Use of axle load spectra (ALS) for estimating calibration drift in weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The road agencies collect and submit weigh-in-motion (WIM) data to the Federal Highway Administration as part of their traffic monitoring program. Therefore, the WIM data should be precise and accurate. One way to evaluate WIM measurement errors is by using the test truck data collected immediately before and after equipment calibration. The limitation of this approach is that the data represent a snapshot in time and may not represent a long-term WIM site performance. This paper presents an approach for estimating WIM system accuracy based on axle load spectra attributes (normalized axle load spectra (NALS) shape factors). This alternative approach allows for characterizing temporal changes in WIM data consistency. The WIM error data collected before and after calibration were related to Class 9 NALS shape factors in the proposed methodology. This paper aims to determine WIM system errors based on axle loading without physically performing WIM equipment performance validation using test trucks. The presented methodology can be used to estimate systematic errors (drift) in the WIM system at any point in time after the equipment calibration. This approach can help highway agencies select optimum timings for routine maintenance and calibration of WIM equipment without compromising its accuracy. The results show that the WIM accuracy for the single axle (SA) and tandem axle (TA) can be estimated with SA and TA NALS shape factors with an acceptable degree of error for bending plate to quartz piezo sensors. Examples are included to demonstrate the application and significance of the developed models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".