Study of LTPP

Pavement Temperatures
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-02-071 MARCH 2005

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
 FOREWORD

Since its inception, the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program has been collecting
temperature data from the General Pavement Studies (GPS) and Specific Pavement Studies
(SPS) test sections. Temperature has a strong effect on pavement deflection test results, primarily
in asphalt concrete, but also in portland cement concrete structures. Adjustment for temperature
is made to deflection test results; and, for this reason, complete and accurate data on surface
temperature and in-depth temperature of pavement structures are needed for future LTPP
analysis and research. This study documents the first detailed review of the LTPP pavement
temperature data elements. The report assesses the completeness and quality of the data,
identifies anomalies in the data, and recommends remedial action for these anomalies.

T. Paul Teng, P.E.

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 its
contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’
names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this
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. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA-RD-02-071

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

March 2005
Study of LTPP Pavement Temperatures
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

E.O. Lukanen, R.N. Stubstad, and M.L. Clevenson

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Consulpav International
P.O. Box 700
Oak View, California 11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-95-Z-00086
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Infrastructure R&D Final Report
Federal Highway Administration October 1998 to November 1999
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Monte Symons, HRDI-13

16. Abstract
This study focuses on the quality of the pavement temperature data in the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program.
Reliable pavement temperature data are necessary in the research planned for the LTPP program. Pavement surface temperature
measurements and in-depth pavement temperature measurements have been recorded since the beginning of the LTPP program.
Until this study, these data have been subject to only broad checks established for individual fields; no additional quality checks were
made. The LTPP database is now undergoing various quality investigations focusing on comparisons of the data from two
independent sources—infrared surface temperature measurements that were recorded automatically and in-depth temperature
measurements that were made manually. The comparative processes identified various data errors and errors in associated data
elements such as the time measurement. Examples of such errors include data entry errors such as transposition of numbers and
errors in the tens-place entries. Missing data, malfunctioning infrared sensors, and time-recording errors such as errors with time
zone changes or daylight savings time changes were identified. All identified pavement temperature errors were submitted for further
evaluation, which could lead to either corrections or removal of erroneous data from the LTPP database.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Infrared temperature, pavement temperature, BELLS, FWD, No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the
falling weight deflectometer, LTPP, Long-Term Pavement National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Performance, temperature errors.
19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
report)

Unclassified Unclassified 33
Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
 SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
2 2
in square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm
2 2
ft square feet 0.093 square meters m
2 2
yd square yard 0.836 square meters m
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
2 2
mi square miles 2.59 square kilometers km
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
3 3
ft cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m
3 3
yd cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m
3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o o
F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius C
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
2 2
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m cd/m
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
2 2
mm square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in
2 2
m square meters 10.764 square feet ft
2 2
m square meters 1.195 square yards yd
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
2 2
km square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
3 3
m cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o o
C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit F
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
2 2
cd/m candela/m 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
2
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1

Background..........................................................................................................................1
Objectives ............................................................................................................................2
Methodology........................................................................................................................2
Infrared Surface Pavement Temperature......................................................................2
Manual In-Depth Pavement Temperatures...................................................................2
Seasonal Monitoring Program Pavement Temperatures ..............................................3
Report Overview..................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2. DATA EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING...............................................5

Data Files .............................................................................................................................5

IR Calibration ......................................................................................................................5
IR Calibration Issues ....................................................................................................6
Post-Testing of Infrared Calibration Constants..........................................................10
Plot Scanning .....................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 3. ERRORS FOUND AND RESPONSE .........................................................13

Irrelevant IR Temperatures................................................................................................13
FWDs Without an IR Sensor .............................................................................................13
Time Entry Errors ..............................................................................................................15
Time of Manual Measurement ...................................................................................15
Incorrect Computer Clock Setting..............................................................................15
Time Zone Errors .......................................................................................................16
Daylight Savings Time Errors ....................................................................................16
Simple Time Recording and Entry Errors ..................................................................17
Temperature Errors............................................................................................................17
Summary of Errors Detected by Region............................................................................20
Region 2......................................................................................................................20
Region 4......................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................25

APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................27

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................29

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES
1. Equation. Converting millivolts to temperature..............................................................6
2. Equation. Calculate default IR values to derive IR sensor output in millivolts..............6
3. Graph. Infrared and manual temperatures for SN 8002-129 ..........................................9
4. Equation. Relationships in Tables 1 and 2....................................................................10
5. Equation. Rewritten Figure 4 equation to replace IR term ...........................................10
6. Equation. Using conversion equation to rewrite equation ............................................10
7. Graph. Example of time plot of temperatures...............................................................11
8. Graph. Example of an IR sensor ceasing to function....................................................14
9. Graph. Time-temperature plot showing computer time error.......................................15
10. Graph. Time-temperature plot showing 12-hour computer time error .........................16
11. Graph. BELLS2 prediction for manual 1 temperatures using
default IR data before cleaning ...............................................................................18
12. Graph. Minimum detectable error possible by visual scan...........................................18
13. Graph. Manual 1 and BELLS2 compared (before data cleaning; all surfaces) ............19
14. Graph. Manual 3 and BELLS2 compared (before data cleaning, all surfaces) ............19

LIST OF TABLES

1. Default calibration values for the two sensors used........................................................ 5

2. Regression statistics for infrared versus manual temperatures from
the North Atlantic Region......................................................................................... 7
3. Regression statistics for infrared versus manual temperatures from
the Western Region................................................................................................... 8
4. Examples of invalid site data ........................................................................................ 14
5. Region 2 FWD data without IR and manual temperature data..................................... 20
6. Region 4 FWD data without IR and manual temperature data..................................... 22

iv
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Since its inception, the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program has been collecting
temperature data from the General Pavement Studies (GPS) and Specific Pavement Studies
(SPS) test sections. Temperature has a strong effect on pavement deflection test results, primarily
in asphalt concrete (AC), but also in portland cement concrete (PCC) structures. Adjustment for
temperature is made to deflection test results; and, for this reason, complete and accurate data on
surface temperature and in-depth temperature of pavement structures are needed for future LTPP
analysis and research. This study documents the first detailed review of the LTPP pavement
temperature data elements. The report assesses the completeness and quality of the data,
identifies anomalies in the data, and concludes with recommends for remedial action for these
anomalies.

The stiffness, or modulus, of AC is extremely sensitive to temperature. Routine deflection test

results usually are adjusted to represent the deflection at a standard temperature or some other
reference temperature, or the back-calculated modulus must be adjusted to the modulus expected
at some selected seasonal temperature. Several procedures have been developed to adjust for
temperature; however, most of these have been based on limited data.

Although the stiffness, or modulus, of PCC is not as temperature sensitive, the deflections
measured on jointed PCC pavements are affected by the temperature gradient present in the slab
because of “curling” and “warping” effects. Generally, curling occurs during nighttime and
early morning when the temperature gradient in the PCC is positive from top to bottom (warmer
at the bottom). Warping generally occurs between late morning and early evening when the
temperature gradient in the PCC is negative from top to bottom (warmer at the top from solar
radiation). The PCC temperatures also have a major effect on joint load transfer because of
thermal expansion or contraction of the concrete panels and the corresponding effect on joint
openings.

For these reasons, it is important that the Information Management System (IMS) contain correct
and useable pavement temperature data. The temperature dataset generally has been collected in
the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program according to protocols established for
pavement monitoring. LTPP temperature measurements generally are conducted in conjunction
with falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) deflection testing. Three procedures are used to
measure pavement temperature:

ƒ Infrared (IR) sensors mounted on a FWD measure surface temperatures. One temperature
reading is made through the FWD’s automated software at each deflection test location.

ƒ Manual in-depth pavement temperature measurements from holes drilled at each end of
the test section to specified depths in the pavement. The in-depth temperatures are
measured manually with a hand-held digital thermometer. The digital thermometer has a
probe that is placed in the bottom of each hole. A small amount of heat transfer liquid

1
 (mineral oil or glycol) is placed in the bottom of the hole to transfer the pavement
temperature to the probe.

ƒ For selected Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) sections, permanent placement of

thermistors at pavement subgrade. Onsite data loggers read the temperature from each of
the thermistors and record the average temperatures hourly. Data from the SMP provides
more detailed information on daily and seasonal variations in pavement temperatures.

It is difficult to distinguish how well or poorly the three temperature measurements correlate
with one another, which one produces the most accurate data, or what the degree of variation is
among the three methods.

OBJECTIVES

The principal objective of this study is to provide the best data possible for future LTPP analysis
and research. The study attempted to estimate the precision and bias of the temperature
measurement variables.

METHODOLOGY

The data that have been uploaded into Level E of the Information Management System (IMS)
database have passed broad screening criteria. For this project, we evaluated for comparative
reasonableness all of the manual and IR temperature data that have reached Level E. For
example, a number of fields that contain numbers and temperatures should fall within a
reasonable range. The quality control range listed in the data dictionary for the manual
temperature is -11.1 °C to 50 °C (12 °F to 122 °F). We evaluated the data for errors, biases, and
missing observations.

The following paragraphs provide more detail on the three pavement temperature measurement
methods.

Infrared Surface Pavement Temperature

As part of the deflection testing process, an IR temperature sensor measures the temperature of
the surface of the pavement under the FWD at the end of each test sequence. The FWD computer
automatically records the information. Associated information includes the site number, date of
test, and time of test. The FWD field data files are returned to the regional coordination office
where the files are filtered into the IMS using FWDSCAN, a quality control software used to
check the FWD data for completeness and readability.

Manual In-Depth Pavement Temperatures

Temperatures are measured at two locations, generally about a meter before and after the test
section. The temperature measuring protocol is contained in the FWD field operation manual.(1)
Holes are drilled in the pavement to depths of 25 mm below the surface, at mid depth, and 25
mm above the bottom of the asphalt or concrete. In composite sections, the three depths apply to

2
the concrete, and two additional holes are placed to get asphalt temperatures at 25 mm from the
top and bottom of the asphalt overlay. Heat transfer fluid is placed in the bottom of each hole,
and a tip-reading temperature probe is placed into the liquid (about 10 mm to 12 mm of mineral
oil or glycol to prevent evaporative cooling and freezing). The temperature is read with a digital
thermometer that displays the temperature to a resolution of -18 °C (0 °F). The temperatures are
measured about every half hour and hand recorded on a form, along with information about the
station and site number, time and date of the measurement, depth of the hole, and the sky cover.
The data on forms are recorded manually in the database in the regional coordination office.

Seasonal Monitoring Program Pavement Temperatures

All Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) sites are fitted with temperature, moisture, and weather
instrumentation.(2) The temperature instrumentation in the pavement consists of 300-mm
stainless steel tubes or rods fitted with three thermistors, one at each end and one in the middle.
The rods, which are placed in slots cut into the pavement, are angled so that the top of the rod is
25 mm below the surface and the bottom of the rod is 25 mm above the bottom of the asphalt or
concrete. A data logger monitors the thermistors and the weather instruments, reading the
thermistors every minute. A data logger records the average hourly reading at the end of each
hour. While the thermistor data are not time-specific, they do provide a good characterization of
the diurnal and seasonal temperature variations. A review of the thermistor data was a lower
priority for this project because these data already are evaluated as part of the SMP data
screening and filtering. The thermistor data for the first two rounds of SMP testing were
compared with both the manual and IR data by Lukanen et. al.(3) in an earlier study.

REPORT OVERVIEW

Chapter 2, “Data Extraction and Processing,” describes the data fields used and how the data
were evaluated. Chapter 3, “Errors Found and Responses,” describes the type of errors found and
the extent of the errors by error type. Chapter 4, “Recommendations,” offers recommendations
for the correction of data errors and minimization of such errors in the future.

3
 CHAPTER 2. DATA EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING

The approach to evaluating the quality of the manual and infrared temperature data was to
compare the data sets and individual data elements to previous and subsequent data elements.
Two forms of temperature measurements are available for the comparison—(1) infrared surface
pavement data from table MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO (M04) and (2) manual in-depth pavement
data from tables MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS (M21) and MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES
(M22). The two sets of data, IR and manual, are then compared to each another. The calibration
settings for the infrared sensors are contained in the table MON_DEFL_DEV_CONFIG (M02).
The data fields used for the project are listed in the Appendix.

DATA FILES

The dataset that had reached “Level E” status was furnished on CD-ROM in ASCII format. The
temperature data and other relevant data were extracted from the tables and assembled into
individual section files, uniquely identified by STATE_CODE and SHRP_ID. The infrared and
manual temperature data were merged into various files, one for each section, called SITESM
files. The data in these files are sorted by date and time of test. Three additional data fields were
included in these files, one calculated field for the infrared temperature based on the
manufacturer’s default factory calibration factors, one for the manufacturer of the infrared
sensor, Williamson (W) or Raytec (R), and one for the previous day’s average air temperature,
provided by an FHWA data contractor for all the GPS sites. (The previous day’s air temperature
can be used to predict temperatures in the pavement based on the BELLS2 prediction model.)
During the assembly of each of these files, an interpolated infrared surface temperature was
calculated for each manual temperature record using standard linear interpolation (or
extrapolation) methods. The extrapolated values were less reliable.

IR CALIBRATION

The infrared sensors used on the FWDs generate an electrical response that is converted to an
electrical potential (in millivolts), which is linearly related to the surface temperature of the
pavement. The two IR devices each have two default millivolt (mV) values that correspond to
the sensor output when the pavement surface temperature is 0 °C and 100 °C. Table 1 contains
the default calibration values for the two types of sensors used.

Table 1. Default calibration values for the two sensors used.

Manufacturer Output at 0 °C Output at 100 °C

Williamson 800 mV 2080 mV
Raytec 1300 mV 4200 mV

These default values are included in the header file of the FWD field program, which uses these
values to linearly interpolate (or extrapolate) the IR sensor response to the surface temperature.
Figure 1 gives the equation to convert millivolts to temperature.

5
 mV − Cal 0
T = 100
Cal100 − Cal 0

Figure 1. Equation. Converting millivolts to temperature.

For example, if the output from the Williamson sensor is 1440 mV (half way between 800 and
2080 mV), the surface temperature is 50 °C.

LTPP protocol for the FWD required periodic calibrations of the IR sensors. A water-and-ice
mixture was used for a 0 °C reference, and nearly boiling water was the hot temperature
reference. (Boiling water as a 100 °C reference proved to be impossible to use for calibration
because of the interference of the steam and different emissivity.)

The process of calculating the default IR values is to use the equation in figure 1 and calculate
the actual IR sensor output in millivolts. Using IMS data field names, figure 2 gives the equation
in figure 1 solved for millivolts.

PVMT _ SURF _ TEMP( PVMT _ SENSOR _ VOLTAGE _ 100C − PVMT _ SENSOR _ VOLTAGE _ 0C )
mV = + PVMT _ SENSOR _ VOLTAGE _ 0C
100

Figure 2. Equation. Calculate default IR values to derive IR sensor output in millivolts.

The three requisite input variables to this equation are available in the data tables. After the
millivolt value is calculated from the equation above, the factory default calibration values and
the millivolt output are used in the equation in figure 1 to calculate the default IR reading for T.
This procedure was done for all of the data evaluated, and the calculated default IR (D.IR) values
are included as a separate field in the combined files.

IR Calibration Issues

Lukanen et. al.,(3) in a previous LTPP project found some significant differences between the
various infrared sensors mounted on the various LTPP FWDs. The calibration protocols resulted
in more variation from sensor to sensor than would result if the factory calibrations had been
used. As a result of these findings, the infrared readings, as calibrated by the regions, and the
manufacturers’ default calibrated infrared readings were regressed against the measurements in
the LAYER_TEMPERATURE1 field. The results for the North Atlantic and Western Regions
appear in tables 2 and 3. (LAYER_TEMPERATURE1 is typically measured in a 25-mm deep
hole with 5 mm to 10 mm heat transfer fluid at the bottom of the hole.) The manufacturers’
calibrations resulted in more consistency from year to year and sensor to sensor.

6
 Table 2. Regression statistics for infrared versus manual temperatures from the North Atlantic Region.

Mfg. Calibrated Infrared Sensors Regional Calibrated Infrared

Sensors
Unit Start End Records Intercept Slope R2 S.E.E. Mfg. Intercept Slope R2 S.E.E.
058A 7-Dec-88 17-Nov-89 895 3.840 0.803 0.945 1.949 W 4.318 0.793 0.945 1.948
058B 21-Feb-90 7-May-92 537 4.182 0.777 0.888 2.855 W 3.920 0.691 0.888 2.854
058C 19-Feb-92 23-Aug-95 461 0.601 0.843 0.961 2.332 W 0.601 0.843 0.961 2.332
058D 22-Mar-94 9-Dec-94 234 0.585 0.827 0.953 1.830 W 7.349 0.765 0.953 1.829
058E 17-Jan-95 12-Jul-95 130 -0.917 0.908 0.980 1.735 W 4.983 0.626 0.980 1.733
Average = 1.658 0.832 0.945 2.140 4.234 0.744 0.945 2.139
Std.Dev. = 2.238 0.050 0.035 0.459 2.427 0.086 0.035 0.460

058H 11-Sep-95 8-Jul-98 966 2.181 0.883 0.955 2.270 R 2.182 0.883 0.955 2.270
129A 21-Mar-94 22-Jun-95 572 1.420 0.898 0.955 2.280 R 0.509 0.914 0.955 2.282
129D 5-Sep-95 15-Jul-98 933 2.273 0.843 0.952 2.336 R 2.724 0.796 0.952 2.332
Average = 1.958 0.875 0.954 2.295 1.805 0.864 0.954 2.294
7

Std.Dev. = 0.468 0.029 0.002 0.035 1.155 0.061 0.002 0.033

 Table 3. Regression statistics for infrared versus manual temperatures from the Western Region.

Default Factory Calibration Region Calibrated

Unit Start End Records Intercept Slope R2 S.E.E. Mfg. Intercept Slope R2 S.E.E.
061G 26-Feb-89 29-Jan-90 752 2.785 0.867 0.883 2.745 W 9.168 0.422 0.883 2.743
061F 3-May-90 30-Oct-90 40 3.661 0.942 0.963 2.283 W 8.314 0.680 0.963 2.292
061E 17-Feb-95 31-Mar-95 118 -2.418 0.937 0.923 1.612 W 1.420 0.799 0.922 1.615
061D 29-Apr-91 26-May-93 622 3.715 0.852 0.953 2.482 W 5.367 0.749 0.953 2.479
061C 24-Jun-93 11-Mar-94 74 2.963 0.858 0.966 2.470 W 3.553 0.755 0.966 2.465
061B 6-Dec-90 14-Dec-94 275 -0.723 0.875 0.948 1.874 W -0.723 0.875 0.948 1.874
061A 15-Jan-91 16-Apr-91 41 6.159 0.758 0.760 3.792 W 7.748 0.606 0.569 5.081
001A 12-Jul-93 5-Apr-94 123 3.666 0.858 0.948 2.205 W 4.877 0.702 0.948 2.211
Average = 2.476 0.868 0.918 2.433 4.965 0.698 0.894 2.595
Std.Dev. = 2.737 0.057 0.069 0.656 3.458 0.138 0.134 1.066
8

131D 11-Aug-96 30-Mar-98 772 3.588 0.855 0.951 2.274 R 3.685 0.787 0.952 2.270
131C 7-Apr-98 5-Oct-98 290 4.187 0.890 0.948 1.925 R 3.790 0.809 0.948 1.925
131B 24-May-94 31-Jul-96 677 2.988 0.902 0.969 2.215 R 2.240 1.105 0.969 2.215
131A 13-Jan-95 24-May-95 179 1.185 0.940 0.942 2.144 R -1.172 0.782 0.942 2.140
17-Jul-95 19-Aug-98 1283 2.375 0.872 0.934 2.918 R 1.724 0.813 0.934 2.919
Average = 2.865 0.892 0.949 2.295 2.053 0.859 0.949 2.294
Std.Dev. = 1.156 0.032 0.013 0.373 2.014 0.138 0.013 0.373
Comparing the manual and infrared temperatures provides a means to scan for errors. For
example, the small crosses in figure 3 are D_IR pavement surface readings; the circles are the
manually measured temperatures at about 25 mm below the pavement surface for one of the
LTPP FWDs. The plot shows that the IR sensor did not work well during the winter, and it
became erratic after May 24, 1995. For each of the IR calibration periods, the comparisons were
used either to find times when the equipment malfunctioned or to find errors in the upper manual
measurements at 25 mm depth.

60.0

50.0

40.0
Temperature, °C

30.0

D IR
20.0
M1

10.0

0.0
27-Nov-93 7-Mar-94 15-Jun-94 23-Sep-94 1-Jan-95 11-Apr-95 20-Jul-95

-10.0

-20.0

Date

Figure 3. Graph. Infrared and manual temperatures for SN 8002-129.

A key premise to this exercise is the idea that the manual temperature is considered to be the best
representation of the pavement temperature. The temperature meters and probes that measure the
temperature in the heat transfer liquid placed at the bottom of each manual temperature
measurement hole were not subject to any rigorous calibration or verification. The
manufacturer’s specifications and certifications for the meters were accepted as statements of
their accuracy; however, it is easy enough to check the probes and meters against reference
thermometers that are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Two models of infrared sensors were used over the course of the LTPP project. The initial IR
sensors were manufactured by Williamson. The first set of four FWDs were SHRP FWDs. A
second set of four FWDs was delivered in 1995, one to each of the Regions. These machines
were equipped with Raytec sensors. During the summer of 1995, the original Williamson sensors
were replaced with Raytec sensors. It was also found that the factory default calibration settings
for the Raytec sensors were more consistent from sensor to sensor than the calibration settings

9
for the Williamson sensors. The Williamson IR sensors tended to correlate well (although not
necessarily one-to-one) with the manually measured pavement temperatures on a case-by-case
basis; however, there were significant differences from one IR sensor to the next. The Raytec IR
sensors were more consistent from sensor to sensor. The regression results shown in tables 2 and
3 confirmed the earlier findings.

Post-Testing of Infrared Calibration Constants

The temperature measurements conducted in LTPP make it possible to consider post-testing

calibration of the infrared sensors. If we accept the manual temperatures as a reliable temperature
reference, we can use the shallow manual temperatures and the regression results shown in tables
2 and 3 to calculate a new set of calibration factors for 0 °C and 100 °C. This process also
requires the selection of a reference intercept and slope. The weighted average of the slope and
intercept for the more reliable Raytec sensors, for example, could be used as the reference
relationship between the IR sensors and the top manual temperatures. The equation form in
figure 4 shows the relationships reported in tables 2 and 3.

M 1 = a + b * IR

Figure 4. Equation. Relationships in Tables 2 and 3.

Replacing the IR term with the equation shown in figure 1, the equation in figure 4 can be
rewritten as shown in figure 5, where a is the intercept and b is the slope.

100 ∗ b ∗ mV 100 ∗ b ∗ Cal 0

M1 = a + −
Cal100 − Cal 0 Cal100 − Cal 0

Figure 5. Equation. Rewritten Figure 4 equation to replace IR term.

Converting Cal100 – Cal0 to Cal∆ and M1 – a to M′, the equation can then be rewritten as shown in
figure 6.

− 100 ∗ b ∗ Cal 0 100 ∗ b

M′ = + ∗ mV
Cal ∆ Cal ∆

Figure 6. Equation. Using conversion equation to rewrite equation.

By using the two calculated variables, M′ as the dependant variable and mV as the independent
variable, all of the output for any of the sensors and dates can be regressed. The new regression
intercept would be (-100*b*Cal0) / (Cal∆) and the slope would be (100*b) / ( Cal∆), yielding two
equations with two unknowns. Cal∆ can be calculated by Cal∆ = (100*b) / slope. Cal0 can be
calculated by Cal0 = (Int. * Cal∆) / (-100*b). This process can be applied to each individual
calibration period for the Williamson IR sensors—and to a Raytec IR sensor, for that matter, if it
correlates well with M1, but it has significantly different regression coefficients.

10
Applying this process to the IR sensor on FWD S/N 058A results in a new set of calibration
factors, of 778.98 and 2,122.85 for Cal0 and Cal100 respectively. Using the new calibration
factors, a new set of computed values (abbreviated in tabular form as “C.IR”) can be developed.

PLOT SCANNING

The method used to search for errors that was most productive was to manually view time plots
of the temperatures measured on a given section for individual test days. This search was
automated by using a spreadsheet macro to allow rapid review of the plots of the data by simply
clicking on a “spinner bar” to step forward or backwards through the sections, day by day. There
was too much variation in the temperatures caused by factors such as cloud cover, rain, or
shadow effects. These variations made automated screening of the data with preset or data-
determined numerical criteria difficult.
An example of an error is provided by the plot in figure 7. The plot shows two sets of manual
temperature data, reportedly from the same site and day of test. One set of data indicates a
warmer surface and one shows a cooler surface. The erratic IR plot is from two individual sets of
data that are superimposed on the same time scale. Clearly, one set of manual data and one set of
IR data are incorrect. In all likelihood, the two sets of data are not from the same LTPP site.

241634 08-Apr-98 S/N 058 & 129

One S/N is not on this site, and the m anual tem perature m ay not be either

50

45

40

35
Temperature, °C

30 Default IR
Manual 1
25
Manual 2
20 Manual 3

15

10

0
7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00
Tim e

Figure 7. Graph. Example of time plot of temperatures.

11
 CHAPTER 3. ERRORS FOUND AND RESPONSE

This chapter is divided into the types of errors found using the temperature plot scanning
procedure and variations of errors within the types.

IRRELEVANT IR TEMPERATURES

Many of the records in the M04 tables, for the testing on SPS-1, SPS-2, and SPS-8 projects, have
entries in the PVMT_SURF_TEMP field when the tests were on the subgrade, granular base,
lean concrete (lean PCC), or permeable asphalt treated base (PATB); therefore, many data are
likely to be incorrect. The IR data on subgrade and granular base are not relevant, and all should
be replaced with nulls. A determination should be made regarding the relevance of the
temperatures that are available on lean PCC and PATB.

FWDs WITHOUT AN IR SENSOR

Some testing was done with an FWD equipped with an IR sensor that was either missing or not
working. In either case, the filter program that processes the field files into the database reads the
blank field as a zero (“0”), a reading that is incorrect. In addition, the filter program should be
modified to check for lane designations—“S” (subgrade), “G”(granular base), “L” (lean PCC),
and “P” (PATB). All these records should have the value in the PVMT_SURF_TEMP field
replaced with a null or blank field.

FWDs without IR sensors typically exhibited nonsensical values in the header file for calibration
numbers, in PVMT_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_0C and PVMT_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_100C fields
of the M02 tables. The M04 tables can be searched for the records that correspond to
configurations that have nonsensical values. These cases will be easy to identify. These records
should then be evaluated because some FWD operators were able to enter surface temperatures
from a hand-held IR thermometer. Records that did not have IR sensors were identified during
the temperature plot scans rather than the above-described method. This can be easily written
into the FWD filter program and also used as an independent check for bad IR data.

Table 4 lists examples of sites where IR data were in the database, but the data were not valid.
These cases are a sample of such cases for Region 2. Note that these may not include all of the
data; they are only part of the data for the day. An example is Section 271028 on May 10, 1994,
where the IR stopped working after the test at 13:45, as shown in the example in figure 8.

13
 Table 4. Examples of invalid site data.

Const.
ID State No. Date IR Man Unit SN Comment
1010 20 1 Jan.15, 1992 N Y 8002-060 Ptly Cloudy, cold, IR not
functioning
1005 20 1 Feb.19, 1992 N Y 8002-060 Cloudy, Cold, IR all 0s; remove
1005 20 1 Feb.20, 1992 N Y 8002-060 Sunny, IR all 0s; remove
1009 20 1 Feb.21, 1992 N Y 8002-060 IR not working; remove data
1010 20 1 Feb.25, 1992 N Y 8002-060 IR data is there, but no sensor;
remove data
1028 27 1 May 10, 1994 N Y 8002-060 IR values after 13:45 are ~ 0° and
not valid; remove
1028 27 1 June 14,1994 N Y 8002-060 IR values of 0° not valid; remove
1018 27 2 Jan.9,1995 N Y 8002-060 IR data should have been null or
empty, not zeros

271028 10-May-94

35

30

25

20
Temperature, °C

Default IR
Manual 1
15
Manual 2
Manual 3

10

0
7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00

(5)
Time

Figure 8. Graph. Example of an IR sensor ceasing to function.

14
TIME ENTRY ERRORS

A number of sections have errors in time entry. They come in a variety of forms, including the
time of the manual measurement; time zone time errors for either the manual recordings or FWD
computer time, or both; daylight savings time errors; or simple data recording or entry errors.

Time of Manual Measurement

The most noticeable form of this error is recording and entering a manual temperature
measurement that was made in the afternoon as the time based on a 12-hour clock, such as
recording 13:00 as 1:00. These errors, found while scanning the daily temperature plots, were
readily noticeable. Screening of manual temperature times recorded between midnight and 6 a.m.
would catch most of these errors. Some caution is advised because some testing in Region 4 was
at night.

Incorrect Computer Clock Setting

This data entry error, caused by setting the computer clock in the afternoon on 12-hour time
instead of 24-hour time, resulted in deflection time stamps that are 12 hours late. In addition,
date errors occurred if the first error was not corrected by the next morning. Figures 9 and 10
show examples of such errors, with the additional complication in figure 9 that the shift occurred
from 9:00 to 21:00 rather than at noon as shown in figure 10.
469187 24-Oct-94

20

15

10
Temperature, °C

Default IR
Manual 1
Manual 2
Manual 3
5

(5)
1:00 3:00 5:00 7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00 1:00
Time

Figure 9. Graph. Time-temperature plot showing computer time error.

15
 Figure 10. Graph. Time-temperature plot showing 12-hour computer time error.

Time Zone Errors

This error could have occurred when the time of the manual temperature measurement was
recorded if the operator did not account for crossing a time zone, or if the operator did not adjust
the computer clock for the time zone change. If the operator did not account for the time zone
change in the computer or adjust for it while recording the manual temperatures, the error
generally is undetectable. This error probably is not too serious because it likely is consistent
with the rest of the data.

Daylight Savings Time Errors

These errors are similar to time zone errors, except they occurred only during the first few weeks
of April or the first few weeks of November. As with time zone errors, if both the manual and
FWD times go unadjusted, the error is not easily detectable and probably is not too serious
because it likely will be consistent with the rest of the data.

16
Double entries of FWD data can occur with either the time zone or daylight savings time errors if
the region filters the data into IMS, recognizes the problem, edits the field files to correct the
time, and then refilters the FWD file into the database without removing the initial entry.
Occurrences of this error were found during both the temperature scans and deflection checks.
(Deflection checks are a separate process that is not covered in this report.) For the most part,
this problem has been identified and the Region must now review the data to determine which set
is correct and corresponds to the deflection data set as corrected and reported previously.

Simple Time Recording and Entry Errors

These errors are found during scanning of the time temperature plots as misplaced times. If the
error is large enough and there is sufficient temperature change, incorrectly recorded or entered
time will stand out. Suspect data can be identified, but it requires that the region review the data
sheets and make appropriate corrections.

TEMPERATURE ERRORS

There are a number of temperature data recording or entry errors. Errors such as transposing the
numbers, incorrectly entering the tens-place value, and reversing the temperature holes were
identified by visually scanning the time-temperature plots. These errors can be expected; and as
expected, they did occur. If the errors are sufficiently large, they can be detected by observing
the plots, as shown in figure 11. Generally, the smallest detectable error is -12 °C (10 °F), as
shown in figure 12. Note that the LTPP protocol required the temperature measurements to be in
Fahrenheit.

An alternative process that could be used to search for temperature errors is to use the BELLS2
method to estimate the temperature at the depth used in the database. This procedure could be
used for all flexible pavements where the previous day’s average air temperature data are
available. The IR calibration problems described earlier first need to be resolved. Then the IR
temperatures can be used to estimate in-depth temperatures, which, in turn, can be compared to
the measured temperatures. That process might detect errors smaller than those identified in
visual scans; however, this is uncertain.

The BELLS2 equation can also be compared to temperatures in rigid pavements. Preliminary
calculations (before data cleaning) were carried out for both surface types (AC and PCC), and
the results were encouraging. Figures 13 and 14 show the results for FWD SN 8002-058 while
equipped with a Raytec IR sensor. Note that there are many outliers that may be a result of data
problems such as infrared extrapolations and manual temperature data errors. As seen, the data
band in figure 13 is much tighter than in figure 14; figure 13 data is for manual 1 data, generally
from about 25 mm below the surface, and figure 14 is from manual 3, which generally are
25 mm above the bottom of the bound layer, and therefore, more likely to have greater variation.
The adaptation of BELLS2 (or BELLS3) to PCC surfaces could be developed from this data and
would be another LTPP product. Time was insufficient to complete that as part of this project,
but the concept has been tested with encouraging results.

17
Figure 11. Graph. BELLS2 prediction for manual 1 temperatures using default IR data
before cleaning.

Figure 12. Graph. Minimum detectable error possible by visual scan.

18
 Region 1 SN 058 Raytec
Comparison to Depth 1 Manual by BELLS

50

40

30
BELLS Predicted, °C

20

10

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-10

-20
Manual Temperature, °C

Figure 13. Graph. Manual 1 and BELLS2 compared (before data cleaning; all surfaces).

Region 1 SN 058 Raytec

Comparison to Depth 3 Manual by BELLS

50

40

30
BELLS Predicted, °C

20

10

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-10

-20
Manual Temperature, °C

Figure 14. Graph. Manual 3 and BELLS2 compared (before data cleaning; all surfaces).

19
SUMMARY OF ERRORS DETECTED BY REGION

The temperature data were scanned by Region, one date at a time. Because of time and budget
restraints, the scanning was complete for only Regions 2 and 4, and about 75 percent complete in
Region 1. Region 3 temperature data were not scanned at the time this report was prepared. In
Regions 2, 3, and 4, where SPS-1 and SPS-2 testing was done on the subgrade (S), granular base
(G), permeable asphalt treated base (P), or lean concrete base (L), no manual temperature
measurements were made on these surfaces. Following is a list of the number of individual
section-days available for scanning:

ƒ Region 1: 1,247 section-days—total includes no P, L, S, or G section-days.

ƒ Region 2: 1,995 section-days—including 12 P, 4 L, 41 S & 20 G section-days.
ƒ Region 3: 2,188 section-days—including 0 P & L, 24 S & 13 G section-days.
ƒ Region 4: 2,078 section-days—including 21 P, 3 L, 92 S & 41 G section-days.

Region 2

The following paragraphs summarize the Region 2 temperature problems found in scanning the
plots.

Sections with Missing Temperature Data. In all of the sections of test data in Region 2 that
have reached Level E, the sections shown in table 5 have no temperature data. An approximation
of pavement temperatures could be made based on historic climatic data specific to this SPS-5
site or similar sites nearby and other test dates with IR and manual temperature. These
approximations (predictions) come within about ±5 °C. Other sections also have missing data in
the IMS.

Table 5. Region 2 FWD data without IR and manual temperature data.

ID State Date SN
501 27 July 20, 1990 8002-005
507 27 July 20, 1990 8002-005
504 27 July 21, 1990 8002-005
506 27 July 21, 1990 8002-005
505 27 July 22, 1990 8002-005
509 27 July 22, 1990 8002-005
502 27 July 23, 1990 8002-005
503 27 July 23, 1990 8002-005
508 27 July 23, 1990 8002-005

Sections with Missing Manual Data. There could be several reasons why a section has no
manual data:

ƒ Testing was on subgrade, granular base, PATB, or lean concrete; manual temperature
measurements are not required for these surface types.
ƒ Manual temperatures were not measured.

20
 ƒ Manual temperatures were measured but not entered into the database.
ƒ Manual temperatures have not advanced to Level E.
ƒ Minnesota Test Road (MnROAD) GPS sections—manual temperatures were not
measured. All of the sections at MnROAD were instrumented with thermocouples. The
temperature data from MnROAD need to be transferred into the IMS, or users need to be
directed to where the data is available on the MnROAD web site.

The first group consists of tests conducted on SPS-1, SPS-2, or SPS-8 during construction. These
sections did not require manual data because the tests were conducted either on subgrade,
granular base, or PATB; however, some of these sections did have IR data. The IR data were not
screened and no assessment is given as to the validity of these data. It may be important to screen
the PATB data because the deflections on this material are temperature dependent. Manual
temperatures were not made on PATB because of the permeability—any holes drilled in the
material would not hold the requisite heat transfer fluid. It is recommended that the IR data on
PATB be screened for suitability.

The next three groups cannot be individually identified at this time; however, sections with
missing manual data are identified. A list of the sections with missing manual data should be
submitted to the four Regions, which could then check their records to verify that the data are
missing or that the data exist but have not been entered (in which case the data can be entered).

Sections that still do not have manual data, but do have IR data, could have a set of computed
temperatures for the pavement based on the BELLS2 equation for asphalt surfaces. Concrete
surfaced sections could be similarly treated following an evaluation of the BELLS2 equation for
use on PCC surfaced pavements. The calculated temperatures could be approached in at least
two ways:

ƒ Apply BELLS2 to cleaned and calibrated IR data.

ƒ Calculate the in-depth temperatures after calculating a new set of coefficients for the IR
sensor and in-depth temperatures for specific calibration periods for each specific IR
sensor. Using the new set of coefficients, calculate the in-depth temperatures for sections
with missing data. Usually the best procedure to accomplish this is to use some weighting
of site-specific estimated parameters with globally estimated parameters; we cannot
identify these factors without further, more time-intensive analyses.

Sections with Apparent Manual Temperature Errors. Apparent manual temperature errors
appear in 49 section-days; visual inspection of temperature plots makes the errors seem obvious.
Of the 49 section-days, one has IR and manual data that are both suspect, and the rest have
specific data elements identified as suspected errors. Identified errors should be checked by the
Regions. A correction can be made when the error is an entry error. When the error may have
been a recording or reading error, a decision must be made to either remove the data, leave it as
is, or change the number to the expected value. A good method to handle the changed values is
with computed parameters held in separate tables. On the other hand, separate tables could be
cumbersome for researchers. To create the best set of data for researchers, it is possible to enter a
separate data set containing both actual and computed data.

21
Section-Days With Possible Time Errors. There are 34 section-days with possible time errors.
There are several ways time errors can be made:

ƒ Recording afternoon times using a 12-hour clock system rather than the protocol 24-hour
clock system. A time at 1 p.m. time, if entered as 1:00, is recorded in the database as 1:00
a.m.
ƒ Not adjusting for going off or on daylight savings time in the computer clock or manual
time recordings.
ƒ Not adjusting, or incorrectly adjusting, for time zone changes.
ƒ Filtering in FWD data twice, once with the original data, and once with the time adjusted.
There are four section-day file cases of this.

Region 4

The following paragraphs summarize the Region 4 temperature problems caused by scanning the
plots.

Sections with No Temperature Data. For all of the sections of test data that have reached Level
E, the sections listed in table 6 have no temperature data at all. All of these sections are in
Alaska; the temperatures for the first two sections probably were never measured, and the last
three may not have been entered in time to be part of this analysis. An approximation of
pavement temperatures could be made based on historic climatic data specific to these sites or
similar sites nearby and other test dates with IR and manual temperature. These approximations
(predictions) come within about ±5 °C.

Table 6. Region 4 FWD data without IR and manual temperature data.

ID State Date SN
1008 2 Aug.21, 1989 800-002
1008 2 Aug.28, 1989 800-002
1004 2 Aug.20, 1997 800-003
1002 2 Aug.21, 1997 800-003
1001 2 Aug.22, 1997 800-003

Sections with Missing Manual Data. In Region 4, aside from the testing on the unbound layers,
PATB, and lean PCC, manual temperature data are missing from 144 sections, not including all
the SPS-3s and SPS-4s. Following is a list of grouped sections (sections here refer to
section-days) missing manual temperature data:

ƒ 43 flexible GPS sections.

ƒ 14 rigid GPS sections—13 jointed and one of continuously reinforced concrete pavement
(CRCP).
ƒ 51 SPS-5 sections.
ƒ 31 SPS-6 sections.
ƒ 5 SPS-8 sections.
ƒ All SPS-3 and SPS-4 sections.

22
There could be several reasons why these sections have no manual data:

ƒ Manual temperatures were not measured.

ƒ Manual temperatures were measured but were not entered into the database.
ƒ Manual temperatures have not advanced to Level E.

The three groups could not be individually identified at the time of the study; however, it was
possible to identify sections with missing manual data. A list of the sections with missing manual
data should be submitted to the regions. The regions should then check their records to verify
that the data are missing, or that the data exist but have not been entered, in which case the data
can be entered.

Sections that still have no manual data, but that do have IR data, could have a set of computed
temperatures for the pavement based on the BELLS2 equation for asphalt surfaces. Concrete
surfaced sections could be similarly treated following an evaluation of the BELLS2 equation for
use on PCC surfaced pavements. The calculated temperatures could be approached in at least
two ways:

ƒ Apply BELLS2 to cleaned and calibrated IR data.

ƒ Calculate the in-depth temperatures after calculating a new set of coefficients for the IR
sensor and in-depth temperatures for specific calibration periods for each specific IR
sensor. Using the new set of coefficients, calculate the in-depth temperatures for sections
with missing data. Usually the best procedure to accomplish this is to use some weighting
of site-specific estimated parameters with globally estimated parameters; we cannot
identify these factors without further, more time-intensive analyses.

Sections with Apparent Manual Temperature Errors. There are 82 section-days with
apparent manual temperature errors. The errors seem obvious by visual inspection of temperature
plots. These errors should be checked by the Region. In the case the error is a data entry error, a
correction can be made. In case the error may have been a recording or reading error, a decision
must be made to either remove the data, leave it as-is, or change the number to the expected
value. Changed values may best be treated similar to computed parameters (i.e., they may be
held in separate tables); however, this would be cumbersome for researchers. To create the best
set of data for researchers, a separate data set that contains both actual and computed data should
be made.

Section-Days with Possible Time Errors. There are 104 section-days with possible time errors.
There are several ways time errors can be made:

ƒ Recording afternoon times in the 12-hour clock method rather than 24-hour clock as per
protocol. A 1:00 p.m. time, if entered as 1:00, is recorded in the database as 1:00 a.m.
ƒ Not adjusting for going on or off daylight savings time in the computer clock or manual
time recordings.
ƒ Not adjusting, or incorrectly adjusting, for time zone changes.
ƒ Filtering in FWD data twice, once with the original data and once with the time adjusted.
There are four cases of this.

23
 ƒ Night testing where all the tests taken are listed for the day the testing was completed.
For example, testing started at 22:00 or 10:00 p.m. and ended 2:00 a.m. The tests between
22:00 and midnight will be associated with the following day. This is a data filtering and
field program operation problem.

The possible errors have been specifically identified and feedback reports will be submitted.
This is an uncommon problem; no solution is offered at this time other than to manually edit the
dates.

24
 CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS

There are no specific changes in temperature reading or recording protocol that are needed. Most
of the errors are simple human errors. If anything, simple checks of reasonableness may help
minimize data errors in the future. One method would be to devise a filtering process that would
give a graphical view of the IR data, and allow the manual temperature data to be entered and
displayed at the same time. Significant errors can be spotted in this way; this procedure is similar
to the data screening carried out in this project.

One intra-module check could be added that would guard against having meaningless IR data for
subgrade and granular surfaces, if any remain to be tested. The check could be worded as
follows:

If LANE_NO = S or G, then there should be no corresponding

MON_DEFL_TEMP_DEPTHS and MON_DEFL_TEMP_VALUES records, and the
PVMT_SURF_TEMP field in MON_DEFL_LOC_INFO should be null.

25
 APPENDIX

Table Field Table Field

M02 CONFIGURATION_NO M21 CONSTRUCTION_NO

M02 PVMT_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_0C M21 TEMPERATURE_DATE
M02 PVMT_SENSOR_VOLTAGE_100C M21 LOCATION_NO
M04 SHRP_ID M21 DEPTH1
M04 STATE_CODE M21 DEPTH2
M04 CONSTRUCTION_NO M21 DEPTH3
M04 TEST_DATE M21 DEPTH4
M04 TEST_HOUR_MINUTE M21 DEPTH5
M04 DEFL_UNIT_ID M22 SHRP_ID
M04 CONFIGURATION_NO M22 STATE_CODE
M04 POINT_LOC M22 CONSTRUCTION_NO
M04 LANE_NO M22 TEMPERATURE_DATE
M04 PVMT_SURF_TEMP M22 LOCATION_NO
M04 AIR_TEMP M22 TIME
M04 COMMENTS_1 M22 LAYER_TEMPERATURE1
M04 COMMENTS_2 M22 LAYER_TEMPERATURE2
M01 OPERATOR M22 LAYER_TEMPERATURE3
M21 SHRP_ID M22 LAYER_TEMPERATURE4
M21 STATE_CODE M22 LAYER_TEMPERATURE5
M22 WEATHER_CONDITION

27
 REFERENCES

1. Manual for FWD Testing in the Long-Term Pavement Performance Study: Operational
Field Guidelines, Version 2.0, Federal Highway Administration, Pavement Performance
Division, LTPP Division, February 1993.
2. LTPP Seasonal Monitoring Program: Instrumentation Installation and Data Collection
Guidelines, FHWA-RD-94-110, McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration, April
1994.
3. Lukanen, E.O., Stubstad, R., and Briggs, R., Temperature Predictions and Adjustment
Factors for Asphalt Pavements, FHWA-RD-98-085, McLean, VA: Federal Highway
Administration, June 2000.

29
Recycled
Recyclable HRDI-13/03-05(WEB)E