Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines for Effective Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Equipment Calibration, Application for Modeling WIM Errors, and Comparison of the ASTM and LTPP Accuracy Protocols

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The data collected at Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) stations have many applications. Primarily, the data are used for pavement design, bridge design, freight studies, transportation planning, and enforcement. The WIM data are also used in mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (Pavement-ME) for predicting performance. Highway agencies and the state department of transportation (DOTs) are the main users of WIM data. With a number of important applications, all WIM users desire to collect accurate loading data. This paper addresses three core issues related to WIM systems accuracy and calibration procedures, i.e., how to; (1) perform successful calibration of a WIM system by quantifying the effect of sample size (truck runs), speed, temperature, and truck type on measurement errors, (2) model gross vehicle weight (GVW) WIM errors as a function of individual axle errors [(single axle (SA) and two tandem axles (TA), (drive and trailer)], and (3) estimate WIM measurement errors using the long-term pavement performance (LTPP) and the ASTM protocols. The research objectives were accomplished by synthesizing and analyzing the WIM error data available in the LTPP database for bending plate (BP) and quartz piezo (QP) sensors. Successful WIM equipment calibration can eliminate systematic weights, speed, and axle spacing errors. The ASTM and the LTPP accuracy estimation methods agree; however, the methods should be compared when the sample size is small (10 or fewer truck runs). The representative pre- and post-calibration data can be collected accurately using one test truck with 12 or more runs at multiple speed points for QP and BP sensors. The developed models showed that the GVW errors could be accurately predicted using SA and two TA. The results also show that if GVW errors are within ASTM Type I tolerance, the SA and TA errors will likely be within acceptable limits. Therefore, calibrating a WIM site using GVW errors should continue. The suggested changes in current WIM procedures can significantly reduce time and resources for successful equipment calibration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All the data are avaiable with authors and can be made avaiable on demand.

References

  1. Papagiannakis, A. T., & Quinley, R. (2008). High speed weigh-in-motion system calibration practices. Transportation Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  2. FHWA-LTPP Technical Support Services Contractor. (2009). LTPP field operations guide for SPS WIM sites version 1.0 Draft Office of Infrastructure Research, Development, and Technology, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia.

  3. ASTM. (2009). Standard specification for highway weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems with user requirements and test methods E 1318–09. In: 2007 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Edited by ASTM Committee E17–52 on Traffic Monitoring. ASTM International, USA.

  4. Haugen, T., Levy, J. R., Aakre, E., & Tello, M. E. P. (2016). Weigh-in-motion equipment–experiences and challenges. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1423–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Haider, S. W., Masud, M. M., Selezneva, O., & Wolf, D. J. (2020). Assessment of factors affecting measurement accuracy for high-quality weigh-in-motion sites in the long-term pavement performance database. Transportation Research Record, 2674(10), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120937977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergan, A., Berthelot, C., & Taylor, B. (1995). Effect of weigh in motion accuracy on weight enforcement efficiency, vol. 1.

  7. Davies, P., & Sommerville, F. (1987). Calibration and accuracy testing of weigh-in-motion systems (p. 1123). Transportation Research Record.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Glover, M. H., & Newton, W. H. (1991). Evaluation of a multiple-sensor weigh-in-motion system. No. RR 307.

  9. Tran, N. H., & Hall, K. D. (2007). Development and influence of statewide axle load spectra on flexible pavement performance. Transportation Research Record, 2037(1), 106–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hazlett, D., Jiang, N. & Loftus-Otway, L. (2020). Use of weigh-in-motion data for pavement, bridge, weight enforcement, and freight logistics applications (no. project 20–05, topic 50–03).

  11. Selezneva, O. & Mcdonnell, A.-M. (2017). Weigh-in-motion. Advancing Highway Traffic Monitoring Through Strategic Research, pp. 30–44. Transportation Research Circular Number E-C227

  12. Selezneva, O., & Wolf, D. J. (2017). Successful practices in weigh-in-motion data quality with WIM guidebook [volumes 1 & 2]. Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Szary, P. J., & Maher, A. (2009). Implementation of weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems. Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacob, B., O’Brien, E. J., & Newton, W. (2000). Assessment of the accuracy and classification of weigh-in-motion systems: Part 2 European specification. International Journal of Vehicle Design-Heavy Vehicle Systems, 7(2/3), 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacob, B. & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). European specification on weigh-in-motion of road vehicles (COST323). In: Proceedings of second European conference on weigh-in-motion of road vehicles, Held Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 14–16.

  16. Dot, I. (2014). Telemetrics guide prepared by office of systems planning.

  17. Van Loo, H., & Žnidarič, A. (2019). Guide for users of weigh-in-motion: An introduction to weigh-in-motion. International Society for Weigh in Motion.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pigman, J. G., Graves, C., Hunsucker, D. Q. & Cain, D. (2012). Wim data collection and analysis.

  19. Stephens, J. (2017). Montana weigh-in-motion and automatic traffic recorder strategy. Montana Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gajda, J., Sroka, R., & Burnos, P. (2021). Designing the calibration process of weigh-in-motion systems. Electronics, 10(20), 2537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacob, B. & O'Brien, E. J. (1996). WAVE-a European research project on weigh-in-motion. In: National Traffic Data Acquisition Conference (NATDAQ'96), Albuquerque, New Mexico, National Traffic Data Acquisition Conference.

  22. Butcher, T. G. (2001). Specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mshali, M., & Steyn, W. J. (2020). Incorporating truck speed effect on evaluation and design of flexible pavement systems. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 13(1), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elkins, G. E., Schmalzer, P., Thompson, T., & Simpson, A. (2003). Long-term pavement performance information management system pavement performance database user guide. McLean Federal Highway Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  25. FHWA. (1998). A vital activity for LTPP sites, Federal Highway Administration TechbriefFHWA-RD-98-104. US Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li, Q. J., Minnekanti, S. P., Yang, G., & Wang, C. (2019). Traffic inputs for pavement ME design using Oklahoma data. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 12(2), 154–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Selezneva, O. I., Ayers, M., Hallenbeck, M., Ramachandran, A., Shirazi, H., & Von Quintus, H. (2016). MEPDG traffic loading defaults derived from traffic pooled fund study. Federal Highway Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haider, S. W., & Masud, M. M. (2020). Accuracy comparisons between ASTM 1318–09 and COST-323 (European) WIM standards using LTPP WIM data. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on maintenance and rehabilitation of pavements—Mairepav9 (pp. 155–165). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Gey, S., & Nedelec, E. (2005). Model selection for CART regression trees. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(2), 658–670.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable for that section.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

    Muhammad Munum Masud & Syed W. Haider

Authors
  1. Muhammad Munum Masud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Syed W. Haider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Syed W. Haider.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Not applicable for that section.

Ethical Approval

All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masud, M.M., Haider, S.W. Guidelines for Effective Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Equipment Calibration, Application for Modeling WIM Errors, and Comparison of the ASTM and LTPP Accuracy Protocols. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-022-00267-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-022-00267-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation