Evaluation of Bias in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device, RB00-010, 2013

As the list of states adopting the HWTD continues to grow, there is a need to evaluate how results are utilized. AASHTO T 324 does not standardize the analysis and reporting of test results. Furthermore, processing and reporting of the results among manufacturers is not uniform. This is partly due to the variation among agency reporting requirements. Some include only the midpoint rut depth, while others include the average across the entire length of the wheel track. To eliminate bias in reporting, statistical analysis was performed on over 150 test runs on gyratory specimens. Measurement location was found to be a source of significant variation in the HWTD. This is likely due to the nonuniform wheel speed across the specimen, geometry of the specimen, and air void profile. Eliminating this source of bias when reporting results is feasible though is dependent upon the average rut depth at the final pass. When reporting rut depth at the final pass, it is suggested for poor performing samples to average measurement locations near the interface of the adjoining gyratory specimens. This is necessary due to the wheel lipping on the mold. For all other samples it is reasonable to only eliminate the 3 locations furthest from the gear house. For multi‐wheel units, wheel side was also found to be significant for poor and good performing samples. After eliminating the suggested measurements from the analysis, the wheel was no longer a significant source of variation.

Addendum to Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1985

This contract extension was granted to analyze data obtained in the original contract period at a level of detail not called for in the original contract nor permitted by the time constraints of the original contract schedule. These further analyses focused on two primary questions: I. What sources of variation can be isolated within the overall pattern of driver recognition errors reported previously for the 16 signs tested in Project HR-256? 2. Were there systematic relations among data on the placement of signs in a simulated signing exercise and data on the respondents' ability to detect the presence of a sign in a visual field or their ability to recognize quickly and correctly a sign shown them or the speed with which these same persons can respond to a sign for a driver decision?