Network-Level Pavement Condition Data Collection Quality Management Plan

Connecticut Department of Transportation

Newington, CT

Prepared By:

Connecticut Transportation Institute

School of Engineering

University of Connecticut

August 21, 2018

Ver. # 1.0

A. Document Change Control

The following is the document control for revisions made to this document.

Version Number Date of Issue Author(s) Brief Description of Change

1.0 8/21/2018 CTDOT & CTI FHWA Submission

1
B. Definitions
The following acronyms, definitions of terms, abbreviations, and standards are used in this document.
Term
AASHTO
AASHTO M328-14 Standard
Specification for Inertial Profiler, 2017
AASHTO PP67-16 Standard Practice
for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt
Pavement Surfaces from Collected
Pavement Images Utilizing Automated
Methods, 2017
AASHTO PP68-14 Standard Practice
for Collecting Images of Pavement
Surfaces for Distress Detection, 2017
AASHTO PP69-14 Standard Practice
for Determining Pavement
Deformation Parameters and Cross
Slope from Collected Transverse
Profiles, 2017
AASHTO PP70-14 Standard Practice
for Collecting the Transverse
Pavement Profile, 2017
AASHTO R36-13 Standard Practice for
Evaluating Faulting of Concrete
Pavements
AASHTO R43-13 Standard Practice for
Quantifying Roughness of Pavements,
2013
AASHTO R48-10 Standard Practice for
Determining Rut Depth in Pavements,
2013
AASHTO R55-10 Standard Practice for
Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt
Pavement Surfaces, 2013
AASHTO R56-14 Standard Practice for
Certification of Inertial Profiling
Systems, 2014
AASHTO R57-14 Standard Practice for
Operating Inertial Profiling Systems,
2014
Acceptance (A) (quality acceptance)
Accuracy
ARAN
ASTM
ASTM E1166-00 (2005) Standard
Guide for Network level Pavement
Management
Definition
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
The objective of this specification is to define the required attributes of an inertial
profiler which, when combined with an operator, becomes a complete inertial
profiling system (IPS).
This practice outlines the procedures for quantifying cracking distress at the network
level in asphalt pavement surfaces utilizing automated methods.
This practice outlines the procedures for collecting images of pavement surfaces
utilizing automated methods for the purpose of distress detection for both network-
and project-level analysis.
This practice outlines a method for deriving pavement deformation parameters such
as rut depth and cross-slope in pavement surfaces utilizing a transverse profile.
This practice outlines a method for collecting pavement transverse profile, including
its relationship to a level horizontal reference in pavement surfaces utilizing
automated measurement devices. The profile can subsequently be used to quantify
cross-slope and pavement distresses such as transverse deformation, rut
characteristics, water entrapment, or edge drop-off.
This protocol describes a method for evaluating faulting in jointed concrete pavement
surfaces. Faulting is defined as the difference in elevation across a transverse joint or
transverse crack.
This standard practice describes a method for estimating roughness for a pavement
section. An International Roughness Index (IRI) statistic is calculated from a single
longitudinal profile measured with a road profiler in both the inside and outside
wheelpaths of the pavement. The average of these two IRI statistics is reported as the
roughness of the pavement section.
This practice describes a method for determining rut depth in pavement surfaces from
transverse profile measurements. Five transverse profile points are the minimum
number of points required to determine rut depth.
This practice covers the procedures for quantifying cracking in asphalt pavement
surfaces, both in wheelpath and non-wheelpath areas.
This practice describes a certification procedure for test equipment used to measure a
longitudinal surface elevation profile of highways based on an inertial reference
system that is mounted on a host vehicle.
This practice describes the procedure for operating and verifying the calibration of an
inertial profiling system. This practice is meant to be performed as a quality
control/quality assurance (QC/QA) test for use with the appropriate smoothness
specification for paving operations and for network-level data collection.
Activities to verify that PMS data meet established quality standards.
The degree to which a measurement, or the mean of a distribution of measurements,
tends to coincide with the true population mean (AASHTO 2011).
TM
Automatic Road Analyzer highway pavement data collection vehicle; CTDOT vehicles
identified as vans 8 and 9 are ARAN 9000 models.
American Society of Testing and Materials
This guide outlines the basic components of a network level pavement management
system (PMS).
2
ASTM E1656-94/1656M-11 Standard
Guide for Classification of Automated
Pavement Condition Survey
Equipment, 2016
ASTM E1926-98 (2003) Standard
Practice for Computing International
Roughness Index of Roads from
Longitudinal Profile Measurements
ASTM E2133 – 03 (2013) Standard
Test Method for Using a Rolling
Inclinometer to Measure Longitudinal
and Transverse Profiles of a Travelled
Surface.
ASTM E950/E950M-09 (2018)
Standard Test Method for Measuring
the Longitudinal Profile of Traveled
Surfaces with an Accelerometer-
Established Inertial Profiling Reference
Calibration
Corrective Actions
Crack, (Cracking)
Cracking Percent (Asphalt pavement)
Cracking Percent (Portland Cement
Concrete pavement)
Cross Slope (crossfall)
CTDOT
Data Quality Management Plan
(DQMP)
DMI
dTIMS™
Faulting
Geometrics
GIS
GPS
HPMS
Independent assurance (IA) or
verification
Guide to classify the measuring capabilities of pavement condition survey equipment
that operates at traffic speeds and collect some of the data useful in characterizing
pavement conditions.
This practice covers the mathematical processing of longitudinal profile measurements
to produce a road roughness statistic called the International Roughness Index (IRI).
This test method describes the measurement of transverse and longitudinal surface
profiles on paved road, bridge, and airport surfaces using a rolling inclinometer
traveling at walking speed.
This test method covers the measurement and recording of the profile of vehicular-
traveled surfaces with an accelerometer-established inertial reference on a profile
measuring vehicle.
A set of operations that establish, under specified conditions, the relationship
between values of quantities indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring
system, or between values represented by a material measure or a reference material,
and the corresponding values realized by standards (AASHTO 2011).
Improvements/adjustments to an organization's processes taken to eliminate causes
of non-conformities or other undesirable situations. Specifically, they are actions to
resolve discovered problems with calibration, defective equipment, data errors or
missing data.
A fissure or discontinuity of the pavement surface not necessarily extending through
the entire thickness of the pavement. (FHWA HPMS)
The percentage of the total area exhibiting visible fatigue type cracking for all severity
levels in the wheelpath in each section. (FHWA HPMS)
The percentage of slabs within the section that exhibit transverse cracking. (FHWA
HPMS)
The average transverse slope of the pavement surface, typically expressed in percent.
Connecticut Department of Transportation
A document that specifies the quality management procedures (including quality
standards, QC, acceptance, corrective actions and resources) that will be used and
how the process will be implemented and assessed for effectiveness (adapted from
ISO 2000).
Distance Measuring Instrument – Automated vehicle onboard instrumentation and
software to accurately measure and output distance travelled.
Deighton's Total Infrastructure Management System; infrastructure asset
management software used by CTDOT PMU.
Difference in elevation (i.e., vertical misalignment) across a Portland Cement Concrete
joint
Roadway geometrics include horizontal curves, vertical curves, tangents, radius of
curvature, elevations, grade, cross slope, lane dimensions (widths, lengths), and other
parameters that can be used to define positioning of the physical elements of the
roadway
Geographic Information System - A system for the management, display, and analysis
of spatial information (FHWA HPMS)
Global Positioning System
Highway Performance Monitoring System - a national level highway information
system that includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use and operating
characteristics of the nation's highways. (FHWA)
Independent verification is an unbiased and independent evaluation of data quality
that is performed by someone other than the entity that collected or is receiving the
data.
3
International Roughness Index (IRI) A statistic used to determine the amount of roughness in a measured longitudinal
profile. (AASHTO 2014)
JRCP Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement – A reinforced Portland cement concrete
pavement with transverse joints placed at planned intervals (ASTM E867)
LRS Linear Referencing System - A set of procedures for determining and retaining a record
of specific points along a highway. Typical methods used are milepoint, milepost,
reference point, and link-node. (FHWA HPMS)
Longitudinal Grade The slope (hilliness) of the pavement in the longitudinal direction (direction of travel)
typically measured and expressed in percent.
Longitudinal Profile The vertical deviations of the pavement surface taken along a line in the direction of
travel referenced to a horizontal datum. (AASHTO 2014)
Mean Roughness Index (MRI) Average of IRI values for the left and right wheelpaths of a roadway traffic lane
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program, A forum for coordinated and
collaborative research administered by the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies in Washington D.C.
Pavement Image A representation of the pavement that describes a characteristic (gray scale, color,
temperature, elevation, etc.) of a matrix of points (pixels) on the pavement surface.
Images are used for the detection and extraction of pavement cracking data.
PCI Pavement Condition Index – A formula developed by CTDOT expressing the combined
relationship of five pavement indices: cracking, distortion, ride quality, disintegration
and drainage, on a scale of 1-9.
PLU CTDOT Photolog Unit
PM Preventative maintenance; contracted annual maintenance for CTDOT ARAN vehicles
PMS Pavement Management System
PMU CTDOT Pavement Management Unit
Precision The degree of agreement among a randomly selected series of measurements; or the
degree to which tests or measurements on identical samples tend to produce the
same results (AASHTO 2011).
PSR Present Serviceability Rating – A mean rating of the serviceability of a pavement
established by a rating panel under controlled conditions. (ASTM E867) Scale 0.1-5.0
(FHWA)
PWL Percent Within Limits – The cumulative area under a normal distribution curve which
represents the estimated percentage of a population that falls above the Lower
Specification Limit (LSL), beneath the Upper Specification Limit (USL), or between the
Upper and Lower Specification Limits. (NETTCP 2014)
Quality Control (QC) Activities needed to adjust production processes toward achieving the desired level of
quality of pavement condition data.
Quality Standards Quality standards define, when applicable, the resolution, accuracy, and repeatability
or other standards that are used to determine the quality of each deliverable.
Radius of Curvature For a curve, it equals the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve
at that point.
Reference Value (Ground Truth) A value that serves as an agreed-upon reference for comparison, and which is derived
as a theoretical or established value, based on scientific principles, an assigned or
certified value, based on experimental work of some national or international
organization, or a consensus or certified value, based on collaborative experimental
work under the auspices of a scientific or engineering group (AASHTO 2011).
Repeatability Degree of variation among the results obtained by the same operator repeating a test
on the same material. The term repeatability is therefore used to designate test
precision under a single operator (AASHTO 2011).
Reproducibility Degree of variation among the test results obtained by different operators performing
the same test on the same material (AASHTO 2011).
Resolution The smallest increment that a characteristic measuring process must distinguish and
display (ASTM E867).
Road Profile The cross-sectional shape of the road surface in relation to the road corridor
traversing the surrounding landscape. (PennStateU)
Roughness The deviation of a surface from a true planar surface with characteristic dimensions
that affect vehicle dynamics, ride quality, dynamic loads, and drainage. (ASTM E867)

4
ROW Image Digital image record of the roadway right of way and adjacent visible surrounding area
Rutting (Rut) Longitudinal surface depressions in the wheel path. A rut is more specifically defined
as—a broad longitudinal depression in the wheel path of the pavement surface with a
depth of at least 0.080 in., a width of at least 1.0 ft., and with a longitudinal length of
at least 100 ft. (AASHTO 2014)
Segment A 0.1 mile section of roadway used for HPMS and PMS to summarize pavement
attribute data
Smoothness, (ride quality) (IRI) The measure of a pavement’s roughness reported with the International Roughness
Index. A statistic used to estimate the amount of roughness in a measured
longitudinal profile. (AASHTO 2014)
Tolerance The defined limits of allowable (acceptable) departure from the true value of a
measured quantity. (ASTM E867)
Transverse Profile Vertical deviations of the pavement surface from a level horizontal reference
perpendicular to the lane direction of travel. (AASHTO 2014)
Validation Sites Specified roadway sections for use as reference or “ground truth,” whose condition
(Annual) data have been measured by agency personnel using a reference profiler. These sites
are used to verify proper data collection procedures, determine accuracy and/or for
calibration of the equipment.
Verification Runs Collection of production-season data on validation sites or verification sections by
more than one device so that data collected during the production phase can be
compared to verify proper collection procedures, reproducibility and continued
calibration of the equipment.
Verification Sections Roadway sections used on a routine basis to verify proper data collection procedures,
(Monthly) accuracy and/or reproducibility of the equipment.
Vision Desktop data processing and analysis software developed by FUGRO Roadware
allowing users to browse and interact with CTDOT collected ARAN data.
Walking Profiler CTDOT utilizes a Surface Systems & Instruments (SSI) CS8800 Walking Profiler for
laying out and checking validation sites.
Wheelpath CTDOT Wheelpath – A longitudinal strip of pavement 39 inches (1 meter) wide. The
inner edges of both wheelpaths are offset from the center of the lane by 14.75 inches
(0.375 meters), and are therefore 29.5 inches (0.75 meters) apart.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
A Title Page (Document Change Control) 1
B Definitions 2
C Foreword 7
1 Quality Management Approach 8
2 Quality Management “Project Team” Roles, Responsibilities & Current Business Process 9
3 Certification Process for Persons Performing Manual Data Collection 11
4 DATA Collection Equipment, Calibration, Certification or Validation & Verification 13
5 Data Collection Quality Control Measures 16
6 Deliverables, Protocols and Quality Standards 18
7 Data Acceptance Criteria and Error Resolution Procedures 21
8 Quality Reporting Plan 25
9 CTDOT Data Quality Management Plan Endorsement 27
10 References 28

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 2.1 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities 9
Table 4.1 Equipment Installed on CTDOT ARAN 9000 Series Vans 13
Table 5.1 Data Collection Quality Control Measures 17
Table 5.2 Specific QC Procedures 18
Table 6.1 Deliverables, Protocols and Quality Standards for Automated Data Collection 19
Table 6.2 Data Review Criteria for Automated Condition Data Collection 21
Table 7.1 General Acceptance Expectations and Deliverables 23
Table 7.2 Specific Acceptance Procedures 24

APPENDICES PAGE
Appendix A Example Crack Detection Rater Exam Problems 29
Appendix B Example Walking Profiler Refresher Training Evaluation Checklist 33
Appendix C Example ARAN Field Operations Training Evaluation Report 35
Appendix D Example FUGRO Preventative Maintenance Report 37
Appendix E Examples of CTDOT’s Calibration Reports 53
Appendix F Example of the Verification Survey Test Report 56
Appendix G Example of the Photolog Daily Collection Check List 59

6
C. Foreword

This Pavement Data Collection Quality Management Plan (DQMP) is a first cut for CTDOT. As more
ground truth reference data are collected at validation sites, as staff assignments regarding quality
control and acceptance are implemented, and as activities are fine-tuned, this DQMP will be revised
over the coming years.

Should any portion of this Data Quality Management Plan become obsolete or otherwise be in need of
revision, every reasonable attempt will be made to update the appropriate section(s) in a timely
manner. Per 23 cRF490.319(c)(2) all proposed significant changes to the DQMP will be submitted to
FHWA for approval prior to implementing the change.

7
1.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Quality Management (QM) assures the quality of the data collection deliverables and describes the
processes and procedures to be used for ensuring quality. The Connecticut Department of
Transportation (CTDOT) has worked together with the Connecticut Transportation Institute (CTI) at the
University of Connecticut to develop a quality management approach for data collection that addresses
quality control and quality acceptance for pavement management. Quality Control (QC) is conducted by
the CTDOT Photolog Unit (PLU) of the Roadway Information Systems Office in the Bureau of Policy and
Planning. Quality Acceptance (QA) is conducted primarily by CTDOT’s Pavement Management Unit
(PMU) in the Bureau of Engineering and Construction, with assistance from the CTI, as needed.

Currently, 7,438 directional miles (for the 3,719 centerline-mile-state-maintained roadway network) are
surveyed each year. This represents 100 percent of the Interstate, Primary and Secondary system of
Connecticut’s state highway network. In addition, approximately 328 miles of the local road network is
surveyed as needed for the HPMS program. Pavement condition data are collected during these surveys.

This DQMP identifies key activities, processes, and procedures for ensuring quality.

Below is a brief explanation of each of the sections of the DQMP that follow.

Section 2. Quality-related roles and responsibilities and current business

Quality Team Roles, processes for data collection, data reduction, review, acceptance, and
Responsibilities & Current reporting for use in FHWA HPMS, CTDOT performance measures, and
Business Processes paving and preservation programs.
Section 3.
Certification for Persons Processes used to certify and validate manual pavement condition
Performing Manual Data raters and CTDOT’s training procedures.
Collection
Section 4.
Detail and description of CTDOT’s pavement data collection equipment
Equipment, Calibration,
processes and protocols used to calibrate, certify or validate and verify
Certification or Validation &
data collection equipment.
Verification
Section 5. The QC activities that monitor, provide feedback, and verify that the
Quality Control (QC) data collection deliverables meet the defined quality standards.
The data collection deliverables subject to quality review, protocols
used for collection, quality standards that are the measures used to
Section 6.
determine a successful outcome for a deliverable, and criteria to
Deliverables, Protocols &
describe when each deliverable is considered complete and correct.
Quality Standards
Deliverables are evaluated against these criteria before they are
formally approved.
Section 7. The acceptance testing used to determine if quality criteria are met,
Data Acceptance Criteria and and corrective actions that must be taken for any deliverables not
Error Resolution Procedures meeting the quality criteria.
The documentation of all QM activities―including quality standards,
Section 9.
QC, acceptance, and corrective actions―and the format of the final QM
Quality Reporting Plan
report.
Section 10. Signature page for endorsement of the CTDOT Data Quality
DQMP Endorsement Management Plan.

8
2.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT “PROJECT TEAM” ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES & CURRENT BUSINESS
PROCESS

The following identifies the quality-related responsibilities of each member of the Quality Management
“Project Team” and lists specific quality responsibilities.

Table 2.1 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities

Team Role Assigned Resource Quality Management Responsibilities

Agency Managers Michael Connors • Set/Approve quality standards, acceptance criteria, and corrective actions.
Leo Fontaine • Approve each deliverable per quality standards.
• Approve resolution of quality issues.
• Assess effectiveness of the QM procedures.
• Recommend improvements to quality processes.

Quality Assurance John Henault  Recommend quality standards, acceptance criteria and corrective actions
Supervisor to Agency Managers
 Assure deliverables meet broad set of data quality requirements.
 Communicate as needed with Agency Managers on any issues that may
arise.
• Communicate weekly with QC Supervisor.
• Assure data acceptance checks.
• Assure PMU data processing, analysis and reporting.
 Monitor schedule and reporting deadline adherence
 Monitor resolution of quality exceptions reported to QC Supervisor.
 Assure quality issue resolution and report results to QC Supervisor and
Agency Managers.
• Prepare QM report.

PMU Data Lead Jeanine Moriarty • Maintain acceptance log and submit quality exceptions to QA Supervisor
and QC Supervisor.
 Document quality audits of processed data
• Report any problems using QC log.
• Perform data & FIS video acceptance checks and document results.
• Perform GIS checks and document results.
 Maintain all Vision software LCMS, rating, classification and rutting
templates settings/distress schemes are up to date and correct
 Track reporting requirements/deadlines for completion of pavement
condition data
Quality Control James Spencer • Recommend quality standards, acceptance criteria, and corrective actions
Supervisor to Agency Managers
• Assure deliverables meet broad set of data quality requirements.
• Communicate as needed with Agency Managers on issues that may arise.
 Communicate daily/weekly with QC Lead, Data Lead and Field Crew Lead.
• Communicate daily/weekly with QA Supervisor and PMS Data Lead
• Submit acceptance exceptions log to QC Lead, PLU Data Lead and Field
Crew Lead.
• Supervise manual measurement of Verification and Validation sites.
• Establish reference values with data collection team.
• Monitor schedule adherence.
• Assure quality issue resolution with QC Lead and report results to QA
Supervisor and Agency Managers.

9
QC Lead Lester King • Assure QC practices are followed.
• Assure proper protocols are used.
• Assure any training addresses all personnel skill levels.
• Assure reviews by Photolog Data Lead.
• Assure performance of all quality activities and reporting of all data quality
exceptions using a QC log.
• Assure correction of all quality issues and changes in procedures as
needed.
• Perform and document a final deliverables quality review as needed.
• Compile documentation of all QC activities.
PLU Data Lead Jin Sadlowski • Perform and document checks of total mileage, segment lengths, and
comparison with master route file.
• Assure and document GIS checks of segment location and completeness.
• Document quality audits of uploaded and processed data.
• Maintain and report any problems using QC log.
• Observe and maintain records of verification runs on validation sites;
Analyze and document results.
• Perform initial data & video acceptance checks and document results.
• Perform GIS checks and document results.
Field Crew Lead Mike Longo • Assure and document initial equipment configuration, calibration, and
verification.
 Assure performance of daily and/or periodic equipment start-up checks,
tests, inspections, and calibrations.
• Assure daily review of data logs and video samples.
• Assure real-time monitoring of data and video quality.
• Assure performance of monthly verification runs on validation, sites.
• Assure documentation of all field QM activities and reporting of any
problems using QC log.
Field Crew Robert Kasica, • Perform daily and/or periodic equipment start-up checks, tests,
Anthony Alasso inspections, and calibrations.
• Perform daily review of data logs and video samples.
• Perform real-time monitoring of data and video quality.
• Perform documentation daily reports including:
End-of-Day Report, QC Log, and ARAN Daily Mileage Summary

2.1 CURRENT BUSINESS PROCESSES

All pavement data collection and data reduction operations at CTDOT are performed in-house (i.e., no
vendors or consultants are used for data collection or processing using CTDOT’s two FUGRO 9000 Series
ARAN Vans and Vision Desktop Processing Software Environment.

The Photolog Unit (PLU) within the Roadway Information Systems Office of the Bureau of Policy and
Planning is responsible for collecting, processing, analyzing, and providing data and information annually
on pavement condition, geometric and imagery data, including quality control. This data and
information is utilized for multiple functions within and outside of CTDOT.

The Pavement Management Unit (PMU) within the Engineering Services Section, Bureau of Engineering
and Construction performs further processing; maintains databases to sort and store collected data, as
well as to calculate pavement condition indices; uses a strategic analysis program (dTIMS™) to evaluate
preservation strategies and suggest cost-effective paving projects to maintain highway condition; and
produces annual reports that provide the state of the condition of pavements within Connecticut. This

10
unit is also responsible for quality assurance (denoted henceforth as Acceptance). The project-level
pavement design functions are also tasked to the PMU. Data that are prepared by the PMU that are
submitted annually to FHWA for HPMS are finalized within The Bureau of Policy and Planning, as are
published quarterly CTDOT pavement performance measures.

Currently, the PLU is responsible for the segmentation or matching of data to LRS, and for the post
processing of field data in Vision to produce IRI, curve and grade.

The PMU then utilizes Vision to extract and summarize information on cracking types, zones, severities
and extent, percent cracking, rut depths, faulting, and IRI, and for exporting data into a SQL Server
Express database for storage, further sorting, processing, generating reports for CTDOT and FHWA, and
finally for importing into a strategic analysis program (dTIMS™).

3.0 CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR PERSONS PERFORMING MANUAL DATA COLLECTION

A certification process for persons performing manual rating of data must be included in this Data
Quality Management Plan (DQMP) according to 23CFR490.319(c)(1)(ii) . All of CTDOT pavement
condition data are collected by automated or semi-automated methods, with the exception of the
following two manual procedures: (1) For Validation Sites and Reference Checks where crack detection
is done manually using the Vision/Wise Cracks application where cracks are manually identified off
imagery collected from the field and (2) where data is collected manually using the SSI CS8800 Walking
Profiler for development of reference values on the validation sites. Each of these procedures requires
the experience and knowledge of qualified staff. CTDOT has highly knowledgeable and experienced
senior level, field and office staff within its Photolog and Pavement Management Units who have
performed these duties for many years. For this purpose, CTDOT considers qualified to be analogous to
certified.

Certification/Qualification of Staff Performing Crack Detection

Since the CTDOT will be using manual pavement condition data collection as part of its certification
process, manual raters must be capable of collecting data meeting the requirements of 23 CFR 490.309.
Accordingly, specialized training is included in this plan for manual raters, which includes refresher
training in order to keep staff current.

The lead manual rater for the PMU that is responsible for certifying individuals conducting the manual
ratings is Ms. Jeannine Moriarty. She has been involved with pavement condition assessment
throughout her 17 years’ experience working in the PMU, and is CTDOT’s subject matter expert on
pavement cracking. Ms. Moriarty has experience in using the Distress Identification Manual for the
Long-Term Pavement Performance Program and is familiar with the definitions of pavement condition
metrics identified in the HPMS Field Manual. In addition, Ms. Moriarty serves on the committee for
NCHRP 01-57A, Standard Definitions for Comparable Pavement Cracking Data, where the objective is to
develop standard definitions for common cracking types in flexible, rigid, and composite pavements.

CTDOT will adopt the Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program
as its reference manual for describing its pavement condition rating methodology. Ms. Moriarty will

11
administer training and testing for any new Manual Data Collectors. This training will incorporate the
abovementioned distress manual, as well as the HPMS Field Manual. Manual Data Collectors will be
expected to be familiar with both reference manuals. After significant classroom time, Ms. Moriarty will
oversee the students as they conduct pavement condition surveys. The students will then be required
to pass a written exam administered by Ms. Moriarty. Students that pass the exam will be issued a
certification indicating that they meet manual data collection requirements. Manual Data Collectors will
be required to recertify every two years.

Example Crack Detection Rater Exam Problems are provided in Appendix A.

Certification/Qualification of Staff using SSI CS8800 Walking Profiler

As part of the procurement of the SSI CS-8800 Walking Profiler, the PLU staff was initially provided with
two days of certified vendor training on the calibration and use of the equipment to insure that accurate
ground truth reference measurements would be obtained at CTDOT field validation sites. Annually,
prior to the beginning of each collection season, a training refresher course will be conducted by the
PLU Senior Level QC Lead per manufacturer’s specifications and requirements as detailed within the
CS8800 Walking Profiler Operation Manual. During the Refresher Training each employee will be
evaluated by the QC Lead for their understanding and effective use of the walking profiler.

A copy of the Walking Profiler Refresher Training Evaluation Checklist has been included as Appendix B.

3.1 ARAN VAN DRIVER AND OPERATOR TRAINING

Field staff will attend an annual refresher course on the use and operation of the ARAN Van and its
subsystems provided by the Senior Level QC Lead. The training will cover the Manufacturers
specifications and procedures as outlined in the ARAN User Manual and will cover the policies and
procedures as outlined in Reference 1 - “Connecticut Department of Transportation, Photolog Field Data
Collection Standard Operating Procedures – Working Draft”.

New or replacement staff added to the PLU will be provided with vendor-based training on CTDOT’s
FUGRO ARAN vans, Vision Desktop Suite of software, and on the SSI CS-8800 Walking Profiler, as
required. At the State’s option this training may be provided by the product vendors (FUGRO Roadware
and SSI) via a procurement process or may be provided in-house by senior level staff members, as noted
above. After receiving the training, new staff will each be subject to a working test period in a
production environment/setting where they will be further supervised by senior level Field Crew Lead to
gauge the new employee’s competency, knowledge and skill. Once sufficient competency has been
shown, the new employee will be deemed qualified to perform the job duties.

A copy of the ARAN Field Operations Training Evaluation has been included as Appendix C.

12
4.0 DATA COLLECTION EQUIPMENT, CALIBRATION, CERTIFICATION OR VALIDATION & VERIFICATION

4.1 COLLECTION EQUIPMENT

FUGRO 9000 Series ARAN Vans

CTDOT has two FUGRO ARAN 9000 series Sprinter Style Vans each equipped with 3-D laser scanning
technology for collection of transverse profile (rutting) and pavement surface images (cracking). A laser
crack measurement system (LCMS) uses high speed cameras, custom optics and laser line projectors to
acquire both 2D images (black and white intensity images) and high-resolution 3D profiles (surface
elevations) of the road. These ARAN Vans and their onboard systems and sensors meet all federally
mandated AASHTO and ASTM standards. A general list of installed equipment is included in Table 4.1
below.

Further detailed information about the data collection equipment can be found in Reference 1
“Connecticut Department of Transportation, Photolog Field Data Collection Standard Operating
Procedures – Working Draft”, pages 7-15.

Table 4.1 Equipment Installed on CTDOT ARAN 9000 Series Vans

CTDOT Systems/ CTDOT ARAN Vehicle

Equipment VAN 8 VAN 9

Chassis ARAN 9000, 2010 Dodge Sprinter ARAN 9000, 2015 Mercedes Benz Sprinter

Real-Time Differential GPS +POS LV Inertial Real-Time Differential GPS +POS LV Inertial
Geographic
Positioning System (1 meter accuracy) using Positioning System (1 meter accuracy) using
Coordinates
OmniStar OmniStar
Wheel-mounted Wheel-mounted
Distance Distance Measurement Instrument (DMI) Distance Measurement Instrument (DMI)
Measures linear distance within ± 0.005% Measures linear distance within ± 0.005%

South Dakota Profiler RoLine – 4” Footprint Line South Dakota Profiler RoLine – 4” Footprint Line
Roughness
Laser (Laser SDP/2) in Front Bumper Enclosure. Laser (Laser SDP/2) in Front Bumper Enclosure.
(IRI)/Longitudinal
Class 1 Profiler under ASTM E950, AASHTO R56-10 Class 1 Profiler under ASTM E950, AASHTO R56-
Profile
Certification & ASTM E1926 10 Certification & ASTM E1926

Crack Detection,
Classification &
Pave3D Pavemetrics Pave3D Pavemetrics
Rating, Texture,
Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS)
Rutting &
Transverse Profile
Right of Way (Front
SONY HD Camera w/90 Degree Field of View Lens SONY HD Camera w/90 Degree Field of View Lens
View) Imagery

Data that are collected with, or derived (calculated) from, the ARAN vehicles includes: right-of-way
imagery, chainage (distance), GPS coordinates, longitudinal grade, transverse slope (cross slope),

13
roughness (IRI), rutting, faulting, cracking, geometric curvatures (vertical and horizontal), and other
pavement surface distress conditions.

Surface Systems & Instruments, Inc. (SSI) CS8800 Walking Profiler

CTDOT purchased a SSI CS8800 Walking Profiler to establish ground truth reference measurements for
IRI. It is certified as meeting the following standards and criteria:

 Classification: ASTM E2133 compliant.

 Rating: ASTM Class 1 and World Bank Standard Class 1.
 Ability: measure longitudinal distances to within +/- 0.1 percent of the actual distance.
 Profile Accuracy: +/- 2mm/50m plus level for non-closed loop surveys.
 Computed Roughness Index: IRI with ability to demonstrate repeatability of pavement
roughness data on multiple same surface test runs of at least:

- 0.98% for IRI waveband.

- 0.98% in the long waveband.
- 0.98% in the medium waveband.
- 0.94% in the short waveband.

4.2 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION

FUGRO 9000 Series Vans

CTDOT has contracted with the equipment manufacturer, FUGRO Roadware, to: (1) perform annual
preventative maintenance and calibration of CTDOT’s two ARAN vans prior to the start of each
collection season in accordance their own calibration specifications and procedures, with AASHTO
standards or protocols as detailed in Table 6.1, ASTM standards, FHWA’s HPMS Field manual (2016), and
CTDOT documents and procedures to ensure that the ARAN vans are operating at peak efficiency and
are collecting the highest quality level data possible; and (2) provide documentation of the calibration
processes used and proof of the successful equipment calibration prior to certification testing. This
documentation is then signed by the Photolog Unit Supervisor and FUGRO Technician as approved.

An example of FUGRO’s Preventative Maintenance Report is provided as Appendix D.

In addition, Photolog field staff are responsible for calibration of the ARAN Vans in accordance with
FUGRO’s recommendations, on a monthly basis, after any significant repair work done on the vans, or as
requested when the results from the certification, validation and verification testing indicate the need
for recalibration. All equipment calibration records and testing results done on the ARAN Vans during
the data collection schedule will be maintained and will be provided to the Project Team (as detailed in
Table 2.1 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities) for review.

Examples of CDOT’s Calibration Reports are provided in Appendix E.

Further detail on ARAN Equipment calibration is included in Ref. 4: Fugro Roadware, “ ARAN 9000
Manual, Version 2.0”, Fugro Roadware, Mississauga, Ontario, November 29, 2016

14
SSI CS8800 Walking Profiler

The CS8800 Walking Profiler is recalibrated prior to each use by trained Photolog staff in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations as outlined in the CS8800 User Manual.

Further detail on the CS8800 Walking Profiler is included in Ref. 5: Surface Systems & Instruments, Inc., “
CS8800 Profiler VS Operation Manual,” Version 3.2.7.11, Surface Systems & Instruments, Inc., Auburn ,
CA., March 27, 2011

4.3 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION/VALIDATION

FUGRO’s South Dakota Profiler RoLine – 4” Footprint Line Lasers (Laser SDP/2) installed on each of the
CTDOT’s ARAN Vans are nationally recognized as Class 1 Profiling devices under ASTM E950, AASHTO
R56-10 Certification & ASTM E1926; however there are no nationally recognized certification procedures
currently available for the LCMS or for the other equipment components. In order to validate these sub-
equipment components lacking certification procedures, CTDOT has planned and will be implementing
new Validation Sites where annual and periodic verification testing will be conducted (per Table 5.1
Specific QC Procedures) to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the data (per Table 6.1 Deliverables,
Protocols and Quality Standards for Automated Data Collection) reported in the field under conditions
representative to the ones anticipated during actual data collection.

Validation Sites

Validation sites are selected and established by CTDOT to calibrate the distress rating process and to
establish the precision and bias for the roughness, faulting and rutting information on asphalt concrete
pavements (ACP) and jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP), as appropriate. The validation
sites are up to of 1 mile in length, and they are purposely selected with various levels of roughness and
distress. CTDOT’s CS8800 Walking Profiler is used on the selected sites to establish ground truth
(reference values) for:

 Transverse Profile
 Rutting
 Roughness (IRI) (longitudinal profile)
 Faulting
 Distance calibration (DMI)

Implementation Plan for Validation Sites

The validation sites outlined in Ref. 2: Connecticut Transportation Institute, “Manual for Quality Control
of Pavement Condition Data Collection – DRAFT,” will be developed and implemented during the
summer of 2018, and will be completed by September 30, 2018. The precise development schedule for
the validation sites is dependent on the identification of a funding source, as well as scheduling the
resources needed to conduct the field work. As each of the new Validation Sites is implemented, ARAN

15
Verification Surveys will be performed to collect data for analysis of repeatability and reproducibility,
per Table 6.1 Deliverables, Protocols and Quality Standards for Automated Data Collection.

Specific details on Validation Sites Selection, Site Parameters and Site Implementation, are included
under Sections 2.2, 2.3 & 2.4 of Ref. 2: Connecticut Transportation Institute, “Manual for Quality Control
of Pavement Condition Data Collection – DRAFT,” pages 2-4 thru 2-12.

Interim Plan

Until the new validation sites are available, the current practice of performing monthly verification
surveys for reproducibility against historical survey data and repeatability between ARAN Vans on
CTDOT’s existing Control Sections, located on Brook Street and Elm Street in Rocky Hill, Thornbush Road
in Wethersfield, and Willard Avenue in Newington, will continue. Five consecutive repeat runs are done
with each ARAN Van on each site and then the data are analyzed to insure that results fall within
acceptability ranges for FHWA HPMS Reporting and that they meet the quality standards as detailed in
Table 6.1 below. Results of the verification surveys are then documented and sent to the Project Team.

An example of the Verification Survey Testing Report is provided as Appendix F.

4.4 EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING

CTDOT’s PLU will conduct verification survey testing on both ARAN Vans on a monthly basis, or
additionally when necessary, to verify proper data collection procedures, accuracy, reproducibility and
continued calibration of the equipment. Verification survey testing is comprised of performing 5
sequential runs on each of CTDOT’s Validation sites with each ARAN Van. The data collected are then
compared against the established ground truth for reproducibility and for comparability between vans
and historical data per Table 6.1. A Verification Survey Testing Report (Appendix F) is then provided to
the Project Team.

5.0 DATA COLLECTION QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES

The focus of Quality Control (QC) is on data collection deliverables and processes. The PLU is
responsible for proper operation and calibration of the ARAN vans and their data collection systems.
Quality Control procedures and measures will be performed by the PLU field crew both before data
collection begins and periodically during the data collection program in accordance with Table 5.1. The
Photolog Daily Collection Check List is used to confirm that the QC Procedures are followed.

An example of the Photolog Daily Collection Check List in provided as Appendix G.

As described above, all equipment is calibrated according to manufacturer’s recommendations during

annually scheduled Preventative Maintenance done by FUGRO Roadware before initiation of the annual
data collection activities. Calibration checks on the data collection equipment are then performed
periodically throughout the year, at manufacturer’s specified intervals to assure that the equipment
remains properly calibrated and functional. The PLU then monitors the collection process and

16
deliverables to ensure that they are of acceptable quality and are complete and correct throughout the
collection season.

Further details on ARAN equipment calibration are included in Ref. 4: Fugro Roadware, “ ARAN 9000
Manual, Version 2.0”, Fugro Roadware, Mississauga, Ontario, November 29, 2016

Identified in Table 5.1 below are:

• The major deliverables tested for satisfactory quality level.

• The quality expectations for the deliverables.

• The QC activities executed to control and monitor the quality of the deliverables.

• How often or when the QC activities are performed.

Table 5.1 Data Collection Quality Control Measures

Deliverable Quality Expectations* QC Activity Frequency/Interval
 Inspect and clean laser apertures, Check Prior to daily collection
windshield, and camera lenses
 Inspect hardware and mountings
 Check tire pressure
 Collect small sample route
Vehicle  GPS accuracy ≤ 3 meters Check During active collection
Configuration  Image quality and lane placement
 Monitor ARAN collection system errors
 Data completeness

 Bounce and block tests, crack Validation Monthly

measurement system height check
 Bounce test ≤ 8 inch/mile Calibration Pre-Season PM and on
Profiler  Block check ± 0.01 inch of appropriate monthly basis
height
DMI Pulse  ≤0.1 difference (five runs) Validation Pre-Season PM and on
Counts monthly basis
Location of  Mileage – 100% compliance with Validation Daily
Segment standards
 Std. dev. ≤ 5% (five 0.1 mile runs) Validation Pre-Season
 Symmetrical appearance of mult. runs
IRI
 ≥ 30 inch/mile IRI ≤ 400 inch/mile Check Daily/Weekly
 Left & right IRI values differ ≤ 50 in/mi
 Std. dev. ≤ 0.40 inch (five 0.1 mile Validation Pre-Season
runs)
Rutting
 Values ≤ 0.35 inch Check Weekly
 Left & right rutting values dif. ≤ 0.25 in
 Std. dev. ≤ 20% total length (five 0.1 Validation Pre-Season
mile runs)
Percent
 AC pavement values ≤ 50% Check Weekly
Cracking
 JPCP pavement values ≤ 100%
 CRCP pavement values ≤ 100%
Faulting  Values ≤ 1.0 inch • Faulting values > 0 Check Weekly

17
 when joints are present
 98 % compliance with standards Check Daily
Imagery  Focus, color, luminance quality Check uploaded imagery Weekly
Validation Pre-Season
Horizontal and  Std. dev. ≤ 10% (five 0.1 mile runs) Check Daily
Vertical Curves Validation Pre-Season
*NOTE: The Connecticut DOT Photolog Operating Procedures Manual (ref. 1) will be followed. However, if after appropriate
corrective action has been taken, an unacceptable quantity of data fall outside of acceptable thresholds, the equipment
manufacturer shall be brought in to find a viable solution.

Table 5.2 Specific QC Procedures

QC Procedure Action Performed Frequency Quantity
Preventive maintenance and calibration of ARAN Perform height sensor bounce tests, Annually, or as As prescribed by
equipment laser calibration block tests, specified by manufacturer
accelerometer calibration checks, manufacturer
distance calibration, sample IRI
calculation and other checks,
Testing of reference validation sites Perform at least five runs each on Start of season and ~50 (5 runs on ~10
designated sections for IRI, cracking, following equipment sections (or the number
transverse profile, rutting and faulting upgrades or of sections designated))
calibrations
Verification testing of reference validation sites Collect same data with both ARAN Monthly Run all verification sites
during production vans
Real-time viewing of data and data collection Monitor collection systems and data Continuous Per manufacturer
systems operation collected within the vehicles in real allowance
time
Check for missing road segments or data Run collected data through software Weekly during data All data screened
elements, and if data are within expected ranges checks while downloading download
Periodic testing of designated verification Collect data on designated Min. weekly At least 1 site
sections verification sections(s) with both vans
Record events for out of lane (construction Record events during data collection Daily, as events All noted events
zones), other lane deviations, and railroad with ARANs encountered
crossings
Automated Global database checks. Run software at or immediately after Weekly 100% of routes
 Statistical routines that check for download
inconsistencies in the data
 Completeness of data,
 improper file structure,
 start and end points for all segments
match inventory,
 null or negative values
 reasonable range of values

6.0. DELIVERABLES, PROTOCOLS, AND QUALITY STANDARDS

The key deliverables, protocols used for data collection, processing and reporting, and associated quality
standards are described below in Tables 6.1 & 6.2. Quality standards define, when applicable, the
resolution, accuracy, and repeatability or other standards used to determine the quality of each
deliverable. See Section 7 for the Acceptance Testing Plan. Please note that these quality standards will
be evaluated and adjusted, if necessary, as data are collected and refinements can be made.

18
Table 6.1 Deliverables, Protocols and Quality Standards for Automated Data Collection

Deliverable Reference Required Required Accuracy Required Reproducibility Required Repeatability

Protocols/Standards Measurement Limits (compared to Limits (between CTDOT Limits (for five
Resolution reference values) ** vehicles)*** consecutive runs)***
IRI (left, right, and MRI  AASHTO R 43-13 1 in/mi ± 8 percent Absolute Difference in IRI <10 Each run within ± 5 percent of
average over 0.1-mi  AASHTO R 56-14 in/mi (95% PWL****) the mean of five runs (95%
sections)  AASHTO R 57-14 PWL****)
 AASHTO M328-14
 ASTM E1926-98
 HPMS Field Manual (2016)
Rut depth (average of  AASHTO R 48-10 ≤0.04 in. ± 0.08 in. Absolute Difference in rut depth Within ± 0.06 in. Standard
right and left wheelpath  AASHTO PP 70-14 <0.06 in (95% PWL) Deviation from mean of five runs
over 0.1-mi sections)  AASHTO PP 69-14 (95%PWL)
 HPMS Field Manual (2016)
Faulting (average of right  AASHTO R 36-13 0.04 in ± 0.08 in. Absolute Difference in fault <0.06 Within ± 0.06 in. Standard
wheel path including only  AASHTO R-57 in (95% PWL) Deviation from mean of five runs
faults over 0.2 in)  AASHTO M328-14 (95%PWL)
 HPMS Field Manual (2016)
Asphalt Pavement  AASHTO PP 68-14 a) 1 percent ± 30 percent <10% C.o.V. in Total Cracking <10% C.o.V. in Total Cracking
Cracking*  AASHTO R 55-10 (HPMS -fatigue (95%PWL) (95% PWL)
a) HPMS Percent Cracking  AASHTO PP 67-16 area) <20% C.o.V. in Longitudinal, <15% C.o.V. in Longitudinal,
Transverse, or Area Cracking Transverse, or Area Cracking
– wheelpath fatigue  HPMS Field Manual (2016)
b) 0.1 ft. (CTDOT - (95% PWL); (95% PWL);
percent area per 0.1 lane- length) <40% C.o.V. in Total wheelpath <30% C.o.V. in Total wheelpath
mile Cracking (95% PWL); Cracking (95% PWL);
b) CTDOT Network – <60% C.o.V. in Total Non- <50% C.o.V. in Total Non-
length per 10 lane-meters wheelpath cracking (95% PWL) wheelpath cracking (95% PWL)
Concrete Pavement  HPMS Field Manual (2016) a) 1percent ± 20 percent ± 20 percent ± 20 percent
Cracking  Cracked slabs and total (HPMS)
a) HPMS - % cracked slabs slabs counted using ROW
b) 0.1 ft.(CTDOT)
b) CTDOT Network imagery
GPS (degrees of latitude N/A 0.00001 degrees ± 0.00005 degree ± 0.00005 degree ± 0.00005 degree
or longitude)
Cross slope (100*rise/run)  AASHTO PP 69-14 0.01 percent ± 0.5 percent Absolute Difference < 0.5 percent St.Dev. <0.05 percent
 AASHTO PP 70-14 (99% PWL) (99% PWL)
Longitudinal grade N/A 0.01 percent ± 0.1 percent Absolute Difference < 0.1 percent St.Dev. <0.1 percent
(100*rise/run) (99% PWL) (99% PWL)
Radius of curvature N/A 1 ft. N/A N/A ± 10 percent
Linear Reference (DMI)  FUGRO Manual 0.0001 ft. Abs Diff < 0.15 percent N/A N/A
 AASHTO R57-14 (e.g.,998.5 – 1001.5
 AASHTO R56-14 ft./1000ft)

19
Table 6.1 Deliverables, Protocols and Quality Standards for Automated Data Collection (continued)

Deliverable  Reference Required Required Accuracy Required Reproducibility Required Repeatability

Protocols/Standards Measurement Limits (compared to Limits (between CTDOT Limits (for five
Resolution reference values) ** vehicles)*** consecutive runs)***
1) Road segments  PMS Database 1) 0.00006 mi All assigned segments N/A N/A
Start boundary  Field Check** surveyed and assigned
End boundary 2) Max. Length correct location:
0.11 mi.(per
HPMS) Start point ± 0.05 mi
2) Segment Length
ROW images  FUGRO Manual 10 in. letter height Signs legible, proper N/A N/A
 Field Check** visible at 15 ft. exposure and color balance
Pavement images  AASHTO PP 68-14 N/A 1/8-in wide cracking visible N/A N/A
 Field Check** on asphalt and concrete
pavements
Notes:
* CTDOT collects images per every 10 lane-meters
** Accuracy standards will be updated as validation sites are added and reference data for these sections determined over the next 1to 3 years.
*** Values to be reviewed/refined as more data are collected
****Minimum percentage of data to meet the specified range of values
PWL = Percent Within Limit;
N/A = Not Applicable
C.o.V. = Coefficient of Variation (Ratio of Standard Deviation over Mean);
St.Dev. = Standard Deviation from mean value of 5 runs

20
Table 6.2 Data Review Criteria for Automated Condition Data Collection [1]

Deliverable Criteria* for Data Checks Criteria** for Data Checks

(Routine 0.10 mile CTDOT
Network Sections)
IRI (left, right, and MRI average per section) 40-450 in./mile (99%****)
Rut Depth (average of right and left ≤0.5 in.
wheelpath per section) (99% )
(HPMS 0.1 mile Sections)
 Min. 30 in/mi.
 Max. 400 in/mi.
Max. - 1.00 in.

Faulting (average of right wheel path per ≤0.5 in. Max. - 1.00 in.
section for faults greater than 0.2 in) (90% )

Asphalt Pavement Cracking*** ≤300 ft./image (10 lane-m) (99%)  Min. 0% area per 0.1 lane
a) CTDOT Network – length per 10 lane- (12-ft wide) mile.
meters (pavement-surface image)  Max. 54.0 % area per 0.1
b) HPMS Percent Cracking – wheelpath lane-(12-ft wide) mile
fatigue percent area per 0.1 lane-mile
Concrete Pavement Cracking <100% cracked slabs  Min. 0% cracked slabs
a) CTDOT Network- cracked slabs and total  Max. 100% cracked slabs
slabs counted using ROW imagery
b) HPMS – Percent Cracking – percent
cracked slabs
Cross Slope (100*rise/run) ≤10 %(100% ) N/A
Longitudinal Grade (100*rise/run) ≤16 %(99% ) N/A
Radius of curvature N/A N/A
1) Road Segments < 1 mismatch (0.1 mi.) segment per N/A
Start boundary 10 miles (99% )
End boundary

2) Segment Length
Pavement Images < 1 missing image per 0.062 mi. N/A
(99% )
[1] In general, when values for 0.1-mile sections fall outside criteria stated in this table, as a check the data should be reviewed
and verified for validity. For HPMS, section lengths will vary.
* Criteria was developed by CTI using CTDOT network data for years 2008-2016
** Criteria from FHWA, Nov 2017 (ref. 3)
*** CTDOT collects images per every 10 lane-meters
****Minimum percentage of data expected to fall within the specified range of values. See also note [1]

7.0. DATA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA AND ERROR RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

The focus of Acceptance is to validate that deliverables meet the established quality standards. The
Pavement Management Unit in the Bureau of Engineering and Construction has the final authority to
reject data and information that cannot be reconciled and/or fails to meet quality standards upon
review and re-sampling. The Photolog Unit works cooperatively with the Pavement Management Unit
to resolve any discrepancies in data quality that are found during the quality management process.

This section of the QMP documents data sampling, review, and checking processes that the CTDOT will
perform to verify proper data format, completeness (including checks for missing data), consistency, and
range.

21
The Photolog Unit will deliver data to the Pavement Management Unit in batches approximately every
two weeks throughout the data collection phase of the project. The delivered data includes pavement
smoothness (IRI) data elements, but post-processing of 3-D data with Vision software is required to
produce cracking, rutting and faulting data elements.

These Vision software post-processing procedures will be performed in batches. Once post-processing
of a batch is complete, the entire dataset of that batch will be screened for proper data format and
completeness by PMU staff. The data elements to be reviewed for proper format and completeness
include cracking, roughness (IRI), and rutting. In addition, grade, cross slope, surface type, location
information and video images will be screened.

Special post-processing of 3-D images with Vision software will be performed separately to produce
faulting data for JRCPs because this dataset is small enough that it can be broken out separately. JRCPs
only make up approximately 0.5% of the entire network in Connecticut. Each fault will be located in
Vision or DigitalHiway to validate whether an actual fault was measured, or if the measured value
represents some other feature, such as a bridge joint.

Cracking percent values for asphalt-surfaced pavements will be reviewed for completeness following
further post-processing calculations in SQL Server Express. Additional screening for completeness will
also be performed on the entire data set following each SQL Server Express procedure where data are
aggregated, such as from a 5-meter granularity to 0.1-mile granularity. Criteria contained in Table 6.2
will be checked both before and after these post-processing calculations.

DigitalHiway and/or Vision software images will be manually reviewed to determine cracking percent
values for JRCPs. PMU staff will count the number of cracked slabs according to the HPMS Field Manual
and divide that quantity by the total number of slabs. The quotient, expressed as a percentage, will be
reported as the cracking percent (JRCP pavements only).

Missing data will be flagged and evaluated to determine why data are missing, and whether any
roadways need to be resurveyed. For example, the evaluation will include a review of ROW imagery to
determine if any construction zones were encountered, or any other unusual events were encountered
that would result in missing data.

The criteria checked in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, as well as the specific acceptance procedures contained in
Table 7.2, do not include checks of current data with legacy data. This is because CTDOT recently
upgraded its pavement data collection systems to the most advanced 3-D laser systems that introduced
new data in a different format. Attempts to develop transfer functions/correlation factors to ensure
comparability of historical and newly collected data were unsuccessful, as a multitude of problems with
both the new and old equipment were encountered, and the development of criteria to make these
comparisons was therefore not possible.

Problems with the new equipment were addressed before beginning the 2017 data collection season,
and it is believed that the 2017 pavement condition data are reliable enough to make meaningful and
statistically valid comparisons to data collected in subsequent years. Next year, once the 2018 annual
cycle is complete, comparisons between 2018 and 2017 data will be performed, which will provide some
indication of expected tolerances, but at least three annual cycles for comparison would be preferred.

22
In the interim, ad hoc checks between current and legacy data will be performed to identify significant
differences, but it will be a couple of years before tolerances are incorporated in the QMP.

Errors can occur during data collection because of equipment failures, poor image quality, or insufficient
calibration; during data collection because operators are using incorrect procedures or standards; or
during post-processing because of flawed procedures to calculate pavement condition metrics. Error
resolution procedures will be followed and corrective actions will be taken when data do not meet
established quality requirements and defined acceptance criteria.

Error logs will be maintained throughout the entire process: beginning with data collection, during
quality control, and finally during post-processing. Corrective actions may be taken during each of these
processes, including re-collection, re-calibration of equipment, re-analyzing raw data, or even re-training
staff responsible for data collection or data analysis. Error resolution procedures contained herein
present actions that will be taken to reduce conflict when a problem is discovered.

Following in Table 7.1 is a description of acceptance testing, the frequency for testing, and corrective
actions for items that fail to meet criteria. Table 7.2 contains specific acceptance procedures. These are
CTDOTs data acceptance criteria and error resolution procedures.

Table 7.1 General Acceptance Expectations and Deliverables

Deliverable
IRI, rut depth, faulting,
cracking, cross slope,
longitudinal grade
Acceptance Acceptance Testing & Frequency Corrective Action
*(Percent Within
Limits)
See Tables 6.1 & 6.2 1. Monthly (min.) verification using 1. Re-calibration of vehicle
validation sites equipment
2. Global database check for range,
consistency, logic, and 2. Reject deliverable; data
completeness must be re-collected

3. Inspection of all suspect data 3. Use of GIS for further

inspection

4. Determine reason for

Segment (section)
boundaries and lengths
See Table 6.1 1. Plot on base map using GIS.
2. Create list of unmatched
segment boundaries.
suspect data; or reject
deliverable, data must be re-
collected
Return deliverable for
correction, as needed.

Pavement images See Table 6.1 1. Monthly inspection of validation Reject deliverable; images
site video. must be re-collected.

2. 5 to 10 percent sample
inspection upon delivery.

*NOTE: If following corrective action and re collection of data, an unacceptable quantity of data fall outside of acceptable
thresholds, the equipment manufacturer(s) and/or software developers are contacted to solicit advice for a viable solution.

23
Table 7.2 Specific Acceptance Procedures
Acceptance Procedures Action Performed Frequency Quantity

Checks of Periodic testing of known Review QC findings As needed 50%

validation sites during production
Checks of Cross Measurements for Review QC findings As needed 50%
reproducibility
Global database checks:
 Missing Routes Check for missing routes Annually 100%

• Data exists for all road segments. Check for missing data by Annually 100%
segment

• Data file structure. Check format of file structure As needed As needed

• Start and end boundaries for all road Find and List segments containing Annually 100%
segments. incorrect boundaries; investigate

• Null and negative values. Find and list out of tolerance As needed As needed
data, investigate, edit as
necessary

• Minimum and maximum tolerance Find and list out of tolerance As needed As needed
parameters. data; Investigate, edit as
necessary

• Duplicate records. Find, list and delete Annually 100%

• Wrong pavement type. Find, list and correct Annually 100%

• Abrupt change in roughness and rut Check for excessive variability Annually 100%
depth. within segments

• Reasonable maximum extent of Check quantities for Annually 100%

distress. unreasonable high values

• Non-numeric data in a numeric field. Find, list and correct Annually 100%

24
8.0. QUALITY REPORTING PLAN

The Data Collection Quality Control Supervisor monitors quality through QC activities, and records and
reports data quality exceptions as part of internal weekly status reporting, or more frequently if
conditions warrant. Overall quality is monitored through acceptance testing, and quality issues are
reported to the data collection team as soon as issues are discovered.

A QC log is used by the data collection team to itemize, document, and track to closure concerns and
issues reported through the QC process.

An acceptance log is used by the PMS Data Lead to itemize, document, and track to closure items
reported through the acceptance process. Examples of QC and Acceptance Log formats can be found in
reference 2, Manual for Quality Control of Pavement Condition Data Collection.

8.1 Quality Management Reporting

An annual quality management report will be prepared to address and summarize the QC, Acceptance
and Procedural issues that occurred over the previous data collection year.

QC Report

Upon delivery of the final database and other deliverables, the data collection team provides a copy of
the QC logs, a summary of scope and schedule (including any deviations from the planned schedule), a
list of the collection vehicles and personnel used on the project, documentation of equipment
calibration and maintenance, results of all verification runs on validation sites, and documentation of
other problems encountered (not listed on the QC log) and corrective actions taken. Specifically, as a
minimum, the QC report will address the following:

• Equipment and key personnel used during data collection.

• Documentation of initial and continuing calibration/checks/maintenance for field equipment, any

equipment problems, and corrective actions taken.

• Schedule adherence and the reasons for any changes.

• Documentation of collection procedures and protocols used.

• Reporting of any variances in standard operating procedures or changes in collection methods

made in the field.

• Applicable guidance documents.

• Reporting of all validation site testing and results.

• Summary of all QC activities and resultant checks of expected values.

• Log of all quality issues identified through QC activities, and corrective actions taken.

 Summary of Annual review of all QC processes performed.

25
Acceptance and Quality Management Report

Upon acceptance of the final database and all other deliverables, the Data Processing Quality Assurance
Supervisor will prepare the final annual Quality Management Report (QMR), which will incorporate the
QC report and include a section on Acceptance. A copy of the QMR must be provided to the Data
Collection Quality Control Supervisor for review and feedback. The QMR report will include a summary
of scope and schedule, description of validation site testing (including reference values and an analysis
of results), description of global database checks and other sampling tests performed and the results,
and recommendations for improvement.

The acceptance portion of the report will specifically address the following:

• A description of quality standards and acceptance criteria.

• A description of validation sites and reference values used.

• An analysis of validation site testing results.

• Documentation of all global database checks performed, and the results.

• Documentation of all sampling checks, and the results.

• Documentation of all other acceptance checks, and the results.

• A log of all quality issues identified through acceptance checks and corrective actions taken.

• Summary of Annual review of Acceptance processes that were performed.

 Recommendations for improvements.

26
10.0. REFERENCES

Note: The general structure/format of this QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN is patterned after “FHWA
Practical Guide for Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection,” Pierce, McGovern and
Zimmerman, Feb, 2013.

Ref. 1:
https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpavement/ref_1_photolog_standard_operating_procedur
es_-_022818.pdf, Office of Roadway Information Systems, “Connecticut Department of Transportation,
Photolog Field Data Collection Standard Operating Procedures – Working Draft,” Connecticut
Department of Transportation, Newington, CT, May 2018.

Ref. 2:
https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpavement/ref_2_manual_for_qc_of_pavt_data_collection
_5_18_18__submitted.pdf, Connecticut Transportation Institute, “Manual for Quality Control of
Pavement Condition Data Collection - DRAFT,” University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, May 2018.

Ref. 3: Max G. Grogg. Highway Information Seminar, 2016 HPMS Pavement Data Submission, FHWA,
USDOT, Nov 16, 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hisconf/thu03_hpms_and_tpm-
part_3_2016_hpms_pavement_data_submission_max_grogg.pdf Accessed on April 18, 2018.

Ref. 4: https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpavement/ref_4_aran_user_manual_2.pdf, Fugro

Roadware, “ ARAN 9000 Manual, Version 2.0”, Fugro Roadware, Mississauga, Ontario, November 29,
2016

Ref. 5:
https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpavement/ref_5_ssi_profiler_v3_walkpro_manual_32711.
pdf, Surface Systems & Instruments, Inc., “ CS8800 Profiler VS Operation Manual,” Version 3.2.7.11,
Surface Systems & Instruments, Inc., Auburn , CA, March, 2011

28
 Appendix A
Example Crack Detection Rater Exam Problems

29
Example Crack Detection Rater Exam Problems

1. Match these cracking distresses for pavements with asphalt concrete surfaces with their best
descriptions by placing the letter of the distress or Not Applicable (NA) next to the correct
description:

Distress Description

A. Longitudinal Cracking ___ Develops into many-sided, sharp-angled

pieces in later stages.

B. Block Cracking ___ Cracks that are predominantly

perpendicular to pavement centerline.

C. Fatigue Cracking ___ Bowl-shaped holes of various sizes in the

pavement surface.

D. Transverse Cracking ___ Cracks in asphalt concrete overlay surfaces

that occur over joints in concrete pavements.

___ There are two types of this distress

according to the LTPP Distress Identification
Manual: Wheel Path and Non-Wheel Path.

___ A pattern of cracks that divides the

pavement into approximately rectangular
pieces.

2. Given the wheel path cracking below and what is shown in Figure 1, calculate the Cracking
Percent according to the December 2016 HPMS Field Manual:

∑ Left Wheel Path Zone Cracking = 12 S.F.

∑ Right Wheel Path Zone Cracking = 15 S.F.

∑ Center Zone Cracking = 2 S.F.

∑ Left Exterior Zone Cracking = 1 S.F.

∑ Right Exterior Zone Cracking = 1 S.F.

Cracking Percent =
Figure 1

3. Name and define the three Longitudinal Cracking Severity Levels according to the LTPP Distress
Identification Manual.

4. Match pavement metrics with their respective December 2016 HPMS Field Guide definitions:

Pavement Metric HPMS Field Guide Definition

IRI A longitudinal surface depression in an asphalt

pavement derived from measurements of a
profile transverse to the path of travel on a
highway lane

Rutting A vertical misalignment of pavement joints in

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

Faulting A fissure or discontinuity of the pavement

surface not necessarily extending through the
entire thickness of the pavement

Cracking Percent A statistic used to estimate the amount of

roughness in a measured longitudinal profile
Crack Detection Rater Evaluation Report

Check
Pass Fail
Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of the
  pavement condition rating methodology contained in the Distress
Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance
Program.
Distresses for AC Comments:
  Surfaces

  Distress for Jointed Comments:

PCC Surfaces:

Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of the

  pavement condition metrics identified in the December 2016 HPMS Field
Manual.
IRI Comments:
 

Rutting Comments:
 

Cracking Percent Comments:

  (AC Pavements)

Cracking Percent Comments:

  (Jointed PCC
Pavements)
Candidate demonstrates the ability to apply above knowledge and
  understanding during manual pavement ratings.

I hereby certify that ______________________________________ has successfully demonstrated

thorough knowledge, skill, and proficiency to perform crack detection ratings.

Signature: ___________________________________, Date: _______________________

Jeannine Moriarty, Lead Manual Rater

Signature: ___________________________________, Date: _______________________

John Henault, Quality Assurance Supervisor

 Appendix B
Example Walking Profiler Refresher Training
Evaluation Checklist

33
SSI CS8800 Walking Profiler Training Evaluation Report
Last modified July 10, 2018

Operator: Evaluator: Date: Evaluation Score

Pass / Fail
Check
Description Comments
Pass Fail
Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of setup and calibration of SSI CS8800
 
Walking Profiler
  Software Understanding Comments:
  Profiler Components
  Setup, Activation and Charging
  Calibration procedures
Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of use and effective collection data of SSI
 
CS8800 Walking Profiler
  Startup procedures Comments:
  Collection Procedures
  Performed successful collection

I hereby certify that ______________________________________ has successfully demonstrated thorough knowledge

skill and proficiency with operation and use of the SSI CS8800 Walking Profiler.

Signature: _________________________________, Date: ______________________

Lester King, Quality Control Lead

Signature: _________________________________, Date: ______________________

James Spencer, Quality Control Supervisor

 Appendix C
Example ARAN Field Operations Training
Evaluation Report

35
ARAN Field Operations Training Evaluation
Last modified July 9, 2018 by Jim Spencer

Operator: Evaluator: Date: Evaluation Score

Pass / Fail
Check
Description Comments
Pass Fail
Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of pavement condition and geometric
 
data
  Transverse Profile Comments:
  Longitudinal Profile
  IRI
  Faulting
  Cracking
  Curve
  Grade
Candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge of ARAN Van equipment, systems and operation and can
 
locate and describe each.
  Rights of Way Video Comments:
  GPS Positioning (GPS)
  Pave3D LCMS System
  Roughness System (IRI)
  Position & Orientation System (POS-LV)
  Distance Measuring Unit (DMI)
  Grade Sensors
  Candidate demonstrates through knowledge and understanding with successful equipment calibration
  Bounce Test Comments:
  DMI Calibration
  Block Test
  Bucket Test
  LCMS Laser Height Check
Candidate demonstrates thorough Comments:
knowledge and understanding of
  operational standards and ability to
correctly navigate vehicle during collection
operations
Candidate demonstrates thorough Comments:
knowledge and understanding of ARAN
 
Van Safety (Operational Practices,
equipment
Candidate demonstrates thorough Comments:
knowledge and understanding of
 
acceptable environmental conditions for
collection
Candidate demonstrates effective use of Comments:
  Photolog Daily Mechanical Inspection
Check List
Candidate demonstrates effective Comments:
  operation of ARAN Vehicle Systems and
performed successful collection of data
 Appendix D
Example FUGRO Preventative Maintenance
Report

37
 Appendix E
Examples of CTDOT’s Calibration Reports

53
DMI Calibration Report
7/31/2018

Collection
Description
CTDOT DMI Calibration Site
Date Time
Van Tire Pressure (80 PSI Optimal)
Driver
Operator
Temperature & Weather
Conditions
Standards and Requirements
Calibration Interval The DMI requires regular (monthly) calibration, but specifically when any of the tire characteristics have been changed (replacement of
(Per ARAN User Manual) tire, inflation of tire).
On a section of road that is 450 meters, the average calibration number should be between 755 and 990 pulses / meter. The difference
FUGRO Acceptance of
between the runs should be less than 0.3 pulses / meter. The calibration number is then internally converted to a length within the DMI
Calibration Criteria
system depending on variables specific to each ARAN Van.
Calibration can be verified by collecting multiple runs on a flat, straight piece of road with a known exact distance (e.g. the DMI
FUGRO Calibration Verification
calibration site). ARAN should be drive at highway speeds for 8-10 miles prior to DMI Calibration to ensure tires are at optimal pressure.
(Per ARAN User Manual)
(Resolution = 0.0001ft), Abs Diff < 0.15% (example: (998.5 - 1001.5 ft)/1000ft )
Calibration Results
example Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
Results (Pulses/Meter) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Results (Meters) 400 0 0 0 0 0 0
Results (Feet) 1312.33596 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issues

Comments DMI calibration performed successfully with passing results

DMI Calibration Acceptance

Signature of Photolog Quality Control Lead
Transverse Profile (Grade System) Calibration Report
7/31/2018

Collection
Description
CTDOT DMI Calibration Site
Date Time
Van
Driver
Operator
Temperature & Weather
Conditions
Standards and Requirements
Calibration Requirements The DMI and Position and Orientation System needs to be calibrated first.
Calibration Interval The grade system calibration is verified by performing reverse runs which should be done on a monthly basis, if a grade sensor or model is
(Per ARAN User Manual) replaced, or if there are any other changes to the ARAN Van that would impact grade readings.

FUGRO Calibration Criteria A reverse run is the collection of data in the exact same wheel path on a straight piece of road in both directions. The length of the run
(Per ARAN User Manual) should be around 500 m or 0.3 mile (minimally 350 m or 0.22 mile). Resolution = 0.01%, Abs Diff < 0.5% (99% PWL).

FUGRO Calibration Verification

Acceptance The average of the raw crossfall of 3 back and forth runs should be zero to be acceptable.
(Per ARAN User Manual)
Calibration Results
example Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
Direction 1 0.723668768 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction 2 -0.723668768 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zeroing Result 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issues

Comments

Transverse Profile (Grade

System) Calibration
Acceptance Signature of Photolog Quality Control Lead
 Appendix F
Example of the Verification Survey Test Report

56
 Verification Survey Test Report
V8 & V9 Control Sites on July 9 and 10, 2018 (Monday & Tuesday)

Check Check Check (± Check Check Check Check

Route Speed (km/h) LeftIRI (m/km) RightIRI (m/km) LeftRut (mm) ghtRut (mm ne_Width (ding (Degr Pitch (%) Grade (%) Roll (%) ossSlope (%
(±5%) (±5%) 2mm) (±2mm) (±0.2%) (±0.2%) (±0.2%)
BrookEastJul2018Van8run2 61.82137596 1.370889711 ‐0.98% 1.643752794 ‐0.08% 3.230071223 0.17 2.416878 0.31 3.543933 79.38575 0.422533 0.022531 0.10 3.823747 ‐0.58 2.982949 ‐0.17
BrookEastJul2018Van8run3 60.32524265 1.366805298 ‐0.68% 1.642256868 0.02% 3.278165956 0.12 2.383445 0.35 3.532074 79.3659 0.450093 0.061764 0.06 3.756481 ‐0.52 2.963154 ‐0.15
BrookEastJul2018Van8run4 59.9286708 1.376960567 ‐1.43% 1.666950071 ‐1.49% 3.192699288 0.21 2.385144 0.34 3.53495 79.41016 0.445057 0.061413 0.07 3.837104 ‐0.60 3.005195 ‐0.19
BrookEastJul2018Van8run5 60.7981943 1.37272852 ‐1.12% 1.662745248 ‐1.23% 3.185618964 0.22 2.396608 0.33 3.554989 79.44747 0.439935 0.062954 0.06 3.833892 ‐0.59 3.020365 ‐0.21
BrookEastJul2018Van8AVG 60.71837093 1.371846024 1.653926245 3.221638858 2.395519 3.541486 79.40232 0.439404 0.052166 3.812806 2.992916
BrookEastJul2018Van9run1 45.39008485 1.357575142 ‐0.60% 1.642519522 ‐0.11% 3.402738284 0.09 2.729856 0.11 3.538586 79.43719 0.226777 0.126634 ‐0.03 3.239769 ‐0.02 2.811039 0.00
BrookEastJul2018Van9run2 53.17101517 1.345794282 0.28% 1.62984571 0.67% 3.494847707 0.00 2.833657 0.01 3.542665 79.36412 0.208136 0.113488 ‐0.01 3.221955 0.00 2.802547 0.01
BrookEastJul2018Van9run3 54.86204963 1.34412129 0.40% 1.663450136 ‐1.38% 3.527041861 ‐0.04 2.83118 0.01 3.544737 79.30734 0.18283 0.095295 0.01 3.173772 0.05 2.789394 0.02
BrookEastJul2018Van9run4 53.63341635 1.347456218 0.15% 1.609650856 1.90% 3.512651911 ‐0.02 2.857485 ‐0.01 3.533 79.38837 0.199916 0.103855 0.00 3.194655 0.02 2.834109 ‐0.02
BrookEastJul2018Van9run5 54.94715271 1.352581826 ‐0.23% 1.658513773 ‐1.08% 3.52085465 ‐0.03 2.960663 ‐0.12 3.559406 79.3605 0.160939 0.064267 0.04 3.26619 ‐0.05 2.826322 ‐0.01
BrookEastJul2018Van9AVG 52.40074374 1.349505751 1.640795999 3.491626883 2.842568 3.543679 79.3715 0.19572 0.100708 3.219268 2.812682
BrookWestJul2018Van8run1 54.09381234 1.164593287 0.06% 1.362750144 0.42% 1.751524282 ‐0.04 2.478063 ‐0.03 3.531438 259.4161 0.110421 ‐0.25277 0.01 4.360928 0.07 3.413657 0.03
BrookWestJul2018Van8run2 61.47178572 1.16586755 ‐0.05% 1.37326083 ‐0.35% 1.673161753 0.04 2.462916 ‐0.01 3.548265 259.3378 0.127088 ‐0.23334 ‐0.01 4.516872 ‐0.09 3.457175 ‐0.01
BrookWestJul2018Van8run3 60.64541988 1.175686047 ‐0.89% 1.37912427 ‐0.78% 1.687128357 0.03 2.506556 ‐0.06 3.534822 259.3328 0.102197 ‐0.25487 0.01 4.485622 ‐0.06 3.468116 ‐0.02
BrookWestJul2018Van8run4 58.45880317 1.154254966 0.95% 1.359361172 0.66% 1.706366442 0.01 2.404391 0.04 3.527411 259.3607 0.090181 ‐0.26133 0.01 4.379893 0.05 3.436974 0.01
BrookWestJul2018Van8run5 61.76822528 1.166143534 ‐0.07% 1.367784565 0.05% 1.746373082 ‐0.03 2.394954 0.05 3.515022 259.4379 0.125276 ‐0.23395 ‐0.01 4.40313 0.03 3.464759 ‐0.02
BrookWestJul2018Van8AVG 59.28760928 1.165309076 1.368456196 1.712910783 2.449376 3.531392 259.3771 0.111033 ‐0.24725 4.429289 3.448136
BrookWestJul2018Van9run1 46.78209144 1.149566134 ‐0.10% 1.323912435 1.69% 1.766515195 0.02 2.621819 0.21 3.502562 259.3532 ‐0.11986 ‐0.21393 0.01 3.682889 0.08 3.154138 0.05
BrookWestJul2018Van9run2 49.53484004 1.134536737 1.21% 1.361016071 ‐1.07% 1.778183146 0.01 2.846973 ‐0.01 3.503213 259.3346 ‐0.11883 ‐0.21875 0.01 3.726301 0.04 3.202828 0.00
BrookWestJul2018Van9run3 48.57363975 1.157456987 ‐0.78% 1.339014011 0.57% 1.811655042 ‐0.02 2.95768 ‐0.12 3.501013 259.2723 ‐0.11453 ‐0.20217 0.00 3.809481 ‐0.05 3.22146 ‐0.02
BrookWestJul2018Van9run4 52.05502585 1.155397218 ‐0.60% 1.364757053 ‐1.35% 1.797464358 ‐0.01 2.892074 ‐0.06 3.498252 259.428 ‐0.12545 ‐0.208 0.00 3.799377 ‐0.04 3.222969 ‐0.02
BrookWestJul2018Van9run5 49.63725707 1.145364124 0.27% 1.344419024 0.16% 1.786046898 0.00 2.848369 ‐0.01 3.501514 259.3245 ‐0.10727 ‐0.18268 ‐0.02 3.802413 ‐0.04 3.222566 ‐0.02
BrookWestJul2018Van9AVG 49.31657083 1.14846424 1.346623719 1.787972928 2.833383 3.501311 259.3425 ‐0.11719 ‐0.20511 3.764092 3.204792
ElmStJul2018Van8run1 55.35202929 1.288448342 3.43% 1.723306894 2.47% 1.887477812 0.00 1.708318 ‐0.14 3.149586 65.38432 ‐1.99116 ‐2.28899 0.03 3.386696 ‐0.07 2.637997 ‐0.04
ElmStJul2018Van8run2 46.33388161 1.352274832 ‐1.35% 1.773579817 ‐0.37% 1.916486583 ‐0.03 1.543467 0.02 3.140972 65.27936 ‐1.99035 ‐2.25916 0.00 3.32717 ‐0.01 2.591324 0.00
ElmStJul2018Van8run3 48.4447325 1.376287968 ‐3.15% 1.801195718 ‐1.94% 1.861395581 0.02 1.425099 0.14 3.153844 65.40727 ‐1.97646 ‐2.24967 ‐0.01 3.237766 0.08 2.536312 0.06
ElmStJul2018Van8run4 48.09208033 1.330029271 0.31% 1.820581905 ‐3.03% 1.888287743 0.00 1.624431 ‐0.06 3.159639 65.43736 ‐1.97674 ‐2.25988 0.00 3.290913 0.02 2.606999 ‐0.01
ElmStJul2018Van8run5 46.81803976 1.32409375 0.76% 1.716332113 2.87% 1.876461242 0.01 1.535333 0.03 3.14168 65.36086 ‐1.97995 ‐2.25137 ‐0.01 3.335764 ‐0.02 2.59747 0.00
ElmStJul2018Van8AVG 49.0081527 1.334226833 1.766999289 1.886021792 1.56733 3.149144 65.37383 ‐1.98293 ‐2.26181 3.315662 2.59402
ElmStJul2018Van9run1 48.88309146 1.227211097 2.61% 1.668139661 2.06% 1.920365943 0.02 1.524753 ‐0.01 3.242889 65.27087 ‐2.19519 ‐2.26182 ‐0.01 2.731355 0.07 2.407204 0.05
ElmStJul2018Van9run2 51.18930766 1.305331509 ‐3.59% 1.718325189 ‐0.89% 1.916533202 0.03 1.491857 0.02 3.251846 65.26021 ‐2.20623 ‐2.26999 0.00 2.806682 0.00 2.462373 ‐0.01
ElmStJul2018Van9run3 49.6318802 1.254274763 0.47% 1.7008196 0.14% 1.965691505 ‐0.02 1.541179 ‐0.03 3.231451 65.24885 ‐2.20426 ‐2.26238 0.00 2.863443 ‐0.06 2.489358 ‐0.03
ElmStJul2018Van9run4 54.1950312 1.263969342 ‐0.30% 1.743336404 ‐2.36% 1.947347965 0.00 1.517774 0.00 3.229685 65.24328 ‐2.2018 ‐2.26354 0.00 2.830008 ‐0.02 2.469694 ‐0.01
ElmStJul2018Van9run5 48.78657931 1.249915425 0.81% 1.685211005 1.05% 1.969244265 ‐0.03 1.500845 0.01 3.221987 65.27188 ‐2.22212 ‐2.27764 0.01 2.794452 0.01 2.445507 0.01
ElmStJul2018Van9AVG 50.53717797 1.260140427 1.703166372 1.943836576 1.515281 3.235572 65.25902 ‐2.20592 ‐2.26707 2.805188 2.454827
ThornbushJul2018Van8run1 54.80811369 2.772004521 ‐0.05% 3.079607678 ‐3.71% 3.643872495 0.23 5.862588 ‐0.30 3.665482 171.6422 0.443356 0.028724 ‐0.01 5.503471 ‐0.13 4.286607 ‐0.06
ThornbushJul2018Van8run2 51.16196199 2.653963223 4.21% 2.759942883 7.06% 4.21230053 ‐0.33 5.167177 0.39 3.519061 171.5536 0.445975 0.017642 0.00 5.230762 0.14 4.132623 0.09
ThornbushJul2018Van8run3 47.92390853 2.986714761 ‐7.80% 3.102917707 ‐4.49% 3.635809816 0.24 5.583336 ‐0.02 3.689796 171.4211 0.430861 ‐0.00848 0.02 5.419163 ‐0.05 4.27271 ‐0.05
ThornbushJul2018Van8run4 47.72956156 2.641105612 4.67% 2.795361603 5.86% 4.119454896 ‐0.24 5.265402 0.29 3.538873 171.5433 0.466822 0.040344 ‐0.03 5.24634 0.13 4.150308 0.08
ThornbushJul2018Van8run5 50.1904845 2.799288353 ‐1.03% 3.109405357 ‐4.71% 3.780196978 0.10 5.917327 ‐0.36 3.672661 171.6357 0.428866 ‐0.00451 0.02 5.470014 ‐0.10 4.291206 ‐0.06
ThornbushJul2018Van8AVG 50.36280606 2.770615294 2.969447046 3.878326943 5.559166 3.617175 171.5592 0.443176 0.014745 5.37395 4.226691
ThornbushJul2018Van9run1 47.84986937 2.493166031 10.75% 2.656068819 4.39% 4.136280429 ‐0.27 6.259006 0.02 3.519489 171.3659 0.158136 0.013902 0.01 4.54887 0.08 3.913701 0.06
ThornbushJul2018Van9run2 46.39138837 2.681599265 4.01% 2.605209863 6.22% 3.942777881 ‐0.08 5.8962 0.38 3.514117 171.5622 0.174931 0.041472 ‐0.02 4.489284 0.14 3.845781 0.12
ThornbushJul2018Van9run3 47.28954362 3.171526006 ‐13.53% 2.892748911 ‐4.13% 3.777016938 0.09 6.370538 ‐0.10 3.614171 171.4662 0.168082 0.031949 ‐0.01 4.690414 ‐0.06 4.034221 ‐0.06
ThornbushJul2018Van9run4 47.50007731 2.604093043 6.78% 2.761636539 0.59% 3.951884038 ‐0.08 6.144249 0.13 3.536694 171.4753 0.148062 0.007229 0.02 4.620397 0.01 3.986313 ‐0.02
ThornbushJul2018Van9run5 49.49302158 3.017538866 ‐8.02% 2.974625917 ‐7.08% 3.52733462 0.34 6.702226 ‐0.43 3.657804 171.5982 0.152126 0.027486 0.00 4.815425 ‐0.18 4.066411 ‐0.10
ThornbushJul2018Van9AVG 47.70478005 2.793584642 2.77805801 3.867058781 6.274444 3.568455 171.4935 0.160267 0.024408 4.632878 3.969285
 V8 & V9 Control Sites July 2018 Comparison

Check Check Check (± Check Check Check Check

Route Speed (km/h) LeftIRI (m/km) RightIRI (m/km) LeftRut (mm) ghtRut (mm ne_Width (ding (Degr Pitch (%) Grade (%) Roll (%) ossSlope (%
(±5%) (±5%) 2mm) (±2mm) (±0.2%) (±0.2%) (±0.2%)
BrookEastJul2018Van8AVG 60.71837093 1.371846024 ‐0.82% 1.653926245 ‐0.40% 3.221638858 0.13 2.395519 0.22 3.541486 79.40232 0.439404 0.052166 0.02 3.812806 ‐0.30 2.992916 ‐0.09
BrookEastJul2018Van9AVG 52.40074374 1.349505751 0.82% 1.640795999 0.40% 3.491626883 ‐0.13 2.842568 ‐0.22 3.543679 79.3715 0.19572 0.100708 ‐0.02 3.219268 0.30 2.812682 0.09
BrookEastV8&V9Jun2018Average 56.55955734 1.360675888 1.647361122 3.35663287 2.619044 3.542583 79.38691 0.317562 0.076437 3.516037 2.902799

BrookWestJul2018Van8AVG 59.28760928 1.165309076 ‐0.73% 1.368456196 ‐0.80% 1.712910783 0.04 2.449376 0.19 3.531392 259.3771 0.111033 ‐0.24725 0.02 4.429289 ‐0.33 3.448136 ‐0.12
BrookWestJul2018Van9AVG 49.31657083 1.14846424 0.73% 1.346623719 0.80% 1.787972928 ‐0.04 2.833383 ‐0.19 3.501311 259.3425 ‐0.11719 ‐0.20511 ‐0.02 3.764092 0.33 3.204792 0.12
BrookWestV8&V9Jun2018Average 54.30209005 1.156886658 1.357539957 1.750441856 2.64138 3.516351 259.3598 ‐0.00308 ‐0.22618 4.096691 3.326464

ElmStJul2018Van8AVG 49.0081527 1.334226833 ‐2.86% 1.766999289 ‐1.84% 1.886021792 0.03 1.56733 ‐0.03 3.149144 65.37383 ‐1.98293 ‐2.26181 0.00 3.315662 ‐0.26 2.59402 ‐0.07
ElmStJul2018Van9AVG 50.53717797 1.260140427 2.86% 1.703166372 1.84% 1.943836576 ‐0.03 1.515281 0.03 3.235572 65.25902 ‐2.20592 ‐2.26707 0.00 2.805188 0.26 2.454827 0.07
ElmStJul2018V8&V9Average 49.77266533 1.29718363 1.735082831 1.914929184 1.541306 3.192358 65.31643 ‐2.09443 ‐2.26444 3.060425 2.524424

ThornbushJul2018Van8AVG 50.36280606 2.770615294 0.41% 2.969447046 ‐3.33% 3.878326943 ‐0.01 5.559166 0.36 3.617175 171.5592 0.443176 0.014745 0.00 5.37395 ‐0.37 4.226691 ‐0.13
ThornbushJul2018Van9AVG 47.70478005 2.793584642 ‐0.41% 2.77805801 3.33% 3.867058781 0.01 6.274444 ‐0.36 3.568455 171.4935 0.160267 0.024408 0.00 4.632878 0.37 3.969285 0.13
ThornbushJul2018V8&V9Average 49.03379305 2.782099968 2.873752528 3.872692862 5.916805 3.592815 171.5264 0.301722 0.019576 5.003414 4.097988

= Run doesn't meet the Acceptance Criteria

Data Acceptance Criteria
IRI ‐ IRI from each repeated run is within ±5% of the mean for the runs.
RUT ‐ RUT depth from each run is within ±2 mm of the mean for the runs.
Roll ‐ Roll from each run is within ±0.2% of the mean for the runs.
Grade ‐ Grade from each run is within ±0.2 % of the mean for the runs.
Cross Slope ‐ Cross Slop from each run is within ±0.2 % of the mean for the runs.
 Appendix G
Example of the Photolog Daily Check List

59
Photolog Daily Mechanical Inspection Check List
Last modified April 30, 2018 by Jim Spencer

ARAN Van: Date: Time Start: End: Weather Conditions:

Project: State / Local HMPS / Special / Control / Ramp / PM
Driver AM: Operator AM:
Driver PM: Operator PM:
Driver Check List
Item Check Description Comments
1  Inspect/walk around outside of Van for damage
2  Check fuel level
3  Check oil level
4  Check DEF Diesel Additive (Van9 only)
5  Clean Exterior – Clean of dirt and debris
6  Inspect & clean the HD capture window
7  Inspect & clean grade sensors
8  Inspect & clean IRI lasers
9  Inspect & clean LCMS lasers
10  Check tires & inflate to proper pressure (80psi)
11  Adjust side mirrors
12  Check turn signals, break lights and flashers
13  Clean Interior ‐ No food or personal belongings left.
14  Inspect & tighten camera mount
15  Tool box present and complete
Safety Equip.:  Shoes  Vests  Safety Hats Laser
16 
Protective Eyewear  Cones  Fire Ext.
17  Accident Reporting Paperwork Present
18  Van keys present
19  GPS Unit present and charged and activated
20  Cell Phone present & charged and activated
21  Mobil WiFi unit present & charged and activated
Operator Check List
Item Check Description Comments
22  Start vehicle and listen for any unusual noises
23  Check to see if hard drives have been reformatted
24  Insert hard drives if none are currently in computers
25  Start Inverters and ARAN 9000 sub‐systems
26  Turn on Roof top AC
27  Is correct routing file loaded
28  Map & create network shares for hard drives
29  Check “Status States Screen” for problems
Open POS‐LV & run ARAN 9000 system diagnostics.
30 
Check for errors (15 min. idle time for GPS accuracy)
31  Run dummy file & review for discrepancies
Select routes to collect and add to list. (Ensure that
32 
checkpoints for routing are in proper order)
33  Verify data at end of day
34  Create end of day log & email to Jin & Anthony
35  Perform export of collected data
36  Make backup to third removable hard drives
37  Turn off Systems, AC, Inverters, Phone, GPS, & WiFi