removed 

from the 5 trace tables in SDR 27.0.(1)

Table 24. TruckPass.txt records for run 1.

Series Subseries Section

Actual 

Speed

(mi/h) Offset1 Offset2 OffsetX1 OffsetX2

2 E 390102 28.77 10.000 10.000 264.00 0.00

2 E 390104 29.63 9.000 8.500 264.00 0.00

2 E 390105 28.31 9.500 9.500 264.00 0.00

2 E 390108 28.31 8.000 8.000 288.00 -24.00

55

9. SAMPLE RESULTS

This chapter compares the DLR trace plots created using the Ohio SPS-1 DLR raw data, 

SDR 22.0 data, and the new Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database (temporarily designated as 

SDR 27.0) that was created using the methodology described in this report.

OHIO SPS-1 DATA SAMPLE PLOTS

Figure 19 to figure 21 show the sample plots for test section 390102 test J2C run 1 using the 

newly created SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database (temporarily designated as SDR 27.0) for Dyn12, 

LVDT1, and PC1 sensors, respectively. The newly created data appear to match the DLR 

raw traces.

For the strain gauges, the front axle pavement deflection peaks and valleys as well as their 

corresponding time stamps were included in the newly created SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR 

database.

(9) The front axle deflections were missing in SDR 22.0. It was suggested that the onset 

of a third valley near time point 1.8 s was not required to be included in the database because 

researchers will focus on the peaks and valleys in a trace. As a result, the SDR.0 27 Dyn12 raw 

trace in figure 19 goes directly from the second valley to the third valley without matching the 

DLR raw Dyn12 trace between the two valleys.

Figure 19. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on 

August 5, 1996.

57
1 micron = 3.93×10-5 inches

Figure 20. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on 

August 5, 1996.

As shown in figure 20, only the peaks (but no valleys) and their corresponding time stamps were

included in the SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database.

(9)

58
1 kPa = 0.145 lbf/inch2

Figure 21. Graph. PC1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on 

August 5, 1996.

As shown in figure 21, only the peaks (but no valleys) and their corresponding time stamps were

included in the SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database.(9)

OHIO SPS-2 DATA SAMPLE PLOTS

Figure 22 and figure 23 show the sample plots of test section 390201 test J1A run 2 using the 

newly created SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database (temporarily designated as SDR 27.0) for Dyn5 

and LVDT1 sensors, respectively. The newly created data appear to match the DLR raw traces.

For the strain gauges, the front axle pavement deflection peaks and valleys as well as their 

corresponding time stamps were included in the newly created SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR 

database.(9) The front axle deflections were missing in SDR 22.0.(6) It was suggested that the 

third valley near time point 2.0 s was not required to be included in the database. As a result, the 

SDR 27.0 Dyn5 smoothed trace in figure 22 goes directly from the second peak to the third 

peak without matching the third valley of the DLR Dyn5 raw trace between the two tandem 

axle peaks.

59
Figure 22. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on 

August 12, 1996.

1 micron = 3.93×10-5 inches

Figure 23. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on 

August 12, 1996.

As shown in figure 23, only the peaks (but no valleys) and their corresponding time stamps were 

included in the SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR database.(9)

60
10. CONCLUSIONS

The DLR study team reinterpreted 4,290 Ohio SPS-1 DLR raw traces (table 3) and 9,240 

Ohio SPS-2 DLR raw traces (table 4), correcting the data issues identified by DAOFRs 

Ecomplex-75–77 and the technical memorandum, Investigation of Ohio DLR data in LTPP 

Database, for SDR 22.0, including trace peak time lag shift, incorrect sensor locations, and 

wheelpath offsets. (See references 2–5.) Using the methodology in chapter 5 of this report, the 

DLR study team calibrated and smoothed the SPS-1 and SPS-2 raw traces before categorizing 

those traces into three categories: good, maybe, and not good. For the SPS-1 data, the trace 

categorization QC results for smoothed and raw traces are listed in table 13 and table 14, 

respectively. Approximately 24 percent of strain gauge traces, 55 percent of LVDT traces, and 

99 percent of PC traces were concluded to be good. For the SPS-2 data, due to significant noise 

in the raw traces, only smoothed traces were categorized, and the QC results are listed in 

table 17. Approximately 61 percent of strain gauge traces and 15 percent of LVDT traces were 

concluded to be good. Only good traces were used for further extraction of trace peaks and 

valleys for the upcoming SDR 27.0. In addition, the sensor locations and the corresponding 

wheelpath offsets were corrected using the approach in chapter 5. Overall, the newly created 

DLR data in SDR 27.0 appear to match the DLR raw traces, as demonstrated by the plots in 

chapter 9.

Moreover, the QC results from the categorization were manually checked, and the sensor status 

from visit to visit and run to run for all SPS-1 and SPS-2 tests for smoothed and raw traces were 

verified. In addition, the first peak value extracted for good traces was compared with the data 

from OU, which indicated that the values were very close for most of the sensors for all test 

sections (see table 18 and table 21).

Appendices A–E show the sensor layouts in the Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR test sections as well 

as of the 23 Ohio SPS-1 DLR tests and the 24 Ohio SPS-2 DLR tests to aid future DLR data 

users in identifying the layout and status of each sensor from one test visit or run to another.

In the remainder of this chapter, the data issues identified in the DLR raw traces are enumerated.

OHIO SPS-1 DATA ISSUES

Ohio SPS-1 data issues are as follows:

• Some tests in the DLR data did not have any test files, and some files did not have 

information pertaining to sensor location, truck pass, and truck peak in Ohio data. These 

test were not considered for processing. As a result, only 23 out of 34 tests were 

considered for DLR data processing.

• Strain gauge sensors Dyn10 and Dyn11 for tests J2A, J2C, J2D, J2E, J2F, and J2G in test 

section 390102 showed a flat trace pattern.

• All of the LVDTs were buried deep into the subgrade or close to the interface between 

the subgrade and the base layer in the test sections. Thus, the LVDT traces should not 

contain any trace valleys (no tensile strains) but only peaks (compressive strains). The

61
LVDT3 sensor for tests J2A, J2C, J2D, J2E, J2F, and J2G (test section 390102), 

however, showed a trace pattern similar to a longitudinal strain gauge trace that contains 

trace valleys.

• Longitudinal strain gauges are expected to assume trace valleys, whereas transverse strain 

gauges are not. The longitudinal strain gauge sensor Dyn17 for tests J8A, J8D, J8E, and 

J8G (test section 390108), however, showed a trace pattern similar to a transverse strain 

gauge trace that assumed no valleys.

• As indicated by table 9, a significant difference between the extracted peaks and the Ohio 

data peak for some sensors was observed. This could be due to the sensor locations 

reported in the OU data (Truckpeak.txt) being approximately two to three inches off the 

actual sensor locations as measured from the southernmost deep LVDT.

• In table 25, inconsistent Z-coordinates (depth of the sensor from the pavement surface) 

for strain gauges Dyn16 to Dyn18 were found between test section390108 profile view 

and EmbeddedSensor.txt. Tests J8A, J8D, J8E, and J8G were conducted in test section 

390108. The tests consisted of three AC layers (2, 2, and 3 inches), one permeable 

asphalt treated base (PATB) (4 inches), one dense graded aggregate base (8 inches), and 

subgrade. The test section 390108 profile view showed that Dyn16 to Dyn18 were buried 

at the bottom (Z = 11 inches from the pavement surface) of the top PATB base layer 

(4 inches), which is below the three AC layers. In contrast, EmbeddedSensor.txt showed

that Dyn16 to Dyn18 were buried at Z = 7 inches from the pavement surface and the 

Layer was “bottom,” referring to the bottom of the lowest of the three AC layers. Thus, 

the DLR study team recommends changing the Z-coordinate of test section 390108 

Dyn16 to Dyn18 from 7 inches to 11 inches and changing the layer to “base PATB” or 

“base” from “bottom” for this case.

• The construction plan from one of the original DLR documents showed that two AC 

layers were planned for test sections 390102, 390104, 390108, and 390110. The section 

profile views of these sections, however, showed three AC layers. Based on the 

construction plan, the SECTION_LAYER_STRUCTURE table in SDR 26.0 had two AC 

layers, with the bottom AC layer combining the two bottom AC layers (2 and 3 inches) 

shown in the profile views into a 5-inch AC layer while keeping the top 2-inch AC layer 

as the top AC layer. The DLR study team recommends revising the SECTION_LAYER_

STRUCTURE table in order to show the three (instead of two) AC layers.

62
Table 25. Sample data from Ohio data for test section 390108.

Name

Sensor 

Number Model X Y Z Path Layer DirCosX DirCosY DirCosZ

Dyn 16 PAST

-II AC

72 72 7* CL Bottom* 0 1 0

Dyn 17 PAST

-II AC

96 72 7* CL Bottom* 1 0 0

Dyn 18 PAST

-II AC

120 72 7* CL Bottom* 0 1 0

CL = Center lane.

*Indicates suspect data.

OHIO SPS-2 DATA ISSUES

Ohio SPS-2 data issues are as follows:

• Due the fact that test J12A1 was empty and test J12J10M1 was a partial repeat of 

J12J10M, the two test were not processed. As a result, only 24 out of 26 tests were 

considered for DLR data processing.

• Site visits (A, B, and C) of SPS-2 test sections 0201, 0205, 0208, and 0212 were 

inconsistent with the SPS-2 subseries (H, I, and J) of OU data. Since subseries A–G were

already used for SPS-1 in the OU data, it was assumed that OU assigned H, I, and J 

instead of A, B, and C for SPS-2.

• In the DLR_STRAIN_TRACE_SUM_PCC table, Dyn8 strain gauge from test J5J1P 

runs 1–10 had significantly larger raw strain values compared to other SPS-2 strain gauge 

values, which were mostly less than 100 e (see table 22). Thus, further investigation is 

needed for this strain gauge.

• SPS-2 DLR sensors LVDT5 and LVDT6 were unresponsive for all tests (the values were 

all zero).

• The ASCII files for SPS-2 tests J5J1M, J5J1N, J5J1O, J5J1P, J8S3M, J8S3N, J8S3O, 

J8S3P, J12J10M, J12J10N, J12J10O, and J12J10P had 32 LVDT sensors (LVDT1

through LVDT32). The other tests (J1A, J1B, J1C, J5A, J5B, J5C, J8A, J8B, J8C, J12A, 

J12B, and J12C) had only 16 LVDT sensors (LVDT1 through LVDT16). The DLR 

study team processed only the first 16 LVDTs (LVDT1 through LVDT16) based on 

information present in the EmbeddedSensor.txt file, which showed only the first 

16 LVDTs.

• The first 500 trace data points were used to determine the gain adjustment factor for 

SPS-2 data. On average, each SPS-2 time history dataset contains close to 7,000 data 

points, whereas each SPS-1 time history dataset contains approximately 5,000 data 

points. Due to significant noise in the SPS-2 data, the first 500 data points may not be 

enough. For future research, the first 700 data points should be used to determine the gain 

μ

63
adjustment factor for SPS-2 data; 700 is approximately 10 percent of each SPS-2 time 

history dataset.

OHIO SPS-1 AND 2 COMMON DATA ISSUES

Common data issues for Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 are as follows:

• The proposed REF_LOC_NO, the distance between the beginning of a test section and 

the southernmost first LVDT that serves as the origin of the sensor coordinate system, is 

not possible to determine. The section beginning was not used as a reference for sensor 

location, and sections have since been overlaid, making this measurement unattainable.

• As listed in table 18 (SPS-1) and table 21 (SPS-2), the peak data information contained in 

the Ohio data file was unclear. The data had multiple sensor location values for the same 

sensor and run.

• The beginning offset, ending offset, and range values for strain gauges, LVDTs, and PCs 

(the latter for SPS-1 only) obtained from the DLR raw traces did not match the beginning

and ending offset and range values in SDR 22.0. Per the technical support service 

contractor’s recommendations, the beginning offset, ending offset, and range columns 

were removed and will not be in the upcoming SDR 27.0.

• The information on channel number, record status, input card, card gain, post gain, gauge 

resolution, etc. in DLR_STRAIN_CONFIG_AC/PCC, DLR_LVDT_CONFIG_AC/PCC,

and DLR_PRESSURE_CONFIG_AC, and run time in DLR_TEST_MATRIX presented 

in DLR tables in SDR was not found.

• The inconsistent wheelpath offset field in DLR_TEST_MATRIX was updated only 

for test sections using the truck pass data in the Ohio dataset (TruckPass.txt). The 

DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR, however, had wheelpath offset records for both 

Ohio and North Carolina test sections. Since the wheelpath offset data for the 

North Carolina test sections was not available, the wheelpath offset records for the 

North Carolina test sections were not updated.

• The nine records in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 that did not have any 

source data to update were removed (see table 23). As a result, 54 traces that did not have 

a matching record in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX were removed from the 5 trace tables in 

the upcoming SDR 27.0.

• No information could be found in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX to interpret data in the 

MATRIX_INDEX column (distinct coded reference number for controlled truck testing 

used to aggregate the tests according to the type of truck, vehicle speed, and general time 

of testing). Thus, the DLR study team recommends removing the column.

64
APPENDIX A. SENSOR LAYOUT IN THE OHIO SPS-1 DLR SECTIONS

Figure 24 through figure 26 show the instrumentation layout in plan and profile view as well as 

the pavement layer structure in profile view for Ohio SPS-1 test sections.

Figure 24. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390104 sensor layout.

65
Figure 25. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390108 sensor layout.

66
Figure 26. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390110 sensor layout.

67

APPENDIX B. SENSOR STATUS OF THE 23 OHIO SPS-1 DLR TESTS

Appendix B shows the instrumentation layout in plan and profile view as well as the 

pavement layer structure in profile view with sensor status (good, maybe, and not good) for

the 23 Ohio SPS-1 DLR test sections. 

For figure 27 through 49, sensor colors represent the status of a sensor based on QC results, 

where green represents good, orange represents maybe, and red represents not good. The sensors 

with color combinations of more than one color represent status in combination. For example, if 

a sensor color is in a combination of green and orange, the status of the sensor is a combination 

of good and maybe.

Figure 27. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2A.

69
Figure 28. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2C.

70
Figure 29. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2D.

71
Figure 30. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2E.

72
Figure 31. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F.

73
Figure 32. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2G.

74
Figure 33. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4A.

75
Figure 34. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4B.

76
Figure 35. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4C.

77
Figure 36. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4D.

78
Figure 37. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4E.

79
Figure 38. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4F.

80
Figure 39. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4G.

81
Figure 40. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8A.

82
Figure 41. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8D.

83
Figure 42. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8E.

84
Figure 43. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8G.

85
Figure 44. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10A.

86
Figure 45. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10C.

87
Figure 46. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10D.

88
Figure 47. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10E.

89
Figure 48. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10F.

90
Figure 49. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10G.

91

APPENDIX C. SENSOR LAYOUT AND QC STATUS FOR OHIO SPS-2 DLR 

SECTIONS

Appendix C shows the instrumentation layout in plan and profile views as well as the pavement

layer structure in profile view with sensor status (good, maybe, and not good) for the 24 Ohio 

SPS-2 DLR test sections. For figure 50 through figure 73, sensor colors represent the status of a 

sensor based on QC results, where green represents good, orange represents maybe, and red 

represents not good. The sensors with color combinations of more than one color represent status 

in combination. For example, if a sensor color is in a combination of green and orange, the status 

of the sensor is a combination of good and maybe.

93
Figure 50. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1A.

94
Figure 51. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1B.

95
Figure 52. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1C.

96
Figure 53. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5A.

97
Figure 54. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5B.

98
Figure 55. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5C.

99
Figure 56. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1M.

100
Figure 57. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1N.

101
Figure 58. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1O.

102
Figure 59. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1P.

103
Figure 60. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8A.

104
Figure 61. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8B.

105
Figure 62. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8C.

106
Figure 63. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3M.

107
Figure 64. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3N.

108
Figure 65. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3O.

109
Figure 66. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3P.

110
Figure 67. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12A.

111
Figure 68. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12B.

112
Figure 69. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12C.

113
Figure 70. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10M.

114
Figure 71. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10N.

115
Figure 72. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10O.

116
Figure 73. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10P.

117

APPENDIX D. SENSOR NUMERICAL STATUS FOR 23 OHIO SPS-1 DLR TESTS

Appendix D shows the sensor numerical statuses for the 23 Ohio SPS-1 DLR tests. For Table 26

through table 48, numbers 1, 2, and 3 under each sensor column (excluding the run number 

column) represent good, maybe, and not good, respectively.

Table 26. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2A.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

3 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

4 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

5 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

6 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

7 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

8 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1

9 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1

10 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

11 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

12 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

13 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

14 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

15 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

16 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1

Total

Good 0 16 0 0 0 16 13 0 15 11 16 16

Maybe 0 0 13 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 0

Not good 16 0 3 16 16 0 0 16 0 2 0 0

119
Table 27. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2C.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 2 0 0 10 8 0 10 8 10 10

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

Not good 10 10 8 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

Table 28. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2D.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

14 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

15 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

16 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 1 0 0 16 16 0 15 14 16 16

Maybe 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 0 0

Not good 16 16 7 16 16 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

120
Table 29. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2E.

Run No.

Dyn LDVT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 3 0 0 12 12 5 12 12 12 12

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

Not good 12 12 9 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 30. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2F.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 8 0 0 8 8 5 8 8 8 8

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Not good 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

121
Table 31. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2G.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

9 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

10 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

11 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

12 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 4 0 0 12 12 2 12 12 12 12

Maybe 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

Not good 12 12 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 32. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4A.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

16 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 14 16 16 0 0 16 16 16

Maybe 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 16 16 0 0 0

Not good 15 16 15 16 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

122
Table 33. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4B.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 12 11 0 0 13 13 13

Maybe 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 12 12 0 0 0

Not good 12 13 13 13 12 13 0 6 0 2 1 1 0 0 0

Table 34. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4C.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Total

Good 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 2 7 7 7

Maybe 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0

Not good 7 8 6 2 7 8 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

123
Table 35. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4D.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

10 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 14 0 4 14 15 15

Maybe 2 0 2 2 1 8 0 0 0 0 15 11 1 0 0

Not good 13 15 13 13 14 7 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Table 36. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4E.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 13 1 13 13 13 13

Maybe 0 0 0 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0

Not good 13 13 13 11 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

124
Table 37. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4F.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

5 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

6 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 12 0 0 12 12 12

Maybe 0 8 0 12 0 12 0 1 0 0 12 12 0 0 0

Not good 12 4 12 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 38. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4G.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 12 0 0 12 12 12

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0

Not good 12 12 12 12 12 5 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

125
Table 39. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8A.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

2 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

4 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

5 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

6 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

7 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

8 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

9 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

10 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

11 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

12 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

13 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

14 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

15 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

16 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

Total

Good 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 1 11 2 7 15 16

Maybe 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 15 5 14 9 1 0

Not good 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

126
Table 40. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8D.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

2 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

4 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

5 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

6 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

7 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

8 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

9 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

10 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

11 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

12 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

13 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

14 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

15 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 3 8 11 15 15

Maybe 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 15 12 7 4 0 0

Not good 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 41. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8E.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

3 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

4 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

5 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

6 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

7 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

8 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

9 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

10 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

11 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

12 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

13 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 9 13 13 13

Maybe 13 0 5 0 13 0 0 0 13 13 12 4 0 0 0

Not good 0 0 8 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

127
Table 42. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8G.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

4 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

5 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

6 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

7 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

8 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

9 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

10 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

11 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

12 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 12 12

Maybe 12 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 0 0 11 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 43. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10A.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1

3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1

6 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 6 12 0 15 15

Maybe 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 5 0 0

Not good 12 15 15 15 13 15 15 15 0 0 9 0 10 0 0

128
Table 44. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10C.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 10 10

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 9 0 0 0

Not good 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 1 3 1 10 0 0

Table 45. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10D.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1

4 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1

5 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 1

6 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

Total

Good 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 1 9 16 16

Maybe 2 5 2 6 0 6 0 0 0 16 9 15 3 0 0

Not good 11 11 14 10 16 10 16 16 0 0 4 0 4 0 0

129
Table 46. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10E.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

4 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

7 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

10 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

12 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6 12 9 0 12 12

Maybe 6 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 6 0 0

Not good 6 12 7 12 6 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

Table 47. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10F.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

5 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

6 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

7 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1

8 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

9 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

10 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

12 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

13 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 7 13 6 9 3 10 0 0 13 4 13 8 6 13 13

Maybe 2 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 9 0 5 2 0 0

Not good 4 0 5 0 9 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

130
Table 48. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10G.

Run No.

Dyn LVDT PC

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1 2

1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

4 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

5 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

6 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

7 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

8 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6 12 7 11 12 12

Maybe 1 12 0 12 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 5 1 0 0

Not good 11 0 12 0 12 3 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

131

133

APPENDIX E. SENSOR NUMERICAL STATUS FOR 24 OHIO SPS-2 DLR TESTS

Appendix E shows the sensor numerical statuses for the 24 Ohio SPS-2 DLR tests. For table 49 through table 72, numbers 1, 2, 

and 3 under each sensor column (excluding the run number column) represent the following: 1 = good, 2 = maybe, and 3 = not good, 

respectively. Numbers 2 and 3 under the column labeled “Truck- Axle” represent the following: 2 = two-axle truck and 3 = 

three-axle truck. 

Table 49. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 Test J1A.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 8

2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 4 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 8 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 11 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 12 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 14 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 15 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 16 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 18 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 19 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 20 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 21 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 22 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 23 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
134

3 24 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 25 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 26 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 27 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 28 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 28 15 25 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 10 13 28 28 28 28

Maybe 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

Not good 0 13 1 28 28 28 28 15 28 28 28 28 16 13 0 0 0 0
135

Table 50. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1B.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 8

2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

3 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 19 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 20 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1

3 24 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 25 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

3 26 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 10 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 24 24 24 24

Maybe 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 0

Not good 14 19 14 24 24 24 24 17 15 24 24 24 16 15 0 0 0 0
136

Table 51. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1C.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 8 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 10 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 11 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 12 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

2 14 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 14 14 13 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 8 14 14 14 14

Maybe 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 10 13 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Not good 0 0 0 14 14 10 14 0 0 14 14 14 13 0 0 0 0 0
137

Table 52. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5A.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 8

2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 6 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 8 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 9 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 10 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 11 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 12 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 13 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 14 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 15 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 16 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 17 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 18 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 19 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 20 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 21 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 22 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 23 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 24 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 25 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 26 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 27 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1

3 28 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1

2 29 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1
138

Total

Good 0 13 24 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 3

Maybe 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 29 15 3 29 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 29 28 29 26 26 29 26
139

Table 53. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5B.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 7 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 9 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 11 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 13 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 15 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 17 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 19 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 20 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

2 21 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

2 23 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1

3 24 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

3 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

3 26 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

Total

Good 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 10 0 10 0 25 0 25 25

Maybe 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 25 18 18 25 25 16 25 14 16 25 15 25 14 25 0 25 0 0
140

Table 54. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5C.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 5 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 6 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 7 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 8 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

2 9 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 10 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 11 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

2 12 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

2 13 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

2 14 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

Total

Good 0 14 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 14

Maybe 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 14 0 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 10 14 10 14 0 14 0 0
141

Table 55. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1M.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

3 6 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 15 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 8 5 11 8 4 9 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 3 18 18 18 18

Maybe 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 9 13 6 10 11 9 18 10 10 14 18 18 16 15 0 0 0 0
142

Table 56. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1N.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1

3 4 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 6 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 11 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 15 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 8 2 12 8 3 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 2 1 18 18 18 18

Maybe 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Not good 7 16 6 10 13 18 18 9 9 18 18 18 16 16 0 0 0 0
143

Table 57. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1O.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3

3 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 9 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 11 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 13 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 15 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 17 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 18 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

Total

Good 9 3 10 3 7 5 0 8 8 4 0 0 0 1 16 17 16 0

Maybe 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Not good 8 15 8 15 11 12 18 10 10 11 18 18 18 17 1 1 2 16
144

Table 58. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1P.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 6 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 8 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 10 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 12 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3

3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 14 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3

3 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 16 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3

3 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 18 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3

Total

Good 7 0 2 0 0 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 8 9 18 18 18 10

Maybe 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 10 18 14 18 18 18 9 7 9 18 18 18 10 9 0 0 0 8
145

Table 59. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8A.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 8

2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 4 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 6 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 7 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 8 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 10 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 11 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 12 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 13 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 14 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 15 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 16 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 17 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 18 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 19 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 20 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 21 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 22 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 23 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 24 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 25 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 26 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

Total

Good 18 12 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 0

Maybe 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 4 11 2 8 26 26 26 26 24 26 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 26
146

Table 60. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8B.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 6 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 8 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 11 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 12 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 14 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 15 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 16 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 18 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 19 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 20 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 21 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 22 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 24 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 25 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 26 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

3 27 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

Total

Good 22 14 18 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 9

Maybe 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 2 10 7 10 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 0 0 0 17
147

Table 61. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8C.

TruckAxle

Run 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 4 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 5 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 6 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 7 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 8 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 9 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 10 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 11 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 12 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 13 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 14 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 15 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 16 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 17 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

Total

Good 14 0 10 17 0 0 0 0 2 3 9 0 0 0 17 17 17 1

Maybe 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 2 17 3 0 17 17 17 17 15 14 1 17 17 17 0 0 0 16
148

Table 62. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3M.

TruckAxle

Run 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3

3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 5 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 7 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 11 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 15 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 17 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

Total

Good 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 16 0

Maybe 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

Not good 11 17 18 18 18 16 18 18 18 18 16 18 16 15 18 18 2 18
149

Table 63. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3N.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

2 5 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1

3 6 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

2 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

2 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

2 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 17 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

Total

Good 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 2

Maybe 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 9

Not good 17 17 18 15 18 17 18 18 18 18 17 18 16 15 18 18 0 7
150

Table 64. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3O.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 5 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 7 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 9 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 11 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 13 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 15 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 17 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

Total

Good 7 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0

Maybe 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Not good 10 18 18 16 16 17 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 0 18
151

Table 65. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3P.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3

3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

2 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

3 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

2 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

Total

Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0

Maybe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

Not good 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 18 18 1 18
152

Table 66. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12A.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 8

2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 4 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

Maybe 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not good 0 4 0 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0
153

Table 67. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12B.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 5 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 6 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 2

2 7 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 8 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 11 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 12 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 14 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 15 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 16 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 17 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 18 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 19 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 20 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 21 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 22 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 24 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 25 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 26 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

3 27 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 24 10 25 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 25 26 26 25

Maybe 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Not good 0 13 1 14 26 26 26 26 17 26 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 0
154

Table 68. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12C.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1

2 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1

2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 6 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 7 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1

2 8 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 10 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3

2 11 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 12 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1

2 13 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 14 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

Total

Good 13 14 13 14 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 14 10 14 13

Maybe 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Not good 0 0 0 0 14 14 14 14 0 14 14 14 14 13 0 1 0 1
155

Table 69. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10M.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

2 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 5 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 7 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 9 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 11 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 13 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 15 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 17 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

Total

Good 8 0 8 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Maybe 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 3 6 0 10 1 0

Not good 10 16 9 14 18 18 18 13 13 18 18 18 14 11 18 8 17 18
156

Table 70. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10N.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 5 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 6 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 7 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 9 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 11 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

2 13 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

2 15 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

2 17 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

3 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

Total

Good 7 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

Maybe 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0

Not good 9 18 8 15 18 18 18 18 16 18 18 18 18 18 0 18 18 18
157

Table 71. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10O.

TruckAxleRun 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 5 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

2 7 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3

3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3

2 9 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3

3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3

2 11 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3

3 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3

2 13 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3

2 15 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

3 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

2 17 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

3 18 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

Total

Good 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0

Maybe 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 6 0

Not good 9 18 9 18 18 18 18 18 13 18 18 18 18 18 2 16 12 18
158

Table 72. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10P.

TruckAxle

Run 

No.

LVDT Dyn

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 7 8

3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 4 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 6 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 8 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 10 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 12 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 14 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 16 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

3 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Total

Good 2 7 4 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maybe 6 1 4 0 0 4 0 7 6 0 7 0 7 8 0 0 0 0

Not good 9 9 9 9 17 11 17 10 9 17 10 17 10 9 17 17 17 17
REFERENCES

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2012). LTPP Pavement Performance Database Release 

Notes: Standard Data Release 27.0 January 2013, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.infopave.com/InfoPave_Repository/files/

SDR27_LTPP_Data_Release_Notes_27.pdf. Site last accessed February 5, 2015.

2. Lin, S. (2009). LTPP Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report, Report No. Ecompex75_Rev_1. Ecompex, Inc., McLean, VA.

3. Lin, S. (2009). LTPP Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report, Report No. Ecompex76_Rev_1. Ecompex, Inc., McLean, VA.

4. Lin, S. (2009). LTPP Data Analysis/Operations Feedback Report, Report No. Ecompex77_Rev_1. Ecompex, Inc., McLean, VA.

5. Elkins, G. (2009). Investigation of Ohio DLR data in LTPP Database, Technical 

Memorandum, AMEC, Reno, NV.

6. Federal Highway Administration. (2007). LTPP Pavement Performance Data Release Notes: 

Standard Data Release 22.0 January 2008, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, 

DC. Obtained from: http://www.infopave.com/InfoPave_Repository/files/LTPP%

20Release%2022%20Release%20Notes.PDF. Site last accessed February 5, 2015.

7. Sargand, S. et al. (1999). Coordination of Load Response Instrumentation of SHRP 

Pavements—Ohio University, Report No. FHWA/OH-99/009, Ohio University, Athens, OH.

8. MATLAB Version 7.11. (2010). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA.

9. Weaver, E. (2000). Comparison and Quality Evaluation of LTPP DLR Data from Ohio and 

North Carolina. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

10. Mslowess. MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA. Obtained from: http://www.mathworks.com/

help/toolbox/bioinfo/ref/mslowess.html. Site last accessed December 29, 2011.

11. Mspeaks. MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA. Obtained from: http://www.mathworks.com/help/

toolbox/bioinfo/ref/mspeaks.html?nocookie=true. Site last accessed December 29, 2011.

12. Sargand, S. et al. (2007). Evaluation of Pavement Performance on DEL 23, Report No. 

FHWA/OH-2007/05, Ohio University, Athens, OH.

159


HRDI-30/03-15(300)E Recycled

Recyclable