Evaluation of bias in the Hamburg wheel tracking device.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Evaluation of bias in the Hamburg wheel tracking device.

Filetype[PDF-421.48 KB]

  • English

  • Details:

    • Publication/ Report Number:
    • Resource Type:
    • Geographical Coverage:
    • Corporate Publisher:
    • Abstract:
      As the list of states adopting the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD) continues to grow, there is a need to evaluate how results are utilized. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 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 non-uniform 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.
    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.26