A statistical process control approach using cumulative sum control chart analysis for traffic data quality verification and sensor calibration for weigh-in-motion systems

References

• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2006). Smoothness of pavement at the approaches to WIM scales. AASHTO MP 14-05. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
   Google Scholar
• American Society of Testing and Materials. (2002). ASTM E1318-02. Standard specification for highway weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems with user requirements and test method. In Annual book of ASTM standards (Vol. 04.03). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cetin, M., & Comert, G. (2006). Short-term traffic flow prediction with regime switching models. Transportation Research Record, 1965, 23–31.
   Google Scholar
• Cetin, M., Nichols, A. P., & Chou, CS. (2014). Re-identification of trucks on basis of axle-spacing measurements to facilitate analysis of weigh-in-motion accuracy. Transportation Research Record, 2129, 96–105.
   Google Scholar
• Cetin, M., Nichols, A. P., & Monsere, C. M. (2011). Bayesian models for re-identification of trucks over long distances based on axle measurement data. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlin, C. (1992). Proposed method for calibrating weigh-in-motion systems and for monitoring that calibration over time. Transportation Research Record, 1364, 161–168.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, L., & Higgins, C. (2008). Development of truck axle spectra from Oregon weigh-in-motion data for use in pavement design and analysis. Research Unit, FHWA-OR-RD-08-06, 13 SPR 635. Washington, DC: Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Long term pavement performance. Traffic analysis software, user's guide, Version 1.6.2, Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, G., Harvey, A. C., & Phillips, G. D. A. (1980). Algorithm AS 154: An algorithm for exact maximum likelihood estimation of autoregressive-moving average models by means of Kalman filtering. Applied Statistics, 29(3), 311–322.
   Google Scholar
• Han, C., Boyd, W. T., & Marti, M. M. (1995). Quality control of weigh-in-motion systems using statistical process control. Transportation Research Record, 1501, 72–80.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, T. J., & Ross, W. H. (1991). Statistical process control procedures for correlated observations. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 69, 48–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D. M. (1987). Self-starting CUSUM charts for location and scale. Statistician, 36, 299–315.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D. M., & Olwell, D. H. (1997). Cumulative sum charts and charting for quality improvement, New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Liao, C.-F., Chatterjee, I., & Davis, G. A. (2015). Implementation of traffic data quality verification for WIM sites. Twin Cities, MN: Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, C.-W., & Reynold, M. R. (2001). Cusum charts for monitoring an auto-correlated process. Journal of Quality Technology, 33(3), 316–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCall, W., & Vodrazka, W. C., Jr. (1997). States' successful practices weigh-in-motion handbook. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, D. C., & Mastrangelo, C. M. (1991). Some statistical process control methods for autocorrelated data. Journal of Quality Technology, 23(3), 179–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2004, July). 2002 Design guide: Design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. (NCHRP Study 1-37A). Washington, DC: NCHRP.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, N., & Bullock, D. (2004). Quality control procedures for weigh-in-motion data. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/12, SPR-2795. Washington, DC: Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, A., & Cetin, M. (2007). Numerical characterization of gross vehicle weight distributions from weigh-in-motion data. Transportation Research Record, 1993, 148–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ott, W. C., & Papagiannakis, A. T. (1996). Weigh-in-motion data quality assurance based on 3-S2 steering axle load analysis. Transportation Research Record, 1536, 12–18.
   Google Scholar
• Page, E. S. (1954). Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, 41, 100–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramachandran, A. N. (2009). Weight in motion data analysis (Master's thesis). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
   Google Scholar
• Papagiannakis, A. T. (2010). High speed weigh-in-motion calibration practices. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 38(5), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papagiannakis, A. T., Quinley, R., & Brandt, S. R. (2009). High speed WIM calibration practices. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 386. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
   Google Scholar
• Seegmiller, L. W. (2006). Utah commercial motor vehicle weight-in-motion data analysis and calibration methodology (Master's thesis). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
   Google Scholar
• Sivakumar, B., & Ghosn, M. (2009). Collecting and using weigh-in-motion data in LRFD bridge design. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 5(4), 151–158.
   Google Scholar
• VanDobben De Bruyn, C. C. (1968). Cumulative sum tests: Theory and practice. London, UK: Griffin.
   Google Scholar
• VanBrackle, L. N., & Reynolds, M. R. J. (1997). EWMA and CUSUM control charts in the presence of correlation. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 26, 979–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar