500 likes | 610 Views
Building a WIM Data Archive for Improved Modeling, Design, and Rating. Christopher Monsere Assistant Professor, Portland State University Andrew Nichols Assistant Professor, Marshall University. NATMEC 2008, Washington, D.C. August 6, 2008. Outline. Data Almanac PORTAL
E N D
Building a WIM Data Archive for Improved Modeling, Design, and Rating Christopher Monsere Assistant Professor, Portland State University Andrew Nichols Assistant Professor, Marshall University NATMEC 2008, Washington, D.C. August 6, 2008
Outline • Data Almanac • PORTAL • WIM Archive Quality Control • Sample Uses of the WIM Archive • Sensor Health and Calibration • Uses for LFR and MPDEG • System Performance and Information • Planning Data
Describe the data source DATA almanac
Data Almanac • 22 reporting WIM sites • All upstream of weigh stations • All are CVISN sites • April 2005 - March 2008 • 2007 - 12,054,552 trucks • Intermittent data outages and problems • Data quality and accuracy?
Data Almanac • These WIM sites provide • Axle weights • Gross vehicle weight • Spacing • Vehicle class • Unique transponder numbers
Axle Weight Sensors • Single load cells • Sensors weigh vehicles traveling at normal highway speeds • Weight measurement affected by many factors • Site characteristics • Environmental factors • Truck dynamics
WIM Layout Trucks Bypass R.F. Antenna 1 mile Notification Station (in-cab) High Speed Tracking System WIM Sorting Site Ramp (with Overhead AVI) Static Sorter Weighing System
Sorting Lanes Exit Lane Weigh Lane • WIM installed on entrance ramp to determine if vehicle is close to legal weight • Legal trucks directed to exit facility without being weighed statically
Indiana WIM Site Layout • Loops – vehicle presence & speed measurement • Load Cell – weight & speed • Piezo – speed & axle spacing Inductive Loop Piezo Sensor Load Cell Sensor Inductive Loop
WIM Classification Algorithm • Portion related to 5-axle vehicles shown • Works like a sieve • Min/Max thresholds for • # of axles • axle spacing • axle weight • gvw • Currently only use axle spacing
PrePass NORPASS State operated/developed; compatible with NORPASS Electronic screening J. Lane, Briefing to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 22 February 2008 freight.transportation.org/doc/hwy/dc08/scoht_cvisn.ppt • Three types of tags • Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP)’s PrePass program • North American Pre-clearance and Safety System (NORPASS) • Oregon Green Light Program • All RF tags
What is PORTAL PORTAL - Postgresql database PORTAL 101
Describe Quality Control Metrics QUALITY CONTROL
Outline • Summarize Existing Quality Control Metrics • Speed Accuracy • Weight Accuracy • System-Wide Monitoring vs. Site-based Monitoring • SQL ServerExtract Pivot Tables (.CUB) • Move Beyond Heuristic (sometimes visual) Rules to a Statistically Solid Decision Making Criteria • Learn from Manufacturing World of Statistical Process Control
Data Quality Assessment • Obtain data from WIM sites (nightly or weekly) • Upload individual records to SQL database • Macroscopic view to identify potential problems • Microscopic view to investigate causes • Differentiate between problems & random noise using statistical process control (individual lanes) • Schedule maintenance/calibration accordingly
Past Quality Control Hurdles • Emerging WIM quality control metrics • Enormous amounts of data • Many vendors’ standard reports do not provide level of detail necessary for effective quality control, particularly comparing multiple sites • Most DOTs do not have time or resources to perform QA/QC
Accuracy Metrics Illustrated • Vehicle Classification • Axle Spacing • Speed • Axle Weight • Wheel weight Accuracy Metric Accuracy Metric
Speed Accuracy Metric • Class 9 drive tandem axle spacing • Currently used by many agencies • Target values based on manufacturer sales data • Individual trucks 4.25-4.58 feet • Population average 4.30-4.36 feet
2002 Sales Data • Data obtained from 3 of top 6 truck manufacturers • Verified at Indiana WIM sites with accurate speed calibration Weighted Average = 4.33 feet Modal Value (0.01)’ would be even better than average
WIM Speed Control Chart • Class 9 Drive Tandem Axle Spacing • Limits based on sales data and data from sites with good calibration • Limits same for all sites • Upper Control Limit (UCL) = 4.36 feet • Centerline (CL) = 4.33 feet • Lower Control Limit (LCL) = 4.30 feet
Speed & Axle Spacing • WIM calculates speed by measuring vehicle time between two sensors • WIM speed used to calculate axle spacing based on time between consecutive axles Calibration factor
Speed Accuracy Importance • Used to calculate axle spacing • Vehicle classification • Bridge formula compliance for enforcement • Used to apply weight calibration factors in some WIM systems
Why Unclassified? • All axle spacings in this lane were overestimated by ~15% • The axle spacing 3-4 is exceeding the defined thresholds in the vehicle classification file (40’ max) Axle 3-4 Spacing 30-35 feet typical
Weight Accuracy Metric • Class 9 front axle weight • Individual trucks 8,000-12,000 lbs • Population average 9,000-11,000 lbs • Currently used by many agencies • This range is too big for detecting subtle drifts
Class 9 WIM Accuracy Metrics • Steer Axle Weight • 8.5 kips (GVW < 32 kips) • 9.3 kips (GVW 32-70 kips) • 10.4 kips (GVW > 70 kips) • Steer Axle Weight and Axle 1-2 Spacing • Logarithmic relationship • Steer Axle Weight/Axle 1-2 Spacing • Steer Axle Wheel Weight • Gross Vehicle Weight Distribution • 28-32 kips unloaded • 70-80 kips loaded
Dahlin’s GVW Criteria 3rd Peak?
Class 9 GVW Distribution • Modal distributions • Look for peak mode shifts • Trend identification difficult • Very difficult to automate (QC) • Step function to find max GVW bins • Bin width affects precision
Mixture Models • Fitting a continuous function to GVW distribution – combination of normal distributions • Use algorithm to fit “mixture” of normal distributions • Obtain mean and covariance for each component
GVW Fit – 1 Component Mean 1 = 56 kips Covariance 1 = 310 kips Proportion 1 = 100%
GVW Fit – 2 Components Mean 1 = 74 kips Covariance 1 = 11 kips Mean 2 = 48 kips Covariance 2 = 222 kips Proportion 1 = 33% Proportion 2 = 67%
GVW Fit – 3 Components Mean 1 = 75 kips Covariance 1 = 9 kips Mean 2 = 52 kips Covariance 2 = 193 kips Mean 3 = 30 kips Covariance 3 = 11 kips Proportion 1 = 31% Proportion 2 = 57% Proportion 3 = 12%
WIM Speed/Axle Spacing Accuracy • Common speed accuracy metric isClass 9 drive tandem axle spacing • No consensus on proper values • Verified with manufacturer sales numbers • Individual trucks 4.25-4.58 feet • Population average 4.30-4.36 feet
Describe from Quality Control Metrics About Sensor Health SENSOR HEALTH
Describe Higgins Work LFR and MPDEG
Describe Sample PMs System performance
Freight performance metrics • Average travel times on key corridors • Ton-miles on each corridor by various temporal considerations • Overweight vehicles on corridors by temporal variation (measuring change) • Seasonal variability in loading, routes, and volumes • Percent trucks with tags on each corridor • Origin-destination matrix
Freight performance metrics Using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) / American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) proprietary truck satellite data.
Wyeth Emigrant Hill Farewell Bend
Acknowledgements Dave McKane and Dave Fifer, ODOT Kristin Tufte and Heba Alawakiel, PSU