Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
1997
Recommended Citation
Ollis, James Edward, Statistical tolerances for concrete road pavement surfaces, Master of Total Quality Management (Hons.) thesis, ,
University of Wollongong, 1997. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/2917
By
VOLUME I OF II
DECLARATION
In accordance with the requirements of the University of Wollongong, I hereby state
that the work described herein is m y o w n original work, except where due references
are made, and has not been submitted for a degree in the University of Wollongong or
other university or institution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge and give thanks to the support and encouragement I have
received from m y two supervisors, Professor David Griffiths and Doctor Chandra
Gulati, in the preparation of this thesis. I was indeed heartened by the availability of
both of m y supervisors to meet with m e and sort out the many problems that I was
confronted with in completing this thesis. Their flexibility and customer focus during
m y time spent under their guidance reflects a Total Quality Management approach by
the Applied Statistics Department.
As this was industry based research, I wish to thank the people within the RTA w
have supported m y efforts to solve an industry problem; particularly, Bruce Tompson
and Ross Dearden w h o assisted in promoting m y research within the R T A .
I would also like to thank the many RTA surveyors who supplied information for t
research; particularly Peter Dunkley and Ian Rose.
ABSTRACT
This thesis addresses the task of reducing theriskto the Roads and Traffic Authority
of N S W ( R T A ) of accepting poor quality work from its suppliers by the
implementation of an effective statistical compliance scheme. Further, the
compliance scheme is designed to lead to the introduction of statistical process
control into the road construction industry. This will be achieved by control charting
the statistical summaries required for the compliance scheme and by requiring the
contractor to demonstrate statistical process control. Therefore, this thesis also
highlights the importance of measurement, and analyses of measurement, for quality
improvement.
The quality characteristic tested for acceptance by the compliance scheme is the
difference between the constructed height of the pavement course surface and the
design height of the pavement course surface. Control of the surface height of the
pavement course controls the pavement course thickness.
Statisticians have noted that the assumption that processes generate independent and
identically distributed random variables is not always appropriate for quality control
purposes. This thesis estimates the effect of data correlation on surface level
departure and thickness measurements by timeseries analysis. This enabled a process
capability analysis of the processes for constructing concrete pavement to the correct
height and thickness, and the preparation of a compliance scheme for pavement
surfaces.
The application of statistical techniques allows for an equitable sharing of the risks
the compliance scheme, between the R T A and road construction contractors. The
effect of this is, and the change of focus to process measurements, are expected to
support a cultural change to more of a "partnering relationship" between the R T A and
contractors.
Compliance schemes are limited by the capability of the measurement system used.
For this reason, analyses were also carried out on the measurement system (survey)
that currently measures surface level departures. It is concluded from these analyses
that survey measurements by E D M trigonometrical heighting are capable of
measuring the process to an accuracy that can track process improvement. It is also
concluded that concrete pavement course thickness measurements by survey are
substantially better than the current method of edge measurements and core depths.
The ability of the general surveying profession to measure the process to the req
accuracy was estimated by a questionnaire distributed to surveyors throughout N S W
involved in road pavement construction. The questionnaire was also to determine the
adequacy of process controls for constructing pavement surfaces to the correct height.
Responses to the questionnaire determined that few surveying procedures were
adequately controlling all the factors that affect the accuracy of surface level
departure measurements. S o m e process controls and surveying techniques were also
identified as having an adverse effect on quality.
The road pavement is the most dominant influence on the long term cost of road ass
management because of its high construction and maintenance costs. The R T A
Pavements Manual (1993) estimates that concrete base courses constructed 1 0 % less
than their design thickness will reduce the design life of road pavements by
approximately 9 0 % . In 1996/97 the R T A spent approximately $297million on
maintenance and rehabilitation of pavements under its control and an additional
amount of about $200million on pavement construction. The change of focus to
rv
The compliance scheme will, for the first time, provide an accurate measure of
constructed base course thickness to assist asset management. This will also aid
research into pavement design and assist problem solving in the event of premature
pavement failure. In addition, by measuring contractors' processes, the compliance
scheme will provide a performance indicator to assist contract administration.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THESIS
Section No. Page No.
11 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROCESS 1
1 2
13
STRUCTURE OF THESIS
14
LITERATURE REVIEW
11
15
17
CHAPTER 2
THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES AND
PROCESS CAPABILITY
21 OBJECTIVES 24
22
23
THE DATA
31
24
35
25
45
26
87
27
92
28
VI
24
113
CHAPTER 3
COMPLIANCE SCHEME FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SURFACES AND BASE COURSE THICKNESS
Section No. Page No.
31 OBJECTIVES 123
32
123
33
INTRODUCTION
127
34
130
35
136
36
141
37
145
38
158
39
162
172
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 4
GAUGE CAPABILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
(SURVEY)
41 OBJECTIVES 178
42
43
INTRODUCTION
44
178
184
IN PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
185
vn
Section No.
Page No.
47
192
198
48
209
49
DATA ANALYSES
217
251
255
258
CHAPTER 5
QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRENT SURVEYING PROCEDURES
FOR ROAD PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
51 OBJECTIVES 272
52
S U M M A R Y OF RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE
272
53
281
54
RESPONSES
282
55
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
286
56
A D V A N T A G E S OF E D M T R I G O N O M E T R I C A L HEIGHTING O V E R
DIFFERENTIAL LEVELLING F O R P A V E M E N T S U R V E Y S
377
57
381
58
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF E D M T R I G O N O M E T R I C A L
HEIGHTING A N D DIFFERENTIAL LEVELLING P R O C E D U R E S .... 383
REFERENCES 395
VIII
APPENDIXES
Appendix No.
No. of Pages
3 PAGES
2 PAGES
BARTON HIGHWAY
A24 TABLES OF RESULTS OF TEST FOR INDEPENDENCE
2 PAGES
10 PAGES
15 PAGES
LX
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THESIS
1 1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROCESS
Research for this thesis is restricted to concrete subbase and base course surf
roads under the control of the Roads and Traffic Authority of N e w South Wales
(RTA). Successful implementation of the findings of this thesis will see the research
extended to include all pavement courses, constructed with all pavement materials, of
RTA.
Diagram 11 shows the cross section of a typical pavement design. A pavement
course is any one of the strata of the cross section (for example, select material,
subbase or base). The bottom of the cross section referred to as "subgrade" is the
natural earth foundation of the road. This may be the bottom of an excavation or the
top of a constructed earthworks embankment.
page 2
1
1
1
^^^^^^^
1
1
Base course
Subbase course
ISplill
Subgrade
D I A G R A M 1 1
The arrows show that for each pavement course only the upper surface is controlled
for height
Several factors influence pavement design, including the intended use of the road
availability of materials and the natural terrain. For these reasons, one or more of the
courses in Diagram 11 m a y not be present in a particular pavement design. However,
the base course is present in all pavement designs. The strength of the pavement lies
in the strength of the base course, the purpose of the other courses is to support and/or
protect the base course.
The design thickness of pavement courses will vary with pavement designs. As
examples of pavement course thicknesses, Table 11 lists the design pavement course
thicknesses of the two projects analysed for this thesis. Both of these projects were to
construct concrete road pavements.
Newcastle Freeway
Not used
0.230
0.150
0.300
Barton Highway
Not used
0.230
0.125
0.300
page 3
String lines that run parallel to the centre line of the road control the height of th
paving machine during construction of concrete pavement courses.
String line, ,
String line, ,
running parallel
running parallel
to road centre
to road centre
line
line
PAVING
MACHINE
Surveyor's peg
to set height of
string line
Surveyor's peg
to set height of
strina line
Diagram 12 is a cross sectional view (looking along the centre line of the pavement)
of the process of laying concrete pavements. The paving machine lays the full width
of the pavement course as it slowly progresses in the direction of the road centre lin
On the Barton Highway, the subbase course was laid 10 metres wide and the base
course was laid 8.6 metres wide.
The sensors of the paving machine (shown in red) follow the string lines to control the
height of the pavement surface and the edge alignment. Surveyor's pegs set flush
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 4
with the ground control the height and position of the string line. The surveyor sets
the pegs, also k n o w n as trim pegs, at about 10 metre intervals along the road but clear
of the path of the paving machine. H e then determines their heights and calculates the
distance up from each trim peg to set the string line.
"The height of the constructed pavement surface minus the height of the design
pavement surface."
Therefore, when the constructed surface is higher than the design surface, the su
level departure has a. positive sign. Conversely, when the constructed surface is lower
than the design surface, the surface level departure has a negative sign;
There has been a feeling within the RTA for some time that the current approach to
acceptance sampling of pavement surfaces was not adequate to meet R T A needs.
Since commencement of m y research for this thesis the R T A has commissioned a
page 5
An interim report by the project team (RTA, 1997:p5) lists the following real and
perceived shortcomings in the current acceptance sampling and construction control
procedures:
RTA model specifications for various types of earthworks and pavement courses
specify thickness requirements and tolerances differently and sometimes
inconsistently; with little if any theoretical statistical input; and sometimes in
conflict with level tolerances.
page 6
The findings of the project team suggest that the current approach to acceptance
sampling is based more on subjective opinion than on any analysis that estimates the
capability of the industry or the behaviour of the process.
The current RTA quality assurance contract specifies the following requirements for
the acceptance sampling plan for pavement surfaces:
Point number 3 is to ensure that sampling is not restricted to the close proximity
trim pegs.
The RTA has not carried out a statistical analysis of the construction process to e
an equitable sharing of therisksbetween the R T A and its suppliers. Statistical
analysis of the process, shown in Chapter 2, found strong correlation of the data.
Hence, for sampling to be effective, the sampling plan must give direction to the
location of the sampling points and the sample size to make due allowance for the
effect of data correlation.
By specifying a range for the surface level departures to fall within, contractors a
encouraged to discuss product measurements when nonconformity is found. Section
27.5 discusses further the effect of setting an absolute tolerance range.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 7
On RTA projects, RTA surveyors normally carry out the conformance surveys, but for
roads built by road construction contractors, surveyors employed by the contractor are
responsible for the conformance surveys.
I have been the RTA project surveyor for several RTA projects. These projects have
specified different tolerances, for the same pavement course constructed of the same
pavement material. For example, various projects have stated the following differing
tolerances for the surface level departures of the bound base course:
page 8
All three examples give different tolerance ranges to construct what is notionally
same product. Example number 1 is a previous attempt at statistical tolerances which
the R T A no longer uses. However, the statistical summaries were for acceptance
sampling only and not process measurement leading to statistical process control.
There was also inconsistency between RTA personnel on what, if any, corrective
action was necessary w h e n sampling points were outside the tolerance range on these
projects. The corrective action recommended varied from "use as is", redesign the
next course to compensate for the sampling points outside of tolerance; to rework the
pavement surface. All of these corrective actions dealt with the product produced by
the process and not the process itself.
For projects built under contract, contractors also tend not to carry out correcti
action. For both R T A projects and contract administration, there appears to be a
general lack of willingness to enforce the specifications as written. A s shown by the
process capability analysis of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway (see
Section 27), large sections of nonconforming product on both these projects were
"used as is".
page 9
The uncertainty of the value of conformance surveys was one of m y motivations for
wanting to do this research. Another motivation was the availability for analysis of a
significant amount of untouched data that could lead to continuous improvement.
1 3 STRUCTURE OF THESIS
Chapters 1,2 and 3 are contained in Volume I of the thesis and Chapters 4 and 5 are
contained in Volume II of the thesis. Volume I deals with the general background of
the problem that stimulated the research, analysis of the process and the compliance
scheme designed to fit the process and meet R T A needs. Volume II deals with the
measurement system. This is critical for the implementation of the compliance
scheme and if the full benefits of having process measurements are to be realised.
Each Chapter of the thesis opens with a list of objectives to be achieved by the
research described in the Chapter, immediately followed by a summary of the findings
of the research.
Analysis in Chapter 2 estimates the correlation structure of the data and its effec
statistical process control. The work on the correlation structure was pivotal to the
whole research of the thesis.
Analysis in Chapter 2 also looked at the behaviour of the process and its effect on
suitability of the R T A ' s current specifications. The effectiveness of the current
approach is questioned by the penalty clauses for the projects analysed for this thesis.
page 10
O n one project there is an estimated unpaid penalty of $224,900 for under thickness.
The main cause of concern is not the amount of the unpaid penalty, but the effect of
having penalty Clauses which are not enforced and which are, indeed, very difficult to
enforce by the current system.
Chapter 3 gives the compliance scheme resulting from the research described in
Chapter 2, including an equitable sharing of therisks.There is also some background
on the differing roles of acceptance sampling and statistical process control in
statistical quality control.
The compliance scheme also includes penalty and bonus options. By following the
compliance scheme, the probability of the R T A accepting base course that is under
thickness is almost negligible.
Chapter 3 also shows how successful implementation of the compliance scheme can
lead to the adoption of statistical process control by the road construction industry.
One of the briefs of the RTA project team commissioned to find a better method of
acceptance sampling was to assess the capability of surveying as the measurement
system. Chapter 4 gives the gauge capability of one R T A survey conformance
procedure that measures pavement surfaces. This survey conformance procedure acts
as a benchmark when assessing other survey conformance procedures.
The findings of Chapter 4 indicates that the tested surveying procedure is capable
measuring the process to an accuracy that can track process improvement.
page 11
The purpose of this Chapter is to see if the industry as a whole was capable of
measuring the process to the required accuracy. The questionnaire found that most
surveying procedures had the potential to measure to the required accuracy but few
were properly controlling all of the factors that influence accuracy.
The questionnaire also found that some surveying procedures were not even
potentially capable of measuring the process to the required accuracy.
1 4 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature search used the facilities of the RTA's Road Technology library as well
as the University of Wollongong's library. RTA's Road Technology Library has
access to the library of the Australian Road Research Board, Transport Research Pty
Ltd., ( A R R B ) , which carries out research of roads within Australia. Both the R T A
Technology library and the A R R B library maintain catalogues from within Australia
and from overseas in the specialised area of road research.
An initial literature search aimed to find out the method of acceptance sampling of
pavement surfaces by other Australian State Road Construction Authorities.
Specifications obtained from Victoria (VicRoads, 1995), Queensland (Queensland
Transport, 1993) South Australia (Department of Transport South Australia, 1995)
page 12
and Western Australia (Main Roads W A , 1996) showed that these states follow
similar procedures to the R T A for acceptance sampling of pavement surfaces.
The ARRB was founded in 1960 as a national research centre for road research in
Australia. The Board is funded by Australian Federal and State Road Authorities.
The research identified that the processes of constructing road pavement surfaces
the correct height and pavement courses to the correct thickness, were not under
statistical control. Variability of the survey control was assumed to be the main
reason for the lack of process control. However, the research did not analysis the
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 13
correlation structure of the data, as was carried by the research for this thesis and
shown in Chapter 2.
The ARRB also prepared Special Report No. 30 (Auff, 1986) as a guide for the
preparation of statistical compliance schemes for quality assurance of pavements and
material properties. The compliance schemes were for both attributes and variables.
The current R T A quality assurance contracts uses the percentage defective scheme
described in Special Report N o . 30 for acceptance sampling of compaction testing of
pavement layers.
The ARRB has continued to carry out research on the variability of road constructio
(Auff and Laksmanto, 1994; Y e o et al, 1994,1996,1996). These trials were on local
roads that were not constructed of concrete. However, the findings of all of the trials
showed improved benefit/costs ratios by reducing construction variability. The
expected outcome of the implementation of the compliance described in Chapter 3 is
reduction of construction variability and the associated improvement in the
benefit/cost ratios.
Austroads is the peak body of Australian State Road Authorities, drawing membership
from each state. It prepared the 1994/95 (Austroads, 1995) working paper to assess
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 14
the performance of the Australian road network in influencing the national economy.
The working paper identified gaps in knowledge hindering the development of road
asset management in Australia, and recorded 1994/95 practices to assist
benchmarking between State Road Authorities.
The working paper estimated the asset of the road infrastructure in Australia as a
$100b. Expenditure on the infrastructure each year is about $6b, with about 5 0 % of
the expenditure on maintenance. The working paper also recognised that the
pavements are a dominant influence on the long term cost of road asset management.
It also stated that development of procedures to reduce maintenance costs of the
pavement has been limited by inadequate historical records of the pavement.
Due the national investment in the road network, the working paper made
recommendations to improve maintenance procedures of the asset. These included
formal handover or commissioning procedures of n e w or reconstructed roads to
capture information about the road, including the pavement, at the time of
commissioning. Detail to be collected about the pavement include; materials used,
thickness and compaction. The working paper suggests that the data to be collected
about the pavement will help to improve:
life cycle cost estimating
prediction of pavement deterioration
prediction of the effects of pavement treatments on road system performance.
page 15
means that the R T A has no accurate measurement of course thicknesses for asset
management at the completion of each project.
The data for the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3 will provide accurate
measurements of the pavement for asset management. At the completion of the
project the R T A will have statistical summaries of each 100 metre lot. Statistical
summaries simplify data analysis.
The RTA wishes to institute a reward/penalty system based on the quality of the work
produced by contractors. They see this as a better w a y of improving the performance
of contractors than to merely punish poor quality work.
Research (Transportation Research Board, 1995 and 1996) shows road authorities in
the United States to be more advanced in this area than Australian Road Construction
Authorities. State road authorities in the United States are n o w preparing
PerformanceRelated specifications. These are specifications for key materials and
construction quality characteristics with a demonstrated significant correlation with
the long term performance of the final product (Transportation Research Board,
1995). The contractor is paid by formulae that relate the quality levels achieved by
the quality characteristics to the life of the product.
page 16
The major problem with Method specifications is that even though the methods m a y
have been followed correctly, the specifications m a y not always produce the desired
results. This is because they are based on past experiences that m a y not be replicated
on the current contract. Therefore, the cause(s) of the deficiencies in the final product
are unclear and the responsibilities of the deficiency becomes the centre of dispute
(Transportation Research Board, 1995). Method specifications also inhibit innovation
by the contractor.
Pavement thickness is one quality characteristic, along with other factors such as
material strengths and smoothness, that correlates significantly with the performance
of the final product. It therefore fits the criteria of a quality characteristic for
PerformanceRelated specifications.
The RTA Pavements Manual (RTA, 1993) shows the strong relationship between base
course thickness and pavement life.
page 17
The Key Performance Indicators Manual goes on to say that performance indicators
focus on aspects of the organisation that need improvement or must be kept within
specified levels to ensure the continued success of the organisation.
design course thickness to ensure that the RTA meets it legislative duty to deliver a
cost effective road infrastructure in a timely and safely manner. Construction of
pavements that are too thick could be adding unnecessary cost to the pavements and
wasting valuable raw materials. Construction of pavements that are too thin puts the
pavement at risk of early failure, which adds to the maintenance costs and puts the
safety of the travelling public at risk.
page 18
The constructed pavement course thicknesses therefore fits the definition of a Key
Performance Indicator given by the K e y Performance Indicators Manual.
Chapter 2 contains analysis of two projects that estimated the capability of the
of constructing the base course to the correct thickness. The Project Managers of both
projects believed that both contractors had constructed the base course at or greater
than the m i n i m u m thickness. Their estimates were by the current method of
determining course thickness by using core depths and edge measurements.
Working with data is one of the cornerstones of Total Quality Management (Imai,
1986). However, organisations need to work with reliable data.
The RTA has shown a commitment to the implementation of quality into the road
construction industry since the adoption of quality assurance contracts. However, this
m a y not have been as successful as they had hoped. Research (Low and Peh, 1996)
shows that the problems confronting the R T A in its quest to implement quality, are
wide spread throughout the construction industry.
page 19
L o w and Peh (1996) give the results of research carried out in Singapore to identify
the problems of introducing quality into the construction industry. Ten points were
listed in order of importance. Thefirstthree, which are familiar with R T A contract
administration, are given below:
1. Poor workmanship by the contractors in completing the works results from low
tender prices.
2. The drawings and specifications do not specify clearly the intention of the
designers. Discrepancies are found between different consultants' drawings which
have resulted in poor coordination during construction.
3. The contractors pay more attention to completing the work on schedule and
controlling costs to within budget than achieving quality in construction.
Points 1 and 3 relate to the contractor. Evidence that contractors are preparing tende
prices that are too low is that the R T A estimates of projects are usually substantially
greater than the tender prices by contractors. However, the final contract payment at
the completion of the project is consistently greater than the tender price due to
variation during the contract. These variations inevitable are associated with disputes
with R T A contract administration over the value of the work variation carried out.
This makes control of budget cost during the contract important to the contractor to
ensure the profitability of the his organisation. In construction, the high investment
cost by the contractor links time constraints to the cost of the work. This leads to
point 3, where contractors see time and cost as of utmost importance. Also, as there is
very little data on the quality of the contractor's work, quality is rated after time and
cost in order of importance by the contractor.
page 20
The R T A will send a message to the contractors that quality is also important and
contractors will have to see the need to control quality.
Low and Peh (1996) also see accurate and objective measurement of conformity of
each component of the construction as important in the implementation of quality into
construction. This encourages feedback at every stage of the construction process.
The compliance scheme described in Chapter 3 will remove the current vagueness
associated with the value of survey conformance reports. This will aid adoption of
total quality management into the industry.
Research (Low and Peh, 1996) estimates that the causes of defects in the construct
industry are m a d e up approximately as:
faults caused by design deficiencies
50%
poor workmanship
40%
product failure
10%
The data generated for the compliance scheme can generate a database of pavement
surface heights and base course thicknesses. At the completion of each project the
following data m a y be stored:
the project description and the contractor's name
page 21
the m e a n and standard deviation of the constructed base course thickness of each
100 metre lot
the overall standard deviation of the process of constructing the subbase and base
surfaces to the correct height
the overall standard deviation of the process of construction of the base course
thickness
page 22
The Business Council of Australia (Kneebone, 1993) suggests the need to develop
accurate standards and performance indicators related to the Australian road
construction and maintenance industry. The purpose of the performance indicators
suggest by the Business Council was for the implementation of benchmarking
principles. The Business Council felt that this would help to reduce business costs
and increase the economic benefit of the National Road Asset to the Australian
community.
The process of laying pavement courses to the correct height and therefore thickness,
involves m a n y of the people and equipment on a project including:
the paving machine/grader operator
the machine itself needs to be maintained
the field assistant w h o set out the string line for the paving machine
the batch plant that produces the pavement material
the contractor's project engineer w h o needs to see that pavement surface height
and course thickness are important and allow enough time to get it right
the surveyor with all the factors that influence surveying accuracy as described in
Chapter 4.
Hence, the opportunity is there for the RTA to establish, for the first time, an
objective key performance indicator that is based on process measurement and the
quality of the product.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
pa
23
B y shifting the focus to process measurement, the R T A will be laying the ground
work for a cultural change within the industry. This will require contractors to look at
processes when nonconforming product are produced, instead of merely arguing over
disposition of the nonconforming product.
CHAPTER 2
Control chart analysis was carried out on the processes for constructing concrete
pavement surfaces to the correct height and base courses to the correct thickness. B y
assuming that the data were independent, the analysis concluded that the processes
were not under statistical control. However, further analysis identified the data as
being strongly positively correlated.
page 2 5
For surface level departures, the estimated correlation was 0.75 for sampling points 5
metres apart. For base thickness, the estimated correlation was 0.70 between sampling
points 5 metres apart.
Strings that ran parallel to the pavement centre line contained the sampling points.
treating the data as sets of timeseries it was possible to estimate the effect of the
correlation structure on the variance of the sample mean. The X control charts were
then adjusted for the revised variance of the sample mean. Control chart analysis then
demonstrated that the processes could be brought under statistical control.
Determination of the correlation structure of the data and its effect on demonstrati
statistical process control was the most significant finding (breakthrough) of the
research for this thesis. Thisfindinghas solved the problem, identified by other
research (Auff, 1983) and (Ollis, 1994), of introducing statistical process control into
the road construction industry.
Being able to demonstrate process control means that it is now possible to estimate
capability of the processes and therefore, demonstrate process improvement.
Estimation of the variance of the sample mean of the pavement data enabled the
derivation of the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3.
I believe that the introduction of statistical process control into the road constr
industry will n o w follow as a natural consequence with implementation of the findings
of this thesis.
page 26
22.2 P R O C E S S CAPABILITY
Two RTA projects, built by road construction contractors, provided the data for th
analysis carried out in this Chapter. Both projects, on the Newcastle Freeway and
Barton Highway, constructed concrete road pavements. Data from the Newcastle
Freeway were measurements by R T A surveyors at the request the R T A Project
Manager. Data from the Barton Highway were survey conformance reports carried out
by the contract surveyor.
A process capability ratio (PCR) of greater than one implies that less than 0.27%
output of the process is expected to be nonconforming. Statistical theory considers
that processes with a P C R of one or greater are capable.
Only the process that constructed the subbase surface to the correct height on bot
projects had a P C R of greater than one (Newcastle Freeway, 1.29, Barton Highway,
1.02). The base surface and base thickness on the Barton Highway had PCR's of 0.38
and 0.45, respectively. The base surface and base thickness on the Newcastle Freeway
had PCR's of0.02 and 0.07, respectively. The base surface and base thickness, on
both projects, had one sided (lower) specification limits.
The negative values of the Newcastle Freeway were due to the process means being
slightly outside (lower than) the specification limits. W h e n the process mean is
outside of the specification limits there will be over 5 0 % of the process output nonconforming.
page 2 7
The means for the base surface and base thickness on the Barton Highway were both
more than one standard deviation of the process above the lower specification limits.
The means for the base surface and base thickness on the Newcastle Freeway were
both less than 1/4 of a standard deviation of the process above the specification limit.
By setting the process mean above the lower specification limit, the contractor on
Barton Highway had far less nonconforming than the contractor on the Newcastle
Freeway.
The positions of the process means on the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway
demonstrate the effect of process variability. Contractors have to appreciate process
variability w h e n setting process controls to meet specified requirements. T o keep the
process output above a lower specification limit, the process m e a n has to be set above
the specification limit a distance that is in proportion to the variability of the process.
For example, to achieve less than 2 ! / 2 % nonconforming, the process m e a n has to set
at least 1.96 process standard deviations above the specification limit.
The RTA also needs to appreciate process variability when setting tolerances. The
natural tolerance limits estimate the band width of 99.73% of the process output when
the normal distribution can approximate the data. The natural tolerance limits for
subbase surface level departures and base surface level departures were comparable
for both projects. Therefore, it is reasonable to place the same tolerance on surface
level departures of both surfaces. If the same tolerances were placed on both surfaces
of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway projects, the PCR's for subbase and
base surfaces would have been more comparable than measured for both projects.
page 28
The only direction for selection of the sampling points in the current specificati
that they be selected in a random and unbiased manner, with at least one sampling
point per 25 m of the pavement.
An evaluation of the effectiveness of different grid patterns found the Barton Hig
grid pattern as the most effective for acceptance sampling and also provided the most
detail about the quality of the product.
Edge measurements by tape and core depths currently determine the thickness
measurements for compliance with the specifications. Analysis of variance of the
thickness measurements contained in the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway
strings found that the strings closest to the edges gave higher measurements than the
centre strings. This means that edge measurements by tape inflated the true thickness
measurements on both of these projects.
page 29
Investigation for this thesis indicated that the RTA did not enforce the penalty cl
for under thickness on either contract. The estimated unpaid penalty for under
thickness of the base course was $224,900 on the three kilometre section of the
Newcastle Freeway analysed. Payment m a d e by the R T A for the analysed section of
the Newcastle Freeway was $890,100. Therefore, the unpaid penalty represents about
2 5 % of the amount paid by the R T A .
Specified conditions allowed the RTA to accept the base course, with a penalty, if
under thickness by less than 10 millimtres. These conditions required the under
thickness to represent isolated sections of the pavement and such sections to comprise
less 5 % of the base lot area. D u e to the nature of positively correlated data, it is
unlikely that under thickness of the base course within a lot will be in isolated
sections. The more likely scenario is that the under thickness will be grouped in a large
section (sections) instead of scattered throughout the lot, as would be expected for
independent data.
The proposed method of estimating under thickness for lot quality is by the sample
mean and standard deviation and the standard normal distribution tables. W h e n under
thickness is found, the chainage and offset of the sample points found to be under
thickness will estimate the area of under thickness. This will indicate if the area of
under thickness is isolated and represents less than 5 % of the area of the lot.
page 30
Analysis found that the surface level departures of the subbase surface were not
independent of surface level departures of the base surface on both projects. This
means that the variance of the constructed base course thickness can not be estimated
by summing the variances of the surface level departures (subbase and base surfaces).
This has implications when estimating the standard deviation of the construction
tolerance for the compliance scheme (see Section 35.1)
23
page 31
THE DATA
Two projects provided the data for the analysis of the processes of constructing the
concrete pavement courses to the correct surface height and course thickness. These
were the north bound carriageway of the Newcastle Freeway, between chainages 134.1
kilometres and 137.1 kilometres, and the south bound carriageway of the Barton
Highway, between chainages 2.2 kilometres and 9.1 kilometres. Both projects were
built by road construction contractors under the terms of R T A quality assurance
contracts.
Data from the Newcastle Freeway were measurements by RTA site surveillance at the
request of the R T A Project Manager. The sampling points of the pavement surfaces
were at approximately 6*/4 metre intervals along strings running parallel to the road
centre line. Five such strings were spaced across the pavement. Moss, the R T A
design software, sectioned the strings to produce the surface level departures for the
subbase and base surfaces at even ten metre chainages.
Moss also combined computer models of the subbase and base surfaces to estimate the
thickness of the base course.
As the software sectioned the strings at even intervals, the measurements reported
were not rawfieldmeasurements, but deduced by interpolation offieldmeasurements.
For this reason, the time series analysis (see Section 25) did not use data from the
Newcastle Freeway for estimating the correlation structure of surface level departure
measurements or base course thickness measurements.
page 32
The surveying procedure that measured the surface level departures on the Newcastle
Freeway is listed as number 4 on the database of surveying procedures in Chapter 5.
The data from the Barton Highway were the survey conformance reports of the
subbase and base surfaces as measured by the contractor's surveyor. The
measurements were collated and audited by site surveillance. All the surface level
departures were directfieldmeasurements by the contract surveyor without
interpolation.
Moss software estimated the thicknesses of the base course by subtracting the
constructed height of the subbase surface from the constructed height of the base
surface. For this to be possible, M o s s interpolated the height of the base surface
vertically above the surveyed point on the subbase surface. This was carried out in the
RTA's Wollongong Survey Office by myself as part of the research for this thesis.
The interpolation of the Barton Highway data by Moss was over smaller distances than
the interpolation of the Newcastle Freeway data. Also, the Barton Highway
interpolation only affected the thickness measurements.
The sampling plan for the surface level departures on this project is the sampling
pattern adopted by the compliance scheme described in Section 34.3. The sampling
points were atfivemetre intervals along strings running parallel to the centre line of
the road. Three such strings across the pavement gave coverage of the width of the
pavement. For the purpose of the analysis in Section 25, these strings were labelled:
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
page 33
Approximate
centre line of
pavement
Pavement edge
Pavement edge
Abt.O.Sm
Abt. 0.5 m.
/
Sampling points
shown thus  x
LPAV
String
DIAGRAM 21
CPAV
String
RPAV
String
Direction of
increased
chainage
Grid Pattern for Sampling Using LPAV, CPAV and RPAV Strings
Pacing accuracy was sufficient to determine the position of the sampling points. The
trim pegs, placed at ten metre intervals for setting out the pavement, prov
positional guidance to the surveyor's assistance for selection of sampling
The surveying procedure that measured the surface level departures on the B
Research by the Australian Road Research Board, Transport Research Ltd. (Au
normal distribution. Research for this thesis, using Normal Probability Plo
AndersonDarling Normality test, has also found that there was insufficient
to reject the hypothesis of normality of the data.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 34
Surface level departures measure the difference between the constructed height of the
pavement and the design height of the pavement. In essence, it measures the error of
the process that is designed to construct the pavement surface to the correct height.
W h e n a process is under control, statistical theory suggests that the errors are randomly
and normally distributed about a m e a n value (Bissell, 1994). Therefore, the
assumption that surface level departures are error measurements, also supports the
assumption that they can be approximated by the normal distribution.
Constructed
base surface
Base surface
level departure
Designed
base surface
StClbase
TT7
~A~
( Design Thickness
design
Designed
subbase surface
Constructed Thickness.'
1 constructed
Constructed
subbase
Subbase
Surface Level
Departure
^tu subbase
D I A G R A M 22
page
35
Diagram 22 shows the relationship between the base course thickness, T ^ ^ ^ and
the surface level departures of the subbase, sld3Ubbase, and base surfaces s l o W B y
Diagram 22 and as explained by (2.30) in Section 28.1,
I constructed
As T^^ in (2.1) is constant for the project, the only variables on the right hand side
of (2.1) are s l d ^ and sld^^e. Therefore, if it can be assumed that surface level
departures of the subbase and base surfaces can be approximated by the normal
distribution, then by inference, the thickness measurements can also be approximated
by the normal distribution.
The process of constructing concrete pavement courses to the correct height and
thickness is described in Section 11.
Process capability analysis estimates the process capability. This may involve
estimating the m e a n and standard deviation of the output of the process. If the
specification limits are known, a process capability analysis m a y involve estimating
the percentage of the product that is nonconforming.
Process capability analyses are only valid for processes that are under statistical
control. Processes that demonstrate statistical control give assurance that the controls,
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 36
n o w in place over the process inputs, will deliver outputs that are almost always within
a k n o w n interval.
Processes that are not under statistical control do not provide assurance about the
repeatability of the process output range. Therefore, measurements made on the
outputs over a period of time can not be used to estimate the outputs of the process in
the future.
In essence, processes that are not under control indicate that there are uncontrolled
factors influencing the outputs of the processes. Processes can be brought under
statistical control by identifying the uncontrolled factors and then updating the process
control procedures to include those factors.
Deming (1986) points out that decisions can not be made about quality improvement
until the process is brought under statistical control. Quality improvement is
implemented by changing the control procedures over the process. Decisions are then
made on the effectiveness of the changes based on process capability analyses. A s
stated, process capability analysis are invalid when the process is not under statistical
control.
Control charts are effective tools for assessing whether a process is under statistica
control (Montgomery, 1996). Control charts plot sequential appropriate statistical
summaries of outputs of a process in graphical form. The upper and lower horizontal
lines on the control chart define the limits one expects the statistical summaries will
page 37
fall between, with a specified (high) probability, if the process is under statistical
control.
The variability of the process, the sample size and the producer's risk define the
positions of these limits. The producer's risk is the risk of judging the process as being
out of control, w h e n it is under control. For a producer'srisk(a) of 0.0027, the
control limits are three sigma (standard deviation) limits. This means that if a process
is under control, the probability that a point will fall outside the control limits is only
0.0027. Therefore, if a point falls outside the control limits, the process is judged to be
out of control at that point.
The measurements plotted on the control charts are from samples taken from the
process. The selection of the sample size and frequency of sampling is critical for the
effectiveness of the control charts. The purpose of the control charts for the Newcastle
Freeway and the Barton Highway is to,
determine if the process is under statistical control and if it is,
estimate the capability of the process.
A process is under statistical control if assignable causes are removed and only syste
causes remain. The selection of the subgroups for sampling should therefore be to best
detect assignable causes. Rational subgroups, as defined by Shewhart, contain or
enclose only chance or system causes. Farnum (1994:166) lists the advantages of
rational subgroups as,
1. "The variation within the subgroups can be pooled to give a good estimate
of the natural process variation.
page 38
2. The presence of special causes can easily be detected, since they are
responsible for any large variation between the subgroups."
He goes on to say that shorter sampling spans reduce the possibility of special caus
within a rational subgroup.
The data from both projects provided continuous coverage of the pavement surfaces
over the full length of the projects. B y the control charts summarising all of the data
from both projects it gave a better measure of the quality of the processes.
Montgomery (1996) points out that rational subgroups that sample all of the product
since the last rational subgroup are better able to detect changes in the process
between subgroups.
page 39
For these reasons, the lot sizes for the control charts were chosen to be 100 metre
lengths of the carriageway. The 100 metre chainages, as shown on the contract plans,
defined the boundaries of each lot.
Sampling the product this way assumed that the contractor's contractual obligation
was to provide a product of homogeneous quality. The customer, the R T A , should not
be adversely affected by the contractor's construction program. Therefore, estimation
of process control and process capability by these rational subgroups ignored the
artificial boundaries between work from different days.
Control charts plot results of successive samples collected from the output of the
process. It is essential to plot samples in the order produced by the process when the
control charts are for detecting and removing assignable causes. However, when
working with historical data for the purpose of estimating process control and process
capability, it is not as important. Therefore, the control charts for both projects plotted
samples from all lots from the smallest to the largest chainage.
Diagrams 23 and 24 are the X and s control charts for the subbase and base surfaces
and base course thicknesses of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway projects.
page 40
c
CO
J!0SL=0.002045
X=7.71E04
o.oo 
3.0SL=5.0E04
(0
>
Q
CO
0.01
SubgroupO
J_
0.0045 ~
0.0040 ~
0.0035 ~
0.0030 ~
0.0025 ~
0.0020 0.0015 ~
0.0010 4
10
_l_
20
30
3.0SL=0.003864
S=0.002957
3.0SL=0.00204
0.005 ~i
CO
3.0SL=0.0015
X=2.5E04
SJ
0.000
3.0SL=2.0E03
0.005 ~
Subgroup
0
J_
~T~
10
_1_
20
page 41
CO
C
CO
CD
0.230
X=0.2288
0.225 
3.0SL=0.2270
0.220 Subgroupo
CO
>
Q
+<
10
20
0.007
0.006
3.0SL=0.00557
0.005 S=0.00427
0.004 
3.0SL=0.00297
0.003 0.002 ~
D I A G R A M 23
All lots are 100 metre lengths of pavement with 50 sampling points per lot.
Lots for the subbase surface were from chainages 34,200 to 37,100. Data were
missing from 35,000 to 35,100 and 36,900 to 37,000, so all lots in these sections were
removed.
Lots for base surface were from chainage 34,200 to 37,100. Data were missing from
35,000 to 35,100 and 36,100 to 36,500 and 36,900 to 37,000. All of these sections
were removed from the data. This reduced the number of lots by seven.
The lots that were missing on the base surface were also removed from the thickness
control charts.
page 42
3.0SL=0.000
0.000 
X=2.0E03
CO
CD
3.0SL=4.0E03
0.005 H
0.010
Subgroup
co
>
CD
Q
co
0.0085
0.0075
0.0065
0.0055
0.0045
0.0035
0.0025
l
0
J_
10
20
_1_
30
~T"
40
60
_l
50
3.0SL=0.00642
S=0.00503
3.0SL=0.00364
3.0SL=0.00891
0.010
X=0.006915
3.0SL=0.00492
CO
CD
0.005 H
0.000
Subgroup
co
>
CD
Q
CO
*>
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
10
20
_L_
30
I
40
_L_
50
60
3.0SL=0.00653
S=0.005116
3.0SL=0.00370
page 43
3.0SL=0.2441
0.245
CO
CD
X=0.2421
^
0.2400.235
3.0SL=0.2400
Subgroup
co
>
CD
Q
CO
*<
10
~T~
20
30
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
D I A G R A M 24
40
_l_
50
_1
3.0SL=0.00680
S=0.00532
3.0SL=0.00385
All lots are 100 metre lengths of pavement with 60 sampling points per lot.
Subbase surface level departures were from chainage 2,200 to 8,200, with lots bet
7,300 to 7,600 removed due to gaps in the data.
Base surface level departures were from 2,200 to 9,100, with lots between 5,700 a
6,000 and lots between 7,300 and 7,600 removed, due to gaps in the data.
Base course thicknesses were from chainage 2,200 to 7,300 with lots between 5,700
and 6,000 removed due to gaps in the data
page 44
Statistical assumptions for Shewhart control charts (Montgomery, 1996) set the control
limits for the X and s control charts shown in Diagrams 23 and 24. O n e assumption
is that the data are independent. A s explained in Section 24.2, the control limits for
both types of control charts are three standard deviations of the variable from the
centre line.
The s charts, on both projects have only a few points outside of the control limits.
Each point outside the control limit suggests that the process was out of control when
that sample was produced. The principles of statistical process control (Nelson, 1984)
suggests that this is due to an assignable cause (or causes) that has to be found and
removed from the process.
However, the X charts, on both projects show a substantial number of points outside
the plotted control limits. A casual inspection of these control charts m a y lead to the
conclusion that the processes of constructing concrete pavement surfaces to the correct
height and concrete base courses to the correct thickness were not under statistical
control.
However, Alwan and Roberts (1988) warn that it may be difficult to identify a state of
statistical control if systematic nonrandom patterns are present throughout the data.
They also suggest that w h e n data appears to lack statistical control, one should attempt
to model systematic nonrandom behaviour by timeseries models. This should be
done before looking for assignable causes.
Therefore, there may be some justification to assume that the surface level departure
a given point in a string is influenced by the surface level departures at previous points
in the string. A l w a n and Roberts (1988) suggest using the autoregressive integrated
moving average ( A R I M A ) models of B o x and Jenkins (1976) for identifying,
estimating and diagnostic checking of timeseries models to befittedto data.
page 4 6
Apart from Alwan and Roberts (1988), control charts for correlated data are also
studied in, Vander Wiel (1996) and Vasilopoulos and Stamboulis (1978).
Traditional statistical process control techniques assume that the process being cont
charted is producing independent and identically distributed random variables. The
presence of data correlation affects the independence and distribution of the variable
(Alwan and Roberts, 1988). It can be argued that all processes are subject to some
correlation, even though it m a y be very weak (Vander Wiel, 1996). However, for
strongly correlated data, the assumption that it is independent and identically
distributed is no longer applicable for statistical process control (Alwan and Roberts,
1988).
(As explained in Section 23.1, the Barton Highway provided all the data for analysis
of the correlation structure. The analysis did not use the Newcastle Freeway data.)
Suppose thatX7, X2,..., X are measurements of the output sampled from the same
process for / = 1, 2,..., n. The index / need not necessarily denote time but m a y denote
any natural ordering such as the position on a line in a plane. The measurements of
the surface level departures along the strings for collecting the data on the Barton
Highwayfitthis description.
n\
(2.2)
v
where X
page 4 7
If there were no correlation present in the data, then p<tJs would be zero for all /
Equation (2.2) then becomes,
Var(x\ = . (2.3)
It can be seen from (2.2) that the autocorrelation between all the sampling points h
to be estimated before deciding if the control limits were properly set for the X
control charts in Diagrams 23 and 24.
Xt=C
+ +lX+*2Xl_2+...+ *pXl_, + al
page 48
(2.4)
where Xt ,XtA ... X,.p are the observations at times t, t\,... tp, respectivel
c^,^. dp
C is a constant term,
a, is the statistical error term at time t and it is assumed to be normally
distributed with m e a n zero and variance of <r,.
=0,1,2,...
(26)
Lags express the number of periods between observations for timeseries analysis.
** lag is k periods between observations. Equation (2.6) expresses the correlation
between observations that are k periods apart. This means that the autocorrelation
between observations declines exponentially with the number of periods separating
them.
Page
49
The observations analysed from the Barton Highway are surface level departure
measurements and thickness measurements. These are atfivemetre intervals, which
represents one period between measurements. Therefore, lag 1 represents 5 metres
and lag 20 represents 100 metres between measurements.
Var(Xn) =
a1
(2.7)
n
Equation (2.7) provides an estimate of the variance of the sample mean as a function
K
However,firstit must be determined if an AR(1) model willfitthe data.
25.3 ARIMA MODELLING
Box and Jenkins (1976) describe the method of model identification, estimation
diagnostic checking for A R I M A modelling of timeseries observed at equispaced
intervals of time.
page 50
Calculation of the autocorrelation coefficient for different lags of the data provides an
estimate of the A C F , where the theoretical autocorrelation coefficient is calculated by,
PJ = 7" (28)
A plot of the ACF from the data is a sample correlogram. This provides a graphical
display of the autocorrelation coefficient for different lags.
The PACF is a plot of $ against p where <j)pp estimates the parameter <f>p in an
AR(p)process, ( p = 1,2,...).
Analysis of the ACF and PACF identified the models to fit the Barton Highway data.
As an example, Diagram 25 is the sample correlogram (ACF) for the L P A V string on
the base surface between chainages 2185 and 5550.
++
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4
0.741
0.567
0.440
0.378
0.310
0.253
0.198
0.188
0.197
0.195
0.170
0.161
0.143
0.110
0.096
0.071
0.039
0.021
0.003
0.030
D I A G R A M 25
page 51
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
+
+
+
+
+
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
XX
The selection of the number of parameters in the model is guided by the PACF, wh
will cut off at <f>pp for an AR(p) process. Diagram 26 is the PACF for the same
given in Diagram 25.
0.741
0.038
0.017
0.082
0.014
0.001
0.015
0.067
0.063
0.014
0.018
0.029
0.013
0.042
0.025
0.025
0.037
0.003
0.034
0.038
DIAGRAM 26
page 52
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
X
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
Partial Autocorrelation Function Base Surface for LPAV Between
Chainages 2185 and 5550
The standard error of each <fipp (p= 1,2,...) is Vr. The sample size of the data set
in Diagram 25 and 26 is 674, which gives a standard error of 0.039. Thus <f>pp can be
considered nonzero if the absolute value of <f>pp is greater than double the standard
error.
As the first term of the PACF is 0.741, <f>n can be regarded as nonzero. All the other
<f>pp can be regarded as zero, except 0M, which is estimated to be 0.082. However, if
an AR(1) model adequatelyfitsthe data, then there is no reason to adopt the more
complex AR(4) model.
Therefore, on the evidence of the ACF and PACF, an AR(1) model could fit the
sample data of the L P A V string of the base surface between chainages 2185 and 5550.
page 53
The statistical package Minitab was used for model estimation for the
printout of the AR(1) model estimated to fit the data in Diagrams 25
Diagnostic checks of the model are by the ttest for significance of
T
30.68
12.79
(backforecasts excluded)
DF = 672
Table 21 shows the estimate of the parameters, plus the estimated st
page 54
The " M S " term of the Residuals is the M e a n Square of the residuals and estimates its
variance. From Table 21, the variance is estimated as 0.00001454, which gives an
estimated standard deviation of 3.81 millimetres. The standard deviation of the
original data is 5.84 millimetres. The expectation, whenfittinga timeseries model to
data, is that the standard deviation of the residuals will be significantly lower the
standard deviation of the data, as demonstrated by this analysis.
The Modified BoxPierce (LjungBox) ChiSquare statistic tests for the goodness of fi
of the model to the data by testing the hypothesis that thefirst24 autocorrelations
(/?, ,p2 ,...,p24) of the residuals are zero. Lag 24 is usually adopted as the best guide
for this test. From Table 21, the Modified BoxPierce (LjungBox) ChiSquare
statistic is 23.9 for 23 degrees of freedom. Accordingly, the pvalue is 0.41.
Therefore, thefirst24 autocorrelation of the residuals are regarded as zero, which
justifies thefitof the model to the data.
Therefore, by the evidence shown in Table 21, an AR(1) model provides an adequate
fit to the data.
Diagram 25 shows an estimated autocorrelation of 0.741 for lag one. This means that
the surface level departure measurements that are about 5 metres apart have
correlation of the order of 0.74, according to this data set. It also shows that there is
still correlation at lag 10 (50 metres) of the order of 0.2. Referring back to (2.2),
Diagram 25 infers that not all p(iJ) are zero. Therefore, correlation is present in the
data and some adjustment will have to be m a d e to the control limits of the X control
charts in Diagrams 23 and 24.
page 55
The AR(1) model that is fitted to the sample data is given by substituting the
parameters of Table 21 into (2.5) to become,
X, = 0.0018799+0.766X,_1 + a,
The ACF's and PACF's of the data consistently displayed the behaviour of
autoregressive processes. Therefore, other A R I M A models that included parameters
for moving average processes and for differencing received no further attention.
The purpose of the ARIMA modelling is to determine if an AR(1) model fits the
Barton Highway data. If this is possible, then estimation offain the AR(1) model
allows estimation of the variance of the sample mean.
The analysis of Section 25.3 was repeated for the surface level departure
measurements of the subbase surface and the base surface, as well as the thickness
measurements of the base course. Initially the data was treated as three separate timeseries models for the three strings as described in Section 23.2. These were:
LPAV, along the left side of the pavement,
CPAV, along the centre line of the pavement
RPAV, along the right side of the pavement.
page 56
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Nelson (1973) warns that analysis of a process only deals with sample data of the
process. Data collected when the process is operating abnormally will lead to
erroneous estimation of A R I M A models. Detailed analysis of the Barton Highway
data rejected some of the data for this reason.
coxier6
Section
Section 1
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 2
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 3
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Chainage
>1
St. Dev.
for
AR(1)
AR
Best Fit (best fit)
AR(1)
Q(lag 24) Model Q(lag 24)
4000  5400
3000  5400
3000  5400
0.69
0.68
0.64
0.044
0.034
0.036
11.91
6.62
7.59
37.2
66.9
89.7
AR(2)
AR(2)
AR(4)
21.5
25.6
37.9
6000  7330
6000  7330
6000  7330
0.84
0.85
0.78
0.038
0.036
0.040
6.32
5.88
7.89
33.1
24.4
96.3
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(4)
33.1
24.4
51.6
7560  8590
7560  8590
7560  8590
0.73
0.77
0.64
0.048
0.047
0.054
6.90
5.06
5.55
38.9
22.1
74.8
AR(4)
AR(1)
AR(4)
12.6
22.1
32.9
page 57
o^xnr6
for
Section
Section 1
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Best
AR
Fit
Chainage
#.
St. Dev.
AR(1)
AR(1)
Qflag 24)
21855550
21855550
21855550
0.77
0.76
0.79
0.025
0.025
0.024
14.54
12.74
13.19
23.9
29.7
46.1
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(4)
23.9
29.7
35.8
5980  7330
5980  7330
5980  7330
0.73
0.75
0.74
0.043
0.042
0.044
11.77
6.78
7.30
94.2
36.5
45.3
AR(4)
AR(2)
AR(1)
14.4
27.6
45.3
7560  9120
7560  9120
7560  9120
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.034
0.034
0.035
6.58
5.92
7.73
34.2
37.1
28.5
AR(5)
AR(3)
AR(4)
16.5
17.0
18.7
Model
(best fit)
Q(lag 24)
Section 2
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 3
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
for
Section
Section 1
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
AR
Best Fit
AR(1)
Q(lag 24) Model
(best fit)
Q(lag 24)
+>
St. Dev.
AR(1)
3000  5890
3000  5890
3000  5890
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.032
0.031
0.029
27.10
18.10
16.73
49.0
78.6
20.7
AR(1)
AR(2)
AR(1)
49.0
30.0
20.7
5980  6800
5980  6800
5980  6800
0.63
0.69
0.61
0.061
0.044
0.063
12.79
8.82
10.3
51.2
19.9
25.6
AR(3)
AR(1)
AR(1)
18.2
19.9
25.6
Chainage
Section 2
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
page 58
Column 7 contains the autoregessive model that gave the bestfitto the data
Columns 8 contains the Modified BoxPierce (LjungBox) ChiSquare statistic, at
lag 24, for the autoregessive models that gave the bestfitto the data.
The subbase and base surfaces were constructed by the same process. Therefore, the
results of the A R I M A modelling of the two surfaces were combined and treated as the
process of constructing concrete pavements to the correct height.
All of the ACFs for each section of each string displayed the behaviour of an
autoregressive process. The autoregressive model that bestfitted6 of the 18 string
sections was an AR(1) model. T w o more string sections were adequately modelled by
an AR(1) model, but models with extra parameters gave improvedfitsas indicated by
the ChiSquared statistic. Five string sections that modelled as autoregressive
processes with more than one parameter had ChiSquared statistics that were too large
to consider that thefitswere adequate. This m a y indicate that the process was not
properly controlled when those sections of the pavement were constructed.
On the evidence provided in Tables 22 and 23, an AR(1) model can usually
approximate the process of laying concrete pavement surfaces to the correct height.
The average fa value from Tables 22 and 23 is 0.754. The analysis that follows tes
the hypothesis that fa equals 0.75 for each string section.
Tables 25 and 26 show the fa value for each string section and the standard
deviation of the estimate. Column 5 of each table is the test statistic t0 given by,
page 59
0,0.75
(2.9)
est. StDev. of fa
where t .
nX
degrees of freedom.
Chainage
St Dev.
>o
pvalue
4000  5400
3000  5400
3000  5400
0.69
0.68
0.64
0.044
0.034
0.036
1.363
2.058
3.056
0.173
0.040
0.002
6000  7330
6000  7330
6000  7330
0.84
0.85
0.78
0.038
0.036
0.040
2.368
2.777
0.750
0.018
0.005
0.453
7560  8590
7560  8590
7560  8590
0.73
0.77
0.64
0.048
0.047
0.054
0.417
0.425
2.037
0.677
0.671
0.042
St. Dev.
'o
pvalue
21855550
21855550
21855550
0.11
0.76
0.79
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.800
0.400
1.667
0.424
0.689
0.097
5980  7330
5980  7330
5980  7330
0.73
0.75
0.74
0.043
0.042
0.044
0.470
<0.0005
0.229
0.638
>0.999
0.819
7560  9120
75609120
75609120
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.034
0.034
0.035
1.786
1.471
1.441
0.074
0.141
0.150
page 60
All the pvalues for the base surface string sections are greater than 0.07. This mea
that there is insufficient evidence provided by the base surface data, to reject the
hypothesis that 0, equals 0.75 for the process of constructing pavement surfaces to the
correct height.
For the subbase surface, the pvalues of RPAV section 1, LPAV and CPAV section 2
are small enough to provide evidence to reject the hypothesis that 0, equals 0.75.
The RPAV string gives the lowest fa value in all three sections of the subbase surfac
for reasons that are not clear. This phenomenon was not noted for the base surface
level departures. It is also noted that the pvalues for thefitsof an AR(1) process for
all of the R P A V string of the subbase surface, are less than 0.05 for ChiSquare
statistic. The ChiSquare statistic was also less than 0.05 for the autoregressive model
that bestfittedthe data for R P A V string in all sections. This suggests that the process
control exercised over therighthand side of the pavement was not the same standard
as for the rest of the pavement. Therefore, it is acceptable to reject R P A V section 1
when estimating 0,, as it does not truly represent the process.
No explanation or pattern is evident to explain why the fa values for LPAV and
C P A V for section 2 are so high, even though they have similar values to the estimates
for section 3 on the base surface.
The subbase surface and the base surface are both laid by the same process, with the
subbase being laidfirst.It would normally be expected for process control to improve
on a construction site as work progresses. The surface level departures measurements
of the base surface therefore better reflects the capability of the process.
There was insufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the estimate for fa is
equal to 0.75 for the base surface. Therefore, it is reasonable to use this value for
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 61
estimating the variance of the sample mean of surface level departure measurements
by this process. Even though, for reasons unknown, three out of nine string sections
on the subbase surface provided enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Therefore, 0.75 approximates 0, when estimating the variance of the sample mean
when samples are taken from each string of surface level departure measurements.
Even in those cases where fa is significantly different from 0.75, using 0.75 will give
a reasonable guide to process control requirements.
The general AR(1) model adopted for surface level departures can be expressed as,
Xt=C+0.15Xt^+a, (2.10)
On the evidence provided in Tables 24, an AR(1) model can approximate the process
of laying concrete pavement courses to the correct thickness.
The ACFs of all string sections of thickness measurements displayed the behaviour of
an autoregressive process. The autoregressive model that best fitted three of the six
string sections was an A R ( 1 ) model. Considering the ChiSquare statistic, it was
possible to adequatelyfitan autoregressive model to the data of all but one of the six
string sections. This m a y indicate that the process was not properly controlled when
this one string section of the pavement was constructed.
From Table 24, the average value of fa is 0.665. However, the standard deviation of
the lower estimates of fa are higher than the standard deviation of the higher
estimates. A weighted average of the fa estimates of Table 24, using the variance of
the estimate as the weights, is 0.682. This value was conservatively rounded up to
page 62
0.70 for adoption and testing against. Testing the hypothesis that 0, is equals to 0.70,
based on the evidence of the data of each string section, evaluates the precision of the
estimate.
Tables 27 is similar to Tables 25 and 26, with the test statistic, t0 derived
equation (2.9).
T A B L E 27
Section
Section 1
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 2
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
St. Dev.
'o
pvalue
3000  5890
3000  5890
3000  5890
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.032
0.031
0.029
1.875
0.645
1.379
0.061
0.519
0.168
5980  6800
5980  6800
5980  6800
0.63
0.69
0.61
0.061
0.044
0.063
1.148
0.227
1.429
0.251
0.820
0.153
All the pvalue are large enough so as not to provide sufficient evidence to reject the
hypothesis that 0, is equal to 0.70.
However, testing the hypothesis that 0, is equal to 0.68, based on the evidence o
data of each string section, found sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis for string
section R P A V section one. Therefore, due to the evidence provided in Table 27, the
fa estimate of 0.70 was adopted in preference to 0.68.
The general AR(1) model adopted for thickness measurements can be expressed as,
X,= C+OJOX^+a,
page 63
25.5 C R O S S C O R R E L A T I O N
Analysis in Section 25.4 estimated fa for the timeseries along each string, LPAV,
C P A V and RPAV. However, it is expected that data correlation would also be present
between the measurements at sampling points on different strings, that is, correlation
across the pavement. This is intuitively sensible when one considers that the paving
machine stretches the full width of the concrete pavement during construction.
Tables 28 and 29 show the results of cross correlation estimates between the timeseries on the subbase and base surfaces. The cross correlations were estimated by
comparing adjacent points in adjacent timeseries that modelled the data in the LPAV,
C P A V and R P A V strings. The estimates were made for the string sections as defined
in Section 25.4. Tables 28 and 29 show the correlation between adjacent strings,
LPAVCPAV and CPAVRPAV, as shown in Diagram 21.
DISTANCE
CPAVRPAV
DISTANCE
4.3m
0.72
4.3m
4.3m
0.86
4.3m
4.3m
0.70
4.3m
A V E R A G E C O R R E L A T I O N = 0.78
LPAVCPAV
0.75
0.82
0.80
SECTION
LPAVCPAV
1
2
3
0.67
0.78
0.81
CROSS CORRELATION
CPAVDISTANCE
RPAV
0.74
3.8m
0.75
3.8m
0.81
3.8m
A V E R A G E C O R R E L A T I O N = 0.76
DISTANCE
3.8m
3.8m
3.8m
page 64
Columns 3 and 5 of Tables 28 and 29 give the average distances between the strings.
The purpose of estimating the correlation structure of the data is to estimate the
variance of the sample mean of each lot. Each lot consists of 60 sampling points per
100 metres of pavement. The 60 points come from three strings across the pavement,
each of 20 points. Therefore, as well as modelling the data along the pavement, it is
also necessary to model the data across the pavement.
Applying the same AR(1) model across the pavement as along the pavement would
significantly simplify the mathematics required for estimating the correlation structure.
There m a y be some justification for doing this as during the construction process the
paving machine works the same stretch of concrete both longitudinally and
transversely.
If the AR(1) model expressed by (2.10) could fit the data across the pavement, the
correlation across the pavement could be estimated from (2.6) as,
py = 0.75y (212)
where, py is the autocorrelation of points "lag v" apart in a timeseries model,
y=dA, where d is the distance between the strings in metres,
and 5 is number of metres in lag one of the AR(1) model expressed
by (2.10).
page 65
For the subbase surface, the average distance between the strings is 4.3 metres,
equals 0.86. For the base surface, the average distance between the strings is 3.8
metres, so y equals 0.76.
Below are comparisons of two estimates of the correlation of points across the
pavement for the subbase and base surfaces.
0.78
0.76
0.78
0.80
By Table 210, it appears reasonable, for the purpose of estimating the varianc
sample mean of surface level departure measurements, to assume the same AR(1)
modelfitsthe data across the pavement as along the pavement.
Table 211 shows the results of cross correlation estimates for thickness measu
between adjacent points in adjacent strings.
page 66
SECTION
1
2
CROSS CORRELATION
LPAVCPAV
DISTANCE
CPAVDISTANCE
RPAV
0.62
4.3 m
0.59
4.3 m
0.68
0.66
4.3 m
4.3 m
A V E R A G E C O R R E L A T I O N = 0.64
(2.13)
py = 0.1Q>
THICKNESS
Model 1:
ESTIMATE OF CORRELATION
Model 2
Model 1
0.74
0.64
page 67
Table 212 shows a discrepancy between models 1 and 2, which was not shown by
Table 210 for surface level departures. The larger of the estimates in Table 212 is
that for model 2, assuming the same AR(1) model thatfitsthe data along the pavement
alsofitsthe data across the pavement. Adopting this estimate will give a larger
variance of the m e a n and therefore, wider control limits for the control charts. This
estimate will give a more conservative estimate of the acceptance limits for the
compliance scheme in Chapter 3. This m a y be appropriate until further data is
collected after implementation of the compliance proposed in Chapter 3.
It was therefore decided, for the purpose of estimating the variance of the sample
mean, to accept the A R ( 1 ) model that fitted the data along the pavement tofitthe data
across the pavement.
Section 25.4 shows the estimation of the correlation between points in the same stri
running parallel to the centre line. Because the sampling points along each string were
equispaced at approximately 5 metre intervals and the strings were equispaced across
the pavement, the sampling points formed a grid pattern. Section 25.5 shows the
estimation of the correlation between points in lines that ran perpendicular to the
pavement centre line (for example, sampling points at /,/and b in Diagram 27).
Section 25.5 also shows that the AR(1) model that fitted the data that ran parallel to
the centre line could alsofitthe data that ran perpendicular to the pavement centre
line.
page 68
It therefore reasonable to assume that, the same AR(1) model will represent the
correlation of data along any line on the pavement surface, regardless of the dire
of the line in relation to the centre line of the pavement.
Diagram 27 shows a section of the sampling plan of the subbase surface of the Bar
Highway and how sampling points are correlated with each other.
<2>
L P A V *  v*: \
(4.3metresj
/approximate
CPAV;: j
1....1...
'
   j.*
;X
1 period = 5 m
centre line
pavement
(4.3metres} /
1
. /
*
1 period = 5 m
^ ~ *~
RPAV
X
1 period = 5m
In Diagram 27, X, e, and a are at the same chainage of the timeseries, period C; /,
/and b are at the same chainage of the timeseries, period C plus one period; k, g
at the same chainage of the timeseries, period C plus two periods and /, h, and d
care
are at the same chainage of the timeseries, period C plus three periods.
Each measurement at each sampling point of each string is positively correlated with
measurements at every other sampling point in the same string. Also, measurements
each sampling point in each string is positively correlated with measurements at
pling point in each of the other strings. Diagram 27 shows the pairing of points
sam
page 69
by the dashed arrows radiating from the sampling point at X to all other sampling
points. All other points are paired with each other in a similar manner.
Equation (2.6) estimates the autocorrelation between any two points from an AR(1)
process as,
pk=tf
* = 0,1,2, ...
The correlation between any two sampling points within a lot on the Barton Highwa
is estimated by,
P,
<2I4>
= *
where y=dA'
metres in one period (lag one) of the AR(1) process. For points in the same string, v is
an integer, which is equal to lag k.
Equation (2.2) evaluates the variance of the sample mean of measurements from a
timeseries,
9 "~* "
H*.)=v 1+E5X/)
"
i=l j=i+\
The variance of the sample mean of measurements taken from a lot on the Barton
Highway can be expressed as,
M^)=TK^_
(2.15)
page 70
where the summation is over all, f "J , pairs of sampling points and v is defined in
(214).
Each lot on the Barton Highway consisted of 3 strings, LPAV, CPAV and RPAV, each
with 20 points. There is a total of {^J pairs = 1770 pairs.
The number of pairs from 20 points, for points in the same string, is 20x19/2, which
equals 190 pairs.
The number of pairs, with points within the same string, is the same for each of LPA
C P A V and R P A V strings.
The number of pairs with points in different strings, each string with 20 points, is
20x20, which equals 400 pairs.
p a g e 71
The number of pairs with points in different strings is the same for the 3 combinations
L P A V  C P A V , L P A V  R P A V and C P A V  R P A V .
Therefore, the total number of pairs of sampling points for each lot is three tim
plus threetimes400, which equals 1770 pairs.
By separating the data pairs into pairs of points in the same string and pairs with points
in different strings, (2.15) is written for each lot of the Barton Highway pavement data
as,
v
where:
'
1+
^IX^+I^J
n
(2.16)
The first summation of (2.16) is for correlation between points of the AR(1) mode
fitted to each string. This correlation is given by (2.6) and is multiplied by three for
the three strings.
page 72
B y Diagram 27, for four points in the R P A V string, each one period apart, there are:
three pairs of sampling points that are one period apart namely, (XJ), (i,k) and (k
two pairs of sampling points that are two periods apart namely, (X,&) and (/,/)
only one pair of sampling points that are three periods apart namely, (X,/).
In general, the number of pairs of points in a string of n points that are k periods
is (nk).
For a string of n points numbered 1 to n, there are (l) pairs namely, (1,2), (2,3),.
1,), at one period apart and (n2) pairs namely, (1,3), (2,4),..., (n2,ri), that are two
periods apart,..., and one pair that is (n1) periods apart namely, (l,n). For the strings
containing the Barton Highway data n is equal to 20 points.
3(19^+18^+...+^9) (217)
The second summation is for the correlation between points of different strings. The
distance between points in different strings need not be a whole number of periods, so
y is not usually expressed as an integer for pairs of points in different strings. For
example, the distance between the sampling points at X and g, in Diagram 27, is
derived by the distances X to k and k to g. The chainage difference for distance X to k
is two periods. The number of periods k to g is the distance between the strings
divided by one period (5 metres). Therefore, the distance k to g expressed as a number
of periods is 4.3/5 = 0.86. Hence, y for the pair of sampling points at X and k is,
^2 2 +(0.86) 2 , which equals 2.12
page 73
= Jk2+w2
(2.18)
where k is the number of periods of the chainage difference between the two
points
and
w is the number of periods between the strings, calculated by dividing the
distance between the strings by the length of one period (5 metres).
The section of pavement shown in Diagram 27 can be used to illustrate determinatio
of y for pairs when the points are in different strings. It can be seen when comparing
four points in R P A V with four points in C P A V the following groups of pairs have the
same y values:
four pairs where v is equal to w namely, (X,e), (i,f), (k,g) and (l,h)
six pairs where v is equal to Jl + w2 , these are: Hues forward pairs (X,f), (i,g) and
(k,h); and three backward pairs (i,e), (k,f) and (/,g)
four pairs where v is equal to V 4 + w 2 , these are: (X,g), (/,/), (k,e) and (l,f)
two pairs where y is equal to V 9 + w 2 , these are (X,/z) and (l,e).
is 2(nk).
Thus, the contribution to the second summation in (2.16) for the pairs of points, one
point in R P A V and the other in C P A V , for n equal to 20, becomes,
The contribution to the second summation by all pairs of points, one point in
and the other in L P A V , is identical to the contribution by pairs of points, one point in
R P A V and the other in C P A V . The contribution by all pairs of points, one in L P A V
and the other in R P A V takes the same form as (2.19) but w is replaced by 2w, so the
general term becomes 2(20  ) ^ * 2 + 4 " 2 .
Using an Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix A21) and (2.17), (2.18) and (2.19) of
Section 25.6.3 to evaluate (2.16), the variances of the sample means of subbase and
base surface level departures and base course thickness measurements are shown in
Table 213.
T A B L E 213 Estimates of Variance of S a m p l e M e a n
Measurements
Subbase
Base
Thickness
*x
60
60
60
0.75
0.75
0.70
Var(Xn)
0.86
0.76
0.86
445.93
460.37
358.87
0.2644 cr2
0.2724 cr2
0.2160 a1
expresses the variance of the sample mean as a factor of the process variance.
page 75
The results in column 6 are significantly different to the estimate of the variance of the
sample m e a n by (2.3), a / , for uncorrelated data. For a sample size of 60 points,
(2.3) estimates the variance of the sample mean to be 0.0167 a2. This highlights the
effect of the correlation structure on surface level departure and thickness
measurements w h e n estimating the variance of the sample m e a n for control charting
purposes.
For surface level departure measurements, the variance of the mean of samples of 60
correlated points from a process is approximately the same as the variance of the
mean of samples of 4 independent points from a second process, if the standard
deviations of the processes are the same. For thickness measurements, the variance of
the m e a n of samples of 60 correlated points from a process is approximately the same
as the variance of the m e a n of samples of 5 independent points from a second process,
if the processes have the same standard deviation.
Table 213 demonstrates that, for the limited range of the parameters shown in Table
213, fa is the more critical parameter in (2.16) than w, defined by the distance
between the strings. The same grid pattern defined the sampling points for subbase
and thickness measurements. However, the estimates of the Var{ Xn) differ by 0.0484
due to the fa estimates differing by 0.05, or about 7 % . In contrast, subbase and base
surface level departures used the same fa estimate but the distance between the strings
(4.3 metres to 3.8 metres) differed by 0.5 metre, or about 1 2 % . However, the
estimates of Var{X~n) for subbase and base surface level departures only differ by
0.008.
Nevertheless, future use of this analysis of the correlation structure for the introd
of statistical process control into the road construction industry, requires adoption of a
page 76
fixed grid. However, it appears that careful pacing, provided some chainage markers
are still in place, is sufficient for setting out the grid for conformance verification.
to continue to monitor future projects to ensure the currency of the (f>x value used for
defining the compliance scheme. The ^, value m a y also change over time as process
control by the road construction industry improves.
There is sufficient data from the Barton Highway to assess different estimates of the
variances of the sample means. A comparison between estimates of variance of the
sample m e a n by using fa with estimates obtained directly from data was carried out
by the following procedure:
1. only the sections of the pavement where ARIMA modelling was carried out, as
shown in Tables 22 to 24, were used for the comparison
2. estimate the variances of the processes by measurements restricted to those sections
of the pavement
3. multiply the estimated variance of the process by the appropriate factor in Table
213, for subbase, base and thickness, to determine the estimates of the variances of
the sample means
4. convert estimated variances to estimates of standard deviations of lot means for
subbase, base and thickness  this is the model 1 estimate.
page 77
5. determine an estimate by dividing the sections of pavement into 100 metre lots and
calculating the means of each lot for subbase, base and thickness from
measurements taken on the Barton Highway
6. treat the mean of each lot as a variable and estimate its standard deviation  this is
the model 2 estimate.
7. estimate the standard deviation of the sample mean of each lot using (2.3) by
assuming that the data are independent  this is the model 3 estimate
Table 214 shows the estimates of the standard deviations of the sample means by
three models for the subbase and base surface level departures and thickness
measurements.
T A B L E 214 C o m p a r i s o n s of Estimates of Standard Deviation S a m p l e
M e a n of Barton H i g h w a y Lots
Estimates of Standard
Deviation of Lot Mean  mm's
Process
Chainages of No.
Pavement
Of
Lots
Sections
Process
Standard
Deviation
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Subbase
40005000
60007300
76008500
33
5.54 m m .
2.85
2.87
0.71
Base
22005500
60007300
76009100
62
5.96 m m
3.11
2.82
0.77
Thickness
30005800
60006800
37
6.26 m m
2.91
3.32
0.81
The difference between the estimate by model 1 and the estimate by model 2 is less
than 1 % for the subbase, about 9 % for base and about 1 2 % for thickness. The mean of
the estimates by models 1 and 2 is about four times the estimate by model 3, by
assuming the data are independent. The estimate by model 1 is greater than the
page78
estimate by model 2 for base surface measurements, but is less than the estimate by
model 2 for thickness measurements.
However, real world phenomena are typically affected by unknown factors and
therefore can not be totally deterministic. B o x and Jenkins (1976) provide the
example of a missile trajectory. The mathematical model to determine the target of
the missile m a y include all k n o w n factors such as the angle of the trajectory, weight of
the missile as well as the quantity and quality of the fuel. However, unknown factors,
such as wind variability during the flight of the missile, will affect where the missile
lands.
Nevertheless, the mathematical model derived to determine the target of the missile
does provide some confidence about the target. It m a y also be possible to derive a
mathematical model to predict the target of the missile in terms of'the probability of
landing within a specified area. Such a probability model is called a stochastic model.
Stochastic models better describe physical processes occurring in nature and indust
These processes are more correctly called stochastic processes, as unknown factors
may affect their outcomes. The timeseries modelsfittedto the Barton Highway data
are stochastic models fitted to outcomes of stochastic processes.
Therefore, it is most improbable that any of the estimates of the standard deviation
the sample means of Table 214 are the true standard deviation. The estimates based
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 79
on model 1 are better estimates than those obtained (model 3) by assuming that the
data are independent, as they include the extra factor of the correlation structure. The
model 1 estimates agree, within approximately 1 0 % , with the estimates derived by
model 2, gained from the outcomes of stochastic processes.
The data collected from the Newcastle Freeway were interpolated from actual field
measurements. Because of the interpolation, the data were not used for estimation of
the correlation structure. Since the Newcastle Freeway was constructed by notionally
the same process as the Barton Highway, the same correlation structure of the data as
for the Barton Highway was adopted for this analysis.
However, the sampling plan for Newcastle Freeway consisted of points in five strings
at ten metres chainage interval whereas the sampling plan of the Barton Highway
selected points in three strings atfivemetres intervals. Therefore, an estimate of the
variance of the sample m e a n for lots on the Newcastle Freeway requires an estimate of
thefavalue of an AR(1) process, where lag one equals 10 metres.
The method described in Section 25.4, using the Barton Highway data but with every
second point removed from each string, estimated the fa values for the Newcastle
Freeway. B y storing the removed points in a second string, two estimates offawere
possible over the same section of pavement at the same offset from the centre line.
These two strings ran on top of each other with one string having points at even five
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 80
metres chainages, (5,15,25,...) and the other at even ten metre chainages, (10,20,
30,...).
Tables 215 to 217, which are in the same format as Tables 22 to 24, show the
results of the A R I M A modelling carried out to estimatefafor an AR(1) model with
lag one equal to ten metres.
T A B L E 215 Results of A R I M A Modelling of Subbase Surface Level
Departures Strings (Lag O n e = 10 metres)
o^xlO" 6
for
Section
Chainage
St
Dev.
AR(1)
AR(1)
Q(lag 24)
Best
AR
Fit
Model
(best fit)
Qflag 24)
Section 1
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
4000  5400
3000  5400
3000  5400
0.54
0.54
0.48
0.072
0.055
0.059
17.2
8.63
10.09
33.0
22.1
49.8
AR(3)
AR(3)
AR(3)
25.8
12.4
14.7
4000  5400
3000  5400
3000  5400
0.62
0.66
0.62
0.067
0.049
0.051
12.8
7.08
7.65
27.4
19.9
27.9
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(2)
27.4
19.9
21.1
6000  7330
6000  7330
6000  7330
0.69
0.64
0.57
0.064
0.068
0.072
9.27
9.76
12.33
34.9
24.0
19.6
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
34.9
24.0
19.6
6000  7330
6000  7330
6000  7330
0.71
0.76
0.66
0.065
0.059
0.067
8.63
8.33
10.83
28.6
24.6
17.9
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
28.6
24.6
17.9
7550  8580
7550  8580
7550  8580
0.56
0.69
0.48
0.081
0.076
0.086
10.99
6.97
6.30
22.5
23.3
23.6
AR(2)
AR(2)
AR(1)
18.9
16.2
23.6
7550  8580
7550  8580
7550  8580
0.55
0.60
0.51
0.083
0.079
0.086
8.91
6.83
7.67
18.2
21.1
17.3
AR(3)
AR(2)
AR(1)
12.7
15.1
17.3
5mCh
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 2
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 3
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
page 81
Section
Chainage
St
Dev.
o a 2 xl0"
6
for
AR(1)
AR(1)
Q(lag24)
Model
Best
Fit
AR
(best fit)
Q(lag 24)
Section 1
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
21855550
21855550
2185  5550
0.61
0.57
0.58
0.043
0.045
0.045
21.58
21.13
24.2
37.2
37.0
29.1
AR(2)
AR(4)
AR(3)
21.9
29.2
18.4
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
21855550
21855550
21855550
0.59
0.62
0.64
0.044
0.043
0.042
22.60
16.96
19.83
20.4
38.5
38.0
AR(1)
AR(3)
AR(3)
20.4
24.4
19.1
5980  7330
5980  7330
5980  7330
0.61
0.61
0.47
0.071
0.072
0.081
14.2
9.07
13.23
14.0
28.3
23.4
AR(4)
AR(2)
AR(1)
14.0
22.4
23.4
5980  7330
5980  7330
5980  7330
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.069
0.071
0.070
16.4
9.97
8.80
18.9
19.4
28.5
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
18.9
19.4
28.5
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
75609175
75609175
7560  9175
0.55
0.66
0.59
0.066
0.060
0.065
13.47
9.92
14.6
26.4
29.2
25.0
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
26.4
29.2
25.0
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
75609175
7560  9175
75609175
0.69
0.71
0.67
0.058
0.057
0.061
9.24
7.60
10.91
30.5
33.0
28.8
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
30.5
33.0
28.8
Section 2
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
Section 3
page 82
Section
G a 2 xl0"
6
for
AR(1)
AR(1)
Best
Fit
Q(lag 24) Model
AR
(best fit)
Q(lag 24)
Chainage
fa
St
Dev.
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
3000  5890
3000  5890
3000  5890
0.50
0.57
0.53
0.051
0.049
0.051
35.1
24.16
31.26
31.4
27.2
30.5
AR(3)
AR(2)
AR(1)
19.5
15.5
30.5
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
3000  5890
3000  5890
3000  5890
0.48
0.62
0.62
0.052
0.047
0.047
34.66
19.12
21.2
33.1
32.5
28.2
AR(3)
AR(3)
AR(1)
26.2
14.3
28.2
10 m Ch.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
5980  6800
5980  6800
5980  6800
0.43
0.50
0.34
0.100
0.096
0.106
15.12
10.96
15.97
12.9
22.8
20.7
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
12.9
22.8
20.7
5mCh.
LPAV
CPAV
RPAV
5980  6800
5980  6800
5980  6800
0.51
0.49
0.35
0.096
0.097
0.106
17.76
14.1
13.11
18.2
17.5
20.6
AR(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
18.2
17.5
20.6
Section 1
Section 2
The same process was used to construct the subbase and base surfaces. Therefore, the
combined estimates from the two surfaces by the ARIMA modelling carried out on
each surface, provided the <f>x estimate for surface level departure measurements.
All of the A C F s for each string section displayed the behaviour of an autoregressive
process. The autoregressive model that best fitted 21 of the 36 string sections was a
AR(1) model. For each of these 21 string sections, the ChiSquared statistic was small
enough to indicate that insufficient evidence was available to reject the fit of the
model to the data.
page 83
Hence, on the evidence provided in Tables 215 and 216, an AR(1) model can
approximate the process of laying concrete pavement surfaces to the correct height.
The average fa value from Tables 215 and 216 is 0.608. A rounded value of 0.6
can be adopted as the estimate of ^,, since the precision of the estimates, as indicated
in the Tables 215 and 216, demonstrate that most of these are consistent with this
value.
The general AR(1) model adopted for surface level departures on the Newcastle
Freeway is expressed as,
X,=C+0.60X^+0, (2.20)
All of the ACFs for each string section displayed the behaviour of an autoregr
process. The autoregressive model that best fitted 8 of the 12 string sections was an
AR(1) model. For each of these 8 string sections, the ChiSquared statistic was small
enough to indicate that insufficient evidence was available to reject thefitof the
model to the data.
Hence, on the evidence provided in Table 217, an AR(1) model can approximate t
process of laying the concrete base course to the correct height thickness.
The average fa value from Tables 217 is 0.495. A rounded value of 0.50 can be
adopted as the estimate of <f>x, since the precision of the estimates, as indicated in the
Table 217, demonstrate that most of these are consistent with this value.
page 84
X, = C + 0.50Xt_x+at (2.21)
The differences are small and mainly reflect the fact that the data for the current
analysis are a subset of the those used in Section 25.4.
Similar to the Barton Highway, an Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix A22) and the
results of Section 25.6.3 were used to evaluate (2.16). Table 218 shows the results
page 85
the spreadsheet analysis for the subbase and base surface level departures and base
course thickness measurements.
*x
Var(Xn)
Subbase
Base
Thickness
50
50
50
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.215
0.215
0.215
354.45
354.45
266.46
0.3034 c2
0.3034 c2
0.233 cr2
The grid pattern for sampling the pavement surface, as well as the sample siz
the estimates of the lot mean and standard deviation, as shown in Table 219.
T A B L E 219 Estimates of Lot M e a n and Standard Deviation for Different
Sampling Plans
Var[Xn)
Var{Xn)
Grid
Pattern
1 3x20
2 5x10
3 3x10
4 3x5
5 1x5
n
60
50
30
15
5
Subbase and
Base Surfaces
0.27 a2
0.30 a2
0.30 o2
0.37 a2
0.40 cr2
Upper 9 5 %
n
3.7
3.3
3.3
2.5
2.5
Thickness
0.22 cr2
0.23 a2
0.23 a2
0.34 a2
0.37 a2
n
4.5
4.3
4.3
2.9
2.7
CL s = 5 mm
5.90 mm
6.01 mm
6.40 mm
7.30 mm
11.86 mm
Column 2 gives the grid pattern as the number of strings times the number o
in each string for a 100 metre lot
Column 3 gives the sample size, n, for a 100 metre lot
page 86
Columns 4 and 6 give the variances of the sample mean, for the surface level
departure and thickness measurements, expressed as a factor of the variance of the
process
Columns 5 and 7, n , give the lot size that has the same variance of the mean, for a
process with the same standard deviation, when the process produces independent
(uncorrelated) data. A s this values is small, it is quoted to one decimal place even
though sample sizes are whole numbers. This is to show the rate of change for
different grid patterns
Column 8 gives the upper 9 5 % confidence limit of the lot standard deviation when
the sample standard deviation is 5 millimetres.
All of the variances of the sample mean are estimated by evaluation of (2.16) from
estimates from the Barton Highway data. The <f>x estimate for strings with ten points,
per 100 metres, was by A R I M A modelling after removing every second point from the
Barton Highway strings. Similarly, the fa estimate for strings withfivepoints, per
100 metres, was by A R I M A modelling of the Barton Highway data after removing
every second, third and fourth point from each string.
Table 219 shows that there is little reduction in the variance of the sample mean
using grid pattern number 2 (5x10) in place of grid pattern number 3 (3x10). Grid
pattern number 3 is the same as grid pattern number 1, except that every second point
is removed from each string. Grid pattern number 2 is the same as number 3, except
that two extra strings are added to the grid. The extra strings reduced the distance
between the strings from 4.3 metres to 2.15 metres. Because of the reduced distance
between the strings and the strong correlation across the pavement, the extra 20 points
have minimal effect in reducing the variance of the sample mean.
Columns 5 and 7 highlight the problem of assuming that the data are independent.
The effect of the data correlation w h e n estimating the variance of the sample meai
page 87
Unlike the variance of the sample mean, the variance of the sample variance is not
substantially affected by the correlation structure of the data (Cryer and Ryan, 1990).
Grid patterns 4 and 5 do not provide an effective sampling of the lot due to their poo
estimates of both the m e a n and standard deviation of the lot.
Grid pattern number 3 provides a similar estimate of the sample mean to grid pattern
number 2, with only 6 0 % of the points. B y contrast, grid pattern number 1, by only
increasing the sample size by 2 0 % , shows a significant improvement over grid pattern
number 2 in reducing the variance of the sample mean. Hence, grid pattern number 1
not only provides the best estimate of the lot mean and standard deviation, but is also
the most efficient grid pattern for sampling the lot. Because of the density of the
sampling points, grid pattern number 1 also provides more detailed information about
the quality of the product.
Hence, for these reasons, grid pattern number 1 is recommend as the sampling plan for
the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3.
As shown in Section 25, the assumption that the measurements of the pavement
surfaces and base course thicknesses are independent, is invalid. The impact of the^
correlation structure of the data on the variance of the sample mean and hence the X
control chart, is significant. Diagrams 28 and 29 are the X control charts for the
Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway, w i t h t h e j s s ^ ^
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 88
of the sample means revised to including the effect of the correlation structure of the
data. The control limits of the control charts are estimated from the revised standar
deviation of the sample mean.
page 89
3.0 SL=0.00879
c
CO
0
ooo
X= 0.00075
Q.
E
co
CO
3.0 SL0.00730
0.01
T"
10
30
20
Sample Number
3.0 SL=0.00851
c
CD
CD
ffl
CL
X = 0.00025
0.00
E
CO
CO
3.0 SL0.00900
0.01
T
20
r
10
Sample Number
^. A AA
c
CO
<D
0.23
^ v y
E
CO
CO
0.22
3.0 SL=0.2203
X=0 2288
10
20
Sample Number
D I A G R A M 28
Newcastle Freeway
page 9 0
0.01
3.0 SL=0.00699
c
CO
CD
0.00
Q.
X = 0.00200
CO
co
0.01
3.0SL0.01102
Sample Number
f
3.0
SL=0.01619
co
CD
0.01
Q.
X = 0.00691
E
CO
CO
o.oo
3.0 SL=0.00240
Sample Number
0.25
c
to
X = 0.2421
Qa
CO
0.24
3.0 SL=0.2329
0.23
Sample Number
D I A G R A M 29
x Control Charts with Control Limits Set for Correlated Data  Barton
Highway
page 91
Diagrams 28 and 29 show only one point outside of the control limits for all six X
control charts (thickness on the Newcastle Freeway). The control charts in Diagrams
28 and 29 are in stark contrast to the X control charts in Diagrams 22 and 23,
which had a substantial number of points outside the control limits.
The revised control limits support the analysis of Section 25 based on the
recommendation by Alwan and Roberts (1988) to attempt to model systematic nonrandom behaviour by timeseries models of data that appears to lack statistical control.
A n inspection of the control charts n o w leads to the conclusion that the processes are
under statistical control.
Control charts of residuals of timeseries models fitted to data can also demonstrate
a process is under statistical control (Alwan and Roberts, 1988). Diagram 210 is the
control chart of individual residuals of the data fitted by the AR(1) model to the L P A V
string section data, between chainages 2185 and 5550, of the Barton Highway base
surface. The control chart shows that only 4 points out of about 700 points are outside
the control limits. The small number of points outside the control limits indicates that
the process during construction of this section of the pavement was operating almost
always in statistical control.
page 92
1
^
ll
0.01
3.0SL=0.01123
:!
i
(0
S
c
'
X=0.000
0.00
II x
0.01
ir
3.0SL0.01134
*
1
0
I
100
1
200
1
300
1
400
1
500
T
600
700
Observation N u m b e r
D I A G R A M 210
Control charts of the residuals of most string sections, plotted as part of the A R I M A
modelling process, displayed behaviour similar to the control chart plotted in Diagram
210.
Hence, one can now conclude that the processes of constructing concrete pavement
surfaces to the correct height and constructing concrete base courses to the correct
thickness can be demonstrated as being under statistical control.
As the processes used to construct concrete pavement surfaces to the correct height
and courses to the correct thickness demonstrated statistical process control, it is n o w
possible to estimate their capability.
27.1 T H E SPECIFICATIONS
For both projects the specifications set limits for the output of each process. Non
the product was to be outside of the specification limits, described as follows:
The contract specified penalty rates if the base course was under thickness, as sho
in Table 220.
Table 220
less than 5 m m
The R T A required sections of the base course less than 10 millimetres below the
design thickness to represent isolated areas of the pavement and be less than 5 % of the
area of the base course lot. Otherwise those sections of the base course also had to be
removed and replaced.
There were also penalties for excessive thickness, dependent on both thickness and
strength of the concrete. Constructing the base course with excessive thickness did not
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 9 4
benefit the contractor either, as the R T A paid only for material required to achieve the
design thickness. The contractor's goal was to construct the base course not less than
the minimum thickness, but also not to be excessive with base concrete material.
Control of the surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces controls t
thickness of the base course. Survey measured the subbase and base surfaces for
compliance with the specifications. However, for these two projects, survey
measurements did not determine the base course thickness measurements for
compliance with the specifications for thickness. Instead, tape measurements at the
edges of the pavement and depth of cores extracted from the base course determined
the acceptance or rejection of the base course for thickness.
DF
SS
MS
4 0.0024952 0.0006238
1276 0.0382129 0.0000299
1280 0.0407081
N
257
256
257
256
255
Pooled StDev =
Mean
0 .23015
0 .22875
0..22730
0 .22729
0 .23064
0.00547
StDev
0,.00543
0,.00553
0.,00448
0 .00550
0 .00628
F
20.83
P
0.000
0.2280
0.2295
0.2310
page 95
0.00677
0.00580
0.00651
F
127.22
P
0.000
For the Newcastle Freeway, strings LPAV, CPAV and RPAV are in approximately the
same location as the strings of the same name of the Barton Highway. The extra stri
on the Newcastle Freeway, EPAV, is between LPAV and CPAV and the extra string,
FPAV, is between CPAV and RPAV.
The above analyses of variance assumes that the data are independent. However,
analysis shown in Section 25 demonstrated data correlation between thickness
measurements, and further, that an AR(1) model could be fitted to the data. The
variance of the sample mean when the data can be modelled as an AR(1) process can
be obtained from (2.2). Therefore, by allowing for the effect of data correlation on
standard deviation of the sample mean, the pvalues of both analyses of variance are
less than 0.005.
This indicates that there is sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that thic
measurements along all strings are the same. On both projects the strings nearest to
the edges of the pavement contained the highest thickness measurements. Therefore,
edge measurements, as required by the specifications, gave biased estimates of the
thickness of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway base courses. Significantly,
the estimate by measurements contained in the strings closest to the edges were gre
than the estimates by measurements contained in all of the strings.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 96
The processcapability ratio, PCR, is the ratio of the output of the process to the
specification width and as such is a measure of the ability of the process to meet
specifications. A s the subbase surface, base surface and base course thickness have
specified tolerances, the process capability analysis will be presented as a processcapability ratio (see Section 24.1.1).
For the purpose of this thesis the term "defective" means failing to meet specified
requirements and is equivalent to "nonconforming".
A processcapability ratio, PCR, takes into account only the width of the output of the
process and m a y be more accurately described as a measure of the potential capability
of the process. A processcapability ratio that also takes into account the centring of
the process in relation to the specification limits, PCR*, gives a more accurate measure
of the actual capability of the process.
When PCR* is equal to one the proportion defective may be less than 0.27 percent.
This will depend on h o w far off centre the process is in relation to the specification
pa g e
97
limits. For processes that are significantly off centre and have a processcapability
ratio of one, the proportion defective can be as low as 0.135 percent.
The processcapability ratios for this analysis will be PCR*, that is taking into ac
where the processes are centred. P C R * is defined as:
3cr
3<r J
where, U S L and L S L are the upper and lower specification limits of the
tolerances,
p and a are the m e a n and standard deviation of the process.
The sample mean and standard deviation of the output, X and s, estimate p and a,
the process m e a n and standard deviation. For the Newcastle Freeway and the Barton
Highway projects the sample output for each process was all of the measurements
taken on the product produced by each process. Therefore, (2.22) is n o w written as:
PCR* = minimum
^USLX XLSL^
3s
3s
(2.23)
Listed in Tables 221 and 222 are the processcapability ratios and proportion
defective, as a percentage, for each process used on the Newcastle Freeway and Barton
Highway projects.
T A B L E 221
page 98
Process
X mm
s mm
Specified
Limit(s) m m
Subbase
0.81
4.94
1435
20<Z<20
1.29
<0.01
Base
0.26
5.53
1293
0<X
0.02*
51.88
228.83
5.64
1282
230 <X
0.07*
58.22
Thickness
T A B L E 222
Process
X mm
s mm
Subbase
1.98
5.9
3659
Base
6.86
6.06
4004
241.95
6.62
3046
Thickness
PCR,
Percentage
Defective
Specified
Limit(s) m m
PCR,
Percentage
Defective
1.02
0.12
0<X
0.38
12.88
233** <X
0.45
8.82
20<X<20
Columns 2 and 3 of Tables 221 and 222 give the mean and standard deviation of all
the available measurements of the product.
Column 4 gives the number of measurements taken on the product.
Column 5 gives the specification limits for individual measurements,^, of the
product.
Columns 6 and 7 give the estimated processcapability ratio and the percentage
defective.
** The specified minimum thickness for the base course of the Barton Highwa
230 millimetres. However, the constructed and specified base course thicknesses
shown in Table 222 include a 3 millimetre interlayer between the subbase and base
courses. Therefore, it is assumed that the m e a n thickness of the base course,
excluding the interlayer, is 238.95 millimetres.
Similarly, the RTA needs to have an appreciation of process variability when setting
the specification limits if they wish the product to meet the designer's intent.
This is demonstrated by the percentage defective for the base surface and base
thickness on the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway projects. Both of these
processes had a one sided (lower) specification limit. However, the means of the
Newcastle Freeway's processes were located approximately at their specification
limits and this caused a very high percentage of products to be defective. The means
of the Barton Highway's processes were located above the (lower) specification limits
and this resulted in a m u c h smaller percentage of the products being defective.
NEWCASTLE FREEWAY
page 100
BARTON HIGHWAY
USL
0.01%
Defective
0.12%
Defective
Mean = 0.81
20
20
Mean = 1.98
20
20
51.88%
Defective
s = 6.06
'v
20
20
20
20
LSL = 230
Mean = 241.95
LSL = 233
58.22%
Defective / w w *
s = 5.64
V\W\*
/\\w\
/www*
(www*
\\w\\\ *
www\w
215
D I A G R A M 211
page 101
The horizontal axes of the graphs in Diagram 211 give the range of the expected
individual measurements, X, of the product. The curve of each graph is the normal
distribution, which is assumed to represent the probability density function of the data
(see Section 23.3). The parameters of each plotted normal distribution curve are the
X and s values for each process as shown in Tables 221 and 222. All measurements
in Diagram 211 are in millimetres.
The area under a portion of each graph represents the probability that an individual
measurement, X, lies in that portion of the graph. The peaks of the normal distribution
curves are at the m e a n of the distribution of each process. These infer that the most
probable measurements of each product are at or about the mean of all measurements
of the product.
The shapes of the curves in Diagram 211 are a schematic presentation of the process
variability, based on the assumption that the normal distribution approximates the
data. The graphs show w h y the percentage defective were so high for the base surface
and base thickness on the Newcastle Freeway. However, even for the Barton Highway
the process means are still too close to the specification limits to ensure that the
percentage defective is at an acceptable level.
The base surface and base thickness have one sided specification limits. If, for
example, the specifications required no more than 2 V 2 % defective then, by the
standard normal distribution tables, the m e a n of the process has to be at least 1.96
standard deviations from the specification limit.
It is usual practice to take a band width of six standard deviations, centred on the
process mean, as the natural tolerance limits of the process output. The natural
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 102
tolerance limits determine the capability of a process when there are no specification
limits. For data that are normally distributed, such a band width contain
approximately 9 9 . 7 3 % of the process output.
Therefore, natural tolerance limits aid the customer in setting specification limits for
the compliance scheme and help the supplier in selecting processes to meet product
specifications.
The natural tolerance limits of the processes measured on the Barton Highway helped
to define the compliance described in Chapter 3.
The natural tolerance limits of the subbase surface level departures are similar to the
natural tolerance limits of the base surface level departures on both projects. It is
therefore reasonable to set the same specification limits for the surface level
departures for both the subbase and base surfaces.
The RTA has set the specification limits for surface level departures principally to
achieve base course thickness. However, it should also be noted that compliance of
the pavement surfaces with the specifications is also important for ride quality and to
ensure agreement with other components of the road, such as drainage structures.
However, RTA research (RTA, 1993) has identified the thickness of the base course as
a Pareto item in the life of concrete pavements. Reducing the base course thickness by
1 0 % is estimated to reduce the design life of the pavement by approximately 9 0 % .
The Newcastle Freeway base course was thinner than the base course on the Barton
Highway. Even so, less than 0 i H % > ^ ^
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 103
However, neither of the contracts has achieved compliance with the specifications f
base course thickness.
The estimate (p), of the probability that a randomly selected point will be less t
lower specification limit, LSL, is given by:
J7 LSLP
Multiplying (2.24) by 100 gives the estimated percentage of under thickness per lo
1
' LSLX^
^Z<
s J
(2.25)
As (2.25) does not define the producer's or consumer's risks, it is not suitable for the
compliance scheme described in Chapter 3. Conversely, the compliance scheme
described in Chapter 3 is not meant for estimation of lot quality but is meant for
sentencing, see Section 33.1.
Table 221 shows that 58.22% of the base course of the Newcastle Freeway was under
thickness. This estimate is based on the mean and standard deviation of all
measurements and the use of the standard normal distribution tables. The estimate b
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 104
However, none of the penalties listed in Table 220 for under thickness were enforced
on this contract. This m a y be due to the method of measurement which gave an
inflated estimate of the base thickness (see Section 27.1.1).
The section of the Newcastle Freeway analysed for this thesis is 3,000 metres in
length, by 8.6 metres in width and 0.230 metres in depth, which is a volume of 5934
cubic metres. The pay rate for current R T A contracts for concrete pavements is about
$150 per cubic metre of continuously reinforced concrete. Therefore, $150 is the
assumed pay rate for estimating the unpaid penalties for under thickness of the
Newcastle Freeway base course. Hence, the assumed contract pay item for sampled
section of the base course was about $890,100.
Table 223 shows the estimated unpaid penalty for under thickness in dollars terms a
specified by the contract.
348
Contract
payment
by R T A
$52,249
$52,249*
18.98
1,126
$168,941
$101,365
33.37
1,980
$297,026
$71,286
58.22
3,454
$518,216
$224,900
Amount by
under
thickness
U T > 10 m m
Percentage
Contract
of pavement
penalty
affected
clause
5.87
Remove
and replace
5<UT<10mm
60%
Reduction
UT < 5 m m
24%
reduction
TOTAL
Volume of
pavement
affected  m
page
105
* The penalty for base thickness that is greater than 10 millimetres thinner than th
design thickness only includes the cost of initial placement of the base course. This is
a direct loss of profit to the contractor as the R T A will not pay for the defective base
course. Added to the loss of profit is the extra cost of removal and disposal of the
defective base course.
The contract specified that for acceptance of pavement sections under thickness by
less than 10 millimetres, they had to be in isolated areas. D u e to the correlation
structure of the base course thickness, it is unlikely that under thickness sections of the
base course were isolated. The more likely scenario is that the areas of base course
under thickness will form large sections, particularly for sections that were between 5
and 10 millimetres under thickness. Therefore, the correct enforcement of the
contract, more than likely, would have resulted in a higher penalty to the contractor
than that shown in Table 223.
Nevertheless, the estimated unpaid penalty for three kilometres of a single carriagew
of the Newcastle Freeway is $224,900. The amount paid by the R T A to the contractor
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 106
for this section of the base course, assuming a pay rate of $150 per cubic metre, was
about $890,100. Therefore, the unpaid penalty represents about 2 5 % of the cost paid
by the R T A for this three kilometre section of a single carriageway of the Newcastle
Freeway.
Table 224 shows the variability of under thickness per lot on the Barton Highway.
The percentage under thickness per lot, listed in Column 5 of Table 224, is estimated
by the sample mean and standard deviation of each lot and the standard normal
distribution tables using (2.25).
page 107
Lot by
Chainage
Mean
Stdev
mm.
mm.
2200  2300
2300  2400
2400  2500
25002600
2600  2700
27002800
2800  2900
2900  3000
241.21
240.23
243.12
250.33
248.63
248.10
246.84
247.98
6.64
7.87
6.02
10.60
4.55
427
6.33
4.43
63
60
30003100
31003200
3200  3300
3300  3400
34003500
3500  3600
3600  3700
3700  3800
38003900
39004000
243.67
23725
245.53
246.73
246.02
244.25
240.83
246.12
244.72
245.68
4.43
6.08
5.54
5.00
5.02
4.03
7.36
6.30
4.69
5.58
242.40
40004100
41004200
242.07
42004300
239.00
4300  4400 244.08
44004500
242.10
45004600
23925
46004700
246.10
47004800
237.78
4800  4900 236.03
4900  5000 240.10
50005100
236.33
51005200
239.85
52005300
242.45
5300  5400 243.78
5400  5500 238.90
5500  5600 240.19
5600  5700 245.98
5700  5800 244.57
5800  5900 236.68
60006100
235.37
61006200
237.87
6200  6300 238.92
6300  6400 239.45
6400  6500 240.72
6500  6600 240.02
6600  6700 239.10
6700  6800 240.38
6800  6900 236.68
6900  7000 239.43
70007100
239.93
7100  7200 240.65
7200  7300 244.50
3.52
5.13
7.42
6.19
3.68
5.30
5.74
7.62
4.77
5.68
4.31
6.40
5.39
4.47
6.37
6.38
7.36
7.00
6.30
3.65
5.43
3.25
3.15
3.98
2.97
5.02
4.98
4.86
4.89
4.57
3.76
3.12
60
60
60
60
60
60
bO
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
60
60
60
62
60
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
page 108
= 8.23%
= 8.85%
= 3006
= 7.74%
The overall average of under thickness for the Barton Highway project is 8.23% per
lot. Column 5 of Table 224 shows that the estimates of under thickness per lot vari
between 0.01% (lot 72007300) to 27.94% (lot 58005900).
o
**1
Q)
.Q
6 5 4 3 2 1 
o 0
10
20
30
DIAGRAM 212
Diagram 212 is a histogram of the data contained in Column 5 of Table 224, showing
h o w the data are skewed towards the lower end of percentage of under thickness per
lot. From Diagram 212, 17 lots are estimated to have less than 1.5% of under
thickness and 31 lots are estimated to have less than 7 % of under thickness. The 17
lots, (35%o of the project), with less than 1.5% under thickness contribute less than
2.5% of the total under thickness of the project. The 31 lots ( 6 2 % of the project) with
less than 7 % under thickness contribute less than 1 6 % of the total under thickness of
the project.
At the higher end of percentage of under thickness per lot, there are 11 lots with
between 17.7% and 2 7 . 9 % of under thickness of under thickness per lot. These 11 lots
( 2 2 % of the project) contribute over 6 0 % of the total under thickness of the project. In
the centre range, there are only 8 lots with between 7 % and 17.7% of under thickness
per lot.
This supports the comments in Section 27.4.2 regarding the sections of under
thickness of the base course of the Newcastle Freeway not being in isolated areas. The
inference is that sections of under thickness will usually be grouped together in large
sections of pavement and not in isolated areas.
Column 7 of Table 224 shows the number of measurements of each lot below the
lower specification limit. The thickness measurements of lots delineated by chainages
6700 to 6800 and 7000 to 7100 show no measurements below 233 millimetres were
found by survey. Therefore, one assumes that the percentage defective for both lots is
zero. However, the statistical summaries and the standard normal distribution tables
estimates that 6.91% and 6.46%, respectively, of these lots are under thickness.
page 111
By using the standard normal distribution tables and the lot statistical summaries, it is
possible to determine that a substantial proportion of a lot is defective without actually
finding any measurements outside the specification limits. The statistical summaries
of lots 67006800 and 70007100 gave a more accurate description of the product than
by merely reporting high or low measurements of the same sample.
Sixty measurements were taken on the lots delineated by chainages 67006800 and
70007100. Column 6 of Table 224 shows that a proportion of under thickness of
6.91%o and 6.46% represents four measurements outside the specification limits when
estimating the percentage of under thickness by a count of measurements.
An inspection of the thickness measurements of both lots found the following numbe
thickness measurements of 234 and 235 millimetres, which are within one and two
millimetres of the specification limit.
Lot 67006800
Lot 70007100
234 m m
235 m m
Reducing the 234 millimetre measurements by two millimetres will give two points
defective in lot 67006800 and three points defective in lot 70007100. Reducing the
235 millimetre m e a s u r e m e n t s b y ^ e e ^
five
67006800 and six points defective in lot 70007100. A n y four of these reductions will
give four measurements defective in each lot without significantly changing the m e a n
or standard deviation of the lots.
The reverse is also true. Measurements that are just outside of the specification limi
can be changed and brought inside the specification limits, without significantly
affecting the m e a n and standard deviation of the lot.
The temptation of the current approach is to adjust measurements that are just outside
the specification limits to bring them within the specifications. Under the current
approach this m a y imply that the lot conforms. However, an examination of the lot
mean and standard deviation provides a more accurate description of the status of the
lot.
Deming (1986) suggests that tolerances and specification limits can create an artifici
barrier to product measurements and, for small sample sizes, can distort process
measurement. They can also create the impression that products measured to be just
within the specification limits are significantly superior to products measured to be
just outside the specification limits. This impression m a y exist even though the same
process has produced both products.
page 113
Products are the result of processes and the controls applied to them. Deming suggest
that process measurement leads to adjustment to the process when the product fails to
conform. The compliance scheme described in Chapter 3 requires contractors to adopt
process measurement to demonstrate that the product is conforming.
The current approach is to test if the product conforms to specified requirements and
to discuss disposition upon finding of a nonconformity. Discussion of the disposition
usually ignores the processes that produced the product.
The comparison of the percentage of under thickness (see Diagram 211) on the
Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway projects, questions the manner in which the
R T A treated the two contractors. The same contract clauses for pavement surfaces
and base course thickness controlled both projects. O n the Newcastle Freeway, the
contractor failed to deliver the specified base course thickness quality for over 5 8 % of
the base course. O n the Barton Highway, the contractor placed an extra 10 millimetres
to the thickness of the base course placed on the Newcastle Freeway. This meant that
less than 9 % of the base course was below the specified thickness.
However, the RTA paid no bonus and sought no penalty for either contract. Hence, the
RTA's apparent belief that the performance of both contractors in achieving base
course thickness was the same appears unsubstantiated.
Knowledge of the relationship between surface level departures and base course
thickness could s i m p l i f y t h e ^ r o ^ ^
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 114
Data from the Newcastle Freeway and the Barton Highway projects will test the
hypothesis to see if enough evidence is available to reject the hypothesis.
Research (Auff, 1983) has shown that for some pavement courses there is dependency
between the surface level departures of the upper and lower surfaces of the pavement
course. However, as the previous analysis collected data between June 1976 and
February 1981, n o w is an appropriate time to carry out this analysis once again.
Since 1981, improved surveying procedures, using such things as electronic measuring
equipment, have significantly increased the measurement accuracy of pavement
surfaces. Chapters 4 and 5 estimate the accuracy of the surveying procedures that
collected the data for this thesis. These chapters also estimate the errors associated
with the surveying methods for measuring pavement surfaces prior to 1981.
As this thesis used data collected electronically, computer modelling was possible.
This improved the accuracy of the estimates of the base course thickness over previous
manual estimates.
page
115
Let Jtji, the surface level departure of the subbase surface (sla^b^) at point i, be
defined as,
where, constructed heightn is the constructed height of the subbase surface at point i,
and design heightlt is the design height of the subbase surface at point i.
Let x2i, the surface level departure of the base surface (sldbase) at point i, be defined
where, constructed height2i is the constructed height of the base surface at point i,
and design height2i is the design of the base surface at point i.
The surface level departures at x2i in (2.27) is vertically above the surface level
departures at JC;, in (2.26).
Let X] denote the random variable of the surface level departures on the subbase
surface, andjc/;, x12,..., xln, represent a sample of n surface level departures of the
subbase surface. Also, let X 2 denote the random variable of the surface level
departures on the base surface, and x2h x22,..., x2, represent a sample of n surface level
departures of the base surface.
page 116
28.1.2 Thickness
The design thickness of the base course, TD, is assumed constant for the project as
defined in the contract documents and is given by,
The constructed thickness, TCi, at point i varies throughout the project due to pro
variability and is defined as,
(230)
Let X3 denote the random variable of the constructed base thickness, Tci, and
(T D + x21  xn), ( T D + **  * ) , > ( T D + * ~ *m)representa sample of n thicknesses
from the distribution of the constructed base course thickness.
Surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces, X! and X2, can be
approximated by the normal distribution (see Section 23.3). Therefore X , and X 2 can
be expressed as,
X^NOi^oi 2 )
2
and
(231)
X 2 ~ N(u.2, a 2 )
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 117
Equation (2.31) states that X! (X2) is normally distributed random variable with mean
(j,! (p2), and has variance of o^2 (a22).
(2.32)
Equation (2.32) states that the variation of the constructed base thickness is normally
distributed. The mean of the constructed base thickness, p3, is the design base
thickness, plus the mean of the base surface level departures, minus the mean of the
subbase surface level departures, that is,
U3 = T D + u2  ui.
(233)
The variance of the constructed base thickness is equal to the sum of the v
the surface level departures of the subbase surface and the base surface, that is,
a 3 2 = a , 2 + o22
(234)
page 1 1 8
statistical tests of (2.33) and (2.34), using the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway
data.
Equation (2.33) tests the hypothesis that the mean thickness of the constructed base
course is found by the means of the surface level departures, for the subbase and base,
and the design thickness.
Hypothesis:
Ho:
P3 = H4
Hi:
u.3 * u.4
Test statistic
(2.35)
Z0 =
(2
"l
"2
nA
where,
ji3 is estimated by x3 which is found by (2.33) from the sample mean of the
subbase surface level departures, xx (estimating u^), and the sample mean of the
base surface level departures, x2 (estimating u.2), and the design thickness T D , for
each lot of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway.
H4 is the mean thickness of the base course estimated by the mean thickness
measurements, 3c~, of each lot of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway (see
Sections 23. land 23.2).
s2 and si are the sample variances of the subbase and base surface level departures,
s\ is the sample variance of the thickness measurements of each lot of the
Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway.
page 119
ni and n2 are the sample sizes of the subbase and base surface level departures and
n4 is the sample size of the thickness measurements of each lot of the Newcastle
Freeway and Barton Highway.
An Ftest was used to test the hypothesis that the variance of the base c
(cri) equals the sum of the variances of the surface level departures of the subbase and
base surfaces, that is (a2 + alj.
Hypothesis:
Ho:
a\ = cr24
Hi:
a\ * al
2
s
Test Statistic
F 0 = fs3
(2.36)
If Ho is true, then F 0 has an F distribution with parameters 4l, df3. The F test for the
sample variances is valid as the data are normally distributed.
where,
a] is estimated by s], the sample variance found by the sum of the sample
variances s2 ands2, for the surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces
of each lot of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton Highway.
a24 is the variance of the base thickness and is estimated by s2, the samp
of the thickness measurements of each lot of the Newcastle Freeway and Barton
Highway.
df3 is the degrees of freedom for s2 for the F test. Satterthwaite's formu
estimates the degrees of freedom for a sample vanance for the F test when derived
page
120
by the variances of more than one sample. W h e n the sample variance is derived by
combining two sample variances, s2 and s22, of sample sizes n2 and n2,
Satterthwaite's formula estimates the degrees of freedom as,
df3 = f4
&x
nx\
y+
(2.37)
s2
n2\
The smallness of the pvalue, Column 14 of Tables 225 and 226, is the strength
the evidence to reject the hypothesis. The pvalue is the probability of the test statistic,
Zo, being "more extreme" then the value shown in column 13 when the null hypothesis
Ho is true. The size of the pvalue is theriskof rejecting the null hypothesis, when, in
fact, it is true. The smallest pvalue in Table 225 is 0.22 and the smallest pvalue in
Table 226 is 0.222, inferring that the risk of rejecting the null hypothesis is
significant.
Hence, the data in Tables 225 and 226 has provided insufficient evidence to re
the hypothesis that the m e a n of the base thickness can be estimated by using (2.33).
The smallness of the pvalue, Column 13 of Tables 227 and 228, is the strength of
the evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The pvalue is the probability of the test
statistic, F0, being "more extreme" then the value shown in column 11 when the null
hypothesis H o is true. The size of the pvalue is theriskof rejecting the null
hypothesis when, in fact, it is true.
Eight out of 25 lots of the Newcastle Freeway have pvalues of less than 0.05, as
shown in C o l u m n 13 of Table 227. This represents approximately one in three lots.
If the null hypothesis was true, then it would be expected that only one lot in 20 would
have a pvalue of 0.05 or less.
There are 42 of 51 lots of the Barton Highway that have pvalues of less than 0.05,
shown in C o l u m n 13 of Table 228.
page 122
Therefore, due to smallness of the pvalues in Tables 227 and 228, there is suffici
evidence to reject the null hypothesis (that the variance of the base thickness is the
sum of the variances of the surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces).
This also infers that there is some dependency on the subbase surface heights when
constructing the base surface to the correct height.
The lack of independence between the surface level departures of the subbase and base
surfaces has implications w h e n preparing the compliance scheme in Chapter 3 for
estimating the standard deviation of base thickness.
CHAPTER 3
COMPLIANCE SCHEME FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SURFACES AND BASE COURSE THICKNESS
31. OBJECTIVES
page 124
The procedures for this statistical compliance scheme are the acceptance sampling
plans for the surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces, along with
feedback from measurements of the base thickness.
The measurements of the base thickness are not meant for lot sentencing, but for fine
tuning the criteria for acceptance of the surface level departures. However, they m a y
be used as a reward system for better performed contractors by allowing a reduction in
the construction tolerance, as outlined in Section 39.
32.2 ASSUMPTIONS
It is assumed, for this compliance scheme, that the acceptable quality level for the
R T A is no more than 2.5% of the base course defective for thickness. A producer
desires that work of that quality will be accepted most of the time. It is also assumed,
for this compliance scheme, that the rejectable quality level is 1 0 % of the base course
defective for thickness. The R T A wants to reject work of that quality about 9 0 % of
the time.
However, these are engineering decisions that are not within the scope of this thesis
The R T A m a y wish to change these quality levels after due consideration of the
associatedrisksto the R T A and its contractors.
The acceptance sampling plan for surface level departures (see Section 34.1)
subbase surface is the same as the acceptance sampling plan for the base surfs
page 125
The lot size is 60 points for pavement carriageways consisting of two lanes.
Sampling points are to be selected in a defined grid pattern made up of three strings
across the pavement with five metres between adjacent points in each string. The
strings are along the approximate centre line of the pavement and about 0.5 metres in
from each edge of the pavement.
For acceptance, each lot has to satisfy the requirements for both the sample mean and
the sample standard deviation.
C See Section 38.2 for comparison of lot standard deviation and process standard
deviation.)
page 126
The lot size and sample point selection are the same as for the surface level departur
The base thickness is estimated by combining the conformance surveys for the subbase
and base surfaces.
The construction tolerance is set at 23.6 millimetres for 2.5 % of the base course
defective for thickness. Target thickness for the producer to construct equals the
designer's thickness plus the construction tolerance.
The lot is accepted as having less than 2.5% defective for thickness if the sample mean
is greater than the acceptance limit (AL). The A L is given as
AL = LSL+1.88s
where LSL is the designer's thickness and s is the thickness sample standard deviation
of the lot. Producer'sriskis set at 0.44 and the consumer'sriskis 0.1 when 10%> of
the base course is defective for thickness.
The RTA will substantially improve the sensitivity of the X control charts by setting
aside resources to enable the adoption of Nelson's tests (see Section 310.4) for the
correlated data of pavement surfaces and course thickness.
page 127
33 INTRODUCTION
The compliance scheme proposed by this thesis is based on the current capability of
the processes used to construct concrete road pavements. This c o m m o n sense
approach is seen as the only effective w a y of introducing practical tolerances by
leaders in the field of acceptance sampling (Schilling, 1982). Swift and Booker (1996)
state the relationship between process capability and tolerances more succinctly;
"Any idea that businesses can put tolerances on designs without consideration
of the manufacturing processes to be used is untenable."
Surely the same principle applies to the road construction industry for pavement
surface levels and pavement thicknesses!
1. "It is the purpose of acceptance sampling to sentence lots, not to estimate the
lot quality. Most acceptance sampling plans are not designed for estimation
purposes.
2. Acceptance sampling plans do not provide any direct form of quality control.
Acceptance sampling plans accept and reject lots. Even if all lots are the same
quality, sampling will accept some lots and reject others, the accepted lots
being no better than the rejected ones. Process controls are used to control and
systematically improve quality, but acceptance sampling is not.
^r^^^^^^^oadPcn;ement
Rtati.
Surfaces
page 128
3. The most effective use of acceptance sampling is not to "inspect quality into a
product," but rather as an audit tool to ensure that the output of a process
conforms to requirements."
Therefore, process control and acceptance sampling have different roles to play in a
quality system, but they feed off each other. A s stated previously, acceptance
sampling plans should not be designed without regard to the processes used to produce
the product. Control chart analysis is one process control tool used to determine the
minimum quality level of a product that a producer can reasonably and economically
produce.
Although compliance schemes do not provide direct quality control, they do eventually
provide a quality history of the suppliers. This allows the improvement of suppliers'
quality to be tracked, giving feedback for refinement of the compliance scheme. It
also provides a performance measure on the quality of contractors' work.
This is the first compliance scheme for pavements by the RTA taking into account the
correlation structure of pavement surfaces and thicknesses. The R T A will need to
track the output of future contracts to verify the estimates of the correlation parameters
that were m a d e using data from the Barton Highway. The estimates m a y also need to
be changed due to improved process control a r u f c m ^
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 129
There are three levels of inspection that a consumer can adopt to determine the
suitability of supplier's products to meet specified requirements:
O n e hundred percent inspection of the product
Zero inspection of the product
Statistical acceptance sampling of only a portion of the product.
The problems with 100% inspection highlight the ineffectiveness of current RTA
specifications that require all of the pavement surface to be within a specified height
range. This assumes that 1 0 0 % inspection is possible and will be carried out.
page 130
Neither of these two scenarios apply to road pavement surfaces and course
thicknesses. Research for this thesis arose from a number of real and perceived
shortcomings in the current pavement construction and construction control processes
(RTA, 1997). These included a general lack of confidence in the construction
processes to reliably deliver insitu pavement course thicknesses that meet designers'
intentions. The lack of confidence is based on there currently being insufficient data
about contractors' processes.
Also, the RTA Pavements Manual (RTA, 1993) has recognised base course thickness
as a Pareto item in pavement life. The effect of the producer not meeting the specified
requirements for pavement surface level departures and therefore, course thicknesses,
is critical to the overall quality of the pavement.
Sampling of the lot overcomes the problems of zero and 100% inspection in terms of
cost and effectiveness. If statistical techniques are applied to the sample, then
measures of therisksto both the consumer and producer can be made and the risk
minimised. Montgomery (1996) also points out that rejection of entire lots as opposed
to the simple return, or rework, of defectives often provides a stronger motivation to
the producer for quality improvement. For the R T A , applying statistical techniques to
lot samples also provides an opportunity to measure contractors' processes.
Therefore, the preferred option for this compliance scheme is to adopt statistical
acceptance sampling procedures.
page 131
Concrete paving machines are controlled for height by sensors that follow string lines
running parallel to the pavement. During construction, paving machines are not
designed to be set to construct a constant pavement course thickness (Shiperd, 1996).
Instead, construction of each pavement course surface at the correct height will
achieve the target course thickness.
This method is shown in Diagram 31 below for a complete pavement construction.
The target thickness of the select zone is achieved if the subgrade and select zone
surfaces are trimmed to their correct heights. Similarly, the subbase course target
thickness is achieved if the select zone and subbase surfaces are constructed to their
correct heights. Finally, the base course target thickness is achieved if the subbase and
base surface are constructed to their correct heights.
Finished Surface of the Road
D I A G R A M 31
The arrows show that for each pavement course only the upper surface is controlled
for height.
This compliance scheme focuses on the base course only, although the principles
applied to the base course can be adopted for other pavement courses.
page 132
Surface level departure is the variable that is measured and controlled by the
acceptance sample plan for the subbase and base surfaces. The plan will define the
limits of the m e a n and standard deviation of the surface level departures for
acceptance of a lot. If the m e a n of the surface level departures is zero then the m e a n
height of the pavement course is at the specified height. Reduction of the standard
deviation of the surface level departures will reduce the variability of the pavement
surface about the specified height.
page
133
Current RTA specifications define a lot as one day's homogeneous work. However,
this thesis recommends that a lot be defined as 100 metres of pavement for the
following reasons:
1. On some RTA projects 900 metres of concrete pavement have been laid in one day,
which, by the current specifications, constitutes a lot of 900 metres in length. This
will cause problems w h e n significantly large outliers, in isolated areas of the lot,
are "neutralised" by the weight of conforming sampling points in the rest of the lot.
This m a y m e a n the whole lot is accepted w h e n part of the lot has an adverse effect
on the quality of thefinalproduct.
I have experienced this situation as a project surveyor for roads constructed by the
RTA's o w n direct control work force, ( R T A 1992). O n one occasion a day's work
of 400 metres of pavement was accepted for the m e a n and standard deviation.
However, on splitting the day's work into four lots of 100 metres each, one lot was
found to be outside of the acceptance limits for the mean. A closer examination
found there were outliers due to one trim peg being in error by 50 millimetres. This
made the base course less than the designer's intended thickness in the vicinity of
the trim peg.
2. Restricting the lot sizes to 100 metres of pavement better approximates rational
subgroups as defined by Section 24.2.1.
3. The RTA requirement is to have a continuous pavement course that is all of the
specified quality. Its quality should not be adversely affected by the construction
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 134
program adopted by the contractor. Therefore, any section of the pavement must be
able to be tested at random to verify conformity with the specifications. Also, as
explained in point number 1, a day's work is not always of homogeneous quality.
4. One of the objectives of this research is to set up a database for collecting data
pavement course thicknesses and surface level departures. Recording lots of 100
metres length will allow the data to be utilised more efficiently. It will also aid
estimation of pavement thicknesses.
5. Using lots of 100 metres will aid implementation of process control charts. On
some projects insufficient lots would be measured to estimate the mean and
standard deviation of the process if a lot is defined as one day's work.
Current RTA specification (RTA, 1996) requires lots to be sampled in a random and
unbiased manner. This requirement is necessary when adopting statistical acceptance
sampling schemes. However, w h e n the data are correlated, as with surface level
departures and thickness measurements, care has to be exercised to ensure the correct
allowance is m a d e for the effect of the correlation structure.
Analysis of the data of the concrete pavement of the Barton Highway showed that
surface level departures for concrete pavements can be modelled as a time series. The
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 135
time series analysis was used to estimate the variance of the sample mean. The
variance of the sample m e a n needs to be estimated so that the acceptance limits of the
sample m e a n can be determined for the acceptance sampling plan.
The acceptance limits for this compliance scheme are therefore based on a defined
grid pattern. Changing the grid pattern will change the correlation structure, which
will change the acceptance limits of the sample mean. Therefore, sampling for future
conformance surveys of concrete pavements, when using this compliance scheme, will
have to use the same grid pattern adopted for the Barton Highway. However,
adjustments are possible for different grid pattern.
34.3.3 Measurement
The standard deviation of error of the measurements of the surface level departures
to be less than 1.5 millimetres. The sample mean and standard deviation of each lot is
to quoted to the nearest 0.1 of a millimetre.
Chapter 4 of this thesis describes one surveying procedure that is capable of achie
the required accuracy and guidance on gauge capability. Chapter 5 provides guidance
on conformance verification surveys and survey process control for pavement
construction in general.
Sampling points may be selected by pacing only if due care is exercised. This is
provided the trim pegs are still in place and at 10 metres intervals as recommended in
Chapter 5.
page 136
The length of 100 metres of the pavement determines the lot size. The sample size is
60 when the pavement is two carriageways in width. Strings, as described in Section
34.2.3, determine the sampling points for this compliance scheme.
For pavements less than two carriageways in width and constructed by a paving
machine, there shall be at least two strings. Extra strings are added to increase the
number of sampling points for pavements that are greater than two carriageways in
width. The width between the strings is the criterion for adding extra strings. The
pavement width requires extra strings w h e n the strings are at leastfivemetres apart
and the outside strings are at least one metre from the edge of the pavement.
The variance of the sample mean will be different for 100 metre lots of different
sample sizes. D u e to data correlation, the method of estimating the variance of the
sample m e a n is the method shown in Chapter 2. This method can be applied to any
sample size, provided the sampling points are selected in a defined grid pattern.
The compliance scheme described in this Chapter applies only to pavements that are
constructed in two carriageway widths of about 8.5 metres to 11 metres. The methods
for estimating the acceptance criteria and the associated risks for a sample size of 60,
also apply for different sample sizes. These methods can define a compliance scheme
for different pavement widths after estimating the variance of the sample mean.
The purpose of the construction tolerance for pavement construction is to protect the
designer's m i n i m u m thickness of the pavement course from the variability of the
construction process.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 137
y A /
/
*r (Minimum coristd
,/A] / / ^Thickness)/' /
B,
DIAGRAM 32
Design base
surface
The Construction Tolerance is to Make the Minimum Constructed Thickness the Same
as the Designer's Thickness.
In the above diagram the designer's intended base course thickness is defined by t
dotted lines AOAQ and AiAi. The construction tolerance has been added to increase
thickness so that the target surfaces are now at the solid lines B0B0 and B^.
However, due to the variability of the construction process, the actual constructed
pavement surface could be represented by the freehand line shown in the diagram.
The construction tolerance is to ensure that only a small percentage of the base c
is less than the designer's thickness as shown by the dotted lines (AQAQ and AiAi)
The construction tolerance is the sum of the distances between the dotted and soli
lines at the top and bottom of the base course. It can be determined if the standar
deviation of the construction process for the base course thickness is known.
page 138
then the variance of the base thickness could be estimated by the sum of the variances
of the surface level departures of the subbase and base surfaces. Dependence was
demonstrated by showing that the variance of the base course thickness was less than
the sum of the variances of the surface level departures of the subbase and base
surfaces.
This means that if independence is assumed, when estimating the variance of the base
thickness, the estimated variance will not be less than the true variance of the
thickness. A larger variance of the base thickness will generate a larger construction
tolerance. This will provide better protection to the designer's intended base
thickness.
Therefore, by assuming independence between the subbase and base surfaces, the
standard deviation of the base thickness is estimated as follows:
a,=^a]+a
(3.1)
where, at, ab and as are the standard deviations of base thickness, base surface level
departures and subbase surface level departures respectively.
Research by the Australian Road Research Board (Auff, 1983) and analysis in Chapter
2 have shown that concrete base course thicknesses can be approximated by the
normal distribution.
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 139
Therefore, the percentage of the constructed base course below the designed minimu
thickness is 100a%, where a is determined from the standard normal distribution
tables as follows,
= a
V
(3.2)
cr, J
where
p is the m e a n thickness of the constructed base course
LSL is the designed minimum thickness, below which only a small percentage
of the pavement is acceptable to the R T A .
LSL M
calculated as
p, = Zaat + LSL.
(33)
This protects the designed minimum thickness from the variability of the construc
process.
In equation (3.3), Zo0i is the construction tolerance. After the RTA decides the
percentage. 100a%, of the pavementftwill accept below the designed minimum
page 140
The data shown in Table 31, from the Barton Highway and the Newcastle Freeway,
provide an estimate of the capability of the current processes used to construct
concrete pavements. The data from the Newcastle Freeway were interpolated. This
m a y have added some "noise" to the true measurements of the product. Therefore, the
raw data from the Barton Highway have been used to provide the estimate. The
interpolated data from the Newcastle Freeway adds qualified support to the estimate.
Process
Subbase s
Subbase s
Base s
Bases
Thickness s
Thickness s
Barton HighwayV
n
Stdev. ( m m ) Diff.
4.86
5.90
1.04
3659
4.07
5.34
6.06
0.72
4004
5.53
1.46
1293
0.02
1282
5.62
5.35
6.62
Newcastle Freeway
n
Stdev. ( m m ) Diff.
2.90
1435
2.04
4.94
1.27
3046
5.64
In Table 31, s is the standard deviation estimated from all the points sampled, s is
average standard deviation of all lots of 100 metres length of the pavement. The be
estimate of the process standard deviation is s, the standard deviation of all points.
page141
Assume that the same process was used for the subbase and the base courses, then the
estimates of the process standard deviation for the Barton Highway are 5.9 and 6.06
millimetres. The estimates of the process used on the Newcastle Freeway from
interpolated data are lower at 4.94 and 5.53 millimetres. The higher estimates from
the raw data of the Barton Highway are accepted due to the uncertainty of the
interpolated data. It also gives better protection to the R T A by providing a larger
construction tolerance, as shown by (3.3).
There are risks to the producer and consumer with all inspection testing procedures.
The producer'srisk,also k n o w n as the arisk,is having work of acceptable quality
rejected as being poor quality work by the inspection method. The consumer risk, also
known as the p risk, is theriskof accepting poor quality work as being good quality
work. The producer expects to be paid for the agreed quality of work when it is
produced and the consumer is entitled to pay for only the agreed quality of work and
nothing less.
The producer's and the consumer's interests in the risks associated with the inspecti
testing are not mutually exclusive as shown in the table 32.
T A B L E 32
page 142
G o o d lot rejected
Bad lot accepted
Consumer
Potential higher cost
Paid for bad product
(consumer risk)
(Schilling, 1982)
Statistical acceptance sampling enables decisions to be made about the whole lot
based on information gained from a sample of the lot. However, the parameters of the
sample, the m e a n and standard deviation, are only estimates of the lot parameters. It is
an important concept in understanding statistical acceptance sampling that the true lot
parameters are unknown, and in most instances, unknowable. It is the uncertainty
caused by these estimates that leads to theriskassociated with acceptance sampling
plans.
As stated previously, there are risks associated with all inspection testing, not jus
statistical acceptance sampling plans. However, the significant advantage of applying
statistical techniques to lot samples is to have a measure of the associatedrisks.The
risk can then be shared between the producer and consumer to minimise its effect on
both parties. Provisions can also be made to reduce the overall magnitude of the
associated risks.
If assumptions can be m a d e about the dtstribution of the variable bemg measured, then
therisksto the producer and consumer can be estimated. It was shown in Chapter 2
that surface level departures can be approbated by the normal distribution.
page 143
The confidence interval of the lot mean, p, is constructed about the sample mean, X
as,
constructed this way from different samples will include the true lot mean, p
For independent data, a^ is estimated as <T'u/r > where n is the sample size and astd
is the standard deviation of the surface level departures. However, this formula can
not be used for the correlated data of concrete pavement surface level departures. Th
standard deviation of the sample mean for the grid pattern adopted for the Barton
Highway was estimated in Chapter 2 to be 0.52astd.
Therefore, the confidence interval for the process mean of the surface level departur
is,
X0.52ZaA asld (35)
This will determine the acceptance limits for the sample mean of the surface level
departures of concrete pavements, by substituting p (the specified process mean), for
X, (the sample mean), a is the producer's risk.
page 144
The upper confidence limit of a one sided confidence interval for the lot sta
deviation is given by
(n1)i*
zl^
wh
ere zl*i denotes the percentage point of the chisquared distribution such that
f[z2ni^Z2a,i]=a,
s is the standard deviation of the sample and
n is the sample size.
(nl)s2
Expressing this in words is to say that 100(la)% of the upper limits, v 2 ',
J /Ca,n\
constructed this way from different samples will be greater than the true lot
deviation, aM
Unlike the variance of the sample mean, the variance of the sample standard deviation
is not significantly affected by data correlation (Cryer and Ryan, 1990).
Equation (3.6) also determines the acceptance (upper) limit of the standard de
as follows,
n, a,nl
page
145
As explained in Section 34.1, if the mean of the surface level departures is zero, th
the m e a n of the constructed surface is at the correct height. Therefore, the acceptance
sampling plan defines the target m e a n for the surface level departures for the subbase
and base surfaces as zero, which can n o w be substituted for p in (3.5).
The size of the confidence interval of the lot mean, about the sample mean, is set by
the producer'srisk,a. This determines h o w far the sample mean can be from zero
before the consumer ( R T A ) is no longer prepared to accept that the true m e a n of the
lot is zero.
The importance of the quality characteristic being measured to the overall quality of
the product determines the size of the producer'srisk.Quality characteristics that are
critical to the overall quality of thefinalproduct, usually carry a higher procedure's
risk than those that have little impact on the quality of thefinalproduct. A s stated
previously, surface level departures and pavement thicknesses are critical to the
overall quality of road pavements constructed by the R T A .
It ,s common practice to set a producer's risk of 0.05 for critical quality characters
This means that if the producer is operating at the limits set by the sampling plan, 5
percent (or 1 in 20 lots) of the product will be rejected as being poor quality work.
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 146
However, if the process is under control, the lots rejected will be the same quality of
work as the lots accepted.
This is illustrated by the Diagram 33, showing trial acceptance limits for the samp
mean. The process mean is required by the sampling plan to be zero. Assume for now
that the acceptance limits are calculated using the process standard deviation of th
for the sample mean are determined by (3.5), as 0 6.1 millimetres with a producer's
risk of 0.05. (The standard deviation of the sample mean is given above as 0.52asy
3.12 millimetres and Za/ = 1.96.)
/2
Diagram 33 also shows, as a comparison, the distributions of the surface level
departures.
Distribution of
sample mean
Distribution of surface
level departures
a = 0.025
10
D I A G R A M 33
Statistical TokrancesMC^^oad^"'
Sur
faces
page 147
The graph of the distribution of the sample mean represents thefrequencyof different
means of samples taken from the output of the same process. The graph shows that
while the process remains in control, one sample mean in twenty will fall outside the
acceptance limits. Therefore, it is the sample m e a n that varies and not the process
itself. While the process remains in control, a lot with a sample mean that is outside
the acceptance limits is of the same quality as lots with a sample mean inside
acceptance limits.
Most producers would find it unacceptable to have 5% of their work rejected, when
the work is the specified quality. It would also become an unacceptable situation for
the R T A to continually have to reject good quality work (see Table 32). Six
millimetres is the estimate of industry capability for the process standard deviation of
the surface level departures. Assuming this is correct, then it is unreasonable to expect
that the producer could reduce the standard deviation enough to make a profit.
A more realistic approach is to increase the acceptance limit for the process standard
deviation above 6 millimetres, while maintaining the same producer'srisk.This will
allow almost all of the product to be accepted if current industry capability of 6
millimetres for the standard deviation was achieved by the producer. Should the
producer allow the standard deviation of the surface level departures to approach the
acceptance limit then more of the product would be rejected.
standard deviation of 6 millimetres, will have less work of good quality rejected,
as
shown in Diagram 34.
Process mean = 0
Distribution of sample
mean when stdev. of S L D
= 8.5 m m .
Distribution of sample
mean when stdev. of
SLD = 6 m m .
= 0.025
10
10
= 0.025
S a m p l e M e a n of E a c h Lot  m m .
DIAGRAM 34 The Proportion Of Good Quality Work Rejected Is Lowered By
Reducing The Standard Deviation Of The Surface Level Departures
In Diagram 34, the hatched area under the curve for the distribution of the sample
mean, when the standard deviation of the surface level departures equals 8.5
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 149
Table 33 shows how much the proportion of good quality work being rejected is
reduced by lowering the standard deviation of the surface level departures. Column 5
is the Average R u n Length (ARL), which is the number of lots, on average, between
lots of good quality work being rejected by the sampling plan.
However, if the producer was to lower the standard deviation of the surface level
departures to 6 millimetres, or even less, the proportion of good quality work rejected
diminishes, if the process remains under control. Column 5 of Table 33 shows that
one lot in 182 is rejected w h e n the process standard deviation equals 6 millimetres ant
one lot in 1154 is rejected if the producer was able to lower the process standard
deviation to 5 millimetres.
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 150
One lot in 182 represents one lot for 18,200 metres of pavement, for lots of 100 linear
metres of pavement. If half of those lots are the subbase surface and half the
surface, then this represents 9.1 kilometres of road.
TABLE 33 Average Run Length
Stdev. SLD's Stdev. M e a n
0]c
4.42
4.16
3.90
3.64
3.38
3.12
2.86
2.60
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
Proportion
(From tables) Rejected
0.050
1.960
0.037
2.082
0.026
2.221
0.017
2.379
0.010
2.562
0.006
2.776
0.002
3.028
0.001
3.331
Zo/2
ARL
20
27
38
58
96
182
406
1154
where,
(3.8)
cr = 0.520^
Proportion rejected
USLp
= P[X > USL\p = 0,a = ax] +l\x < LSL\p = 0,a = ax]
2P Z>
x J
= 2P Z>
8.7
(3.9)
x_
(3.10)
A R L = l/(Proportion rejected)
c
0)
_l
c
3
(0
. . . _ _    ^
l_
a>
>
<
D I A G R A M 35
CM
* . N . 5 3 S S S 2 " 5 !; !
Standard Deviation Of SurfaceLevel Departures  m m
page 151
The producer's risk only looks at the risk of rejecting good quality work. This happe
when the process is under control and the sample mean falls outside of acceptance
limits due to the variability of the sample mean. However, it is also possible that the
sample m e a n will fall outside the acceptance limits because of poor quality work.
It is assumed in the above examples that the process is under control, that is, the me
is at zero. This is required by the acceptance sampling plan, so the producer is
required to set up process controls to achieve this objective. However, from time to
time the process m a y go out of control, and the process mean will drift away from
zero. Theriskis then that the sampling scheme will not detect the shift in the process
mean and the consumer will accept poor quality work. This defines the consumer's, or
P, risk.
Diagram 36 shows the producer's risk and the consumer's risk. The three curves are
distributions of the sample m e a n w h e n the standard deviation of the surface level
departures is 8.5 millimetres. The distribution when the process mean is zero, shown
by the solid line, represents the process being under control. The producer's risk is
shown by the shaded area outside the acceptance limits.
The other two curves show the process out of control when the process mean has
shifted to 4.42 and +8.7 millimetres. The process is no longer producing the specified
quality of work.
Lower
Acceptance
Limit
page 152
Process
mean at zero
Upper
Acceptance
Limit
l^
10
10
Diagram 36
The dashed curve line represents the distribution of the sample mean when the pr
mean has shifted one standard deviation to 4.42 millimetres. If the sample mean
to fall outside the acceptance limits then, the now, poor quality work would be
rejected by the acceptance sampling scheme. However, the risk to the consumer is
that the sample mean will fall between the acceptance limits, (shown as the hatch
area) and the lot will be accepted.
P[X > LSL\p = 4.42 ax = 4.42]  P[X > USL] = P Z>
LSLp
ax J
Z>
USLp
(3
page 153
For the dotted line curve, the process mean has shifted to 8.7 millimetres, which is
upper acceptance limit. In this case the acceptance sampling plan is more likely to
detect the shift as it is larger than thefirstexample. However, the consumer's risk is
still 0.5, as there is equal probability the sample mean will fall either side of the
shifted process mean. Theriskis shown schematically as the hatched area under the
dotted curve line.
Both of these risks are too high if the RTA wants to detect any movement in the
process mean. However, the question has to be asked, what is the impact of not
detecting shifts in the process m e a n of the above magnitudes? A closer examination of
the construction tolerance will help to determine the magnitude of shift the R T A
would want to detect.
The rejectable process level is defined by Schilling (1982) as being the process leve
that is rejectable and should be rejected most of the time by the acceptance sampling
plan. Most sampling plans should reject the process when it is at the rejectable
process level about 9 0 % of the time (Schilling, 1982). This implies that lots at the
rejectable process level will be accepted 1 0 % of the time, which is a consumer's risk
ofO.l.
The construction tolerance determines the rejectable process level for pavement
surface levels and course thicknesses. The R T A wants to reject the lot if the mean of
the pavement surface encroached into the construction tolerance enough to jeopardise
the construction of the base course at the designer's thickness.
page 154
If 8.5 millimetres is adopted for the standard deviation of the surface level departures
for both subbase and base surfaces, then the construction tolerance can be calculated
by using (3.3).
Construction tolerance = Za at
where
ot=^Jcr2s+a2b
<% = oi = 8.5 millimetres
therefore,
a, = 12.02 millimetres.
The R T A wants to accept no more than 2.5% of the base being defective for thickness
then, from the standard normal distribution tables, Z a = 1.96, therefore the construction
tolerance is set at 23.56 millimetres.
1. If the shift of the process mean reduced the construction tolerance by half, and th
standard deviation of the thickness was 12.0 millimetres as estimated, then (using
the standard normal distribution tables) about 16.4% of the base thickness would be
defective. However, the estimate of the standard deviation of the thickness assumes
independence between the two surfaces, and also assumes that the standard
deviation of the surface level departures will be 8.5 millimetres. It is unlikely that
both of these will happen during construction. Therefore, the estimated standard
deviation of the base thickness, 12.0 millimetres, will be greater than the actual
standard deviation. This will reduce the percentage defective as follows:
2. If the process mean shifts it could increase or decrease the construction tolerance
for base thickness. If the subbase m e a n increased in height it would reduce the
construction tolerance, while a decrease in the base m e a n height also reduce the
construction tolerance. Opposite shifts for the subbase and base surfaces would
increase the construction tolerance.
B y definition, w h e n a process goes out of control, it is due to lack of control over
the inputs of the process. Therefore no prediction can be m a d e about the possible
shifts in the process mean. However, the long term effect is that the probability of
the shift increasing the construction tolerance will be equal to the probability of the
shift decreasing the construction tolerance.
page 156
this will be less than the cpnservatively chosen standard deviation of the thicknes
Specified
process m e a n
Process mean
shifted to rejectable
process level
Distribution of
sample mean
Acceptance limits
for sample m e a n
P risk
10
10
20
DIAGRAM 37
Diagram 37 shows that even though the process mean is at +12.0 millimetres, it is still
possible for the sample mean of a lot to fall inside the acceptance limits. The
probability of that happening is the hatched area under the curve representing the
distribution of the sample mean.
Operating Characteristic curves ( O C ) for the sample mean are drawn to demonstrate
the ability of the acceptance sampling plan to detect shifts in the process mean. Fi
page 157
lines are drawn in Diagram 38 to demonstrate h o w the consumer's risk is reduced as
the process standard deviation of the surface level departures is lowered.
1.000
0.900
Process
Stdev. m m
0.800
ft
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
ACL
0.300
RPL
0.200
0.100
0.000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I
I I I
N M ^ I O I O N O O O I O
I
CN
i ITTT(<5
Ifl
D I A G R A M 38
Showing The Acceptance Control Limit (ACL) of 8.7 millimetres and Rejectable
Process Level (RPL) At 12 millimetres.
It can be seen from the OC curves that when the process standard deviation is 5
millimetres the consumer'sriskis 0.1 at the rejectable process level of 12.0
millimetres. T h e consumer's risk for the industry standard, of 6 millimetre process
standard deviation, is 0.14. However, the consumer'sriskfor the specified process
standard deviation of 8.5 millimetres, when the process mean has shifted to 14
millimetres, is 0.11, which is satisfactory.
Diagram 38 shows the size of therisksto the R T A for different process standard
deviations and shifts in the process mean. Increasing the construction tolerance will
reduce the consumer'srisk,but there is an added cost of raw materials. However, if
the contractor can demonstrate that the process standard deviation was 6 millimetres,
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 158
or less, then the RTA could reward the contractor by reducing the construction
tolerance. The increased saving in raw materials would be held by the contractor.
The higher than expected consumer's risk is due to the correlation structure of the
data. The correlation structure caused the standard deviation of the sample mean to be
m u c h higher than if the data were independent.
The way to reduce the risk to the RTA is for the contractor to have in place proper
process control. These controls need to be designed to keep the process mean at zero
and to reduce variability. Allowing the contractor to keep any savings, by reducing the
construction tolerance, m a y be an incentive to improve process control.
The producer's risk for the sample standard deviation, s, will be set higher than the
producer'sriskfor the sample mean, because it is a better estimate of the true lot
standard deviation, o L j then the sample mean, is of the true lot mean. Also, the
specified process standard deviation has been set high to minimise the producer's and
consumer's risks of the sample mean. For these reasons the producer'srisk,a, for the
sample standard deviation, s, is set at 0.50. This means that 5 0 % of the work will be
rejected if the producer sets the process controls so that the process standard deviation,
o P , is equal to the acceptance limit.
The acceptance limits for the sample mean specified the process standard deviation as
8.5 mtllimetres (see Section 36). Therefore,tinsvalne has also to be used when
setting the acceptance limit for s, the sample standard deviation.
QtnUctinnt Tnlprances
page 159
As noted from Table 31, the estimate of the process standard deviation by using s is
smaller than the estimate by calculating s from all the sampling points. The difference
between the two estimates were 0.72 millimetres for the base surface and 1.04
millimetres for the subbase surface. The estimate using all the sample points provided
the estimate of the process standard deviation, o>.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the true, but unknown, standard deviation of the lot
o L , is less than the true, but unknown, standard deviation, of the process, o>. T h e
standard deviation of the lot is estimated by the sample standard deviation, s.
Decisions are m a d e about the process standard deviation, o>, based on the observed
value of s and the confidence interval for the process standard deviation given by (3.6).
The confidence limit defines the acceptance limit of the process standard deviation,
o>, by (3.7).
If the acceptance limit of o> is based on the confidence interval for aL, then s will
to be rejected w h e nCTLis less than the specified limit for o>. B y Table 31 when the
process standard deviation is 8.5 millimetres, the lot standard deviation may be as low
as 7.5 millimetres.
For this acceptance sampling plan a specified limit of aL, the lot standard deviation,
set at 7.5 millimetres.
page 160
_ F1^"
'"V x2 ,
K
A a.n\
= 7.54 millimetres.
Therefore adopt 7.5 millimetres for the acceptance limit of the sample standard
deviation, s.
Table 34 gives the percentage of work that will be rejected for different standard
deviations of a lot. Little of the producer's work will be rejected by the acceptance
sampling plan if the lot standard deviation can be kept below 6 millimetres. For the
Barton Highway the average standard deviation of the lots for subbase and base were
4.86 and 5.34 millimetres respectively. Therefore, competent producers will have
little difficulty in keeping the lot standard deviation below 6 millimetres.
mm
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
Proportion Of
W o r k Rejected
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.015
0.045
0.106
0.204
0.332
0.500
ARL
14659
1585
269
66
22
10
5
3
2
page 161
consumer will accept poor quality work as being good quality work. This happens
w h e n sample standard deviation falls below the acceptance limit when the true lot
standard deviation is higher that the acceptance limit.
Instead the consumer's risk is plotted against different values of au the standard
deviation of the process. T h e consumer'sriskis estimated by
p[s<USL\a = ax]
(nl)i)s2
This probability is estimated by the chisquared tables as  2 follows a
chisquared distribution with (n1) degrees of freedom, where s is the acceptance lim
for the sample standard deviation and a, is the standard deviation of the out of control
process.
unapter a  i ne compliance S c h e m e
si
page 162
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.50
D I A G R A M 39
Diagram 39 shows that the consumer'sriskis about 0.1 when the standard deviation
of the lot is 8.5 millimetres. This means that if the lot standard deviation was as large
as 8.5 millimetres then the acceptance sampling plan will reject the lot about 9 0 % of
m e time.
It will also provide the R T A with the opportunity to reward better performing
contractors. A s stated previously, the construction tolerance has been calculated from
conservative estimates to protect the R T A . It is not expected that any of the base
page 163
course will be found under thickness. Poorly performing contractors will be detected
w h e n constructing the subbase course. This will allow corrective action to be m a d e
before constructing the base course. In extreme circumstances, the R T A m a y decide
to increase the construction tolerance, with the added cost of material to be borne by
the contractor.
Alternatively, during construction of the base course, some contractors may be able to
demonstrate that their processes are capable of constructing a base thickness with
almost zero proportion less than the designer's thickness. That is, not all of the
construction tolerance is required to protect the designer's base course thickness. For
this to happen the means of the surface level departures will have to be at zero, and the
process will have low variability. Contractors able to do this should be offered the
opportunity to construct the base course with a reduced construction tolerance. The
savings in raw materials to be kept by the contractor as a bonus.
For example, if the mean of the surface level departures of the subbase and base
surfaces were at zero and the standard deviation of the base thickness was 6
millimetres, then for 2.5 % defective, the added thickness required for construction
variability is 6 times 1.96 = 11.8 millimetres. The construction tolerance set by the
compliance scheme is 23.6 millimetres, therefore a saving of 11.8 millimetres is
available to the contractor. If the designer's thickness plus the construction tolerance
is 253.6 millimetres then the saving represents 4.6% of concrete. A standard deviation
of 6 millimetres for the thickness appears possible for better performing contractors, as
the standard deviation of the base thickness for the Barton Highway was 6.62
millimetres.
page 164
39.1 S P E C I F I C A T I O N LIMITS F O R P R O P O R T I O N D E F E C T I V E
The proportion of the base course that is below the specified minimum thickness
acceptance criterion for base thickness. Acceptance is on a lot by lot basis with the
mean thickness, pT, and standard deviation, aT, of each lot being estimated by the
sample mean, X and s, the sample standard deviation, respectively.
Schilling, (1982) points out that knowledge of the process and the distribution
required for proportion defective acceptance sampling plans to be effective. The
acceptance sampling plan set up for the surface level departures of subbase and base
surfaces will provide enough information on the process to verify the effectiveness of
acceptance sampling plan for base course thickness. It was shown in Chapter 2 that
base course thickness, like surface level departures, can be approximated by the
normal distribution.
Probability of
Acceptance
Acceptance Limit
Distribution of
sample m e a n
Minimum proportion
defective p set by
specifications
220
Distribution
of base
thickness
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
Base Thickness  m m
D I A G R A M 310
The Acceptance Limit (AL) is the lowest value of the sample mean for the lot to be
accepted for base course thickness. The A L is determined by the specified maximum
page 165
For the lot to conform, the position of the mean is defined by (3.3) as,
pT=LSL+ZpaT (3.12)
where
M
is the lot mean thickness for the lot to conform for proportion of under
thickness,
op is the lot standard deviation of the base thickness,
p0 is the specified allowable m a x i m u m thickness below the lower specification
limit L S L and
Z replaces Z a and is the percentage point of the standard normal distribution
tables such that P[Z>Z P o 1 =p0
Assume that a lot measured for thickness, has an unknown mean of thickness of p
Test the hypothesis that the lot mean p equals pT, given that the sample mean equals
X and the lot standard deviation is aT.
Ho: p = pT
Hj: p*pT
Z0 =
page 166
XpT
(3.13)
where a is the standard deviation of the sample mean of the base thickness. Z 0 must
be less than Z a for the mean to be accepted as pT, at a level of significance (a is also
the producer'srisk).The Acceptance Limit can be found by letting X be at the
Acceptance Limit so that Z 0 equals Z a , when the specification limit is the onesided
lower specification limit. Therefore (3.13) becomes,
ALpT
ax
(314)
.pT = AL + Zaa
(3 15)
ZpaTZaax
Analysis in Chapter 2 showed that base thickness measurements are not independent
and the sample standard deviation can not be estimated by 'fa,
random independent data. Instead for the correlated data of the Barton Hi
standard deviation of the sample mean for base thickness, a,, was 0MaT, where aT
is the standard deviation of the base thickness. Therefore, for this compliance scheme,
the standard deviation of the sample mean is estimated as 0.47<rr.
page 167
0Al.aTZa
(Zpo0.41Za)aT
= LSL + KaT
where K=ZD
0.47Z
(3.16)
Equation (3.16) require the lot standard deviation, aT. This is estimated from s, the
sample standard deviation,froma sample of 60 points. For the purposes of this
compliance scheme, this estimate is sufficient to be used in (3.16) as aT, without the
need for the noncentral t distribution as discussed by Auff (1986) and Johnson and
Welch (1939). This acceptance plan is therefore assumed to be based on known
variability, as measured by the standard deviation.
The minimum proportion defective, p0, was defined as 0.025 when calculating t
construction tolerance. The contract drawings specify the LSL. Therefore, the only
unknown in (3.16) to define the A L is a, the producer's risk.
The size of the producer's risk affects the size of the consumer's risk. Ther
producer'sriskcan be selected to minimise the consumer's risk.
page 168
Distribution of
sample m e a n
Proportion
defective pi
'robability of
Acceptance  ft
290
Proportion
defective pO
D I A G R A M 311
o
Base Thickness  m m
Consumer's Risk Associated With Proportion Defective Acceptance
Sampling Plans
Diagram 311 shows the distribution of the base thickness of a lot with the
thickness of px and standard deviation of aT. The proportion of the lot defe
thickness is pi, where pi is greater than the specified maximum p0.
The dotted curve, mean po and standard deviation aT, shows where the distrib
the thicknesses has to be located for the proportion defective to be p0.
(3.17)
(3.18)
The consumer's risk, p, is the probability that the sample mean will be abo
when the lot mean is too close to the LSL so that the proportion defective
than p0. The consumer's risk can be estimated as follows:
page 169
fi=P[x>AL\p = pl]
P\x>{LSL + KaT)\p=p]
~ jLSL
= P\ z
Kar)(LSL
0.47o>
from (3.16)
ZpiaT)
= P
from (3.18)
from (3.16)
0.47
= 4 Z M( Z *~ Z J 2  128  Z }]
(3.19)
The producer'sriskcan be set so that the probability that the rejectable process limit is
rejected 9 0 % of the time, which is a consumer'sriskof 0.1. Therefore, (3.19) can be
written as,
(3.20)
From (3.20) the only unknowns are a, the producer'sriskandp,, the proportion
defective that would have an adverse effect on quality. The R T A would like to detect
when the proportion defective of a lot was/?/ about 9 0 % of the time.
1.282
P\
page 170
1121)
Percentage Defective
D I A G R A M 312
A producer's risk of 0.44 means that 44% of the work is rejected when operat
specified limit, which is too high for the producer to make a profit. However, if the
standard deviation of base thickness is less than the estimated value of 12.0
millimetres then little work will be rejected by the acceptance sampling scheme. The
estimate of the standard deviation of the base thickness was kept high to protect the
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
Chapter 3  T h e Compliance S c h e m e
page 171
R T A . Data collected after implementation of this compliance scheme will allow this
estimate to befinetuned.
In Diagram 313, the mean base thickness is equal to the target thickness, which is
lower specification limit plus the construction tolerance. The lot will be accepted as
conforming provided the sample mean is above the Acceptance limit (AL), whose
position is found by (3.21). The proportion of work rejected is found by estimating the
probability of the sample mean being less than A L when the lot mean pT is equal to the
target mean as follows,
p\x < AL\pT = LSL + const, tolerance] = p\x < LSL + 1.88<rr]
(LSL + 223)(LSL + L88<rr)'
= P Z<
= P Z<
OAla,
22.31.88o;
(3.22)
0.47<rr
Target M e a n
Distribution of
sample mean
Proportion defective
230 mm
Probability of rejection
D I A G R A M 313
253.6 m m
Thickness
The Proportion of Good Quality Work Rejected When the Lofs Mean
Thickness is at the Target Mean.
page 172
Equation (3.22) gives the probability of the sample m e a n being below the acceptance
limit (AL). The only unknown is aT, the standard deviation of the thickness. Diagram
314 shows h o w the proportion of work rejected by the compliance scheme diminishes
if the standard deviation of the base thickness for the lot is kept low. From Table 31,
the average standard deviation of the base thickness, s for all the lots on the Barton
Highway was 5.35 millimetres.
D I A G R A M 314
A motivation for this thesis was to introduce statistical process control into the road
construction industry. This includes process control charts. Acceptance control charts
can be used as a forerunner for process control charts.
page 173
extension of the standard statistical hypothesis tests is to plot the results of successive
lots in control chart form. These charts become acceptance control charts. This
allows run and trend analysis to be made with some of the powers of process control
charts.
A typical process control chart, for base thickness of the Newcastle Freeway, is show
in Diagram 315.
3.0SL=0.2367
c
CO
CD
X=0.2288
Q.
E
CO
CO
3.0SLs0.2208
0.22 0
10
20
Sample Number
Phi 1 = 0.49 for 10 metre interval, Var sample mean = 0.226 sigma squ.
DIAGRAM 315
Process Control Chart for Sample Mean  Using the Correlated Data of
Base Thickness of the Newcastle Freeway.
The horizontal control lines are fixed by information about the variability of the
process. The upper and lower control limits define the boundaries that the output
would be expected to fall between while the process remains under control. The
centre line represents the m e a n output of the process. The points marked by crosses,
joined by straight lines, represent the sample means taken from successive lots.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page
W h e n points plot outside the control limits (as denoted by the number 1) the process is
deemed to have gone out of control. Also, non random patterns of points plotted
inside the control limits (as denoted by the number 5) m a y indicate that the process is
out of control. T h e number 5 signifies test number 5 of Nelson's test for special
causes, which is 2 points out of 3 more than two standard deviation from the centre
line (see Section 310.4). It is only w h e n the process is out of control that intervention
and corrective action is necessary to bring the process back under control.
Process control charts are an effective tool for ensuring that a process remains under
control. A s D e m i n g (1986) points out, no decisions can be made about quality
improvement until the process is under control. Process control charts can also
measure the capability of processes to meet specified requirements.
Unlike process control charts, the horizontal control lines on acceptance control char
are not set by the natural variability of the process. Instead the control lines are
defined by the acceptance limits set by the acceptance sampling plan. The upper and
lower control lines are the acceptance lines, as set by the compliance scheme, and the
centre line is the target value of the parameter of the quality characteristic. Therefore,
the acceptance control chart limits are not related to the process designed to produce
the product within the specified tolerances.
Although acceptance control charts do not have all the power of process control charts
for the R T A they do offer the following benefits:
A visual aid to display the output of the process. This gives feedback to the
contractor's work crews and highlights problems as they occur to site surveillance.
page 175
Allows corrective action to be made. If the points are plotted outside of the control
limits then action needs to be taken to the process so that the product will meet
specified requirements.
B y requiring the contractors' to measure and track their processes, the R T A is
demonstrating to them that process control is important to the R T A .
Measuring suppliers' processes is a new concept to the RTA and their suppliers. It has
the potential to lead to process improvement.
Acceptance control charts also provide a mechanism for the introduction of process
control charts. They can be converted to process control charts when there is enough
quality history to estimate the m e a n and standard deviation of the process. These
estimates determine the control limits for the process control charts.
^___
page 176
The value of process control charts in quality control is the ability to interpret whe
process has gone out of control or is about to go out of control. A s explained
previously, w h e n a process is out of control it m a y be producing nonconforming
products.
A set of eight tests, known as Nelson's tests (Nelson, 1984), is provided in Clause 7 o
Australian Standard A S 3944, "Shewhart Control Charts", for interpreting signals
when a process m a y be out of control. These signals can be in the form of nonrandom
patterns of points plotted within the control limits (For further information on the tests,
consult AS3944).
However, Nelson's tests are based on uncorrelated data. For positively correlated data
such as measurements of pavement surfaces and course thicknesses, Nelson's tests
may be misleading. Therefore, the R T A should not adopt Nelson's tests for analysis of
pavement surface and course thickness X control charts in their present form as set
out in AS3944.
Nevertheless, the RTA should remain aware of the power of Nelson's tests to improve
the sensitivity of ~X control charts for pavement surfaces and course thickness.
Statistical analysis can estimate the effect of the correlation structure on Nelson's
tests, similar to the analysis that estimated the effect of data correlation on the
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 177
variance of the sample m e a n (see Chapter 2). The analysis that estimated the
correlation structure of data (see Chapter 2) has significantly reduced the amount of
analysis necessary to enable the use of Nelson's tests for X control charts for
pavement surface and thickness data.
Therefore, I recommend that the RTA set aside resources to carry out the analysis
necessary to enable the use of Nelson's tests for pavement surfaces and course
thickness. Such analysis should be completed before implementation of the
compliance scheme described in this Chapter.
By
VOLUME II OF II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THESIS
Section No. Page No.
11 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROCESS 1
12
13
STRUCTURE OF THESIS
14
LITERATURE REVIEW
11
15
17
CHAPTER 2
THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES AND
PROCESS CAPABILITY
21 OBJECTIVES 24
22
23
THE DATA
31
24
35
25
45
26
87
27
92
28
24
113
CHAPTER 3
COMPLIANCE SCHEME FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SURFACES AND BASE COURSE THICKNESS
Section No. Page No.
31 OBJECTIVES 123
32
123
33
INTRODUCTION
127
34
130
35
136
36
141
37
145
38
158
39
162
172
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 4
GAUGE CAPABILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
(SURVEY)
41 OBJECTIVES 178
42
43
INTRODUCTION
44
178
184
IN PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
185
Section No.
Page No.
47
192
198
48
EXAMINATION OF R A W DATA
209
49
DATA ANALYSES
217
251
255
258
CHAPTER 5
QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRENT SURVEYING PROCEDURES
FOR ROAD PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
51 OBJECTIVES 272
52
272
53
281
54
RESPONSES
282
55
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
286
56
377
57
381
58
REFERENCES 395
III
APPENDIXES
Appendix No.
No. of Pages
3 PAGES
2 PAGES
1 PAGE
2 PAGES
10 PAGES
15 PAGES
IV
CHAPTER 4
GAUGE CAPABILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
(SURVEY)
41 OBJECTIVES
Measurement, or gauge, error can be expressed in two components. These are the
systematic bias, measured by the value of the mean of the errors and precision,
measured by the standard deviation of the errors (Farnum, 1994).
Field tests on the gauge capabilities of the procedure, Survey Conformance Pro
For Pavement Layers, have found it capable of measuring concrete pavement surfaces
to the accuracy required for implementation of the compliance scheme described in
Chapter 3.
page 179
Field tests estimated the accuracy of the procedure for measuring surface level
departures. Errors in measuring surface level departures are due to errors in height
determination of the constructed pavement and errors in estimating the design height
of the same point on the pavement.
An average error when measuring a 100 metre lot (as defined in Section 34.3),
estimates the gauge capability of the procedure for measuring the lot standard
deviation. The error of the procedure is directly proportional to the sight distance.
Therefore, an average sight distance for measuring a 100 metre lot, substituted into
the regression equation, estimates the average error of the procedure for a 100 metre
lot. A n estimated average sight distance for a conformance survey (for a 100 metre
lot) estimated the average standard deviation of the error from the regression equation
to be 0.79 millimetres.
Errors in estimating the design height of the pavement are influenced by the
positional accuracy of the sampling point. The estimated positional error of the
sampling point had a standard deviation of 5.2 millimetres. This caused a standard
deviation of error of the design height of 0.31 millimetres, for a pavement with a 5 %
cross fall and 5 % gradient.
The combined errors of height determination and design height in the procedure gav
a standard deviation of error of the surface level departures of 0.86 millimetres w h e n
measuring a 100 metre lot.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 180
The systematic bias of the procedure is due to the estimates of the height of the total
station. This is affected by errors in the heights of the control marks, as well
in the procedure itself. The combined effect of these two errors estimated the
standard deviation of the mean error of the procedure, which is 0.62 millimetres
when the control network has a standard deviation of error of one millimetre.
42.2.1 Precision
This is defined by the expected lot standard deviation of the surface level dep
of 5 millimetres. The effect of the gauge error can be expressed by
2 _ 2 2
toted product "*" gauge '
For crpmducl = 5.0 mm and crgauge = 0.86 mm, (Jtotal= 5.07 mm. This means that if th
This is defined by the Acceptance Limits of 8.7 millimetres for the lot mean,
of the mean of the errors, 0.62 millimetres, implies that 95% of the lots will h
systematic bias of less than 14% of the width of the Acceptance Limits.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 181
Analyses examined the effects of nine factors on the accuracy of the procedure.
These were:
1. The instrument
2. Location of the instrument in relation to the control network
3. Instrument operator
4. Sight distance
5. Vertical circle index error
6. Vertical refraction
7. Curvature of the earth's surface
8. Errors in the heights of the control marks
9. Errors in estimating the chainage and offset of the sampling point.
Factorial analysis of variance established that variation of factors 1,2 and 3 had
influence on the accuracy of the procedure.
Examination of the data found that the vertical circle index error was not properly
controlled during the field test. This led to a revised procedure being written for
measuring the vertical circle index error. There were also some small fluctuations of
the vertical circle index error during thefieldtest, which led to 3way interaction in
the factorial analysis of variance.
Apart from the vertical circle index error, the factors listed above were consider
be adequately controlled by the procedure.
page 182
This Chapter also assesses the effect on the accuracy of the procedure o
algorithms for estimating design heights of the pavement. A quantitative analysis was
not possible as the geometric design of the pavement and design information supplied
with the contract influences the size of the effect of this factor. However, analysis in
Section 49.7 shows that the output of computer algorithms need to be checked before
being accepted. Some computer algorithms now in use have estimated design heights
of the pavement that are several millimetres different to the design heights calculated
from the contract drawings.
page 183
the relevant combined grid scale factor to convert ground distances to the same grid,
as defined by the contract drawings, of the control marks. Application of the grid
scale factor to all distances measured during conformance surveys aids monitoring of
the control marks and improves the accuracy of the procedure.
page 184
43 INTRODUCTION
Surveying is the traditional measurement system used by the RTA for testing
pavement surfaces for compliance with contract specifications. Investigation (RTA,
1997) into other methods available for measurement of surface heights and course
thicknesses has found that this is still the best method.
Survey measurements are made during construction, allowing immediate feedback for
corrective action and quality improvement. This, along with accuracy and cost
considerations, makes survey ideal for the measurement system for acceptance
sampling and quality improvement for concrete pavement construction.
Therefore, this Chapter will estimate the accuracy of one surveying procedure
currently being used for conformance verification of pavement surfaces. The
estimated accuracy will then be compared to the requirements of the proposed
compliance scheme to determine the gauge capability of the procedure. This
procedure will then be the benchmark for other surveying procedures for
conformance verification of pavement surfaces.
page 185
This Chapter is linked to Chapter 5, which reports the analysis of the responses to a
questionnaire on surveying procedures presently being used in the road construction
industry.
In Section 310, it was explained how the adoption of the proposed compliance
scheme is designed to lead to the introduction of statistical process control into the
road construction industry. A commitment to statistical process control by the
industry will lead to quality improvement by process improvement. Process
improvement requires firstly process control and then incremental improvement. For
both these steps to be possible an effective measurement system has to be in place.
The role of the measurement system in process control is shown below. Diagram 41,
is taken from page 136 of Montgomery (1996).
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
Inputs
Process
Verify and
followup
Implement
corrective
action
DIAGRAM 41
page 186
Output
Detect
assignable
cause
Identify root
cause of problem
Deming (1986) points out that no decisions can be m a d e about quality improvement
until a process is under control. At that stage, process capability analyses are p
Bring the process under control => Measure the process => Improve the process.
to measure the normal variations in the process when it is under statistical contr
not, it will not be able to distinguish between normal process variability and
page 187
For the process of constructing pavement courses to the correct height and thickne
the measurement system is survey.
The functional parameters of the concrete base course are the surface level depar
of its top and bottom surfaces and its thickness. The surface level departures of the
bottom surface of the base course are the surface level departures of the top of the
subbase course. The measurements of the three functional parameters are expressed
as the m e a n and standard deviation of the measurements to enable statistical analysis.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 188
The variability of the measuring procedure becomes part of the measurements of the
product. Assuming independence between the product and the errors in the
measuring procedure, Montgomery (1996) defines their relationship mathematically
as,
where <j2total is the total observed variance, <Jproduct is the component of the varian
due to the product and <J2gauge is the component of the variance due to measurement
error.
In order that the measurements of a product truly represent the product, the stand
deviation of the gauge error must be significantly smaller than the variability wi
the process.
Also, the systematic bias of the measuring procedure must be significantly smaller
than the width of the acceptance limits for the mean value of the quality characte
measured by the procedure.
The mean and standard deviation are different measurements of the gauge error. The
mean is the central location, or systematic bias of the procedure, while the stand
page 189
deviation defines the precision of the procedure. A small reading in the mean does
not necessarily indicate a small reading in the standard deviation, or vice versa
Errors in the mean are due to a constant shift in all the readings that affects a
measurements. An example of this for the Survey Conformance Procedure For
Pavement Layers is the wrong height of a control mark.
The standard deviation of the measuring procedure measures the systematic errors
that are usually randomly distributed about the mean. Most of the nine factors li
as affecting accuracy in Section 42.3 and discussed further in Section 47.3.2,
systematic errors that affect the precision of the procedure.
The overall accuracy of the procedure is the combined effect of the systematic bi
and the precision of the procedure.
One measure of the gauge capability for acceptance sampling is the ratio of the
.Precision of the measuring procedure to the Tolerance of the product.
^ gauge
USL  LSL
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 190
If the specification limits are defined by a process mean and a process standard
deviation, then
T = 6 x the specified process standard deviation.
Therefore,
P
cr
J = *=*
(42)
spectfied
Montgomery also suggests that the criterion for the measuring procedure to be
capable of measuring the product to the precision required by the contract is,
j<01. (4.3)
However, he also warns against rejecting a measuring procedure for failing to meet
this criterion without examining the effect of the gauge error on the process
measurements and the economic implications of achieving the criterion.
The specified process standard deviation of the surface level departures for the
compliance scheme, as set out in Section 37.2, is 8.5 millimetres, with a producer's
risk of 0.05. In order that contractors reduce the proportion of defective product, they
will have to adopt process control procedures to achieve a process standard deviation
of about 6 millimetres. Therefore, by implication, the specified process standard
deviation to be measured by the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers
will be 6 millimetres.
page 191
meet the requirement of (4.3), the gauge error will need to be less than 0.5
millimetres. Applying (4.1), when the gauge error has a standard deviation of 0.5
millimetres and the product standard deviation is 5 millimetres then the total
measured standard deviation will be 5.025 millimetres.
Equation (4.1) determines the required standard deviation of error of the Survey
Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers. Gauge capability is determined by the
effect of the estimated standard deviation of error of the procedure on measurements
of the product.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 192
The process standard deviation of the surface level departures was estimated to b
about 5 millimetres for the Barton Highway, see Section 35.3. Therefore, by (4.1),
for a process standard deviation of 5 millimetres, the gauge error has to less than 1
millimetre for the procedure to be considered capable.
The accuracy of the mean of the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement
Layers will be compared to the Acceptance Limits defined by the compliance scheme
in Chapter 3, which are set at 8.7 millimetres. Therefore, an accuracy of the mean
of about one millimetre is acceptable for the Survey Conformance Procedure For
Pavement Layers to be considered capable.
page 193
Diagram 42 shows the general layout when carrying out a conformance verification
survey by the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers. The procedure
determines heights by E D M trigonometrical heighting using an electronic total
station, which is linked to a pocket computer. All angle and distance measurements
are m a d e electronically and are transmitted instantaneously for processing by the
software in the pocket computer. This means that none of the data is booked
manually, which eliminates reading, booking and transcription errors. The instrument
operator's responsibility is to precisely place the cross hairs of the telescope onto the
target of the reflector and allow the software to record and process the field
measurements.
After the position of the total station is determined, the position of points radi
the total station are determined as described in 46.4.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
D I A G R A M 42
page 194
LEGEND:
1. CM1, CM2 and CM3 are Control Marks 1, 2 and 3, each with known Easting,
Northing and Height coordinates.
2.
Total station, with pocket computer attached, is situated at point (D
3.
A reflector mounted on a ranging pole is situated at point (D
4.
Positions where height readings on the pavement are taken are shown thus
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page
195
46.3 H E I G H T D E T E R M I N A T I O N
Diagram 43 shows how heights are determined by E D M trigonometrical heighting.
Total v
Station \
(0=z9O)
Horizontal Line Of Sight
VC = D sin(j>
D I A G R A M 43
The total station measures the zenith angle z, which by deduction (^= z90 ) gives the
vertical angle #, between true horizontal and the sight line from the total station and
the ranging pole. The total station also measures D, the slope distance between the
total station and the ranging pole. The software then calculates VC, the difference in
height between the total station and the reflector on the ranging pole, by,
VC = Dsin</>.
(4.4)
The height of the ranging pole, HT, is added to VC and the sum subtracted fr
height of the total station to determine the height of the point on which the ranging
pole is placed.
Height determination of unknown points requires the height of the total station to be
first determined from the control marks. This is done by the same principle as above,
but reversed. The ranging pole is placed on a control mark of known height and the
height of the ranging pole, HT, is added to the height of the control mark, plus VC, to
determine the height of the total station.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 196
For the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers three control marks are
sighted on both faces of the total station, making six determinations of the height of
the total station. A s with two dimensionalfixing,redundant data is collected so a
least squares adjustment of the height of the total station is carried out.
For a description of how errors in the height of the ranging pole are removed see
Section 55.3.
46.4 SOFTWARE
page 197
The two dimensional resection fix of the total station, as described above, is in pl
grid coordinates of eastings and northings. A n y point on the pavement surface that is
then radiated by the total station isfirstcoordinated as plan coordinates. The
software then converts the plan grid coordinates to the road centre line coordinates of
chainage and offset. From this, the software is able to calculate the design height of
the pavement at the location of the ranging pole.
The design height is then subtracted from the constructed pavement height, (see
Section 46.3) to determine the surface level departure of the point.
See Section 49.7 for a description of the algorithm used by the software to estimat
the design heights of the pavement.
The Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers is carried out in the field
byfirstfixingthe position of the total station by resection from three control marks.
The survey assistant then places the ranging pole at the sampling points shown thus
in Diagram 42 and the surface level departures of the pavement are determined.
page 198
The computer displays the surface level departure of each sampling point and then
stores it in afilealong with the field measurements. Later, the computer can generate
from thefieldmeasurements, a paper copy of the Survey Conformance Report for the
project engineer.
Paper copies of all recorded field measurements and the Survey Conformance Reports
are kept with the quality assurance records for the project. A n electronic copy of the
field measurements is also archived at the completion of the project.
To measure a surface level departure, two measures of each sampling point are
required:
the height of the constructed pavement surface and
the height of the design pavement surface.
Eight of the nine factors affecting the accuracy of the procedure, listed in Section
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 199
42.3, influence the measurement of the constructed pavement height. Only factor
nine, "Errors in estimating the chainage and offset of the sampling point", affects the
determination of the design height of the pavement surface.
The algorithms used by the software are an additional influence on the accuracy of
the estimation of the design heights. This research has not estimated its effect on the
accuracy of the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers. See Section 49.7 for a qualitative evaluation of the software used by this procedure and of other
software available for E D M trigonometrical heighting procedures.
Diagram 44 shows the survey layout for the field test. Control marks Nos. 121, 12
and 126 are control marks that provided survey control during the recent construction
of the Appin Road deviation by Bellambi District Office. The bold dashed line shows
the design centre line of the deviation.
The three dimensional coordinates of the eleven datum pegs, DP01 to DPI 1, are for
estimating the systematic bias of the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement
Layers. Therefore, their coordinates had to be determined by surveying methods that
are estimated to have higher orders of accuracy than the expected accuracy of the
procedure.
The variation of the measurements of each datum peg about a mean value is a
measure of the precision of the procedure.
page 200
The total station, placed at DP01 and sighted to DPI 1, ensured that all datum pegs
were in a straight line. The distance between adjoining datum pegs was
approximately ten metres, making a straight line of about 100 metres in length, which
is the m a x i m u m sight distance of the procedure. A comparison of measurements,
made by a steel tape and plumb bob, to the measurements m a d e by the total station
and a tripod mounted reflector, checked the distances between adjoining pegs.
The two dimensional coordinates of the end points of the line of the datum pegs we
determined by a traverse that included the three control marks. The traverse ran
between the following stations shown in Diagram 44: from control mark 126 to
control mark 121, to D P 0 1 , to D P I 1, to control mark 123 and closed back onto
control mark 126. All ground distances were converted to plan grid distances which
were on the Integrated Survey Grid (ISG). A traverses adjustment by Bowditch,
determined thefinalplan coordinates of each station of the traverse, after adjustment
of the angular misclose of 34 seconds of arc. The length of the misclose line of the
traverse, after angular adjustment but before the Bowditch adjustment, was 5
millimetres. This represents a proportional misclose to the total length of the lines in
the traverse of about 1:64,000.
The traverse assigned plan grid easting and northing coordinates to the extremitie
the line of datum pegs, D P 0 1 and D P I 1. The adjusted bearing of the line of the
page 201
LEGEND
Control Mark
No. 121
A 1 = Instrument No. 1
A 2 = Instrument No. 2
(Electronic total stations)
Location No. 1
Control Mark
No. 126
Ch. 651.25
O/S. 17.39
O n Appin Rd.
Centre line
Location No. 3
Appin R o a d
.Centre Line
fLine of
datum
pegs.
Distance
DP01 to
DP11
^ 100.05^
I
Control Mark
No. 123
Ch. 547.29
O/S. 14.21
O n Appin Rd.
Centre line
NOT TO
SCALE
D I A G R A M 44
6DPH
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 202
datum pegs from the traverse, the distances between each peg and the coordinates of
the extremities of the line, defined the plan grid coordinates of the other datum pegs.
The software then converted the plan grid coordinates of each datum peg to a
chainage and offset in relation to the design centre line of the Appin Road deviation.
The heights of the datum pegs were determined by using the Leica NA 3000
electronic digital level. The manufacturer's stated standard deviation of error of the
instrument is 0.2 millimetres for a one kilometre double level run with precise invar
staffs.
The height of each control mark and datum peg was determined by adopting the mean
height of a double level run. The standard deviation of the difference of the two runs
was 0.3 millimetres. Sight distances were between 9 metres and 56 metres and staff
readings between 0.93 and 3.05 metres.
Tables 41 and 42 below show the adopted coordinates of the survey marks in
Diagram 44. Table 41 gives the coordinates of the control marks in plan (ISG)
coordinates and Table 42 gives coordinates of the datum pegs in road centre line
coordinates. The height values are quoted to 0.1 millimetres, which is the smallest
count recorded by the Leica N A 3000 electronic digital level during thefieldtest.
TABLE 41
page 203
Control Marks
CONTROL M A R K
C M 121
C M 123
C M 126
D A T U M PEG
DP01
DP02
DP03
DP04
DP05
DP06
DP07
DP08
DP09
DP10
DP11
factors one to four in Section 47.3.2. However, the vertical circle index corre
was not properly controlled during the experiment. This means that not all the
variation in the output of the procedure was due to the changes in levels of the
factors. Some may have been due to changes in the vertical circle index error.
However, later tests have shown that, although the variation in the vertical circle
index error was statistically significant, the effect of the variation is small
to the overall error in the procedure.
page 204
Nine factors, listed below, have been identified from surveying experience and by
statistical theory as affecting the accuracy of the procedure.
1. The instrument
2. Location of the instrument in relation to the control network
3. Instrument operator
4. Sight distance
5. Vertical circle index error
6. Vertical refraction
7. Curvature of the earth's surface
8. Errors in the heights of the control marks
9. Errors in estimating the chainage and offset of the sampling point
Factor
Factor Levels
1. Instruments
T w o instruments
2. Location of instruments
Three locations
3. Instrument operator
Three operators
page 205
The instruments required for the procedure are electronic total stations that measure
horizontal and vertical angles and slope distances.
Factor four
Factor four, sight distance, is variable within a survey. Variations caused by other
factors, refraction, the earth's curvature, vertical circle index error and pointing error,
are all a function of the sight distance. If it can be shown that by varying factors one,
two and three there is no significant effect on the accuracy of the procedure, then the
effect of the sight distance can be estimated. This will determine the m a x i m u m sight
distance to be set for the procedure for it to have the gauge capability for the proposed
compliance scheme. Sight distances for thefieldtest ranged between 2.6 metres and
106.6 metres.
However, it was found during analysis of the results of the field test that the vertic
circle index error of one of the instruments had not been measured correctly.
Therefore, factorfive,the vertical circle index error, was not properly controlled
during thefieldtest. It is also believed that small variations in the vertical circle
index errors of both instruments are the reason for the 3way interaction shown in
Table 45 below. A s a result of thisfieldtest, and the responses to the questionnaire
in Chapter 5, a procedure is recommended for measuring the vertical index error
before carrying out conformance surveys. See in Section 55.5.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 206
The controls placed in the procedure to minimise the effect of refraction are a result
of research in thisfieldby Rueger and Brunner (1981), Rueger (1992,1993,1995 and
1996) and Tompson (1988).
However, these controls have not been universally adopted by the surveying
profession as shown by the responses to the questionnaire on surveying procedures
(see Sections 55.4 and 55.6). For this reason, an additionalfieldtest was carried
out at Lake George on the partially completed Federal Highway deviation. Its
objectives were to measure the coefficient of refraction and estimate its effect on the
accuracy of E D M trigonometrical heighting for sight lines travelling above concrete
pavements. The results of thefieldtest support the adoption of the control
mechanisms for refraction used in the procedure. See Section 412.
The correction due to curvature of the earth's surface, factor seven, is estimated by,
D2
c=
2.R
(Rueger, 1992)
(4.5)
where,
c is the correction of the field height due to the earth's curvature,
D is the horizontal length of the sight line,
R is the radius of the earth, taken as 6,370,100 metres for N S W .
The correction due to the earth's curvature is added to the field height.
Most software used for the reduction of EDM trigonometrical heighting field
observations automatically correct heights for the effect of curvature, as did the
software used by the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 207
By equation (4.5), the correction for curvature for sight distance of 100 metres is 0.
m m , which is small. However, it is recommended that corrections are m a d e for the
effect of curvature as it is a simple correction with the use of m o d e m technology. B y
eliminating this effect, the precision of the survey is further enhanced.
Factor eight
Factor number eight is the errors in the heights of the control marks. The heights of
the control marks used for the test were accurately determined by an electronic digital
level at the start of thefieldtest. Therefore the effect of this factor on the test results
will be ignored. However, on a construction site, the control marks are subject to
disturbance by construction equipment and the movement of large quantities of
earthworks. A n analysis provides an estimate the quantitative effect of this factor
under normal field conditions and suggests ways to minimise those effects.
In most conformance surveys, errors in the heights of the control marks will influence
the m e a n and not the standard deviation of the heights. The combination of height
errors in the control marks with the error in estimating the height of the total station
from the control marks provides the estimate of the systematic bias of the procedure.
Factor nine
Finally, factor number nine estimates the effect of the positional error of the sampling
point on estimates of the surface level departures. The road coordinates of chainage
and offset are the only design parameters required by the software to estimate the
design height of the sampling point. Therefore, the variability in the procedure for
determining chainage and offset will cause an error in the design height of the
sampling point. A n error in the design height of the pavement becomes an error, of
the same magnitude, in the surface level departure.
page 208
Date:
Location:
Weather:
Overcast and still all day, some light rain during lunch time,
temperature about 15C
Equipment:
Field work:
1. The instrument locations are shown by the shaded ellipses and the
position of the instruments shown as A 1 and A 2 in Diagram 44.
2. The locations of the instruments were chosen such that one
location was on the western side, one on the eastern side and one in
the centre, of the triangle formed by the control marks.
3. Each operator, following the procedure (see Section 46), observes
from each instrument, at each location, to determine the three
dimensional coordinates of the 11 datum pegs, (see Diagram 44)
relative to the coordinates of the three control marks. This made
18 measurements of the coordinates of each datum peg and a total
of 198 observations.
4. The software calculates VC, by (4.4), from the zenith angle
displayed by the total station. A s the smallest count of the zenith
angle is one second of arc, the software estimates heights to submillimetre resolution. Similarly, two dimensional coordinates are
calculated to submillimetre resolution by the software. T o
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 209
Errors that were more than 3 standard deviations from the mean were treated as
outliers and examined for possible assignable causes. The mean and standard
deviation of all the height errors were 0.56 millimetres and 1.03 millimetres,
respectively.
page 210
Only two errors in height errors were found to be outliers. These were:
Operator No.
Location No.
Error
11
5.6 m m
11
7.1 mm
There appeared to be no assignable cause for the height error of5.6 millimetres.
However, for error 7.1 millimetres, there was an assignable cause due to the foliage
of a tree that was blowing on and off the sight line during thefieldtest. This appears
not to have affected the measurements made by operators two and three. They
determined the height of datum peg number 11 with errors of1.6 millimetres and 1.0 milhmetres, respectively, along the same sight line.
As this sight line was the only one in the field test affected by foliage, a
unlikely that foliage would affect sight lines during normal conformance surveys, this
observation was removed from the data set. Therefore, 196 observed three
dimensional coordinates were available for analysis.
Analysis of the data found a statistical difference between the means of the
instruments used for thefieldtest.
page 211
SE M e a n
0.000094
0.00014
The pvalue of less than 0.00005 is sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that
Section 46.3. From that, the only factors that may cause error are the slope
and the vertical angle. Both instruments used the same ranging pole simultane
so any error in the height of the ranging pole would not contribute to the di
between the instruments.
Errors in the slope distance will cause errors in height determination as,
AFC=ADsin^ from (4.4)
where &VC is the height error due to the error of the slope distance
AD is the error in the slope distance and
0 is the vertical angle.
Both instruments were in calibration at the time of the field test. Therefore
the field test was less than 2 degrees of arc. Therefore, by (4.4), the averag
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 212
error due to the slope distance is less than 0.17 millimetres. This is significantly less
than the difference between the means of 0.82 millimetres.
The effect of error in the slope distance has been reduced over the years with
improved distance measuring accuracy of total stations. Original procedures
(Tompson, 1988) for E D M trigonometrical heighting for pavement measurement
stipulated a m a x i m u m vertical angle of eight degrees. Errors in the slope distance
greater than 7 millimetres cause height errors of more than one millimetre for vertical
angles above 8 degrees, by (4.4).
However, the latest total stations have quoted accuracies of less than 3 millimetres fo
slope distances up to 100 metres. Also, by setting the total station on the pavement,
vertical angles are closer to zero. The average vertical angle for thefieldtest, of less
than two degrees, is similar to the average vertical angle that is observed during a
conformance survey. Therefore, provided the total station is calibrated and setup on
the pavement during the survey, the effect of error in the slope distance is diminished.
If the difference between instruments is not due to the error in the slope distance, th
the only other source of error is <f>, the vertical angle.
The vertical angle is affected by vertical circle index error which is the angle betwee
true horizontal and horizontal as defined by the vertical circle of the total station. The
vertical circle index correction removes the vertical circle index error by aligning the
horizontal axis of the vertical circle of the total station with true horizontal. The
software corrects heights for the vertical circle index error if the appropriate vertical
page 213
circle index correction is applied. See Section 55.5 for a detailed description of the
vertical circle index correction.
The usual practice for measuring the vertical circle index error is to observe one face
left and one face right reading to a well defined distant object. The vertical circle
index error is then calculated by,
This only gives one measurement of the vertical circle index error.
The vertical circle index error for both instruments was measured by the above
method on the day of the field test. This was at the start of the field test and one
vertical circle index correction was applied for the whole field test.
A check can be made on the vertical circle index correction entered into the software
by examining the face left and face right readings made to the control marks during
the resection for each set up. These can be entered into (4.6) to estimate the vertical
circle index error during the field test.
page 214
codes for set ups for instruments one and two respectively. The first three cha
are coding for the location, the last two characters define the observer and th
two characters are for the instrument.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 215
Columns 3 and 6 give the vertical circle index errors, in seconds of arc, for Instrument
One and Instrument T w o respectively. The data in the Table are entered in the order
that they were measured during thefieldtest.
On the day of the field test the vertical circle index correction applied for
One was zero seconds of arc per face and for Instrument T w o it was 5 seconds of arc
per face.
Table 43 can be used to investigate if both instruments used the appropriate
circle index correction during thefieldtest.
Instrument O n e
TTest of the M e a n of the Vertical Circle Index Error
Test for u. = 0 versus u. * 0, where u. is the vertical circle index error of Instrument
One.
Variable
Vert. Circle
index error
Mean
StDev
SE M e a n
27
0.204
2.470
0.475
T
0.43
P
0.67
The pvalue of 0.67 indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the
hypothesis that p equals zero.
Mean
StDev
SE M e a n
27
8.333
2.130
0.410
8.13
P
n
0.0000
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 216
The pvalue of less than 0.00005 is sufficient evidence to reject the hypothes
equals 5 seconds of arc.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Instrument Two did not use the appr
vertical circle index correction during thefieldtest. O n the evidence provided in
Table 43 the appropriate vertical circle index correction for Instrument T w o was 8
seconds of arc per face.
(metres)
StDev
0.000937
0.00112
SE M e a n
0.000094
0.00011
( v a r i a n c e s a s s u m e d as not equal) w h e r e Pi
TTest pi  p 2
and p 2 are the h e i g h t e r r o r s for I n s t r u m e n t O n e and
Instrument T w o . : T = 0.39
P=0.690 DF=
187
The pvalue of 0.69 indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the
hypothesis that p:1u2 equals zero, which infers that Pi=p2
page 217
The conclusion derived in Section 48.2.5 led to the vertical circle index correcti
Instrument T w o being changed. The revised height errors measured by Instrument
Two, using eight seconds of arc for the vertical circle index correction, provided the
data for analysis from this point forward.
As a result of the analysis in this Section, a revised procedure was written for
measuring the vertical circle index error; see Section 55.5.
The analysis was based on the differences between two determination of the
coordinates of each datum peg. The determinations were by,
the method described in Sections 47.2.3 and 47.2.4 for establishing their datum
coordinates, as shown in Table 42
the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers under the test conditions
described in Section 47.4.
The differences were treated as measurement errors of the procedure. The error is
defined as the coordinate determined by the procedure, minus the datum coordinate
shown in Table 42. Therefore, if the coordinate by the procedure is greater than the
coordinate in the D a t u m Table 42, then the error has ^positive sign. If the
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 218
coordinate by the procedure is less than the coordinate in the Datum Table 42, then
the error has a negative sign.
The initial analysis examined the errors in determining the heights of the datum pegs
It was assumed that the errors in determining heights of the datum pegs will
approximate the errors in determining the pavement heights during a conformance
survey.
Analysis was then made of the errors in determining the chainage and offset of the
datum pegs relative to the Appin Road deviation centre line. This was done to
provide an estimate of the positional error of the procedure. The positional error was
then converted to an estimate of the error in the design height of the pavement (see
Section 55.22).
The combination of these two errors estimated the error of the Survey Conformance
Procedure For Pavement Layers for measuring surface level departures.
The effect of the error of measuring the surface level departures by the procedure, o
measurement of the pavement surface and thickness, determines the gauge capability
of the procedure. If the measuring error of the procedure changes the measurement of
the surface level departures significantly, then the procedure will be rejected.
page 2 1 9
Instruments
D I A G R A M 45
B o x Plots give a graphical summary of the data before carrying out a formal analysis.
The boxes of the B o x Plots in Diagram 45 represent 5 0 % of all the data. This means
that more than 5 0 % of all the height errors of Instrument O n e and Instrument T w o are
less than one millimetre from zero. The solid vertical lines either side of the two
boxes, plus outliers, represents the other 5 0 % of the data. Six outliers are indicated
by the asterisk marks.
Outliers for Boxplots are defined by a different definition to the one given in Secti
48.1. Only the height error of0.041 is more than three standard deviationsfromthe
mean.
Diagram 46 is a plot of height errors against sight distance. The sight distances range
from 2.6 metres to 106 metres. It shows that the variance increases as sight distance
increases. There also appears to be a systematic biasing effect that changes with sight
distance. The m e a n error is approximately + 0.5 millimetres for short sight distances
but approximately minus one millimetre for the m a x i m u m sight distance.
page 220
The overall mean of the data set is 0.15 millimetres. A ttest tests the hypothesis that
the mean, p, of height errors by the procedure is zero.
TTest of the M e a n of All Height Errors
Test o f p = 0.00000 vs p not = 0.00000, w h e r e p is the
m e a n of all t h e h e i g h t e r r o r s ( m e t r e s ) .
Variable
Ht. e r r o r s
N
Mean
StDev
SE M e a n
196  0 . 0 0 0 1 4 8 0 . 0 0 1 0 2 7 3 0.0000734
T
2.02
P
0.045
Refraction was assumed to be zero during the field test due to the controls in th
procedure. However, if a residual coefficient of refraction, k, of0.5 remained, then
the mean of all height errors would be reduced to zero.
page 221
0.002H
+
co
+ +
0.001
2
t 0.000
LU
0.001
. . Ai^At^^*"
"<u
X
0.002 +
0.003
H+
+
+
0.004i
0
1
50
r
100
Sight Distance
D I A G R A M 46
Sight distance will have a biasing effect when analysing the effect of locatio
operator and instruments, as demonstrated by the Diagram 46. However, the field
test did not have replicates of sight distance for the same location, operator and
instrument.
During the field test Instrument One and Instrument Two were positioned side b
at each of the three locations, in Diagram 44, and a single observation made to each
datum peg by each operator. Therefore, there are no replicates of the same
vtntietinnl Tnlerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 222
instrument, location, operator and sight distance. However, there are three replicates
of the same sight distance from the same instrument at the same location, but by three
different operators. If there were no significant difference between the three
operators, then these measurements would provide three replicates of the same sight
distance.
A preliminary analysis of the data was carried out to assess if the operators could be
treated as being equal. This analysis ignored the effect of sighting distance.
Test the hypothesis:
HQ: Pi = p2 = Us
where, pi, P2 and p3 are the mean errors measured by operators 1,2 and 3
respectively.
The pvalue of 0.076 indicates there is insufficient evidence in rejecting the null
hypothesis, Ho Therefore, initially, accept the hypothesis that there is no significant
different between the three operators. This analysis will be repeated after the biasing
effect of sight distance is removed.
Based on the above analysis, it was assumed that there was no operator difference,
hence observations from each of the three operators can be regarded, approximately,
StntiKtiral Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 223
as replicates. This allows an analysis of the sight distance effect, with the intention of
allowing for, and hence eliminating this effect from further analysis of the facto
instruments, operators and location.
From each of the six instrument set ups (two instruments by three locations) there
unique sight distance to each of the 11 datum pegs, making 66 unique sight distanc
Each of the operators has estimated the height error at each sight distance, makin
three replicates (with the above exceptions). Below is a linear regression analysi
the response, the standard deviation of the height errors, against the predictor,
distance.
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant
0.0002293
S. Dist
0.00000959
0.0001168
0.00000189
1.96
5.08
0.054
0.000
25.76
0.000
page
224
Regression Plot
Y = 2.29E04 + 9.59E06X
RSq = 0.287
0.0020
*>
CO
>
0.0015
<D
Q
TJ
1
CO
T3
C
CO
^
0.0010^
0.0005
^f*$**
* * ^i* **^^
*.
*
*^^^"^
CO
* J^*^*~
.
^^""^
^^>^^
o.oooo
50
100
Sight Distance
Measurements are in metres
D I A G R A M 47
Table 44 gives 6 sets of 3 three dimensional plan grid coordinates, for Instruments
One and Two, at Locations One, Two and Three, estimated by resection during the
field test. There are three estimates of the coordinates for each instrument setup, o
by each operator. Column 1 gives the instrumentlocation combination.
The method of determining the two dimensional coordinates and height of the total
station is given in Sections 46.2 and 46.3.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 225
EASTING
NORTHING
HEIGHT (AHD)
290226.9284
290226.9320
290226.9282
0.0021
290238.6577
290238.6586
290238.6559
0.0014
290198.3568
290198.3554
290198.3591
0.0019
290228.8658
290228.8651
290228.8631
0.0014
290237.7082
290237.7068
290237.7098
0.0015
290197.7607
290197.7562
290197.7610
0.0027
0.0018
205775.9094
205775.9111
205775.9097
0.0009
205773.8195
205773.8194
205773.8204
0.0006
205781.8915
205781.8925
205781.8902
0.0012
205773.9168
205773.9178
205773.9164
0.0007
205767.4536
205767.4558
205767.4546
0.0011
205779.1333
205779.1329
205779.1335
0.0003
0.0008
376.8038
376.8035
376.8036
0.00015
376.7793
376.7795
376.7793
0.00012
378.4655
378.4657
378.4656
0.00010
376.6552
376.6555
376.6550
0.00025
376.7599
376.7592
376.7599
0.00040
378.3022
378.3020
378.3020
0.00012
0.00019
Table 44 shows the variability of the procedure for estimating the three dimensional
coordinates of the total station from measurements to the control marks. The average
standard deviation of the estimate of the height of the total station, for each
instrumentlocation combination, w a s 0.19 millimetres during thefieldtest.
This explains w h y the height error is not zero for zero sight distance and justifies the
constant term in the regression equation. T h e constant term of the regression
equation, which is 0.23 millimetres, is in good agreement with the average standard
deviation of the height estimate of the instrument.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 226
Weighting was applied to remove the heterogeneity from data to enable analysis of
factors, instrument, location and operator. This was done by dividing each of the
height errors, plotted in Diagram 46, by the regression equation,
a, = 0.00023 + 0.00000959 d
(4.7)
A Factorial Analysis Of Variance with 2x3x3 factor levels for factors, Instrument,
Location and Operator was carried out using the weighted height errors. The Analysis
O f Variance table (Table 45) shows the main effects of all factors at different levels,
two way interactions and one three way interaction.
The statistical model for the three factor analysis of variance is,
Yijki = u. +
Ti
where, i = 1, 2
j = l,2,3
k=l,2,3
I = 1,..., 11, except for two observations to datum peg 11, as explained
in Section 4=9.2.2
Yijkl = the observed height error of the 1th measurement for Instrument i, Location j
and Operator k
U.
Ti
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page227
(xp)ij = the error in the procedure due to 2way interaction of Instrument i and
Location j
(xy)ik
(Pv)jk = the error in the procedure due to 2way interaction of Location j and
Operator k
(xPY)ijk = the error in the procedure due to 3way interaction of Instrument i, Location j and
Operator k
Eijki
The purpose of the factorial analysis of variance is to estimate the influence on the
accuracy of the procedure the of variation of the factor levels:
instrument, location or operator
combinations of instrumentlocation, instrumentoperator or locationoperator
combinations of instrumentlocationoperator.
The null hypothesis, that there is no influence by changing the factor levels is,
*i = ft = Yk = (xp)ij = (TYh = (PY)jk = (xpY)ijk = 0 for all i, j or k.
(4.9)
The alternative hypothesis is accepted if any of the values in (4.9) are not equal to
zero for any i, j or k.
TABLE 45
page 228
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean
Square
Main Effects
INSTRUMENT
LOCATION
OPERATOR
10.257
.146
3.664
6.510
5
1
2
2
2.051
.146
1.832
3.255
1.172
.083
1.047
1.860
.325
.773
.353
.159
2Way Interactions
INSTRUMENT LOCATION
INSTRUMENT OPERATOR
LOCATION
OPERATOR
11.765
2.587
1.278
7.856
8
2
2
4
1.471
1.294
.639
1.964
.840
.739
.365
1.123
.568
.479
.695
.347
3Way Interactions
INSTRUMENT LOCATION
OPERATOR
36.314
9.079
5.189
.001
36.314
9.079
5.189
.001
Explained
57.839
17
3.402
1.945
.017
Residual
311.448
178
1.750
Total
369.287
195
1.894
The pvalue for the 3Way Interaction is 0.001, which means that the 3way
interaction is significant. This implies that at least one of the combinations of
instrumentlocationoperator is different from the other combinations. For a 2x3x3
factorial analysis there are 18 different combinations of instrumentlocationoperator.
The significant 3way interaction could represent either a real higher order interaction
between the three factors, or could be an artefact due to some other factor(s) that was
not controlled during the experiment. The cause of the 3way interaction has to be
page 229
found before any conclusions can be made about the main effects and 2way
interactions.
Extra analysis was required to find the possible cause(s) for the 3way intera
being significant and its effect on the reliability of the procedure.
Table 46 is the Table of Means of the height errors for 3way interaction by
instruments. Columns 1,2 and 3 give each combination of instrumentoperatorlocation. Columns 4, 5 and 6 give the mean, standard deviation and sample size of
each combination. Column 7 gives the difference between means for Instruments
One and Instrument T w o for the same operatorlocation combination.
Column 8 gives the pvalue for the two sample ttest for the difference betwee
means. The null hypothesis is pi = p 2 against alternative hypothesis, pi * p2, where,
Pi and p 2 are the means of the height errors for Instrument One and Instrument T w o
at the same combination of operatorlocation. The pvalue is defined as,
pvalue = Pr(^ > r0) tv is an observation from a t distribution with v degrees
of freedom. (410)
where,
xxx2
o
(4.11)
\nx
n2
page 230
K
V
* H Hn2 tyl
nx+n22
x{ , Si and nt are the mean, standard deviation and sample size for Instrument O
each combination of operatorlocation
x2, s2 and n2 are the mean, standard deviation and sample size for Instrument Tw
the same combination of operatorlocation.
T A B L E 46 Table of M e a n s
3  W A Y INTERACTIOINr O F H E I G H T E R R O>RS (millimetres)
Instrument Operator Location Mean Stdev n Diff. of Means ofpvalue
2 Instruments
1
1
0.17
0.70 18
0.40
0.2568
0.54
0.46
0.3760
2
18
1.84
1
0.7337
0.36
0.95 18
0.11
3
1
0.88
0.77 18
0.0021
0.17
1
2
1.25
0.0000
0.65 18
0.50
2
2
0.50
0.0774
0.16
0.78 18
3
2
0.0036
0.84
0.26
0.52 18
1
3
0.1035
0.32
0.50 18
0.03
2
3
0.6238
0.21
0.86 18
0.41
3
3
1.30 18
0.57
1
2
1
1.07 17
0.08
2
2
1
0.97 18
0.25
3
2
1
0.79 17
0.71
1
2
2
0.88 18
0.75
2
2
2
0.86 18
0.34
2
3
2
1.02 18
0.58
1
2
3
0.64 18
0.29
2
2
3
1.58 18
0.62
3
2
3
page 231
3WAY INTERACTION
0.8
COMBINATIONS
OF O P E R A T O R
A N D LOCATION
(0
ui
Op 1Loc 1
Op 1Loc 2
Op 1Loc 3
Op 2Loc 1
Op 2Loo 2
Op 2Loc 3
Op 3Loc 1
Op 3Loc 2
Op 3Loc 3
(0
0!
S
a.
tu
t
o
ui
0.8
NUMBER
DIAGRAM 48
ONE
INSTRUMENTS
NUMBER
TWO
Analysis in Section 48.2.5 accepted the hypothesis that the means of Instrument O n e
and Instrument T w o are equal. Therefore, if there were no 3way interaction, it
would be expected that the means for Instrument O n e and Instrument T w o would be
equal at each operatorlocation combination.
Contained in Column 8 are three pvalues that are small enough to provide evidence
to reject the hypothesis that the m e a n error of Instrument O n e is equal to the mean
error of Instrument T w o . The combinations are, Operator TwoLocation One,
Operator TwoLocation T w o and Operator ThreeLocation One.
Diagram 48 shows the 3way interaction plot from Instrument O n e to Instrument
Two. The lines joining Instruments O n e and T w o show graphically the difference
between the two instruments for different combinations of OperatorLoaction.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 232
Diagram 48 shows the difference for combinations, Operator TwoLocation One,
Operator TwoLocation T w o and Operator ThreeLocation One, are greater than other
combinations.
The cause for these three combinations being different to other combinations may
explain the reason for the 3way interaction.
The most probable source of the height errors in the procedure is the errors in the
vertical angle (see Section 48.2.2). Therefore, variations in the vertical angle were
investigated tofindpossible causes for the 3way interaction. The vertical angle is
affected by the vertical circle index error.
There is evidence to suggest that the vertical circle index error of Instrument One ha
drifted in a normal day's use. This was obtained during the refraction field test at
Lake George, (see Section 412 for a full report on the Lake George field test). The
field test measured 36 lots of 5 measurements of the vertical circle index error
throughout the day.
Farnum (1994) sees control charts as an effective tool for analysing measurement
variability, similar to analysing process variability. This is because measuring is a
process and like all processes exhibits variability. Diagram 49 shows the Xbar and s
control charts of the measurements of the vertical circle index error made at Lake
George. The sample size isfivemeasurements.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 233
i=
tO
_o
5
6
A 5
. 5,
UCL=0.33
fo^/v\i\*.
A
v
V V
> '
VVJ\ *
X=2.05
LCL=4.44
** fiy
Subgroup 0
I
10
20
30
40
4 '
>
Q
CO
1
0
LCL=3.49
,. JAA
A A ^v
' V\y VyVyvvV y
S=1.670
LCL=0.00
D I A G R A M 49
3 30 nm
The numbers, 1, 5 and 6, on the Xbar control chart, in Diagram 49, show where the
measurement process is deemed to have gone out of control by Nelson's Tests For
Special Causes (Nelson, 1984).
These indicate that the measurements of the vertical circle index error are out of
control at the start of the day and again between samples (subgroups) 12 to 20. In
both cases the process m e a n is too high. It also appears that the measurements are out
of control between samples (subgroups) 28 to 36, when the process mean is too low.
Therefore, the measurements did not have a consistent mean of2.05 seconds of arc
throughout the day, as indicated by the centre line of the control chart. Instead there
may have been two measurement process means about 2 seconds apart. O n e of about
1 second in the morning and the other of about 3 seconds of arc in the afternoon.
Or, there m a y have been a measurement process of about 1 second in the morning,
and then a gradual drift (downwards) in the afternoon.
page 234
Diagram 49 highlights the instability of the vertical circle index error for Instrument
One, at least. It also questions the suitability of applying one vertical circle index
correction for all measurements of the datum pegs for the Appin Roadfieldtest.
An error of 2 seconds of arc in the vertical angle would change any of the means
given in Column 4 of the table of M e a n (Table 46), by about 0.5 millimetres. This
would significantly increase the pvalues (given in Column 8 of Table 46) of the
three combinations of locationoperator that showed a significant difference between
the instruments. In all cases, the increase would be enough to indicate that there was
insufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the m e a n height error of Instrument
One was equal to the m e a n height error of Instrument T w o . It would also increase the
pvalue of the 3way interaction, in Table 45, such that these combinations also
would not be significant.
Below are the control charts for the measurements of the vertical circle index error
from the Appin Roadfieldtest. The measurements are from observations to control
marks during the resection for estimating the coordinates of the instrument at each
setup combination of instrumentlocationoperator. The measurements are given in
Columns 3 and 6 of Table 43. The sample size is three.
These measurements did not determine the vertical circle index correction for
observations of the datum pegs during thefieldtest. Instead one correction was
applied at the start of thefieldtest (see Section 48.2.4).
page 2 3 5
5 I
c
CO
CD
>
CD
Q
CO
UCL=3.59
4
3
2
1 H
o
1 \
2
Subgroup 0
J_ 3
45
54 I
3
2
1
0
XM).20
LCL = 4.00
UCL=4.98
i^1.941
LCL=0.00
9.30 a m
Seconds Of Arc Per Face
4.15 p m
X=8.33
LCL=5.12
Subgroup 0
J
UCL=4.22
(0
>
<D
Q
CO
9.30 a m
Diagram 410
4.15 p m
Control Charts for Instruments One and Two During Appin Road Field
Test
The Xbar control chart for Instrument O n e (Diagram 410) shows that the
measurement process was out of control at sample number 4. This sample was the
combination of Operator TwoLocation Two, which was one of the combinations that
showed a difference between the two instruments. The measured vertical circle inde
error by Operator Two at Location Two, for Instrument One, was 4 seconds of arc.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 236
The principle of control charts is hypothesis testing of each sample of the process.
Processes that are out of control reject the null hypothesis that the m e a n of the
process is still at the centre line of the control chart, and accepts the alternative
hypothesis. The m e a n of the sample then defines the process mean at that time,
unless extra investigation reveals otherwise.
Therefore, on the evidence available, the vertical circle index error was 4 seconds o
arc for Instrument OneOperator TwoLocation T w o during thefieldtest. The
applied vertical circle index correction for Instrument O n e during the field test was
zero seconds of arc. B y applying a vertical circle index correction of 4 seconds of arc
for this set up, the difference between the means of Instrument O n e and Instrument
T w o is reduced by about one millimetre. This is enough to increase the pvalue, in
column 8 of Table 46, to about 0.34. Such a pvalue would indicate that there is not
enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that the difference between the means of the
instruments, for Operator TwoLocation T w o , is zero.
This suggests the reason for the significant interaction at one of the three
combinations of locationoperator identified by the pvalue in Column 8 of the Table
of Means (Table 46).
Modern electronic total stations are fitted with liquid level sensors for aligning th
vertical circle with true horizontal. The sensors are designed to remove the vertical
circle index error.
The liquid type sensors have improved sensitivity over the previous mechanical
pendulum type compensators of classical theodolites (Rueger, 1997b). Howeve
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 237
liquid level sensors are sensitive to temperature changes. In the extreme cases,
changes in the liquid level sensor has been noted to be as large as + 0.33 and  0.88
seconds of arc per face per C (Teskey, 1992).
The practical implication of the liquid level sensor being affected by temperature
changes is that the vertical circle index error changes as the temperature changes.
The amount of change in the vertical circle index error will change the vertical circle
readings by the same amount.
This appears to be the reason for the 2 combinations, Location OneOperator Two and
Location OneOperator Three, showing a difference in the means for Instrument O n e
and Instrument T w o . From Table 43, observations by Operator T w o of Instrument
T w o at Location O n e was thefirstuse of the Instrument T w o on the day of the field
test. Also, observations by Operator Three of Instrument One at Location One was
thefirstof Instrument O n e on the day of thefieldtest. For both of these set ups, the
temperature of both instruments would be expected to be different than for the rest of
the day as they adjust to the ambient temperature of the day during thefieldtest.
After the initial set up of the day it is expected that the temperature of the instruments
would stabilise.
Diagram 49 shows that on the day of the Lake George field test, the first sample wa
lowest reading until sample number 25, at which time the process mean was on a
downward trend. A similar phenomenon, showing thefirstmeasurements of the day
being different to the rest of the day, is expected to have occurred during Appin Road
field test.
49.3.4 Closer Examination of the Vertical Circle Index Error
The difference in the means of the other two combinations, Location OneOperator
T w o and Location OneOperator Three, are 0.88 and 0.84 millimetres respectively.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Surfaces
page 238
A n error in the applied vertical circle index correction of 2 seconds of arc will change
these differences by about 0.5 millimetres. A reduction in the difference of the means
of this size would similarly increase the pvalue. The increased pvalue would be
large enough that there was not sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the
mean of Instrument O n e is the same as the m e a n of Instrument Two.
Control chart analysis was made to estimate the sensitivity of the measurement
method to detect changes in the vertical circle index error of the order of 2 seconds.
For this analysis it was assumed that the standard deviation of measurement of the
vertical circle index error was the average standard deviation from sample
measurements for Appin Road and Lake Georgefieldtests. These standard
deviations were 1.94 and 1.64 on Appin Road and 1.67 seconds of arc per face at
Lake George, which is an overall average standard deviation of 1.75 seconds of arc
per face.
The control limits for the Xbar control charts for measurements for the Appin Road
field test are 3.42 seconds, for s equal to 1.75 seconds of arc. The control limits
from measurements at Lake George are 2.50 seconds of arc, for the same s value.
The difference in the width of the control limits is due to the different sample sizes,
three for Appin Road and five for Lake George. Generally, as n, the sample size,
increases control charts are more able to detect changes in the process. Therefore, the
control charts at Lake George are better able to detect changes in the vertical circle
index error.
Control charts detected a sustained shift of the vertical circle index error of about
seconds of arc at Lake George, but only detected one point out of control on Appin
Road. The same measurement method, including equipment and operators, estimated
the vertical circle index errors at Lake George and Appin Road.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 239
It is possible, therefore that the vertical circle index error also drifted on Appin Ro
by about two second of arc, without detection.
The probability that changes in the vertical circle index error of the order of 2 seco
of arc are undetected by the control charts is similar to the consumer'srisk,as defined
in Section 37.3. Estimation of the consumer'srisk,when the vertical circle index
error has shifted by 2 seconds, shows that if changes of that order had occurred, they
were more than likely not detected.
The consumer'srisk,p
Pr
z<UCLjtL
%n
where UCL is the upper control limit = 3.42, //, = 2, o= 175 and n  3
Therefore,
fi
=Pr(Z<1.405))
= 0.92
Therefore the probability that changes in the vertical circle index error of the order
2 seconds of arc are detected by Appin Road control charts, when only three
measurements per sample are taken, is 0.08. The average number of samples (ARL)
of 3 required to detect a shift in the vertical of 2 seconds of arc is given by,
1
\P
= 12.5
page 240
Evidence from Lake George suggests that the vertical circle index error changed
during the day by about two seconds of arc. It is therefore assumed that changes of a
similar magnitude occurred on Appin Road, where the same equipment was used,
without detection.
The reason for the 3way interaction being significant in Table 45 appears to be due
to the effect of temperature variation on the liquid level sensors of the total stations,
as explained in Section 49.3.3. The reason that the change in the vertical circle
index error was not measured during the field test appears to be due to the sensitivity
of the measurements, as explained by the control chart analysis. See above in this
Section.
The variation of the vertical circle index error assumed for both instruments is presen
in all electronic total stations (Rueger, 1997b). The precision of vertical angle
measurement of both instruments agrees with the quoted precision of the instruments
by the manufacturer. Although both instruments were about ten years old at the time
of thefieldtest, they were in calibration. The recommendations in Section 55.5,
arising from this research, will diminish the effect of the variability of the vertical
circle index error.
However, even the 3way interaction exhibited during the field test does not
significantly impact on the capability of the procedure to measure concrete pavement
surfaces to the accuracy required for the compliance scheme in Chapter 3. The
largest deviation of the m e a n from zero in Table 46 is only 0.75 millimetres, which is
significantly less than the acceptance limits of 8.7 millimetres.
page 241
The analyses in Sections 49.2 and 49.3 have shown that the variations of the factor
levels of the three factors (instrument, location and operator) did not influence the
accuracy of the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers during the field
test. Also 2way interaction of combinations of any two factors did not influence the
accuracy of the procedure.
In practical terms, the results of the factorial analysis of variance imply that:
1. The two different instruments used in this experiment did not cause any difference
in the accuracy of the procedure. There is little reason to expect that any other
calibrated commercially available one second total stations would affect the
accuracy of the procedure.
2. The three operators were chosen for the experiment to see how much training and
experience is needed to carry out a conformance surveys of concrete pavements.
Operator T w o and Operator Three both have extensive experience in carrying out
conformance surveys and as instrument operators in general. Their combined
surveying experience is in excess of 50 years. Operator O n e has had less than 6
years of surveying experience in total at the time of the field test. In that time less
than one week had been spent as an instrument operator. Results of the factorial
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
pag e
242
analysis of variance shows that there was no significant difference in the size of the
heighting errors between all three operators.
3. The location of the instrument, in relation to the control marks, does not effect the
accuracy of measurements of surface level departures.
Analyses in Sections 47.3.2,49.2 and 49.3 have estimated the effects of the
following factors:
1. The instrument
2. Location of the instrument in relation to the control marks
3. Instrument operator
4. Sight distance
5. Vertical circle index error
6. Vertical refraction
7. Curvature of the earth's surface,
on the precision of height determination by the procedure. These are seven of the
nine factors listed in Section 47.3.2 as influencing the accuracy of the procedure.
Factor 8 affects the mean, or systematic bias, of the procedure and factor 9 affects the
estimates of the design height of the pavement surface.
The factorial analysis of variance showed that the variation of the factor levels of
factors, 1,2 and 3, had no effect on the precision of height determination. The effect
of the vertical circle index error, factor 5, was examined in Section 49.3. The field
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 243
test did not measure the effect of factor 6, refraction. Instead a separate field test
verified that the control mechanisms in the procedure were adequate to minimise the
effect of refraction (see Section 412 for the report on the refractionfieldtest). The
software automatically corrected for the effect of factor 7, curvature of the earth's
surface, as outlined in Section 47.3.2.
The remaining factor is factor 4, sight distance. This influences the magnitude of the
errors caused by the variation of the vertical circle index error and any residual
influence of refraction not controlled by the procedure. It also influences the
magnitude of the pointing error of the operators. Therefore, the precision of the
procedure, for sight distances up to 100 metres, is estimated by the regression
equation as,
The purpose of the field test was to estimate the effect of the precision of the
procedure on measurements of a 100 metre lot of concrete pavement as defined in
Section 34.3. O n e lot consists of 60 sampling points, each point measured by a
different sight distance.
The standard deviation of error will vary for different sampling points measured by
the procedure, from 0.2 millimetres for short sight distances to approximately 1.2
millimetres at the m a x i m u m sight distance. However, the average standard deviation
of error determines the precision of the procedure for estimating the standard
deviation of a lot. Comparison of the precision of the procedure to the standard
page 244
deviation of the surface level departures of a lot, estimates the gauge capability of the
procedure.
The grid pattern for the sampling points is 3 strings across the pavement, each string
with 20 points, as defined in Section 34.3. Theoretical sight distances to the
sampling points estimated the average sight distance of a lot. The calculations were
for different combinations of pavement geometry and positions of the total station.
The pavement width was 8.6 metres wide with one string along the centre line and
one string 0.5 metres in from each edge. The pavement geometries were:
a straight line
1000 metre radius curve, curved away from the total station
1000 metre radius curve, curved towards the total station.
The positions of the total station were on the pavement and 25 metres off the
pavement. Sight distances greater than the m a x i m u m allowed by the procedure, (100
metres), were ignored.
The smallest average sight distance was 50.2 metres, for the total station on a straigh
pavement. The largest average sight distance was 58.0 metres, for the total station 25
metres off the pavement of a 1000 metres radius pavement, curved toward the total
station.
= 0.00079 metres
= 0.79 millimetres.
(412^
page
245
Errors in estimates of the position of the sampling points will cause errors
estimates of the surface level departures. Diagram 411 shows all the positional
errors, measured during thefieldtest, in road centre line coordinates of chainage and
offset.
Plot Of Chainage Errors Against Sight Distance
Mean = 0.0017, Stdev. = 0.00361
Measurements are in metres
0.010 H
0.005
i_
o
UJ
, +
0.000
_,
H +
+ + + f^t JH*+ + +
i
* pi + + /++++ +v t + ;++r
CD
<S 0.005
++I + #
* t
CD
O 0.010
+ ++
+++
++ +
ft
+
+
0.0151i
50
Sight Distance
r~
100
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 246
0.00
i_
i
LU
Q)
0.01
o
!
50
100
Sight Distance
DIAGRAM 411
StDev
0.0005072
0.00000824
T
8.67
5.95
P
0.000
0.000
RSq(adj) = 1 4 . 9 %
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Error
Total
DF
1
195
196
SS
0.00039225
0.00216389
0.00255614
MS
0.00039225
0.00001110
F
35.35
P
0.000
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 247
RSq
StDev
0.0005553
0.00000902
7.8%
0.32
4.07
0.748
0.000
RSq(adj) = 7 . 4 %
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Error
Total
DF
1
195
196
SS
0.00022022
0.00259443
0.00281465
MS
0.00022022
0.00001330
F
16.55
P
0.000
Both plots in Diagram 411 show little variation in errors of chainage and offset with
changing sight distance. Also, the regression analysis above, shows the relat
between the predictor sight distance and both errors are weak. Therefore, the
effect of sight distance as exhibited for height errors, is ignored.
This means the overall standard deviations are, 3.6 millimetres for chainage
millimetres for offset, being estimates of the variability of the errors. For
the effect of the positional error, the errors in chainage and offset are com
Positional Error =R
True position of
sampling point
ROAD
D I A G R A M 412
C E N T R E LINE
Plan View for Converting Chainage and Offset Errors to the Positional
Error R.
page 248
B y (4.13), and the standard deviations of the chainage error and offset error, the
standard deviation of position, R for the procedure is estimated as:
(4.14)
Errors in position cause errors in estimates of the design height of the pavement due
to the cross fall/gradient of the pavement. The size of the error in estimating the
design height is dependent upon the size of the positional error and on the geometry
defining the heights of the pavement. Sections 55.13 and 55.22 explain in more
detail the effect of the positional error on estimating design heights.
Table 47 is an extract from Table 511. It shows the standard deviation of error in
estimating the design height due to a standard deviation of positional error of 5.2
millimetres, for three different pavement geometries.
T A B L E 47: Errors in Design Height D u e to Positional Error of
Procedure
Pavement Geometry
Cross Fall X Gradient
3 % X 0.3%
3% X 3%
5% X 5%
Stdev. of Error of
the Design Height
0.13 m m
0.19 m m
0.31 m m
The more extreme pavement design of 5 % cross fall by 5 % gradient is used for
estimating the capability of the procedure for measuring surface level departures.
Therefore, the standard deviation of the error in the estimate of the design height, du
to the positional error is,
^ ^ ^ = 0 . 3 1 millimetres
(4.15)
page 249
= V0.31 2 +0.79 2
(4.16)
= 0.86 millimetres
Equation (4.16) represents the precision of the Survey Conformance Procedure For
Pavement Layers for measuring surface level departures of a 100 metre lot, as defined
in Section 34.3.
page 250
The cross fall of the pavement at any chainage is estimated by interpolation between
stored cross falls of the pavement at k n o w n chainages. This method will present
problems w h e n the cross fall is not changing linearly in relation to the chainages.
Current R T A road design standards can allow the cross falls to be changed nonlinearly in relation to the chainages. This means that the cross fall at the mid
chainage of two stored cross falls is not the m e a n of the two stored cross falls.
In these situations, the surveyor is advised to ensure that the design height of the
pavement, calculated by the software, is meeting the designer's intent as specified in
the contract documents. If not, then extra chainages, with k n o w n cross falls, will
have to be stored in the software w h e n used for conformance purposes.
The principle of calculating pavement surface heights by cross falls from the centre
line reflects the construction process and the designer's intent. Graders and paving
machines are designed to construct the pavement so that any line drawn on it, radial
from the centre line to its outer edge, will be straight in all three dimensions. The
designer's intent is shown by the contract drawings where the pavement appears as a
straight line in the cross sections.
Checon, which is derived from Moss, the RTA design package, uses a different
method for estimating the design pavement heights than the one described above. It
estimates design pavement heights by triangulating the design model. The
triangulation process joins points of k n o w n heights in the model to redefine the model
as a series of flat triangular surfaces.
For road pavement designs with vertical curves and superelevation (cross fall)
transitions, theseflattriangular surfaces can not precisely replicate the curved
surfaces of the pavement. Before using this software for conformance purposes,
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 251
surveyors are advised to check the height differences between the triangulated model
and the true geometric surface of the pavement. If the discrepancies are too large,
then extra points of k n o w n heights will have to added to the model to reduce the size
of the flat triangles, and therefore, the height discrepancies.
Estimating design pavement heights by Moss triangulated models does no reflect the
construction procedure or the designer's intent. Cross sections taken from a M o s s
triangulated model can show the pavement surface as a series of straight lines instead
of one straight line, from the pavement crown to the outer edge of the pavement.
The effect of the computer algorithms on the estimate of the design pavement heights
will not be evaluated in this analysis as it will vary with the geometric design of the
road and the information supplied in the contract documents. However, this analysis
warns surveyors against using any software without checking the accuracy of the data
produced by the software.
The effect of the height errors of the control marks was not measured by the field test
The heights of control marks used were determined by the Leica N A 3000 electronic
digital level before commencing thefieldtest. Adjustment ensured that the control
marks were in agreement with the datum pegs. Thefieldtest estimated the accuracy
of measuring surface level departures relative to the verified heights of control marks.
However, on a construction project it can be assumed that there will be some error in
the heights on the control marks of a control network.
page 252
The network of control marks, placed for the construction of a road project, defines
the control network. The integrity of the control network affects the three
dimensional positional accuracy of the road project. The process that defines the
three dimensional coordinates of the control marks is subject to variability and error.
T o estimate the effect of the control mark height errors, an estimate is needed of its
variability.
Surveyors verify the heights of control marks by measuring the height differences
between control marks. This is compared to the difference of the heights of the
control marks above an assumed datum plane. This method works well provided that
disturbance of control marks is not systemic to the project and enough control marks
are measured so that conclusive evidence is available to define which control mark is
disturbed.
Most surveyors are reluctant to change the height of a control mark if the measured
height difference appears to be in error by only 3 millimetres, or less. Differences
greater than 3 millimetres are usually adjusted. This acceptance criterion forms the
basis of an ad hoc estimation of the standard deviation of error of verified control
marks on a construction site.
Assuming that 95% of the differences are in error by not more than 3 millimetres and
that the errors are normally distributed, leads to an estimate of the standard deviation
of error of the heights of the control network as follows,
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
3=L96V2<r
page 253
(4.17)
Equation (4.17) estimates 95% of the differences between two points selected at
random from a normal distribution with standard deviation of a. From (4.17) the
standard deviation of the error of verified control marks on a construction project is
estimated to be about one millimetre.
The error in estimating the height of the total station will cause an error of the same
size to all heights measured by the procedure from that set up of the total station.
During a conformance survey this will change the m e a n of the estimates of the
surface level departures of the lot, and introduce systematic bias into the procedure.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 254
Section 49.2.3 showed the variability of estimating the height of the total station
when there were assumed to be no errors in the control marks. This was expressed as
the constant term of the regression equation (4.7), which was a standard deviation of
0.23 millimetres. Assuming independence between the procedure and the errors in
the control marks, their combined variability is found by summing their variances.
"
/^2
mean error of sld
A/
"2
error of estimate of height of total station by procedure
V0.58 2 + 0.232
(4.18)
0.62 millimetres
Therefore, if the standard deviation of height errors of the control network is one
millimetre, then the standard deviation of error of estimating the height of the total
station by the procedure is 0.62 millimetres. Assuming that the error is random and
normally distributed, 99.73% of the errors in the height of the total station will be
within the range of 1.86 millimetres.
This is compared to the required accuracy of the mean given in Section 45.1.5, which
was about one millimetre. While being almost twice the desired size, it is still only
about 2 0 % of the width of the acceptance limits of 8.7 millimetres. Ninety five
percent of the expected range is 1.24 millimetres, which is about 1 4 % , or 1/7, of the
width of the acceptance limits.
The effect of the positional error of the control network was not evaluated by the field
test. A control traverse the day before thefieldtest determined the coordinates of the
control marks. Therefore, it was assumed that there was no error in the control marks
when estimating the positional accuracy of the procedure.
page 255
Precise surveying procedures for coordinating the control marks will reduce
variability in the control network throughout the life of the project. This means that
the extra care in placing and measuring the control marks counters some of the
expected disturbance during construction.
The surveying procedure for coordinating the control marks should control
atmospheric conditions and correct the distances by the relevant grid scale factor for
the project. It should also have repetition of angle and distance measurements to
check for gross errors and to improve accuracy. The surveying procedure should
require that all equipment for measuring angles and distances be calibrated when
determining the coordinates of the control marks.
In addition to the surveying errors, some error may be introduced due to interpolation
by the software for converting surface level departures, or pavement heights, to base
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 256
course thickness measurements. The size of this error will not be estimated as part of
this analysis as it will depend upon the software.
The software for converting conformance surveys for pavement surfaces to base
course thicknesses, may use either surface level departures or pavement heights. For
this analysis, surface level departures are assumed to be used as they have a slightly
larger standard deviation of error than pavement heights. See Section 49.6.
Assuming that the measurement errors of the surface level departures of the subbase
and base surface are independent, then the standard deviation of the error of the
thickness measurements is estimated by (4.16),
/~2
error tHcknessmeasurements
"\
, *
1.2
errorsldsubbase
= V0.86 2 +0.86 2
(4.19)
= 1.22 millimetres
Assuming no variability in the heights of control marks, then the variability in the
thickness measurements is defined by its standard deviation by (4.19). However, for
the purpose of this analysis, a standard deviation of error of one millimetre in the
heights of the control marks is assumed (See Section 410.1). This is combined with
the variability of estimating the height of the total station by the procedure, to
pagc
257
estimate the standard deviation of the systematic bias for each lot of 0.62 millimetres
by (4.18).
Assuming that the systematic bias is the same for the subbase and base surfaces and
independent, then the variability of the error of the m e a n of the thickness
measurements is found by summing the variance of the systematic bias of the two
surfaces. Therefore, the standard deviation of the error of the mean of the thickness
measurements is
^2
= V0.62 2 +0.62 2
(4.20)
= 0.88 millimetres
Assuming that the variability in the error of the mean (4.20) is independent of the
variability in the thickness measurements (4.19), then the total variability of
individual measurements is found by summing their variances.
/~2
1
~2
= V0.88 2 +1.22 2
(421)
= 1.50 millimetres
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
page 258
Stability of the control marks will affect thickness measurements, as there will be a
time interval between measurement of the subbase and base surfaces. If control
marks are disturbed during this time interval, then the thickness measurements will
have an additional error. The analysis of the accuracy of thickness measurements
assumes that the heights of the control marks have not changed between
measurements of the subbase and base surfaces.
Equation (4.4), Section 46.3, estimates the height difference, VC, between the total
station and the reflector attached to the ranging pole as VC = D sin<f>, where D is the
slope distance of the sight line and ^ is the vertical angle measured from the
horizontal.
However, if refraction is present it will bend the sight line so that ^, as deduced by
measurement of the zenith angle by the total station, is not the true vertical angle of
the sight line. This will cause a height error w h e n using (4.4).
The height correction due to the effect of refraction is adapted from Rueger (1996),
as,
e
 k
D c o s
(4.22
2R
where e is the correction to the measured height difference due to refraction
k is the coefficient of refraction
D is the slope distance between the total station and the target in metres
<l> is the vertical angle between the sight line and true horizontal
R is the radius of the earth, taken as 6,370,100 metres for N S W .
For the purpose of estimating e, the error in (/> due to refraction can be ignored for
converting the slope distance to a horizontal distance.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
__
page 259
k = l+
+Z2)]
!
Jl
(4.23)
Dsinzj
Zi and z 2 (radians) are the zenith angles of the same line, measured collinearly
from opposite ends of the line, at about the same time.
The zenith angles of the sight lines, TX and z2, in (4.23) are measured from
but ^, the vertical angle of the sight line in (4.22) is measuredfromthe horizontal.
The Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers controls the effect of
refraction by restricting the sight distances to below 100 metres and keeping the line
of sight more than 1.5 metres above the ground.
page 260
D I A G R A M 413
Diagram 413, taken from Rueger (1996), shows the results of studies carried out in
Europe to demonstrate h o w refraction varies throughout the day and for different
heights of the sight line. This study was over grassed surfaces. However, Rueger
(1996) points out that the coefficient of refraction will vary greatly over a 24 hour
period. It also depends on the conditions such as clear or overcast skies, wind, ground
clearance and ground cover. There is less variation of k on windy and/or overcast
days.
This prompted the field test to compare the effect of refraction over grass, with the
effect over concrete pavements during conformance surveys.
page 261
Weather:
Remarks:
Procedure:
page 262
Reduction of
Observations
1. Calculate the means (zj and z2) and standard deviation of the
means fe, and Sz2 ) of thefiveobservations of the vertical angle at
each end of each line.
2. Repeat step one for each pair of observations ofZl and z 2
page 263
3. Calculate k by (4.23)
4. Calculate the standard deviation of k, as adapted from Rueger,
(1996) sk =
R
206265Z)
W<)
(4.24)
Results of the field test are shown below in graphical form in Diagram 414, in
tabular form and in Table 48.
Height In
Metres
o
'*>
o
CO
i_
0
CH
**
O
c
0
7 I
9.30
0
O
15.30
o
D I A G R A M 414
Sunny all day, no cloud cover, temperature: 15 to 19 C, strong wind blowing across
sight lines
page 264
The deviation of k from zero for sight lines of heights 0.5 and 1.0 metres above the
ground appear significantly greater than for heights of 1.5 and 1.9 metres. There
appears to be no improvement in reducing the deviation of k from zero by increasing
the height from 1.5 to 1.9 metres. The deviation of k from zero is about two for sight
lines above 1.5 metres, but can be as large as 6 for sight lines of 0.5 metres.
Tern
P
Time
Sight Line
Deg. Distance
metres
above grd.
C
metre
9.35
15 275.22
1.9
275.22
10.45 17
1.9
275.22
1.9
11.45 18
1.9
275.22
13.05 19
275.22
1.9
13.50 18
275.22
1.9
15.00 18
Htof
Northern End
Stdev z
Zi
Southern End
Stdev z2 Coef. Refrac.
Z2
(Sec.)
Stdev k
(Sec.)
89 53 40.0
89 53 44.9
89 53 44.4
89 53 42.1
89 53 42.6
89 53 42.1
0.74
0.73
0.89
0.33
1.42
0.66
1.32
1.69
1.91
1.33
2.62
1.56
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.07
0.12
0.08
Deg. Min.
Sec.
90 06 40.7
90 06 39.1
90 06 41.5
90 06 38.7
90 06 49.6
90 06 40.7
0.34
0.78
0.76
0.51
0.10
0.34
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
9.35
10.45
11.45
13.10
14.00
15.10
275.01
275.01
275.01
275.01
275.01
275.01
90 07 04.5
90 07 07.1
90.07 07.8
90 07 09.5
90 07 07.9
90 07 08.6
0.71
0.24
0.89
1.06
0.99
1.26
89 53 20.4
89 53 20.9
89 53 14.6
89 53 19.5
89 5319.6
89 53 17.9
1.11
0.43
1.74
0.65
0.43
0.66
1.80
2.15
1.51
2.26
2.09
1.98
0.14
0.05
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.15
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.45
10.45
11.50
13.00
13.50
14.55
274.98
274.98
274.98
274.98
274.98
274.98
90 07 16.8
90 07 20.6
90 07 26.1
90 07 20.3
90 07 25.4
90 07 21.5
0.83
0.37
0.40
1.89
0.75
0.59
89 5310.9
89 53 11.1
89 53 14.2
89 53 19.3
89 53 16.7
89 53 14.5
0.91
0.48
0.82
1.55
0.64
1.17
2.11
2.56
3.53
3.45
3.73
3.04
0.14
0.07
0.10
0.27
0.11
0.14
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
9.50
11.00
12.00
13.15
14.05
15.15
274.87
274.87
274.87
274.87
274.87
274.87
90 07 46.7
90 07 54.5
90 07 57.3
90.07 59.1
90.08 06.4
90 08 06.5
1.08
1.37
1.20
3.10
0.62
1.59
89 52 42.0
89 52 48.4
89 52 56.4
89 53 01.7
89 53 01.7
89 52 55.2
0.79
1.13
1.69
0.85
0.26
0.41
2.22
3.82
5.03
5.83
6.65
5.93
0.15
0.20
0.23
0.31
0.07
0.16
page 265
E R R O R IN k
1
2
3
4
50 m
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
SIGHT DISTANCE
125 m
100 m
75 m
0.0012
0.0008
0.0004
0.0025
0.0016
0.0009
0.0037
0.0024
0.0013
0.0049
0.0031
0.0018
5
6
7
8
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0022
0.0026
0.0031
0.0035
0.0039
0.0047
0.0055
0.0063
150 m
0.0018
0.0035
0.0053
0.0071
0.0061
0.0074
0.0086
0.0098
0.0088
0.0106
0.0124
0.0141
Table 49 gives the errors in heights determined at sight distances from 50 to 150
metres for errors in the estimate of k between one and eight, computed by (4.22). For
example, for a sight distance of 100 metres there is a height error of 1.6 millimetres,
when there is an error of two in the estimate of k. Underfieldconditions, this infers
that if k was assumed to be zero, but was actually minus two, then the height
determined would 1.6 millimetres lower than its true value.
page 266
There are economical benefits in allowing a maximum sight distance of 100 metres
for E D M trigonometrical heighting procedures for conformance of concrete pavement
surfaces (see Section 55.3). It would also aid the implementation of the control
charts set out in Section 310.
Diagram 414 shows that maximum k was about minus two for sight lines above 1.5
metres during the field test at Lake George. Table 49 shows the correction for the
effect of refraction w h e n k equals minus two, but assumed to be zero. The effect of k
would be reduced if it could be assumed that it was minus one and not zero.
It is possible to enter a default value for k into most modern electronic total stati
The instrument's on board software then corrects all the measured heights for the
effect of refraction using the default value of k. If a default value of minus one was
entered then the assumed value of k is minus one and not zero.
By assuming a k value of minus one, the errors in the estimates of k for sight lines
1.5 metres and above, would have ranged from 0.32 to 1.62 for the field test. See
column 9 of Table 48.
Setting a default k value of minus one enhances the accuracy of the procedure and
reduces the risk of setting a m a x i m u m sight distance of 100 metres.
page 2 6 7
of a conformance survey. These are actual surface level departures measured during
construction of the Highway. The aim of the demonstration was to show h o w the
results of the survey are changed due to corrections for different values of k, from
zero to minus six.
To estimate the corrections for different k values, sight distances were estimated from
an arbitrary point 10 metres off the pavement. Data from the Barton Highway also
included the chainage and offset of the sampling points.
The grid pattern for sampling defined in Section 34.3 was the same sampling plan for
the Barton Highway. Each string has 20 sampling points at 5 metre intervals, making
a total of 60 points in the 100 metre lot. The three strings across the pavement were
L P A V , C P A V and R P A V for the left side, centre line and right side of the pavement.
T A B L E 410 Effect of Refraction o n C o n f o r m a n c e Survey Results
LPAV
Mean =
Stdev. =
CPAV
Mean =
Stdev. =
RPAV
Mean =
Stdev. =
3
STRINGS
Mean =
Stdev. =
0.0048
0.0044
0.0094
0.0037
0.0096
0.0037
0.0099
0.0036
0.0101
0.0036
0.0104
0.0036
0.0107
0.0036
0.0109
0.0036
0.0036
0.0034
0.0039
0.0034
0.0041
0.0035
0.0044
0.0035
0.0046
0.0036
0.0049
0.0037
0.0051
0.0038
0.0059
0.0045
0.0062
0.0045
0.0064
0.0044
0.0067
0.0044
0.0069
0.0044
0.0072
0.0044
0.0075
0.0044
k=0
Tables 410, shows the effect of the correction for k for the three strings and the total
effect of all three strings. Columns 2 to 8 give the change in the mean and standard
deviation of each string and the whole lot as k varies from zero to minus six.
Chapter 4  G a u g e Capability
pag e
268
The surface level departure is given by the constructed pavement height minus the
design height. Therefore, an increase in the constructed pavement height, due to
corrections for the effect of refraction, will cause an increase in the surface level
departure.
Because the correction due to refraction is always positive for negative k, the mean of
each string increases as corrections are applied for k as it deviates from zero to minus
six. The size of the variation in the m e a n is proportional the square of the sight
distances observed during the conformance survey. For the configuration of sight
distances calculated for this section of the Barton Highway, the mean increases by
approximately 0.25 millimetres for a change of k of minus one. The correction to the
mean of the surface level departures for each string for k equal to minus six is 1.5
millimetres.
The variation in the standard deviation for each lot, due to applying corrections for k,
is not consistent between lots. From L P A V the standard deviation decreased by 0.6
millimetres as corrections were applied as k deviated from zero to minus six. For
C P A V , the standard deviation decreased by only 0.1 millimetres as k deviates from
zero to minus six. However, for R P A V the standard deviation does not decrease, but
increased by 0.4 millimetres as k deviated from zero to minus six.
page
269
The reason for this is that the change in the standard deviation of each string is not
only dependent on the sight distances, but also on the configuration of the surface
level departures themselves. This is because the correction for the effect of k is
proportional to the square of the sight distance. The height corrections due to
refraction are not evenly spread over the length of the pavement with very little
change occurring for sight lines of less than 30 metres.
Diagrams 415 shows the profiles of LPAV, RPAV and CPAV for k equal to zero and
if, hypothetically, k was not zero during the conformance survey but was minus six.
The dashed lines are the profiles of each string after adjustment of the surface level
departures due to an error of minus 6 in the estimation of k.
Effect Of Refraction O n Surface Level Departures Along LPAV String
LEGEND
Dashed line
fork=6 
0.010
en
a
a.
a>
Solid line
fork=0
0.005
a
>
a
0.000
_i
a>
o
2
1
1
30 40 50 60
20
90
100
Sight Distance
Dashed line
fork=6
co
<D
0010
Solid line
for k=0 "
TO
Q.
<D
DCD
0.005
>
IV
_l
(D
O
0.000
T
10
20
i
r
30 40 50 60
Sight Distance
70
80
page 2 7 0
Dashed line
for k = 6
/
l/
Mean = 0.0094
fork=0
\\
LEGEND
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sight Distance
D I A G R A M 415
412.7 U N C E R T A I N T Y O F T H E V A L U E O F k
The critical point about this field test is that the k values that were observed for
different times of the day can not be used for the conformance surveys to be carried
out in the future on this project. This is because the k value will vary from day to day
as the atmospheric conditions change. A s noted by Rueger (1996), there is less
variation of k on windy and/or overcast days and the magnitude of k is smaller.
On the day that the field test was carried out an umbrella was needed to shield the
instrument from a strong side wind. The temperature was also mild, varying between
15 and 19 degrees. Very little shimmer was observed on the day even for
observations of the 0.5 metre high sight line. O n a still hot day in summer it is
expected that the deviation of k from zero would be greater.
page 271
The findings of the field test support the control mechanisms in the Survey
Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers for reducing the effect of refraction,
these were;
Sight lines set at a m i n i m u m of 1.5 metres above the ground
Sight distances kept below 100 metres.
It also suggests that a default k value of minus one be entered into the total station to
improve the accuracy of the procedure.
CHAPTER 5
QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRENT SURVEYING PROCEDURES
FOR ROAD PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
51 OBJECTIVES
The questionnaire looked at all pavement courses and all pavement materials. The
questionnaire was no restricted to the concrete base course.
This Chapter is linked to Chapter 4, which estimated the capability of one surveying
procedure n o w being used to verify conformance of pavement surfaces to the current
R T A Q A specifications. The procedure is k n o w n as the Survey Conformance
page 273
Procedure For Pavement Layers. Analysis in Chapter 4 found that the procedure is
capable of meeting the survey requirements of the current specifications, and also of
the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3. The purpose of this questionnaire
was to determine if other surveying procedures currently being used throughout the
road construction industry have the same capability.
The questionnaire has found that a substantial number of survey procedures have
similar capabilities to the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers,
provided some minor improvements are made. These were the procedures that used
E D M trigonometrical heighting for height determination, the method also used by the
Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers. This method, as described in
detail in the Section 46, uses electronic total stations to take field measurements and
records the data electronically.
This Chapter distinguishes between the conventional method of levelling, which uses
an automatic level and staff, and short range E D M trigonometrical levelling, which
uses an electronic total station. The conventional method shall be referred to as
differential levelling and E D M trigonometrical levelling shall be referred to as
EDM
trigonometrical heighting.
page 274
However, due to the findings of the questionnaire and analysis of Chapter 4, the
following controls are necessary to ensure the accuracy of E D M trigonometrical
heighting surveying procedures:
a m i n i m u m height of 1.5 metres should be set for sight lines to reduce the
coefficient of refraction, k
a default value of minus one for k should be entered into the total station to reduce
the effect of refraction
sight distances should be kept less than 100 metres to control the effect of the
refraction and to reduce pointing errors
the vertical circle index error should be measured for each set up, the applied
vertical circle index correction is found by the m e a n of three measurements of the
vertical circle index error
a m i n i m u m of three control marks should be used to determine the height of the
total station for each set up
to achieve this and maintain a sight distance of less than 100 metres, control marks
should be placed no more than 100 metres apart along the project.
A quantitative analysis of differential levelling was not made as part of this thesis.
However, research by Auff (1983), has estimated the standard deviation of error of
surface level departures determined by differential levelling, using an optical
automatic level, as 2.5 millimetres. O n the basis of that research and the findings of
this report, differential levelling, using an optical automatic level, is not capable of
page 275
The error in differential levelling can be reduced by using an electronic digital level,
which has the capability of measuring heights to 0.1 millimetres. However, the use of
this instrument for conformance verification of concrete should be verified by
controlled tests. The test should consider all the factors that affect the accuracy of
surface level departures, including positional error of the sampling points and
disturbance of the control marks.
page 276
The questionnaire looked at surveying procedures for setting out the pavement and
their effect on process control. The following areas of improvement have been
identified:
The maximum chainage interval between trim pegs, used to control heights during
construction, should be set at 10 metres. S o m e contractors are still placing the
trim pegs at 20 metre chainage interval. Auff (1994) has shown that a substantial
reduction in the variability of pavement surface heights is achieved by reducing the
interval between the trim pegs from 20 metres to 10 metres.
Trim pegs should be checked for each course, preferably less than two days before
thefinaltrim. This is due to the disturbance of trim pegs that is possible on
construction sites.
When placing or checking the design heights marks on trim pegs, the position of
the trim pegs should be checked in thefieldby survey before calculating the design
heights. This is an incremental improvement that reduces the error caused by
calculating the design height at the wrong position. Positional errors of the trim
pegs create design height errors due to the cross fall and gradient of the pavement.
Almost all surveyors using E D M trigonometrical heighting are currently using this
method.
page 277
Fewer than half of the respondents wrote surveying procedures specifically for
pavement courses. This is in conflict with the R T A Q A specifications which requires
procedures to be written whenever quality m a y be adversely affected if processes are
not properly controlled. Analysis of the responses to the questionnaire shows that
some surveying procedures are not being controlled properly and these have the
potential to have an adverse effect on quality.
About a half of the contractors are sampling the pavement exclusively at the trim
pegs, which is also in conflict with the specifications. However, for concrete
pavements, if trim pegs are placed at 10 metre intervals, there is no statistical
page 278
difference between sample points taken at the trim pegs and at chainages halfway
between the trim pegs.
The positional accuracy of the sampling points defined by the Survey Conformance
Procedure For Pavement Layers was found to be sufficient for all pavement designs
constructed by the R T A . Other E D M trigonometrical heighting procedures are
considered to have positional accuracy similar to this procedure.
However, for conformance verification of concrete pavement courses, where the cross
fall and gradient are both greater than 3 % , the position of the sampling points should
not be determined by setting out a predetermined grid by tape measurements. The
suggested method is by radiation from control marks. For pavement designs where
both the cross fall and gradient are not greater than 3 % , the positional accuracy of a
grid set out by tape measurements m a y be acceptable. Analyses reported in Section
522 estimated the positional accuracy of the sampling points defined by a grid used
on one of the projects reported in the questionnaire. The method used was to radiate
the end points of each cross section from control marks and to mark the intermediate
points by taping. The positional accuracy of the this grid was considered acceptable
for pavement designs where both cross fall and gradient are not greater than 3%.
page 279
The RTA is keen to have an accurate and objective measurement of pavement surface
levels and thicknesses to aid asset management and to provide a measure of
contractors' processes.
It will also be in the contractors' interest to reduce the variation of the surveying
procedure for conformance purposes if a bonus system is paid on the standard
deviation of the surface level departures. Equation (5.1) shows h o w the variation in
the survey measurements adds variation to the measurement of the product;
Ytoduct
+ G
gauge
Where,
oproduct is the true, but unknown, standard deviation of the surface level departures
of the concrete pavement
agmge is the standard deviation of the error of the surveying procedure verifying
conformance.
oqotai is the standard deviation of the product found by using the surveying
procedure, it includes the variation (error) in the surveying procedure.
Table 51 shows how much the standard deviation of error of the surveying procedure
adds to the standard deviation of the product for different values of the product
standard deviation and the standard deviation of the error of the surveying procedure.
A standard deviation of 1.0 millimetre approximates the capability of E D M
trigonometrical heighting, while 2.5 millimetres represents the order of magnitude of
variation expected by differential levelling.
page 280
3 mm
4 mm
5 mm
6 mm
(<Jeause)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
mm
mm
mm
mm
3.16
3.35
3.61
3.91
mm
mm
mm
mm
4.12
4.27
4.47
4.72
mm
mm
mm
mm
5.10
5.22
5.39
5.59
mm
mm
mm
mm
6.08
6.18
6.32
6.50
mm
mm
mm
mm
The values in Columns 2 to 5 of Table 51 are the inflated values of the true standard
deviation, due to the variation in the surveying procedure.
This shows the cost risk to the contractor. Take for example the situation of a bonus
being paid for a product standard deviation of less than 6 millimetres. The lot can be
measured either by E D M trigonometrical heighting, with standard deviation of error
of 1.0 millimetres or by differential levelling, with standard deviation of error of say
2.5 millimetres. For the survey conformance report to show a standard deviation of
less than 6 millimetres, the standard deviation of the product will need to be reduced
to less than 5.5 millimetres, if surveyed by differential levelling, but only reduced to
5.9 millimetres if surveyed by E D M trigonometrical heighting.
Contractors should therefore be made well aware that it is in their own interest to
ensure that the most accurate surveying procedures are used for conformance surveys.
page 281
The questionnaire was designed to determine the current surveying procedures being
used during construction of road pavement courses in N S W by the R T A . This
includes road pavements constructed by road construction organisations under
contract to the R T A and road pavements constructed by the RTA's o w n direct control
work force. The questionnaire did not include roads constructed by privately funded
tollway consortia. The questionnaire looked at all pavement courses and all
pavement materials.
The following sample frame defined the sampling to achieve the objectives of the
questionnaire:
1. The surveying procedures used by road construction contractors under the terms of
an R T A Q A contract that included pavement construction and commenced since
June 1994.
2. The surveying procedures used by R T A survey offices for pavements constructed
by the RTA's o w n direct control work force.
However, the survey included a response from Yass Bypass, which commenced
construction in October 1992, even though this is before the time specified by the
sample frame. This was due to the size of the project and because it represents the
surveying methods used to set out and measure concrete pavements in the Goulbum
area. The Goulburn and Newcastle R T A areas construct most of the concrete
pavements in N S W .
page 282
RTA site surveillance surveyors completed the questionnaires for the seventeen
projects constructed by road construction organisations under the terms of R T A Q A
contracts. The questionnaire requested R T A site surveillance surveyors to report
actual surveying methods used and not rely solely on the documented surveying
procedures presented by the contractor. This was partly because some road
construction organisations give subcontract surveyors their o w n documented
surveying procedures, believing this will satisfy R T A contractual requirements.
However, the subcontract surveyor will usually use his/her o w n surveying methods if
they are different from the construction organisation's documented procedures. Also,
not all documented surveying procedures would provide enough information to
complete the questionnaire.
Each questionnaire was to represent one only road construction project built by a road
construction organisation under the terms of an R T A Q A contract.
RTA surveyors were also asked to fill in a questionnaire on their own surveying
procedures for set out and conformance of pavement courses, if carrying out similar
work as required for R T A Q A contracts.
54. RESPONSES
Twenty six responses were returned. Eighteen responses were from road construction
organisations w h o construct roads under contract to the R T A . In some instances,
there is more than one response about the same road construction organisation. This
is because the questionnaire was project specific and not organisation specific. The
collection of more than one response from a contractor enabled assessment of the
page 283
organisations, the responses from the RTA were intended to be office specif
project specific. This was to assess the consistency between RTA offices. Ho
Parramatta survey section returned four responses from four separate projec
construction by the RTA direct control work forces. All four responses were
significantly different from each other. Therefore, the survey included all
responses as if they are individual responses, and not the same response re
times.
5^4.1 R O A D C O N S T R U C T I O N O R G A N I S A T I O N S
Table 52 lists the road construction organisations who constructed projects on which
responses were completed for the questionnaire.
TABLE 52 Road Construction
Organisations
Road Construction
Organisation
Abigroup
Barclay Mowlem
Civilcon
Daracon
Fletchers
* M . Harrison
Ridge Consolidated
Seovic
Thiess
Total 18
* The R T A contracted private surveyor M . Harrison to provide surveying services for
the RTA's direct control work force during construction of the Kalang River
page 284
Table 53 lists the RTA Survey Offices that completed questionnaires on thei
surveying procedures for set out and conformance verification of pavement courses.
T A B L E 53 R T A Offices
No. of
R T A Survey Office Responses
1
Bowenfels
1
H u m e District Office
1
Newcastle
4
Parramatta
1
Wollongong
8
Total
54.3 PRIVATE S E C T O R P R O J E C T S B R A N C H D A T A B A S E
The RTA Private Sector Projects Branch maintains a database of QA road contr
let by the RTA. The database contained 34 road contracts that include pavement
construction and commenced between June 1994 and July 1996. Site surveillance
returned responses for fifteen of these contracts. This represents 44 % of the total
number of projects of the sample frame for determining the current surveying
procedures by contractor surveys.
Not included on the RTA Private Sector Projects Branch database were the two
contracts on the Yass Bypass as they commenced before June 1994. The Kalang
River to Buggy Creek project also was not in the R T A Private Sector Projects Branc
database as the R T A constructed this project.
page 285
From the database, the total tendered value of the fifteen contracts was $134.8
million. The tendered contract value of the two Yass Bypass contracts was $29.8
million, while the Kalang River to Buggy Creek project cost $7m. This makes a total
of $171.6 million for the seventeen projects representing road construction
organisations, plus Kalang River to Buggy Creek project.
54.4 D A T A B A S E O F A L L O F T H E R E S P O N S E S
Appendix A51 is the database of all the responses used for the analysis in this
Chapter and a copy of the questionnaire. Table 54 lists the materials used for the
base courses on seventeen projects. The contract for the eighteenth project
(constructed by a road construction organisation) was to the top of select zone only,
(see Diagram 11) so, did not construct the base course.
T A B L E 54 Base Course Materials
Base Material
Asphalt
Concrete.
Flexible Bound
Flexible Unbound
Total
Number Of
Projects
2
8
4
3
17
Table 55 shows the methods used to trim the base course for the same seventeen
project.
T A B L E 55 Trimming Methods
Trimming
Method
Paving Machine
Grader
Total
Number Of
Projects
12
5
17
page 286
The R T A Q A contracts of the eight respondents that used concrete for the base
material required the contractors to use paving machines to construct the concrete
pavements. The two respondents that nominated asphalt for the base material also
used a paving machine for trimming. The other two respondents that used a paving
machine were two of the respondents that constructed the base course of flexible
bound material.
A grader trimmed all earthworks surfaces, subgrade surfaces and select zones for the
projects described in the database. None of the respondents nominated the Autograde
as a method for trimming any pavement courses.
The analysis of the questionnaire looks at each question in turn. If the same question
was asked for set out surveying procedures and conformance surveying procedures,
then they were grouped in the same Section for analysis.
Construction Procedures
Control Marks
Section 55.20
Sampling Plans
Collecting And Reducing Data For Conformance Surveys Sections 55.27 to 55.30
page 287
Where appropriate, the analysis makes some comments about the effects of the
findings of each question on the surveying procedures and the quality of the product.
Yes
No
7/26. Is there one generic documented procedure covering all types of set
out/conformance for the whole project?
D
Yes
No
page 288
55.1.1 Results
Responses
Documented Procedures
Set Out
Conformance
11
11
10
26
26
pavement courses
One generic procedure covering all
set out/conformance on the project
No documented surveying procedures 4 7
Unknown 1 0
Total
The responses to the questions were almost identical for construction set out
surveying procedures and conformance surveying procedures.
Three of the four responses that had no procedure at all for set out surveys, and th
of the seven responses that had no procedure at all for conformance, were from the
same R T A survey offices.
The eleven responses that had documented procedures specifically written for
construction set out surveys were, with one exception, the same as those that had
documented procedures written specifically for conformance surveys.
55.1.2 Comments
The principles of quality assurance require that procedures are written to ensure
proper planning and to aid problem solving. R T A Q A contracts specify that
procedures shall be produced for processes that can have an adverse effect on quality
page 289
if they are not adequately controlled. The analyses of this Chapter demonstrates that
surveying procedures, if not adequately controlled, will have an adverse effect on
quality during construction of pavement courses and on acceptance sampling of the
constructed pavement.
Fewer than half of the respondents have met the contractual requirement of providing
specific documented surveying procedures for the processes of constructing and
measuring pavement courses. S o m e contract surveyors consider one generic
surveying procedure covering all the set out surveys is sufficient for set out of
pavement courses. Similarly, they consider one generic surveying procedure covering
all the conformance verification surveys on the project sufficient for conformance of
pavement courses.
Failure to properly control these factors may lead to poor process control during
laying of the pavement. It will also increase the risk to the R T A of accepting poor
quality work and increase theriskto contractors of having good quality work rejected.
page 290
Other (Specify.
55.2.1 Results
Responses
Height determination Method
Differential levelling
Set Out
Conformance
E D M trigonometrical heighting
17
20
Others
Total
26
26
Seventeen of the respondents used E D M trigonometrical heighting for set out surveys
and twenty used it for conformance purposes. With one exception, all of the
respondents, w h o used E D M trigonometrical heighting for set out surveys, also used it
for conformance purposes. Four of the nine respondents who used differential
levelling for set out surveys, used E D M trigonometrical heighting for conformance
purposes.
page 291
55.2.2 Comments
Auff (1983) estimated the standard deviation of error of surface level departures by
differential levelling, using optical automatic level, to be about 2.5 millimetres. This
estimate was based on the variation observed by different operators w h e n asked to set
out and determine the surface level departures of sampling points, at predetermined
chainages and offsets, on the same test section of pavement. Therefore, some of the
variation was due the positional error of the sampling points. The method used to set
out the sampling points was by optical square and tape.
Five out of the six respondents using differential levelling for conformance purposes
also set out a grid at predetermined positions and used optical automatic levels. The
methods of setting out the grids by allfiverespondents are not known, so their
accuracy can not be evaluated. However, 2.5 millimetres can be taken to represent
the order of magnitude of variation expected by differential levelling for conformance
purposes.
page 292
EDM trigonometrical heighting has gained wider usage in recent years. However,
some surveyors are still unconvinced of its accuracy. The capability of E D M
trigonometrical heighting to meet the proposed specification requirements for
concrete pavements is demonstrated by the analysis of Chapter 4. For cost, time,
accuracy and quality assurance requirements E D M trigonometrical heighting can be
considered as current "Best Practice" for surveys for setting out and for verifying
conformance of pavement courses.
See Section 56 for the advantages of EDM trigonometrical heighting procedures over
differential levelling procedures for conformance verifications and set out surveys for
road pavements.
See Section 58 for an qualitative analysis of height determination by the differentia
levelling procedure and E D M trigonometrical heighting. The analysis concludes that
there are more sources of errors in height determination by differential levelling than
by E D M trigonometrical heighting. It can therefore be concluded that the accuracy of
height determination by differential levelling (with an optical automatic level) is
inferior to the accuracy of height determination by E D M trigonometrical heighting.
BY EDM TRIGONOMETRICAL
HEIGHTING.
page 293
Other (Specify..
55.3.1 Results
Responses
Height determination of total station
Set Out
Conformance
10
17
20
Total
The results listed above gives the number of control marks used to determine the
height of the total station and the method used to transfer the height of the control
.)
page 294
marks to the total station. Table 56 gives the description of the method of height
transfer from the control mark(s) to the total station for all methods used.
T A B L E 56
Method O f
Number Of
Control
Determining Height
O f Total Station.
Marks Used
1 Control Point Tape measure
1
1 Control Point 1
Ranging pole
2 Control Points 2
Tripods
2 Control Points 2
Ranging pole
3 Control Points Tripods
3 Control Points Ranging pole
3
3
Position O f
Total Station
Over control
mark
Remote from
control marks
Remote from
control marks
Remote from
control marks
Remote from
control marks
Remote from
control marks
Method O f Measuring
Height Difference From
Control Marks.
Tape measure up from
control mark under total
station.
Sighting to ranging pole on
control mark.
Sighting to tripods placed
over control marks.
Sighting to ranging pole
placed on each control
marks.
Sighting to tripods placed
over control marks.
Sighting to ranging pole
placed on each control
marks.
For set out and conformance surveys, 33 of the 38 respondents used a ranging pole for
sighting to the control marks to determine the height of the total station. Only o
respondent measured the height of the total station over the control mark by tape.
Only three respondents for construction set out surveys and conformance surveys us
one control mark to determine the height of the total station.
55.3.2 Comments
Variability inherent in transferring heights from the control marks to the total s
by the use of a tape, is one reason that some surveyors still doubt the accuracy o
EDM trigonometrical heighting. This was the first method used to determine the
height of the total station when EDM trigonometrical heighting was first introduce
during the 1980's. The method set the total station over the control mark and
page 2 9 5
measured its height above the control mark with a tape to determine its height.
Diagram 51 shows the error introduced by measuring the height of the total station
above a control mark with a tape.
Vertical Axis
abt. 0.07 m
Total station
Tape bent around base of total station
to measure distance between control point
and centre of telescope axis
DIAGRAM 51
This method of transferring heights to the total station shown in Diagram 51 is still
used for some survey tasks such as measuring earthworks quantities and setting out
batters. Some surveyors make an allowance of one or two millimetres for the bend in
the tape. However, these survey tasks do not require the same order of accuracy of
height determination as pavements. The uncertainty created by the bend in the tape is
too large for tolerances of pavement courses.
page 296
Diagram 52 shows a more accurate method of transferring the height of the control
mark to the total station. This method requires that the total station be set up away
(remote) from the control mark(s).
Horizontal Line
Of Sight
Total Station
Height =Hrs
VC,
<
Pavement
D I A G R A M 52
In Diagram 52 the ranging pole is first placed on a control mark of known height,
HCM The total station measures the slope distance to the ranging pole and, by
deduction, the vertical angle between the sight line and horizontal. From these
measurements, V C i is calculated by (4.4). Therefore, the height of the total station,
H T S is then given by,
H T s = H C M + HT + VC1
(5.2)
If the same ranging pole is then used to determine heights of points on the pavement,
H P A V , these heights are given by,
H PAV
HTS  V C 2  HT.
(5.3)
page 297
(5.4)
The pavement height determined by (5.4) does not include HT, the height of the
ranging pole.
The recommended method of height determination is to use the same ranging pole,
without changing its length to,
sight the control mark to determine the height of the total station
and for the survey for determining the heights of the pavement surface.
As (5.4) shows, by using the same ranging pole on the control mark and the pavement
surface, the surveyed pavement heights are independent of the height of the ranging
pole, HT. Hence, by deduction, any error in the length of the ranging pole does not
affect the surveyed heights of the pavement.
Monitoring the control marks is necessary to detect any gross errors in the
coordinated values of the control marks. See Section 55.18 for recorded movement
page 298
of control marks on past road construction projects. If only one control mark is used
then it is difficult to detect movement in the control marks.
The pointing error is reduced by using more than one control mark to determine the
height of the total station. For the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement
Layers, the pointing error was further reduced by sighting to each control mark on
both face left and faceright.The standard deviation of the heights transferred to the
total station using this procedure is estimated to be 0.23 millimetres.
There is variability in the control marks even without any disturbance due to the
residuals in the measurement and adjustment of the original survey of the control
marks. If the standard deviation of the height error of all the control marks is o; and
the mean of three control marks is used to define the height of the total station, then
the standard deviation of the mean is ?=.
V3
Therefore, the preferred method of transferring height from the control marks to the
total station is by using a ranging pole to sight to three control marks.
Is there a required minimum height for the line of sight above the
ground?
Yes.
(Specify.
No.
.;
page 299
55.4.1 Results
Responses
Specified minimum height of sight lines
Set Out
1.5 m
1.3 m
1.2 m
1.0 m
0.5 m
11
17
20
Total
Conformance
Only nine respondents specified a minimum height for the sight lines and they were
the same respondents for both set out surveys and conformance surveys. Only three
set a minimum height of sight lines of 1.5 metres to control the effect of refraction, as
recommended as a result of the Lake George field test reported in Section 412.
The Lake George field test estimated the effect of refraction above concrete
pavements and demonstrated h o w the coefficient of refraction, k, increases as sight
lines drop below 1.5 metres. It also showed how errors in estimating k affect the
results of conformance surveys.
Only four of the eight responses from projects where concrete pavement was bein
placed set a minimum height for sight lines. One of these four respondents set the
recommended minimum height of 1.5 metres. The other 3 set minimum heights of
0.5, and two set the minimum height at 1.2 metres.
page
300
55.4.2 Comments
A minimum height of sight lines of 1.2 or 1.3 metres is sometimes used because it is
the height of some brands of ranging pole w h e n fully contracted. Leaving the pole
fully contracted ensures that it can not accidentally slip during the survey. W h e n a
ranging pole is extended, it is locked into position by some locking mechanism
designed by the manufacturer. Failure to exercise proper care to ensure that the
ranging pole is fixed at a constant height, or if the locking mechanism of the ranging
pole is starting to wear, can cause it to slip during the survey.
Some surveyors solve the dilemma of setting a minimum height to control refraction
and ensuring against slippage during the survey byfixingthe ranging pole
permanently longer than 1.5 metres by screws or welding. A s explained in Section 55.3, the exact height of the ranging pole is not important, provided it does not change
during the survey.
To ensure that the sight line is above 1.5 metres, the height of the ranging pole should
be set above 1.5 metres. Also, the total station should be set on the pavement, or on
ground higher than the pavement, at a height of greater than 1.5 metres. The total
station will normally be set at a height that is comfortable for the surveyor. O n
average, this height will vary between 1.55 and 1.75 metres, depending on the
surveyor's height. The only factor that will influence the height of the sight line is if
the survey extends over a crest vertical curve. For this reason a target height of 1.6 or
1.7 metres is recommended.
page 301
Each week.
Each month or longer.
55.5.1 Results
Responses
Measurement of vertical index correction
Set Out
Conformance
Each set up
Each day
Once a week
5#
17
20
# One respondent for set out surveys stated that the total station was fitted with an
automatic compensator to eliminate the vertical circle index error.
The responses were polarised about either end of the nominated time scale, at each
set up and at once a week or greater. The least common response was each day.
page 302
55.5.2 C o m m e n t s
The vertical circle index error is the angle between true horizontal and horizontal as
defined by the vertical circle of the total station.
The vertical index correction, removes the vertical circle index error by aligning the
horizontal axis of the vertical circle of the total station with true horizontal.
Vertical circle
oftotal station
Vertical cicle
index error
True horizontal
Slope distance, D,
measured by total station
DIAGRAM 5.3
Horizontal as defined
by the vertical circle
of total station
Ranging pole
H Point.
HTSVQHT.
(5.5)
Where H T S is the height of the total station and H T is the height of the ranging pole.
VC = Slope distance D x Cos z (56)
However, the angle measured by the total station is in error due to the vertical index
error. It will measure z minus e.
page 303
(Note: For the total station in the diagram, s is subtractedfrom z, but it could
equivalently be added for other total stations)
Therefore, all heights determined by the survey will be in error due to the vertical
circle index error, e.. The error in height is given as D Sin e. The height error will
not be constant for each point but will be proportional to the sight distance, D.
The size of the vertical circle index error is not critical, but the error in estimating
critical. The vertical circle index error for different total stations could be up to sixty
seconds of arc per face, without causing errors in the survey, provided it is measured
accurately and the correction applied. M o s t software used for reduction of field
measurements by E D M trigonometrical heighting allows for a correction for the
vertical circle index to be applied.
Analysis in Section 49.3 showed that the vertical circle index error will change with
time. A diurnal variation was noted during the Lake George refraction field test,
when the vertical circle index error appeared to drift throughout the day by about plus
or minus two seconds of arc per face.
All electronic total stations exhibit variation in the vertical circle index error due to
temperature variation (Rueger, (1997b). In extreme cases this has been measured as
high as 0.88 seconds of arc per face for a change of one degree Celsius in temperature
(Teskey, 1992). Therefore, because of temperature variation, the vertical circle index
enor should be measured at each set up throughout.
page 304
The questionnaire did not ask for the method of measurement of the vertical circle
index error. However, the usual practice is to observe one face left and one face right
reading of the vertical circle to a distance object. The vertical circle index error is
then calculated by equation (5.7) below,
,.,,, ^ (Vert circle read, face left+vert, circle read face right) 360degrees
Vertical Circle Index Error=
=
2
(5.7)
This gives one measurement of the vertical circle index error.
During the Lake George refraction field test the vertical circle index error was
measured 36 times throughout the day, each measurement being the m e a n of five
measurements on face left and faceright.The average standard deviation of the 36
measurements was 1.67 seconds of arc per face. Assuming 1.67 seconds as the
standard deviation of a single measurement of the vertical index error then, then 95 %
of the single measurements will be in the range of about 3.3 seconds of arc per face.
Therefore, a single measurement of the vertical index error is not sensitive enough for
the accuracy required for conformance surveys. It is therefore recommended that:
The vertical circle index error be measured for each set up.
The mean of three measurements of the vertical circle index error be adopted for
the vertical circle index correction.
The following procedure be used for measurement of the vertical index error.
55.5.4 Procedure for M e a s u r i n g the Vertical Circle Index Error
1. Sight to a well defined distance target with the vertical circle on face left and
record the vertical circle reading.
page 305
2. Trunion the telescope axis and sight to the same target with the vertical circle on
facerightand record the vertical circle reading
3. Calculate the vertical circle index error by (5.7).
4. Repeat steps 1 to 3 three times and calculate the m e a n and standard deviation of
the vertical circle index error.
5. Apply the m e a n vertical circle index error as the vertical circle index correction if
the standard deviation is less than 4 seconds of arc per face.
6. If standard deviation is greater than 4 seconds of arc repeat procedure until
standard deviation of the three readings of the vertical circle index error is less
than four seconds of arc per face.
Analyses in Chapter 4 and the responses to the questionnaire have raised concern over
the control of the vertical circle index error. Surveying procedures will have to
address this concern to achieve the accuracy required for the compliance scheme
described in Chapter 3.
Questions 12 and 35
12/35. What is the maximum length of sight from the Total Station for
levelling?
Set Out
50
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
150
200
17
20
Total
Conformance
One hundred metres is the most c o m m o n m a x i m u m sight distance and this is the
distance recommended by the analysis of Chapter 4 to control the effects of refraction
and pointing error.
55.6.2 Comments
The error in height determination due to the error in estimating the coefficient of
refraction, k, is proportional to the square of the sight distance. Therefore, increasing
the sight distance from one hundred to one hundred and twenty metres will increase
the error in height by aboutfiftypercent, due to the uncertainty of k. Increasing the
page 307
distance to one hundred and forty metres will double the height error at one hundred
metres and sight distances of two hundred metres will increase the error due to the
uncertainty of k at one hundred metres by four fold.
Sight distances less than one hundred metres are not maximising the economic
benefits of using E D M trigonometrical heighting. If the sight distance is restricted to
fifty metres, then the number of set ups is double the number required when a
m a x i m u m sight distance is one hundred metres.
For EDM trigonometrical heighting procedures, the total station has to be orientated
for each set up. The time taken m a y vary between different procedures. During the
field test of the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers the orientation
time was measured to be about eight minutes. This m a y increase to about fifteen
minutes on a construction site due to construction equipment, accessibility of the
control marks and traffic.
When the orientation of the total station has been completed two hundred metres of
pavement can be surveyed by sighting one hundred metres either side of the total
station. Approximately forty minutes extra is required to survey two hundred metres
of pavement surface, (at sixty points per one hundred metres) after orientation.
Therefore, aboutfiftyfiveminutes are required for a conformance survey on a two
hundred metres section of pavement using a m a x i m u m sight distance of one hundred
metres. If a m a x i m u m sight distance offiftymetres is used, the same survey would
take about seventy minutes, plus the time taken to m o v e the total station between set
up locations. This is an increase in time of almost thirty percent.
page 3 0 g
55.7 D E T E R M I N I N G T H E D E S I G N L E V E L O F T H E TRIM P E G
Questions 13
13.
Calculation of the design level at the true vosition of the trim peg
which is determined by radiation observations taken to level the trim
peg.
Calculation of the design level at the true vosition of the trim peg
which is determined by radiation observations taken independently of
levelling the trim peg.
55.7.1 Results
Position of the trim peg used to calculate the design height Responses
True position determined by using software.
13
Total
17
Only four of the 17 respondents using E D M trigonometrical heighting for set out
surveys were adopting the nominal position for calculation of the design heights. The
other 13 respondents were using measurements from the total station to estimate the
true position of the trim peg before calculating the design height.
page 309
55.7.2 Comments
This question was to see if surveyors were maximising the potential of EDM
trigonometrical heighting by reducing the positional error of the trim pegs.
Like all processes, the process of placing trim pegs in the correct position will have
variability. This will lead to errors in the position of the trim pegs. The positional
errors of the trim pegs will translate into a design height errors due to the cross fall
and/or gradient of the pavement. Therefore, the design height marks on the trim pegs,
or the distance up to the string controlling a paving machine, will be incorrect.
In Section 55.13, estimates of the positional errors of trim pegs and the effect of the
positional errors on the design height marks placed on the trim pegs are given.
page 310
Calculation of the design level at the true position of the trim peg.
O
.)
.)
55.8.1 Results
Total
_ _
13
This question was only for the 13 respondents who answered in question 13 that they
were using measurements from the total station to estimate the true position of the
trim peg before calculating the design height.
Computer software was used by all respondents for reducing the field measurements
for estimating the true position of the trim pegs.
page 311
55.8.2 Comments
Seven of the respondents were calculating the position of the trim peg in the field
instantaneously. This provides a significant advantage over post processing by
computer, particularly during initial placing of the design height marks on the trim
pegs. (If the trim peg is driven flush with the ground there is still some advantage in
instantaneous processing, but it is not as large. For this type of trim peg, the finished
design height is not marked. Instead the surveyor provides a schedule of distances up
to a string line to control the paving machine.)
During the process of placing a design height mark, the field height of the top of the
trim peg isfirstdetermined and the software calculates the difference between this
height and the design height of the pavement at the position of the trim peg. The
surveyor then measures the distance d o w n the trim peg and marks the design height.
For instantaneous processing, this mark can be placed while the total station is still set
page 312
up. If the ranging pole is then placed on the design height mark, afinalcheck is made
to verify that it has been placed correctly.
For post processing, the surveyor still has to survey the tops of the trim pegs to
determine their heights. T o process the survey results, the surveyor will then
normally dismantle the total station and return to the office to calculate the distances
down to the design height marks for each trim peg. It is then necessary to return to
the field to place the design height marks on the trim pegs. Finally, to check that the
survey has been carried out correctly, the total station has to be again set up and all of
the design height marks surveyed.
The extra time taken for post processing over instantaneous processing is shown by
the following comparison:
Post Processing
Travel time to and from where the
computer is located.
Instantaneous Processing
Computer attached to total station in
thefield,therefore no extra travel
time.
completed together.
page 313
Post Processing
Instantaneous Processing
During marking, the surveyor or field Computer displays the distance down
assistant will carry a paper copy of the
Question 14a (for options 2 and 3 only of question 14) lists some of the software used
to calculate the true position of the trim peg. Moss is the RTA computer design
package that surveyors use to create the digital terrain model and Road Design
Officers use to design the road. However, it does not allow for instantaneous
processing to be carried out in the field.
The most popular commercially available software package used by the respondents
was Practical Survey Solutions, with four respondents. This is written by a former
RTA surveyor who had extensive experience in pavement construction and contract
supervision. This is the package used by the Conformance Surveys For Pavement
page 314
Layers. All the respondents using this package marked the trim pegs by instantaneous
processing in the field.
The next most popular package was Geocomp with three respondents using it. Two
of these marked the trim pegs by instantaneous processing. One extra respondent
used a combination of Practical Survey Solutions and Geocomp.
Optical
Wild NA 2000)
Electronic (eg.
Laser
_7
Other Specify
55.9.1 Results
Responses
Type O f Level
Set Out
Conformance
Optical.
Electronic
Laser.
Others.
Total
page 315
One of the respondents that used an electronic digital level for set out surveys used
E D M trigonometrical heighting for conformance surveys.
55.9.2 Comments
The Leica NA 3000 is typical of the electronic digital levels that are currently
commercially available. The standard deviation of error of this instrument is quoted
by the manufacturer to be 0.2 m m for a one kilometre double run with invar staffs.
The electronic digital levels used by the respondents to this questionnaire would be of
comparable quality to the Leica N A 3000.
Electronic digital levels have the advantage over optical automatic levels of being
able to record the data electronically on to an inboard data collector. The data can
then be downloaded for processing on a personal computer. Electronic digital levels
also use a simplified reading method that only requires the surveyor to sight the staff
and focus the telescope. Therefore, electronic digital levels can eliminate reading,
booking and transcription errors, but at the same time provide a higher order of
accuracy than optical automatic levels.
The one respondent to the questionnaire that used an electronic digital level for
conformance surveys, recorded the data by hand and not on the inboard data collector.
This was so that the results of the survey could be given to the field staff as soon as
the survey was completed.
page 316
Generally, the advantages of electronic digital levels over optical automatic levels are
not being utilised by surveyors involved in pavement construction.
i.10.1 Results
Responses
Procedure
Set Out
Conformance
Total
None of the respondents for either construction set out or conformance surveys used a
double level run.
55.10.2 Comments
A single level run means that the height of each mark is determined only once,
usually as an intermediate sight. Intermediate sights have no mechanism for checking
for errors, they are individual readings that bear no mathematical relationship to other
readings taken during the survey. Therefore, an incorrect staff reading, or a booking
error, can be made without detection.
page 317
A double level run means that heights of all the points are determined twice. For the
second height determination of each point, the automatic level is set at a different
height, which means a different staff reading This provides an independent check. A
double level run will also improve the accuracy of the survey by taking the mean of
small differences in the heights of each point between the two level runs.
The difficulty in detecting movement in the control marks when using a single level
run is explained in Section 55.18. The errors of the height determination survey can
compensate for some of the error caused by the movement in the control marks. It is
difficult to separate the two sources of error when using a single level run. A double
level run provides a check on the surveying errors and makes it easier to separate the
sources of error.
The size of some movements in the control marks that could go undetected and the
effect of that on the quality of the pavement is estimated in Section 55.18. It is
therefore recommended that a double level run be used for construction setting out
and conformance surveys of pavement courses.
An electronic digital level with a data recorder eliminates the reading and booking
errors that are possible with an optical automatic level. The accuracy of a single level
run is adequate. It is not necessary for a double level run to improve the accuracy of
the intermediate points. However, a closed level run, back to the control mark at the
start of the survey, is recommended. This will provide a check on the survey and
objective evidence of any movement in the control marks. It is not recommended to
level the intermediate points twice with an electronic digital level.
page 318
55.11.1 Results
Responses
Sight Distance (Metres)
Set Out
40
45
60
80
Not Known
Not Specified
Conformance
Total
Generally the sight distances for differential levelling are shorter than the sight
distances for E D M trigonometrical heighting. The most c o m m o n sight distance was
40 metres compared to 100 metres for E D M trigonometrical heighting.
55.11.2 Comments
Six respondents stated that the sight distance was unspecified or unknown. This
indicate that some surveyors do not see sight distance as important for controlling the
accuracy of differential levelling.
55.12 TO SECTION
page 319
CONSTRUCTION
SURVEYS
Other (Specify.
.)
55.12.1 Results
Method Responses
Total station (or theodolite and E D M ) radiation
25
Total
26
55.12.2 C o m m e n t s
All but one of the respondents placed the trim pegs by direct radiation from
marks. The other respondent placed the trim pegs by taping off the centre line.
Taping off the centre line is considered unsatisfactory because there are too many
possible sources of errors in the method. These sources of possible errors include:
errors in the marking of the original centre line pegs
disturbance of the original centre line pegs
the taping method used to measure off the centre line.
page
320
See Section 55.13 for the estimated effect of the positional error of trim pegs on
design height marks.
Questions 19
19. Estimated accuracy of the trim pegs' positions compared to the nominal
chainage and offset. Which range would cover 99% of the errors in position
of the trim pegs?
within 20 mm
within 20 to 70 mm
within 70 to 200 mm
Unknown
Results
17
Unknown
Total
26
page 321
Question 19 looks at the errors in the chainage and offset of the trim pegs and
estimates the effect of those errors on the design height marks placed on the trim pegs
by the surveyor. Diagram 54 shows how these design height marks control the
pavement heights during trimming.
Trim pegs
String pulled across the pavement parallel to the
finished surface of the pavement to control trimming
Design height
mark. Offset
above the
finished surface
of the pavement
Pavement surface
D I A G R A M 54
When a grader trims the pavement, a string line pulled across the pavement controls
the heights of the pavement. The field assistant tapes down from the string line to the
pavement surface and tells the grader operator the amount of material still to be
trimmed.
String lines that run parallel to the pavement control paving machines. Trim pegs
flush with the ground control the heights of the string lines. The surveyor determines
the heights of the trim pegs flush with the ground and prepares a schedule of distances
up to set the string line at the correct height.
page 322
The respondents to the questionnaire only gave estimates of the positional error of th
trim pegs, based on their o w n practical experience and a "feel" for the project. N o
data have been analysed as part of this thesis to gain a better estimate of the positional
error of the trim pegs expected on a typical construction site. However, seventeen
respondents estimated that 9 9 % of the positional errors of the trim pegs would be
contained by a range that was somewhere between zero to 20 and zero to 70
millimetres.
Therefore, this analysis adopts a range of zero to 50 millimetres (for 99% the
positional errors of the trim pegs) to demonstrate the effect of the positional error of
the trim pegs on the design height marks placed on trim pegs, on a typical
construction site.
page 3 2 3
>
D
tJJ (cross fall)=(Slope of cross fall)xRSin<fi
9
._ c
Oc
T true (Field)
Position
Let R = the positional error)
(D
U
D)
c
o
D
0
C
0
Chainage on
Centre Line
Offset
Nominal
position
of trim
peg
c
0
E
0
>
D
DIAGRAM 55
In Diagram 55, N is the nominal position of the trim peg as defined by its designated
chainage and offset. Due to errors in the survey to place the trim peg, and disturbance af
placement, its field (true) position is at T. The design height of the pavement at T will b
different from the design height at N if the pavement slopes between N and T. This will
cause an enor in any design height mark placed on the trim peg if the chainage and offset a
N define the position of the trim peg for estimating trim peg's design height.
page 324
be the difference in the design height between N and T due to the pavement's
gradient, where v is the slope of the pavement, expressed as a percentage, in the
direction of the pavement centre line.
Let,
be the difference in the design height between N and T due to the pavement's cross
fall, where, x is the slope of the pavement, expressed as a percentage, square to the
pavement centre line.
Therefore, the difference in the design height, H, between N and T is given by;
For a given pavement design and distance R, the height difference, H, between N and
T will vary as ^ changes. For example, consider the cross fall slope is positive for $
equal to 90 and the gradient positive for <f> equal to zero degrees, and the cross fall
and gradient are equal. Then H will be at its m a x i m u m when $ is 45. However, H
will be zero when t/> is equal to 135 This is because the increase in the design
page 325
height between N and T due to the cross fall slope will be cancelled by the same size
but negative, increase in the design height due to the gradient of the pavement.
For equal gradient and cross fall and radial angle of 135, N and T are on the same
design height contour. This means that if the design height of the trim peg was
calculated at its nominal position, there would be no error due to the positional error
of the trim peg, as the design heights at N and T are equal. Therefore, H varies as ^
changes.
Equation (5.10) expresses the difference in design height between N and T as,
H = R(xsw<f> + ycosfi)
It can be assumed that angle ^ has a uniform distribution on (0,27t) and R can be
regarded as a random variable, mean /uR and variance <rR.
E{H) = MH
E(H)=ER[E,(H\R)]
=ER[REf(xsin0+ycosj)]
as Ej (x cos </>+y sin <f)  0
Tofindthe variance of H
page 326
Bydefinition,Var(H)= E(H2)\E(H)]2
V
Since
from
(5.11)
M H=[E(H)f=0
Now.R, the distance from N to T, can be expressed in terms of the vectors chainage
(C) and offset (O)
Therefore, p} = C2 + 02 (513)
Assume that C and O are independent and identically distributed and follow a norma
distribution with mean 0 and variance cr2v
T,2
By dividing (5.13) by a\, it follows from (5.13) and above that, follows a %2
V
From Section 55.13.2, 99% of the positional errors of the trim pegs are estimated
be less than 50 millimetres. This can be used to estimate the standard deviation o
this error.
page 327
Using chisquared tables with two degrees offreedomit can be seen that
R2 < 9.21oJ lor R < V 9 2 k 0 with probability of 0.99.
Using the fact that 9 9 % of the errors were less than or equal to 50, then it follows
that,
50=^921 av
Therefore
(5.14)
av= 16.48
rR^
Therefore,
=2
(5.15)
VC2, J
E(R2)=2a
fx2+y2^
Therefore,Var(H) = 2o\
2 ,
(x2+y2>
Stdev.(H)=\2a\
2 ,
= ov^x2 +y
(5.16)
=Stdev(H)=\6A^x2+y'
(5.17)
page 3 2 g
Equation (5.17) estimates the standard deviation of the error in H, in terms of the
cross fall, x, and the gradient, v, if 9 9 % of the trim pegs are within 50 millimetres of
their true position.
The error in the calculated design height at the position of the trim peg is a functi
of, R, the positional error of the trim peg.
EDM trigonometrical heighting will reduce the effect of the positional error if the
design height is calculated at the surveyed position, S, of the trim peg. From Section
55.7, thirteen of the respondents using E D M trigonometrical heighting calculated the
design height at the surveyed position of the trim peg.
The computer stores the pavement design parameters along with the software that
reduces the E D M trigonometrical heighting measurements. This enables the software
to estimate the surveyed position, S, of the ranging pole from measurements by the
total station. The software is then able to estimates the design height of the pavement
whatever the position of the ranging pole.
During surveys to place the design height marks on the trim pegs, the ranging pole is
first placed on top of the trim peg. The software will calculate the design height of
the top of the trim peg by the surveyed position S and not at the nominal position N of
the trim peg. The positional error of the trim peg by this method is defined by the
accuracy of the E D M trigonometrical heighting procedure. The standard deviation of
the positional accuracy of the Procedure For Conformance Surveys O f Pavement
Layers is 5.2 millimetres (see Section 49.5).
page 329
The effect of the positional error of this procedure is compared to the effect of the
positional error by using the nominal position, N , of the trim peg. For Procedure For
Conformance Surveys O f Pavement Layers 9 9 % of the trim pegs are within 13.4
millimetres of their true position.
l3A = ov^/92l
crv =4.45
Equation (5.18) estimates the standard deviation of the error in H, in terms of the
cross fall, x, and the gradient, y, if 9 9 % of the trim pegs are within 13.4 millimetres of
their true position.
RTA design policy is to design pavements with a minimum cross fall of 3% for
drainage purposes and to have a minimum gradient of 0.3%. This is reflected in
the geometry of thefirstpavement.
page 330
Pavement geometry, with 3 % cross fall and 3 % gradient, represents a more typical
pavement design constructed by the RTA.
R T A roads are now being constructed with gradients of up to 6 % in hilly terrain.
Superelevation on curves of less than 1000 metres radius can have up to 5 % cross
fall. Therefore, the third pavement geometry represents the more extreme design,
but even this can be exceeded under some conditions.
Column 4 of Table 57 contains the standard deviation of error of the design h
for different pavement designs calculated by (5.17) and (5.18) for the nominal
position N and the surveyed position, S. The error in the design height is calculated
for each of the pavement designs described in Section 55.13.6.
T A B L E 57
Position
S
S
S
N
N
N
Stdev.of error
of design height
0.13 m m
0.19 m m
0.31mm
0.50 m m
0.70 m m
1.16 mm
The difference between the field height (top of the trim peg) and the design f
surface height of the pavement is the distance measured down the trim peg to place
the design height mark. Errors in either of these heights (field and design heights)
will cause an error in the design height mark placed on the trim peg. If the errors in
these two heights are the only sources of error and they are independent, then
page 331
summation of their variances estimates their combined error. This can be expressed
as,
Errormark on trim peg ~ Error field height "*" ^Calculateddesign height {?*')
(Note: Other errors do exist in marking the trim pegs, but the integrity of this
is not lost if they are, for now, ignored.)
For this demonstration, the standard deviation of error of the field height is se
Procedure For Conformance Surveys Of Pavement Layers, which is 0.8 millimetres.
Columns 3 and 5 of Table 58 contain the standard deviation of the error in the
calculated design height and resultant standard deviation of error of the design
marks placed on the trim pegs, estimated by equations (5.17) and (5.18). These are
calculated for the positional error of the nominal position, N, of the trim pegs
positional error of, S, the surveyed position, for different pavement geometry.
how much the positional error of the trim peg will increase the error of the desi
height marks above the error of the EDM trigonometrical heighting procedure.
Stdev.of error of
Stdev. of
Stdev. of error
error of field design height marks
of calculated
Pavement geometry
on trim pegs
heights.
design heights
0.81 m m
0.80 m m
0.13 m m
3 % X fall by 0.3% G.
0.82 m m
0.80 m m
0.19 m m
3% X fall by 3 % G.
0.86 m m
0.80 m m
0.31 m m
5%Xfallby5%G.
0.94 m m
0.80 m m
0.50 m m
3% X fall by 0.3% G.
1.06 mm
0.80 m m
0.70 m m
3% X fall by 3 % G.
0.80 m m
1.41 mm
1.16 mm
5%Xfallby5%G.
page 332
Table 58 shows that the standard deviation of error of the design height marks
increased the standard deviation of error of the height determining procedure by more
when the nominal position, N , is used than by using, S, the surveyed position. The
pavement design with the smallest increase for the nominal position, N , was greater
than the increase caused by the surveyed position, S, for the extreme pavement
design. For the extreme pavement design the increase caused by using the nominal
position, N , was 7 6 % . The largest increase caused using S, the surveyed position, was
only 7.5 %.
55.13.10 Conclusion.
This analysis has only looked at the systematic errors caused by the positional error o
the trim peg. The extra advantage of using the surveyed position of the trim peg is the
ability to detect gross errors in the position of the trim pegs. Gross errors in the
position of the trim pegs can go undetected if the nominal position is always used.
This is important from a quality assurance perspective.
Thirteen of the twenty six respondents to the questionnaire calculated the design
height of the trim peg at its surveyed position. It is recommended that this method be
adopted by all surveyors w h e n setting out trim pegs to conttol heights of pavement
courses.
Responses to question 24 shows that some surveyors use pegs driven flush with the
ground as trim pegs. This type of trim peg requires a comparison between the field
page 333
height of the top of the trim peg, with the design height of the pavement, extended to
the position of the trim peg. (See Diagram 54)
Because the trim peg is flush with ground and not extended above the ground, the
surveyor can not actually place a mark on the trim peg to define the design height of
the pavement. Instead the surveyor prepares a schedule of the distances up from the
tops of the trim pegs to design heights of the pavement. Thefieldassistant uses this
schedule to set the height of the string line to control the paving machine.
Similar to marks placed on trim pegs to define the design height, there will be errors
in the schedule prepared by the surveyor due to the effect of the positional errors of
the trim pegs. The mathematics to determine the effect of the positional error on the
schedule prepared by the surveyor is unchanged from that used above to determine
the effect of the positional error on the design height marks placed on trim pegs.
55.14.1 Results
Responses
23
Total
page 334
55.14.2 Comments
The responses to the questionnaire suggest that it is now widely accepted that tr
pegs are subject to movement during the project. Section 58 is an extract of a
previous report by Ollis (1994) which gives an estimate of the size of disturbances
that can affect trim pegs during road construction projects.
55.15 HOW CLOSE TO FINAL TRIM ARE THE HEIGHT OF THE TRIM
PEGS DETERMINED?
Question 22
How close tofinaltrim are the trim pegs levelled?
22.
O
55.15.1 Results
Responses
4
12
Not known
page 335
This question was only answered by respondents that indicated that the heights were
determined for the trim pegs for each pavement course.
55.15.2 Comments
Height determination of the trim pegs as near as possible to the final trim min
the likelihood of the trim pegs being disturbed. Less than 24 hours before the final
trim is ideal. However, this requires proper planning and coordination of the project
team. Only four respondents indicated that they were able to check the trim pegs less
than 24 hours before thefinaltrim. Between one and two days was being achieved by
over half of the respondents who determined the heights of the trim pegs for each
pavement course. Provided due care is exercised on site, checking the trim pegs one
to two days beforefinaltrim should not put the trim pegs at greatriskof disturbance.
Leaving the trim pegs for over a week (one respondent) after checking before th
trim puts them at too muchriskof disturbance.
metres
page
335
55.16.1 Results
10
16
1015
15
20
Total
26
55.16.2 Comments
The shorter chainage interval between the trim pegs is a trend that commenced
the introduction of R T A Q A contracts. The tighter specifications could not be met if
the trim pegs were placed too far apart.
Auff (1994) estimated that reducing the spacing between the trim pegs from 20
metres resulted in the cost of the project increasing by 0.36%. However, the reduced
variability in the subbase and base surface heights of 4 9 % and 63%, respectively, had
an estimated 4 % increase in the life of the pavement. This indicates a significant
benefit cost ratio in the RTA's favour.
page 337
R T A Q A contracts state that the sampling of the pavement surface levels shall not be
restricted to the same chainage as the trim pegs. This requirement is because field
staff have in the past reported that pavement surface heights have been found to be
correct at the trim pegs but low at chainages in between the trim pegs. Reducing the
interval between the trim pegs has reduced the probability of this happening.
Research carried out as part of this report has looked at the difference in the surfa
level departures at the trim pegs and at the chainages halfway between the trim pegs.
This was on the concrete pavement of the Barton Highway, where the trim pegs were
placed at ten metres chainage intervals. The conformance surveys were carried out at
five metre intervals, that is, at the trim pegs and halfway between them. N o statistical
difference was found between the surface level departures at the trim peg and those
halfway between, in either the m e a n or standard deviation.
Wooden stakes
Others (Specify.
page
333
55.17.1 Results
10
15
3
Others
Total
37
This question lists the physical types of trim pegs used to set out pavement
Some respondents listed more than one type for different stages of the project. This is
why the total of different types of trim pegs is greater than 26, which is the number of
respondents.
SECTION 55.18 AND SECTION 55.19 ARE ABOUT THE CONTROL MARKS
page 339
55.18.1 Results
Responses
Number of Control Marks
Set Out
Conformance
16
14
10
Not Known
26
26
Total
All respondents that specified a minimum of three control marks for height
determination were using E D M trigonometrical heighting. This reflected the
responses to questions 9 and 32, " H o w is the level of the total station determined?"
Of the two respondents that specified only one control for set out surveys, one
using differential levelling, while the other was using E D M trigonometrical heighting.
The two respondents using only one control mark for conformance were using E D M
trigonometrical heighting.
Using only one control mark for height determination for construction set out surveys
or for conformance surveys of pavement courses is too prone to error due to the
potential instability of the control marks on a road construction project. Ample
evidence now exists that the heights of control marks on a road construction site can
change without any physical change in the appearance of the mark.
P ag e
340
Column 1 of Table 59 lists control marks whose heights have changed on roads
constructed by the R T A Illawarra District Office, where I have been the project
surveyor. Column 6 of Table 59 contains the difference in height of the control mark
measured during different surveys. Surveying procedures for these projects required
that control marks are checked before adopting the control mark. Discrepancies had
to be checked and if necessary coordinate values of control marks adjusted. Column
6 of Table 59 contains the adjustment of the height of the control mark resulting
from the checking procedure.
The data contained in Table 59 are kept with the quality assurance survey records
stored in the Survey Section of the R T A Wollongong Zone Office (RTA, 1992). Data
contained in Table 59 are supported by similar observations I have made while
carrying out site surveillance of R T A Q A contracts.
The largest change in height in the Table 59 is 40 millimetres. The amount of
movement of marks for different projects is not consistent. O n the Northern
Distributor project one mark out of every six marks used had its height adjusted, but
on Appin Road only one out of the 35 marks used had its height adjusted.
The movements of control marks reported in Table 59 were detected because of the
Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers was used on Picton and Appin
Roads and a similar procedure used on the Northern Distributor. These surveying
procedures require three control marks to be observed to determine the height of the
total station. This provides a direct comparison between control marks without the
need for change points. In most cases it was not apparent that a control mark had
page
341
been disturbed until observations were taken to establish the height of the total
station.
Therefore, procedures for EDM trigonometrical heighting, that require two or three
control marks to determine the height of the total station, provide a mechanism for
monitoring movement in the control marks.
For differential levelling, eight of the nine respondents for construction set out
surveys and all six for conformance surveys specified two control marks. Responses
to question 50, regarding the spacing between control marks, gives an indication of
h o w far apart the control marks are during construction of the pavement. Responses
to questions 17 and 35 gave the m a x i m u m sighting distance for differential levelling.
Cross reference between responses to question (17,35) and question 50, estimates
that only one respondent for set out surveys and only one for conformance surveys,
could measure the height difference between control marks without change points.
However, even for these two respondents this m a y not be possible if the height
difference between adjoining control marks was too great.
Therefore, change points are normally required to check the height difference
between the two control marks by differential levelling. Change points introduce
error into differential levelling due to the normal propagation of errors caused by
extra staff readings. Responses to questions 16 and 31 indicated that none of the
respondents using differential levelling are using a double level run. A double level
run provides a check on the accuracy of the survey.
Therefore, when small miscloses are found between the two control marks by
differential levelling it could be due to errors in the survey, or the movement 1
page342
control marks, or a combination of both factors. It is possible that some of the survey
errors have compensated for some of the movement of the control marks.
A c o m m o n test surveyors use for a differential levelling run with an optical automatic
level is to repeat the survey if the misclose is greater than three millimetres. Other
surveyors will repeat the survey if the misclose is greater than three millimetres plus
one millimetre per change point. (Where a misclose is the surveyed difference in
height between the control marks minus the plan difference in height between the
control marks). B y using thefirsttests, an error of 5 millimetres in the one of the
control marks could go undetected by differential levelling, if there was compensation
of the survey errors and error in the control marks. Similarly, by the second test if 4
change points are used, an error of 10 millimetres could go undetected by differential
levelling, if there was compensation of the survey errors and the error in the control
marks.
The acceptance limits for the means for the proposed compliance scheme described in
Chapter 3 is plus or minus 8.7 millimetres. Errors of the order of 5 to 10 millimetres
in the control marks would m a k e it very difficult to verify conformance with this
compliance scheme with confidence.
No more than one change point is necessary between control marks during the
survey.
In order to monitor the control marks, double level runs should be used, that is, the
survey starting and finishing on the same control mark (Rueger, 1997a).
All control marks adjacent to the section of pavement being surveyed are to be
used during the survey.
page 343
Movements in the control marks are easier to detect if an electronic digital level is
used for differential levelling instead of an optical automatic level. Because
much smaller. This provides a more sensitive check on the movement of the contr
marks. However, a closed levelling loop, starting and finishing on the same mark
still be required to check that there were no gross errors in the survey, as
recommended in Section 55.10.
TABLE 59
N O R T H E R N DISTREBUTCJRMR626  Contract No. 0626.497.RC.0014
Movement  Metres
Date
Control Mark
Type O f
Difference
Adjusted
Mark
From
To
Number
2A
3
15
33
35
36
50
51
51
59
59
71
86
87
88
89
90
0.004
15.240
15.244
Hilti in cone. 27/03/93
0.004
9.434
3/02/93
9.438
Bolt
0.005
25.398
25.403
Indicator
1/03/93
0.006
13.126
13.120
5/08/92
Hilti in cone.
+0.007
11.055
11.048
2/11/92
Peg + hilti
0.010
20.855
20.865
27/7/92
Dumpy
0.008
21.552
21.560
2/10/92
Hilti in Kb.
+0.008
15.477
15.469
16/10/92
Peg + hilti
0.033
15.444
15.477
2/11/92
Peg + hilti
0.007
16.295
16.302
3/02/93
Peg + hilti
0.035
15.260
15.295
6/04/93
Peg + hilti
+0.007
14.956
14.949
15/02/93
Peg + hilti
+0.010
21.544
21.534
28/07/92
Peg + hilti
+0.006
19.681
19.675
28/07/92
Peg + hilti
0.010
16.909
16.919
16/07/92
Peg + hilti
0.009
14.371
14.380
1/12/92
Indicator
0.009
14.642
14.651
1/12/92
Star picket
Eighteen conrjrol marks disturbed by more than 3 m m . Jrom 100 control marks
used on the pioject
page 344
55.19.1 Results
Maximum spacing of control marks (metres)
Not more than 100 metres
Responses
10
Not Known
Total
page 345
Generally, the number of control marks required to determine the height of the total
station for E D M trigonometrical heighting, governs the m a x i m u m spacing between
the control marks. If three control marks are required and the spacing is even, then
the m a x i m u m spacing should be less than the m a x i m u m sight distance of the
procedure. This should ensure even coverage of the pavement.
The maximum spacing between control marks of two of the respondents contradicted
the combined effect of the number of control required to determine the height of the
total station (question 9) and the m a x i m u m sight distance (question 12).
Generally, the spacing between control marks was tighter from respondents using
E D M trigonometrical heighting than those using differential levelling. For
construction set out surveys, 2 of the 9 respondents using differential levelling for
height determination, indicated that the m a x i m u m spacing was greater than 200
metres, while only one indicated that the m a x i m u m spacing was less than 100 metres.
For the 20 respondents using E D M trigonometrical heighting for conformance, 9
indicated the m a x i m u m spacing of the control marks was less than 100 metres, and
none was greater than 200 metres.
Other (Specify.
page 346
55.20.1 Results
Responses
Procurement arrangement
Set out
Conformance
14
14
12
12
Other
Total
26
26
For each project, the procurement arrangement was the same for the surveyor doing
construction set out surveys as the surveyor responsible for conformance surveys.
This may be an indication that the same surveyor, or survey company, is responsible
for both setting out the project and carrying out conformance verification. M y o w n
experience, and discussions with other R T A surveyors responsible for site
surveillance, is that this is the way that surveying services are usually provided on
R T A Q A contracts.
Responses from 14 projects indicated that the surveyor was an employee of the
constructing organisation. Eight of these were R T A employed surveyors from R T A
Survey Offices providing surveying services for projects built by R T A direct labour
control. The other six projects, where the constructing organisation employed their
own surveyors, were from two construction organisations, (four projects by one
organisation and two projects by the other). However, both of these organisations
also used contract surveyors on other projects for which responses were received.
The R T A also employed a contract surveyor for one of their projects constructed by
R T A day labour.
page 347
For 12 projects, the construction organisation used contract surveyors for surveying
services. These 12 projects were built by 8 construction organisations, plus one built
by the R T A .
Studies have shown that the successful implementation of Total Quality Management
into the construction industry is dependent on the creation of a team environment
(Aderson, 1995; L o w and Pen, 1996). For surveying this would mean that the
surveying procedures could be written to be more aligned with the
manufacture/construction procedures and become standardised for the organisation.
Table 510 shows how the procedures of these four respondents compared to each
other and the norm of all the responses on the more critical questions of the
page
343
Column 1 gives the number of the question from the questionnaire. Column 2 gives
the subject matter covered by the question. Column 3 gives the responses by
Company A for projects covered by the questionnaire. Column 4 gives the frequency
of the response by Company A. Column 5 gives the response to each question that
this report considers to be the optimum to achieve the specified accuracy and to meet
quality assurance requirements. Column 6 gives the percentage of the responses from
Company A that were the same as the optimum response. Column 7 gives the
percentage of all the responses of the questionnaire that had the optimum response.
T A B L E 510 R e s p o n s e s from C o m p a n y A
Quest.
6/26
8/29
Subject
Specific
Documented
procedures
for pavement
courses.
Height
determinatio
n method.
Response
Specific for
pavement
Frequ.
3
Documented
generic
procedures
EDM
3.
%Of
Optimum
Responses
From Co. A
Response From
Questionnaire
Specific
procedures
written for
pavement
courses.
75%
42%
EDM
75%
trigonomet
rical
heighting
trigonometri
cal heighting
diflFerential
levelling*
for set out
and E D M
trigonometri
cal heighting
for
conformance
%Of
Optimum
Optimum
Response
Responses B y
Company A
71%
For both set out
and
conformance
9/32
10/33
11/34
12/35
13
15
20/40
22
Subject
Transfer of
height from
control
marks to
total station
for E D M
trigonometri
cal heighting.
Minimum
height of
sight lines
for E D M
trigonometri
cal heighting.
Applying
vertical
circle index
correction
for E D M
trigonometri
cal heighting.
Maximum
sight
distance
Calculation
of design
height of
trim peg
Type of
automatic
level used
for set out.
Minimum
number of
control
marks for
each survey.
H o w close
tofinaltrim
are trim pegs
levelled.
Responses B y
Company A
page 349
Optimum
Response
Response
Sighting to a
ranging pole
placed on
three control
marks
Frequ.
1.5 metres
1.2 metres
each set up
each week
longer than
one week
100 metres
120 metres
actual
position
1
2
nominal
position
Digital
electronic
%Of
Optimum
Responses
From Co. A
Response From
Questionnaire
Sighting to
a ranging
pole placed
on three
control
marks
100%
49%
1.5 metres
50%
%Of
Optimum
16%
For both set out
and
conformance
Each set
up
25%
27%
For both set out
and
conformance
100 metres
75%
5 9 % For both
set out and
conformance
Actual
position of
trim peg.
75%
76%
digital
electronic
100%
20%
Three
control
marks
Three
control
marks
100%
35%
For both set out
and
conformance
Less than
two days
Between two
and seven
days.
Less than
two days.
75%
61%
23
36
37
42.
43.
46.
50.
Subject
Responses By
Company A
Distance
between trim
pegs
Collection of
conformance
data
Pattern of
sampling
points
Sampling
points at
same
location as
set out
points.
Spacing of
control
marks
%Of
Optimum
%Of
Optimum
Responses
From Co. A
Response From
Questionnaire
10 metres
75%
70%
Electronic
data
recorder or
P C linked
to total
station
By P C
from data
transferred
electronical
100%
77%
100%
77%
Average
number of
points by
organisation
= 48 points
100%
Average of all
respondents =
35 points
33%
45%
100%
45%
Optimum
Response
Response
10 metres
Frequ.
3
20 metres
Electronic
data recorder
Calculation
By P C from
of chainage
data
and offset of transferred
sampling
electronically
points
Number of
60 points
sampling
45 points
points
40 points
Unknown
page 350
lv.
1
1
1
1
60 points
Grid pattern
Grid
pattern
Same
location
Different
location
unknown
Less than
100 metres.
Sampling
points
different
location to
set out
points
Less than
100
metres.
1
1
85%
respondent who used differential levelling for set out surveys is considered as
the fourth EDM
page 351
For the three questions where the percentage of optimum responses of Company A
were lower than the percentage of all respondents, the difference was only marginal.
Also, for 11 of the 17 questions at least 3 of the 4 responses from Company A were
the same. This indicates consistency of the surveying procedures used by Company A
on different projects.
For the contract surveyor, a problem appears to be how the construction organisatio
deals with procurement of surveying services. Site surveillance has reported a
problem when payment by the construction organisation to the surveyor is by a fixed
lump sum instead of at an hourly rate. This can make it more difficult for site
surveillance to get the surveyors to change their surveying methods if specified targets
are not being met. More than likely, the extra time taken to change the surveying
procedures was not allocated when preparing the quote the project. This time can be
seen by contract surveyors as taking away some of their proposed profit for the work.
page 352
55.21 DETAIL IN S A M P L I N G P L A N
Question 28
28.
55.21.1 Results
Sampling pattern
Total
I6
This question was only for the 11 respondents w h o answered yes to question 26, 'Is
there a documented procedure specifically written for conformance of pavement
layers? ", see Section 55.1. Because some of the respondents supplied more than one
piece of information, the total items of information supplied is greater than eleven.
page
353
Only two respondents provided all the information requested. One of those
respondents was the R T A Wollongong Regional Office Survey Section which quoted
information from the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers.
Four of the eleven respondents that had a documented surveying procedure for
conformance of pavement courses provided none of the requested information.
55.21.2 Comments
Responses to questions 41 to 46 (see Sections 55.22, 55.23, 55.24, 55.25 and 55.26) of the questionnaire supplied information about the surveyor's sampling plan.
Responses to these questions indicated that most of the respondents did have the
requested information at some time during the project, but for some reason it did not
appear in the documented procedure.
page
354
within 20 mm
within 20 to 70 mm
within 70 to 200 mm
Unknown
55.22.1 Results
15
within 20 to 70 m m
within 70 to 200 m m
Unknown
Total
26
As in question 19, (the estimated positional error of trim pegs), the responses to this
question are estimates only. However, the estimated ranges of the errors are smaller
than the estimated ranges of the positional error of trim pegs. This is in agreement
with the principle of surveying that it is easier, and more accurate, to determine the
position of a point than it is to place a physical mark in the ground at a specified
position. During a conformance survey, using E D M trigonometrical heighting, the
page 3 5 5
field assistant can place a ranging pole at any location,fixedby pacing accuracy only.
The software will then determine its actual position.
The principle, that it is easier to measure to a point than to mark a point, also appli
for differential levelling when a predetermined grid is set out on the pavement at the
points where the heights are to be determined. Even though specified positions have
to be marked, they are usually only marks on the pavement and not pegs driven into
the ground. Paint marks, or the like, on the pavement are not subject to the same
disturbance that can affect pegs driven into the ground.
Unlike the positional accuracy of trim pegs, there are some data available to estimate
the positional accuracy of the sample points determined by different conformance
procedures.
page 356
Sighting Error
Care needs to be exercised w h e n sighting to the ranging pole during the conformance
survey. The temptation w h e n using E D M trigonometrical heighting is to take greater
care with the horizontal cross hair of the total station (to control heights) and not as
m u c h care with the vertical hair of the telescope (to control position). This is usually
done to speed up thefieldwork. Failure to take proper care with the vertical hair of
the total station will cause the standard deviation of the positional error to increase
and m a y lead to errors in determining the design heights of the pavement.
Care was exercised with the placement of the vertical hair during the field test to
determine the accuracy of the Procedure For Conformance Surveys O f Pavement
Layers. This added very little time to each reading; most of the time for each
observation was still taken up with the software reading and recording the field
measurements.
The standard deviation of the positional error of sampling points on a grid for
differential levelling will depend on the surveying method for marking the grid on the
pavement. The positional accuracy of the grid of one contract surveyor estimates the
accuracy of sampling points by differential levelling. The grid was measured by The
Procedure For Conformance Surveys O f Pavement Layers during a parallel
conformance survey carried out as part of a recent R T A Q A contract.
The contract surveyor's method was to radiate the end points of each cross section
from control marks. A tape was then pulled between these two radiated marks to
check that the radiation was correct. B y keeping the tape tight, the surveyor and his
assistant painted spots across the pavement at two metre intervals. Each spot was
about forty millimetres in diameter.
By comparing the position (chainage and offset) of each point as determined by the
Procedure For Conformance Surveys O f Pavement Layers, with the predetermined
position (chainage and offset), the positional error of each point was found. The
standard deviation of the positional error was found to be about 16 millimetres. This
indicates that 9 9 % of the positional errors of the sample points by this method are in
the range from zero to about 41 millimetres.
In Section 55.13, it was shown how the positional errors of the trim pegs affect the
design height marks placed on them. The mathematics to estimate this relationship is
the same as that used to estimate the relationship between the positional error of
sampling points and the error in its surface level departure.
P ag e
358
Equation (5.12) can be used for the relationship between the positional error of the
sampling point and the error in its calculated design height,
^ * 2 + y 2 >
Standard Deviation H = IER (R2 :)
2 J
The relationship between the error in the design height and the error in the surface
level departure of the sampling point is given by equation (5.19) in Section 5.13;
, 2
Errorfieldheight
For sampling points "Error mark on trim peg" is replaced by "Error in surface level
departure ". So equation (5.19) becomes
The effect of the positional error of the sampling points will vary for different
pavement designs, similar to the positional error of trim pegs. The same pavement
geometry's in Section 55.13.16 demonstrate the effect of positional error of sampling
points on surface level departures.
The Expected value of/?2 for the Procedure For Conformance Surveys Of Pavement
Layers is 39.6 m m by (5.14). The Expected value of/?2 for the grid set out for
Pavement geometry
Expected
value of (R 2 )
3 % X fall by 0.3% G.
39.6 m m
3 % X fall by 3 % G.
39.6 m m
5 % X fall by 5% G.
39.6 m m
3 % X fall by 0.3% G. 347.4 m m
3 % X fall by 3 % G.
347.4 m m
5 % X fall by 5% G.
347.4 m m
Stdev.of error
of design
height
0.13 m m
0.19 m m
0.31 m m
0.40 m m
0.56 m m
0.93 m m
In Table 511, " E D M Trig", is the position of the points as determined by Survey
Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers and "Diff. Level" is the grid pattern to
set out at predetermined points for a conformance survey by differential levelling, as
described in Section 55.22.4.
For differential levelling, the errors of the calculated design heights for sampling
points are smaller than the error of the calculated design heights of trim pegs due to
the smaller positional error.
The effect of the design height errors on the surface level departures, and the
measurements of the product, is given in Table 512.
T A B L E 512 Surface Level Departure Errors D u e to Positional Error
Method of
determining
position.
E D M Trig.
E D M Trig.
E D M Trig.
Diff Level
Diff. Level
L_Diff. Level
Pavement geometry
3 % X fall by 0.3% G.
3 % X fall by 3 % G.
5 % X fall by 5% G.
3 % X fall by 0.3% G.
3 % X fall by 3 % G.
5 % X fall by 5 % G.
Stdev. of
error of
calculated
design
heights
0.13 m m
0.19 m m
0.31 m m
0.40 m m
0.56 m m
0.93 m m
Stdev. of
error of
field
heights.
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Stdev.of error
of surface
level
departures
0.81
0.82
0.86
0.89
0.98
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
1.23 m m
page 360
Table 512 shows h o w the positional error of the sampling points causes the error of
the surface level departures to exceed that of the height determination procedure.
Column 4 of Table 512 gives the standard deviation of the error of height
determination by the Procedure For Conformance Surveys O f Pavement Layers,
which is 0.8 millimetres. The surface level departures errors are increased to 1.23
millimetres if the positional error is the same as for differential levelling on 5 % cross
fall by 5 % gradient pavement design. This is a 54 % increase over the error of the
height determination procedure.
Any positional error of the sampling points adds error to the surface level departures.
Montgomery (1991) gives the relationship between gauge (surveying) error and the
measurement of the product as given by (5.1),
, 2
^ Product ^^
gauge
total
Assume a pavement of 5 % cross fall and 5 % gradient and a positional error with a
standard deviation of 16 millimetres. The standard deviation of the gauge error from
page 361
Table 513 increases to 1.23 millimetres. The standard deviation of the combined
product and measurement errors is given by equation (5.1) as,
55.22.6 Conclusion
The positional error of the sampling points will add error to the measurements taken
of the surface level departures. E D M trigonometrical heighting offers better control
over this error than does differential levelling. Even with the care that to set out the
grid tested, the size of this positional error could add over 0.1 millimetres to the
standard deviation of the measurements of the surface level departures.
It is therefore difficult to accept a grid set out by a tape for conformance verification
of pavements with cross falls and/or gradients greater than three percent. If
differential levelling were to be used on pavements with this type of geometry, then
extra care is required for determining the position of the sampling points.
page 362
How many sample points per 100 metres are observed along the
carriageway!
55.23.1 Results
Responses
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
60
Unknown
Total
26
The sample sizes range between 15 and 60 points per 100 metres of pavement. The
average of all respondents equals about 34 points per 100 metre lot.
Research carried out on the concrete pavement of the Barton Highway recommended
that a minimum of 60 points was required to provide sufficient protection to both the
page 363
R T A and the contractor. For the projects with concrete pavements, the sample sizes
ranged between 30 and 60 points, with only two with a sample size of 60 points.
Fourteen of the sample sizes for all materials had 30 or fewer sampling points.
55.23.2 Comments
RTA QA specifications require a minimum of one sampling point for every 25 square
metres of pavement. A pavement of two lanes, each 3.7 metres wide, and 2.6 metres
of shoulder is 1,000 square metres for 100 metre length of pavement. Therefore, a
100 metre length of pavement of this width requires a minimum of 40 points to
comply with the current R T A specifications. However, only 11 respondents had
sample sizes of 40 or more.
Base concrete on the Barton Highway was laid in an 8.6 metre wide strip. The
specified minimum sample size for a 100 metre length lot of this width is 35 sampling
points. Only 12 respondents used 35 or more sample points for a 100 metre length of
pavement.
Therefore, most of the respondents are sampling the pavement with too few points to
comply with current R T A Q A specifications, which themselves underestimate the
need.
page 364
55.24 A R E S A M P L I N G P O I N T S S E L E C T E D IN A G R I D P A T T E R N ?
Question 43
43.
Yes
.)
55.24.1 Results
22
No
Unknown
Total
26
Only three respondents indicated that they were not selecting the sampling poin
using a grid pattern.
55.24.2 Comments
A grid pattern reflects the process that trims the pavement material to the cor
surface height. The process is usually carried out by paving machines or graders that
travel along the pavement parallel to its centre line.
Analysis of the data of the concrete pavement of the Barton Highway showed that
surface level departures for concrete pavements can be modelled as a time series. A
time series model expresses future observations at time t+l from available
observations at time t, where / is the lead time from the observation at t. Time series
page 365
observations are taken at equispaced intervals of time. For the process of trimming
pavement surfaces, the equispaced points can be expressed in terms of chainage
intervals.
The time series analysis of the surface level departures of the Barton Highway gave a
mathematical explanation of something that is already appreciated by people involved
in the construction of concrete road pavements. That is, concrete pavement surfaces
are produced as a continuum and not as discrete points. Each point is the result of
what has happened previously. T o the naked eye, the output of a concrete paving
machine is a smooth surface flowing continuously from the machine.
However, the time series analysis was critical, as it made it possible to determine the
control limits for the X control chart. The control limits are based on sampling from
a defined grid pattern. Changing the grid will change the control limits, therefore
sampling for future conformance surveys will have to be taken from a specified grid
pattern.
Research is still to be done on materials other than concrete. However, this will
require a time series analysis similar to the analysis used for the Barton Highway.
page 366
This analysis will require that the surface level departures be taken from a grid
pattern.
Question 45
What is the distance between each cross section?
45.
Specify.
metres.
55.25.1 Results
Responses
3x5
3x10
12
3x15
4x10
4x15
5x9
5x10
5x20
Unknown
Total
22
page 367
One of the respondents that used a grid of three points per cross sections with ten
metres between cross sections, also sampled a single point between each cross
section.
Only one respondent used the grid pattern recommended for concrete pavement
conformance surveys for the proposed specifications. That response was for the
Barton Highway which was used to define the compliance scheme described in
Chapter 3.
The most popular response was three points per cross section with ten metres between
cross sections. This pattern was used by over half of the respondents that used a grid
partem to select the sampling points. A n extra cross section between the ones
currently being used by these respondents is required to comply with the grid to be
used by the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3.
55.25.2 Comments
Analysis of the surface level departures of the Barton Highway looked at various
patterns to reduce the variance of the mean of each lot (See Section 25.10). The
larger the variance of the mean, the greater the risks to both the R T A and the
contractor. The analysis found that a grid pattern of three points per cross section at
five metre chainage interval gave a slightly smaller (better) variance of the mean than
a grid pattern offivepoints per cross section at ten metre chainage interval.
page 368
Yes
No
55.26.1 Results
11
No
10
Unknown
Total
1
22
This question was only answered by the respondents who answered Yes to question
43.
Nine of the 22 respondents that used a grid to select the sample points were
exclusively sampling at the same cross sections as the trim pegs. One respondent
selected three sample points at the same chainage as the trim pegs plus one extra
point halfway between the chainages of the trim pegs.
This sampling method is in conflict with RTA QA specifications that state that
sampling of the product for conformance purposes shall not be restricted to the
locations used to set out the product. See question 23, in Section 55.16, for the
reason for this specified requirement.
page 369
As explained in question 23, Section 55.16, there was no statistical difference found
between the surface level departures at the trim pegs and halfway between the trim
pegs for the concrete pavement of the Barton Highway. Therefore, the R T A
requirement for sampling to be independent of the set out positions, for concrete
pavements at least, appears not to be justified. This is subject to the trim pegs being
at no more than ten metres chainage intervals.
Sampling of the pavement at the trim pegs is likely to give a more accurate sample
than if sampling excluded sampling points at the trim pegs. Sampling at the trim pegs
will better detect errors in the pavement caused by the trim pegs being marked
incorrectly or being disturbed. The resulting errors in the pavement surface will be
greatest at the incorrect trim peg and taper off awayfromit.
If sampling is restricted to locations away from the trim pegs, the true size of errors
the pavement surface, caused by errors in the trim pegs, will not be included in the
survey report to estimate conformity with the specifications.
By hand on paper
Other (Specify.
')
pa ge 370
55.27.1 Results
Responses
15
By hand on paper
Total
26
All of the respondents that used EDM trigonometrical heighting for height
determination collected the data electronically. Onlyfiveof the seven that used a
computer attached to the total station for set out surveys, used the same method of
data collection for conformance surveys. The remaining 15 respondents using E D M
trigonometrical heighting collected the data with an electronic data recorder and
transferred the data to a computer for later processing.
All of the respondents that used differential levelling for height determination
collected the data manually. Five of those recorded the observations by hand onto
paper for post processing, while the sixth entered the observations directly into a
computer on site for processing.
55.27.2 Comments
Being able to make electronic readings and to store the results electronically is a
significant advantage of E D M trigonometrical heighting over differential levelling. It
page 371
removes the possibility of reading and booking errors that are possible w h e n using
differential levelling. It also allows easier transfer to a computer for processing.
Results
page
372
Thefiverespondents that determined the chainage and offset by setting out of a grid
used differential levelling for height determination. By this method the design height
are calculated at predetermined points on the pavement in a grid pattern. The grid
usually consists of between two and five points on each cross section with a regular
chainage interval between cross sections. These are first set out and marked on the
pavement surface and then their heights are determined.
The sixth respondent that used differential levelling, first spotted the points on the
pavement in a random pattern before determining their heights. The position of the
sampling points were determined by radiation using the total station set on control
marks.
All of the respondents using EDM trigonometrical heighting for height determination
calculated the chainage and offset of the sampling points simultaneously with the
calculation of the surface level departures for the conformance report. In most
software packages, the chainage and offset of the sample point has to be first
calculated in order to determine the design height of the point. This is then subtract
from the field height to give the surface level departure of the point.
page 373
Other (Specify.
.)
55.29.1 Results
Calculation of surface level departures of sample points Responses
Using portable computer or calculator in the
field
2
19
5
Other
Total
26
page
374
in thefield.This indicates that the data were manually entered into the computer
some time later for processing.
However, it is not known if the software also reduced the field heights of the
sampling points. It is k n o w n that at least one respondentfirstmanually reduced the
field heights and then manually entered them into the computer. B y this method the
computer merely subtracts the predetermined design height from thefieldheight at
the same chainage and offset.
Only five respondents reduced the results in "real time" in the field, where as seven
respondents calculated the design height markings for trim pegs in "real time" in the
field for construction surveys.
Nineteen of the respondents calculated the results of the conformance report in the
office. Except for thefiverespondents that calculated the results in "real time" in the
field, only two respondents calculated the results by computer in the field.
page
375
55.30.1 Results
Geocomp 3
Geocomp plus in house software 2
In house software 3
Moss 3
Paveset 1
PC spreadsheet 2
Practical Survey Solutions plus Foresight Software 1
Practical Survey Solutions plus Geocomp 1
Practical Survey Solutions 5
Sokkia Mapping 1
TP Setout 1
Not known 2
Total
26
All respondents that used E D M trigonometrical heighting for construction set out
surveys, used the same software for calculating the results of the conformance surv
Similar to construction set out surveys, a wide range of software packages is being
used. Again the most popular commercially available package is Practical Survey
Solutions, the same package used in the Survey Conformance Procedure For
Pavement Layers. Five respondents used this package for all of the conformance
survey and reduction, while another two used it in conjunction with other packages.
page 376
The next most popular commercially available package was Geocomp with three
respondents using only G e o c o m p and another three using Geocomp in conjunction
with other packages. O n e of those other packages was Practical Survey Solutions that
collected the data in thefieldand G e o c o m p calculated the results in the office.
There were three In House packages, plus another two respondents that used In House
packages in conjunction with Geocomp.
55.30.2 Comments
The diversity of the software packages shows that the surveying profession as a whole
has integrated computers into the profession. Even respondents that use differential
levelling for height determination calculated the results of the conformance surveys
by computer. S o m e of the respondents are still using differential levelling because of
the belief that it is still the standard for height determination.
The number of In House packages also indicates that organisations realise the
advantage of customising the software to their o w n needs.
The positive side of this is that the surveying profession appears to have the capabili
of dealing with the compliance scheme described in Chapter 3, which will require
some computer literacy for setting up and monitoring control charts.
page
377
All of the respondents, using EDM trigonometrical heighting, collected the fiel
data electronically by linking a data collector to the total station. By this method, the
surveyor accurately sights the target and then the data recorder automatically records
page 378
The integrity of the data is improved by the above two points, thereby making the
E D M trigonometrical heighting better suited for quality assurance purposes. It
provides a more objective record of the data for auditing purposes and allows easier
problem solving.
The results of the analysis of the Conformance Surveys For Pavement Layers
Procedure showed the standard deviation of error in position is estimated to be about
5 millimetres. This accuracy is not possible by differential levelling unless the points
page 3 7 9
are radiated individually, thereby significantly increasing the time for the survey.
Positional accuracy affects the accuracy of the determination of the design height for
both construction set out and conformance surveys.
This is possible as the software uses the one set of field measurements to calculate
both the horizontal position and design height of the trim peg simultaneously, where
ever it m a y be placed. It does not require the trim peg to be placed at a predetermined
position, but will actually tell the surveyor the position of the trim peg.
When using differential levelling, design heights are calculated at the predetermined
positions of the trim pegs. It is assumed that errors in placing the trim pegs at their
predetermined positions are negligible. Similarly, w h e n a trim peg is disturbed and
remarked, its position has to be first adjusted back to its predetermined position.
Small errors in the position of a trim peg on steep gradients and/or cross falls can
cause an incorrect design height to be marked on it.
(This is outlined in more detail, with an estimate of the effect of positional error in
Section 55.13)
page 380
EDM trigonometrical heighting observes heights by slope sight lines. The advantage
in this is that control marks that are set on top of cuttings, or near the bottom of
embankmentfills,can be sighted without using change points. All that is necessary is
to have a clear line of sight between the total station and the control mark.
Because differential levelling operates with horizontal sight lines, change points are
required to measure the height difference between marks when their height difference
is more thanfivemetres. It also means that w h e n the automatic level is set on the
pavement at a height of about 1.6 metres, change points are required to observe
control marks that are more than about 3.5 metres below the pavement and more than
1.6 metres above the pavement. W h e n determining the heights of the pavement, or
trim pegs, on steep gradients change points will also be required.
Change points are a process used for transferring heights. Like all processes they
have variability and error. Therefore, whenever changes points are used they add
another source of error to the survey, as well as increasing the time for the survey.
page 381
The following extract from Ollis (1994) describes some of the movement of the trim
pegs that was measured on an R T A project. The report was widely distributed
throughout the R T A .
The project is the Northern Distributor through the northern suburbs of Wollongong
constructed between February 1992 and M a y 1993. The data for the analysis are
contained with the quality assurance survey records held in the Survey Section of the
R T A Wollongong Regional Office.
"2.3.
It became apparent in July, 1992 that the trim pegs placed to control heights
were subject to movement. The most significant movements were detected early
in the project. It then became
movement.
Unfortunately this movement was not something that had been envisaged when
writing procedures for the project. For this reason records of early movements
are not clear enough to give an accurate measurement of the size of the
movements.
page 382
three occasions: 21st January, 25th February, for sub base, 12th to 16th
March, 1993, for base
Let d = the difference in height between the mark on the trim peg and the
required design height. From the initial readings of 75 trim pegs in January,
the mean ofd was found to be 8.5 mm low with a standard deviation of 6.2 mm.
Largest movements were 22 mm, 22 mm, 38 mm, 17 mm, 17 mm. Because
so many trim pegs had moved the procedure was to adjust all marks back to the
correct level.
However, when the same trim pegs were again checked for subbase on 25th
February, movement was again found, but by a smaller amount. For 77 trim
pegs the mean ofd was 1.6 millimetres and the standard deviation equal to 7.7
millimetres. The large standard deviation was due to two trim pegs which
moved by 50 mm and +25 mm. The next largest movement was 12 mm. Only
7 moved by more than 10 mm from the design level. This is still quite
significant but not as great as the previous adjustment.
Because fewer trim pegs were adjusted in February, it was possible to compare
actual heights on the trim pegs again in March. This would give a more
accurate estimate of the movement, as no residual error in adjusting the height
would be included. Only 14 trim pegs moved by more than 3 mm. However, the
following significant movements were again found, 15 mm, 10 mm, +9 mm
and7 mm.
Similarly, the trim pegs over a fill embankment between Chainage 6080m and
Chainage 6330m on the northbound were checked and adjusted in August 1992
before laying subbase. (The Conformance Report for that section of subbase
gave the mean of the surface level departures of +3.9 mm and standard
page 383
deviation of 8.1 mm). These trim pegs were again checkedfor movement before
laying base in December 1992; movement was again found. From 54 trim pegs,
16 moved by 7 mm or more, 5 of those greater than 10 mm, the largest
movement was 16 mm.
It is not clear why the movement took place or where it would take place.
However, it was felt by those on the project that movement was due in part to
the stability of the foundations over which the road was built and also due to
disturbance by the equipment operating on the project. The movement
appeared to be random. However, in some areas, such as the embankment fill
between Chainage
6080m
and Chainage
6330m
page 384
The following is a qualitative analysis of the sources of error that can be expected by
differential levelling with an optical automatic level. These are compared with the
size of the errors that were found in the Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement
Layers by the analysis shown in the Chapter 4. It shows that there are more sources of
error by differential levelling, than E D M trigonometrical heighting. Also, where a
similar sources of error exists for both methods, E D M trigonometrical heighting
provides better control over the error.
Montgomery (1996) shows the relationship between sources of errors and the overall
error of the measuring procedure as follows,
where a2Gauge is the overall variance of the error of the surveying procedure and
G\ al o i ....are the variances of the sources of error in the surveying procedure.
A'
B'
Clearly, the more factors, A , B, C,...., in (5.21) and the larger the effects of each
factor, then the greater the overall error of the procedure.
The magnitude of the measurement error will tend to increase with the complexity of
the measurement system (Farnum, 1994). A comparison of height determination
procedures shows that differential levelling is the more complex method of height
determination.
page 385
differential levelling for height determination used optical automatic levels. The
following evaluation therefore refers only to optical automatic levels.
The surveyor records staff readings to the nearest millimetre for differential levelling.
However, staff graduations are only to the nearest centimetre, so crude estimation
"determines" the nearest millimetre.
This is different from the pointing method used for EDM trigonometrical heighting.
In this method the surveyor sights the horizontal cross hair of the total station onto the
target and the software calculates and records the height difference.
Survey instrument manufacturers in the past have accepted that a pointing method is
more accurate than the staff reading method. This is demonstrated by a parallel plate
micrometer. This attachment, w h e n fitted to an optical automatic level, allows a
calibrated staff to be read to one tenth of a millimetre. This is done by the surveyor
sighting the cross hair of the automatic level, with the aid of the micrometer, onto an
even centimetre of the staff. This is familiar to the pointing method of the total
station during E D M trigonometrical heighting.
The Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers uses three control marks to
establish the height of the total station. Each control mark is sighted twice, once on
each face of the total station. This not only eliminates vertical circle index error, it
page
386
also improves the pointing accuracy, by taking the mean of two pointings instead of
one. The standard deviation of error of transferring height from the control marks to
the total station by this procedure is estimated to be about 0.23 millimetres by using
the regression equation (4.7).
The height of the automatic level is established for differential levelling by rea
the staff when it is placed on a control mark. However, the usual practice is to sight
to only one control mark and take only one reading. O n road construction projects, it
is not normal practice to sight more than one control mark for establishing the height
of the automatic level. O f the fifteen respondents from the questionnaire who used
differential levelling, only two had control marks close enough throughout the project
to allow them to sight to more than one control mark from the same set up. However,
even for these two respondents it would not be possible to sight to more than one
control mark if the height difference between adjoining marks was too great.
As staff readings are only estimated to one millimetre, it is unlikely that the pr
of height transfer, from the control mark to the automatic level, will match the
precision of height transfer by Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers.
Errors in the length of the ranging pole do not affect heights determined by the S
Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers, as outlined in Section 55.3.
However, graduations errors of the staff will affect heights determined by differe
levelling. The staff is like a tape measure that is held vertically and like all tapes, is
affected by calibration errors.
page 387
M a x i m u m permissible
error m m
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
Most road construction surveyors use 5 metre staffs, which means that they could
have graduation errors of 2 millimetres and still meet the requirements of the
Standard. Graduation errors of up to 2 millimetres are significant when compared to
the gauge capability necessary to verify conformance of concrete pavements.
Rueger (1997a) has estimated the errors that can be present in high quality staffs
differential levelling. Four types of error are estimated as shown in Table 514
Description O f Error
Rueger estimated the effect of the staff errors in proportion to height differences,
instead of in proportion to the length of the level run. Table 515 adapted from
(Rueger, 1997a:p20) shows the m a x i m u m likely errors for staffs for a height
difference of 10 metres between the ends of the level run. It shows the effect on
staffs made of three different materials, wood,fibreglassand aluminium.
T A B L E 515 T h e M a x i m u m Likely Staff Errors Of High Quality Differential
Levelling Staffs
Type Of Error
1. Graduation (at 20c)
2. Expansion
(to0c/+40c)
3. Refraction on a slope
4. Humidity changes
( 0 % R H to 1 0 0 % R H )
Worst Case Error
W o o d e n Staff
Staff Material
Fibreglass Staff
A H = 10 m
3.5 m m
A H = 10 m
3.5 m m
Aluminium Staff
AH = 10 m
3.5 m m
1.0 m m
2.0 m m
4.6 m m
3.0 m m
3.0 mm
3.0 m m
3.0 m m
0.2 mm
0.0 m m
10.5 m m
8.7 mm
11.1 mm
The "Worst Case Error" is in the unlikely situation when all the errors are maximum
and have the same sign.
page 389
The effect of errors 14 in Table 515 is less for E D M trigonometrical heighting as
explained by the following,
Errors in height due to the ranging pole not being vertical are less than one tenth of a
millimetre because,
it is shorter
it is a more solid tubular structure then staffs used for differential levelling.
page 390
The bubble used to aid verticality of the ranging pole is usuallyfixedto the ranging
pole during manufacturing, and can be calibrated.
This is verified by the results of the experiment to determine the accuracy of the
Survey Conformance Procedure For Pavement Layers. In Section 49.5, the standard
deviation of this procedure's positional error was estimated as 5.2 millimetres.
The verticality error of the ranging pole would contribute directly to the positional
error, but it is not the sole source of the positional error. The relationship between the
sources of variation and the total variation is explained by Montgomery (1996),
Therefore, the standard deviation of the error in verticality of the ranging pole during
thefieldtest w a s less than 5.2 millimetres.
a e391
An automatic level that is out of adjustment will usually affect only the intermediate
sights. Keeping the distance to the backsight equal to the distance to the foresight
eliminates the instrument error between change points. However, during a
conformance survey all heights determined on the pavement will be by intermediate
sights. It is not usual, and indeed it is poor survey practice, to use points on the
pavement surface as change points.
An automatic level is calibrated by the Two Peg Test. By this test, it is possible under
controlled conditions, to measure the vertical difference between the sight line of the
automatic level and true horizontal, at a k n o w n horizontal distance.
Surveying procedures for a Two Peg test set a maximum deviation of the automatic
level's sight line from true horizontal before adjusting the instrument. Different
surveyors will set different acceptance criteria. F e w surveyors will adjust an
automatic level if the deviation is less than three millimetres because of the sensitivity
of the adjustment mechanism on the instrument. Typical values are, 3 or 4
millimetres over 60 or 80 metres. The vertical angle subtended by a vertical
difference of 3 millimetres at a distance of 80 metres is 7.7 seconds of arc. T h e
vertical angle subtended by a vertical difference of 4 millimetres at a distance of 60
metres is 13.8 seconds of arc. Survey procedures that measure the vertical difference
at a shorter horizontal distances than 60 metres will subtend a greater vertical angle
than at 60 metres.
Page
392
Therefore, it is expected that 7.7 seconds of arc will be the smallest vertical angle
subtended by the acceptance criteria of a T w o Peg Test specified by current surveying
procedures. The more typical criteria for acceptance will allow deviations of the
order of 14 seconds of arc before adjusting.
This is much greater than the error in the vertical circle index that is possible by
following the recommended procedure for E D M trigonometrical heighting, in Section
55.5. B y following this procedure, 95 % of the errors in the vertical circle index
correction will be less than 2 seconds of arc per face.
58.5 CONCLUSION.
However, surveyors must now except that EDM trigonometrical heighting is also the
better method for height determination considered in isolation, provided the
guidelines of Section 52.1 are followed. So m u c h so that surveyors should consider
carrying out all the precise height determination on the project by this method. In
particular, the heights of control marks could be determined by E D M trigonometrical
heighting.
For example, the following procedure could determine the height difference between
two control marks 100 metres apart:
1. set the total station midway between the two control marks
393
2. sight to a ranging pole on thefirstcontrol mark on both faces of the total station
andfindthe m e a n of the two V C 7 readings, where V C is given by (4.4)
3. sight to the same ranging pole on the second control mark, without changing its
height
4. determine V C 2 , also on both faces of the total station, to the second control mark
andfindthe m e a n WC2
5. calculate height difference by mean V C ;  mean V C 2 .
When determining the height difference between two control marks, the true height of
the total station is irrelevant. This can be demonstrated by using equation (5.5),
HCM1
= HTSVQHT (5.22)
HCM2
HTSVC2HT
(5.23)
where HCMI and HCM2 are the unknown heights of control marks CM1 and CM2. If
the heights are determined from the same set up of the total station of height H T S ,
using the same ranging pole of height H T , then the difference in height is V C 2  V Q ,
by subtracting (5.23) from (5.22).
The slope coefficient of the regression equation (4.7) approximates the standard
deviation of the error of V Q and V C 2 . For a sight distance of 50 metres this is 0.48
millimetres. W h e n V C is estimated by the mean of two pointings to each control
mark, the standard deviation of the error this is reduced by the factor Vp^, which
gives 0.34 millimetres. The standard deviation of the difference of VC,  VC2 is
estimated as the square root of the sum of the variances of the errors of both V Q and
VC2. This equals 0.48 millimetres. Therefore, the error in the estimating the height
page 394
difference between two control marks, 100 metres apart, is expected to be less than
one millimetre 95% of the time by this procedure.
page 3 9 5
REFERENCES
Alwan, Layth C. and Roberts, Harry V., (1988) TimeSeries Modelling for Statistical
Process Control Journal ofBusiness and Economic Statistics, January 1988, Vol 6
8795.
Austroads (1995) Road Asset Management in Australia  State of the Nation 1994/95,
Austroads Project B S 3.A.21, Sydney, Australia.
page 3 9 6
Beran, Jan, (1994) Statistics For LongMemory Processes. Chapman & Hall, N e w
York, U S A .
Becker;J.M, A n d e r s s o n , R , E r i k s s o n , P.o, flrd Nonkuist
A.
Becker, J. M e t a l , (1994) A New Generation Of Levelling Instruments: NA2000 and
NA3000. Paper TS509.1,20th International FIG Cogress, 512 March 1994,
Melbourne, Australia, 11 pages.
Bissell, Derek, (1994) Statistical Methods For SPC and T Q M Chapman and Hall,
London U K .
Box, George E. P. and Jenkins, Gwilym M. (1976) Time Series Analysis Forcasting
and Control HoldenDay, San Francisco, USA.
Cryer, Jonathan D. And Ryan, Thomas P (1990) The Estimation Of Sigma For An X
Chart, Journal of Quality Technology, 22, 187192
Deming, W. Edwards, (1986) Out Of The Crisis, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Department of Transport, South Australia, document RN 5648 Port Road Specification No. 8795. Specifications for road pavement levels.
Imai, Masaaki, (1986), Kaizen  The Key to Japan's Competitive Succes, McGrawHill Publishing Company, the United States of America.
Statistical Tolerances for Concrete Road Pavement Surfaces
page 397
Juran, J.M., and Gryna, F.M., (1970) Quality Planning and Analysis, McGrawHill,
N e w York.
Low Sui Pheng and Peh KeWei, (1996) A Framework For Implementing TQM In
Construction, The TQM Magazine, 8,3946.
Nelson, Charles C, (1973) Applied Time Series Analysis For Managerial Forecasting
HoldenDay, San Francisco.
Nelson, LS., (1984) The Shewhart Control Charts  Tests For Special Causes, Journal
of Quality Technology, 16, 237239.
Ollis, J.E., (1994) Process Capability Analysis of Laying Base Thickness by the Road
and Traffic Authority ofNSW,
page 3 9 8
Queensland Transport, (1993) Unbound Pavements, Standard Specifications Roads document M R S 11.05 dated 12/93.
RTA, (1992) Survey Section Quality Assurance records, Wollongong Regional Office.
Rueger, J.M. and Brunner, F.K., (1981) Practical Results of EDMHeight Traversing,
The Australian Surveyor, June 1981, Vol. 30, No. 6
Rueger, J.M., (1993), 1993 Mangrove Creek EDMHeighting Traversing Test, School
of Surveying, University of N S W .
page 3 9 9
Rueger, J.M. (1997a), Staff Errors in and the Adjustment of Ordinary Levelling Runs,
The Australian Surveyor, Volume 42, No. 1, March 1997, pp. 1624.
Rueger, J.M. (1997b), Course Notes Electronic Theodolites Refresher Course July
1997, School of Geomatic Engineering, University of N e w South Walse.
Swift, K.G. and Booker, J.D., (1996) Techniques  Engineering For Conformance,
TQM Magazine, 8, 5460.
Teskey, W.F., (1992), Survey and Land Information Systems, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp 4653
Transportation Research Board National Research Council, (1995), PerformanceRelated Specifications for Highway Construction and Rehabilitation  NCHRP
Synthesis 212, National Acedemy Press, Washington, D C .
page 400
Transportation Research Board National Research Council, (1996), Record No. 1491
Materals and Construction. Construction: Specifications and Management, National
Acedemy Press, Washington, D C .
Vander Wiel, S. A., (1996) Monitoring Processes That Wandr Using Integrated
Moving Average Models. Technometrics  ASQC and American Statistical
Association, Vol 38, No. 2 M a y 1996, pp 139150.
Yeo, Richard E. Y., Auff, Ahmed A., Armstrong, Peter, (1994), Construction
Variability  Local Roads: the Mildura Trial, Research Report No. 267, Australian
Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia
Yeo, Richard E. Y., Lith, Choummanivong, Auff, Ahmed A., Armstrong, Peter,
(1996a), Construction Variability  Local Roads: the Nangiloc Trial, Research Report
No. 285, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia
Yeo, Richard E. Y., Lith, Choummanivong, Auff, Ahmed A., Armstrong, Peter,
(1996b), Construction Variability  Local Roads: the Wandong Trial, Research Report
No. 294, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia
CO
O
t
o
o
o
o 12
d
o
Q.
o
o
*>
z
a>
co
CM
O
CO
(0
IO
d
II
O
z
ct !
1 a:
co o
UJ
(0
u.
D
(0
UJ
CO
Q. C
CD
CD
D
CO
CO
z
o
Q.
UJ
1
Q.
<
s
z
<
LU
III
<
0.
LL
_l
UJ
a:
o
o
3
c
f
CO
o
d
CM
p
d
co
o
o
d
in
co
CD
O
CD
co
a>
o
CM
CO
c
o
r co
in
CO
co
03
o
d
CO
(0
(0
CM
d
co
co
CO
T~
CO
co
CM
CM
CM
o
d
03
CO
o
d
co
a.
a:
c
d
CM
CM
en
cn
(0
CM
ao
d
m
d
CO
m
o
d
o
d
cd
t CM
ID
m' d
CO
in
co
CM
CO
CD
CM
CM
CM
co
O)
CM
O)
IO
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
co
CM
CM
co
co
CM
CM
CM
SCM
CO
CM
co'
CO
CM
CD
* '
m
m
O
CO
(O
co
co
co
O
O
CO
CM
CM
CD
CM
CO
CO
co
o
r.
d
03
CA
TJ
O
c
'C
CO
'C
03
</> oo a.
O)
>
i_
03
CM
CM
in
d
m
CO
CM
CA
O
"C
03
o a
"55
o
x:
a a
* o u
^ !E
c o "5
o E CO
II
a
03
d
c
d
2
<"5
z CO3
0
<
cn
en
a.
CM
CO
CO
CO
m
d
oo
CO
(A
T3
c
O
(A
'C
CN
03
0)
"D
"4O
u. II
O a.
z o
O c
CO
o
d
co
o> o
<
(A co o
_ i ^
d
UJ C
a: "5
o a
o c
CO
i
d
00
03 CD
d
03
03
n
c
oo
u
3
_i
00
co
p
d
m'
cn
(A
*
C
o
CM
CM
(A Xf
43 O
V)
O)
<
i *
CM
d
*
CM
CO
d
CM
CO
a.
"35
co
* 3 CM o
CO
d
II
a.
o
CO
n
IT
o
d
(0
CM
CO
CO
CM
O)
CO
m
d
00
d
co
CO
CM
CM
o
d
03 co CM
1
CO C
1 O
CO
oo cn
o
d
o
d
CO
co
(A m
t+
w C
CO
O)
(0
3
O
CO
o
d
CM
CO
vO
CO
c >*
o03
< 03
n
CO
on
o
d
<o
d
a>
a
o
i~
CN
co'
00
oo
o
d
CM
00
CM
O
CO
co
o
d
CO
CO
co
o
o>
(A
O)
CM
"D
C
o
d
CO
CM
in
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
o
o
d
CM
O
C
co
>t
o o
CO
V.
CM
CM
co
CM
CO
o
cd
co o o
CA
in
co
co
ffi
t^
d
IO
CM
O)
o
e>
CM
CM
CO
03
CA
CM
o
d
m o
"C
(A
o
u
or
0
CM
CO
co p
CO
_j
Ul
.j
UJ
o o
03
a.
co
CD
41
o
o
d
CO
ci_
11
z Q.
O O
1<
CO
*
o o CO o
o CM
o d
CO fc
a. o
II
(A
0)
CO

o
o
o
CM
03
L.
I_
co.
z
O
F
CM
c
a>
a
<
<
CO
(0
co
o
d
CO
o o
tu
u.
u.
a
z
CM
O
id
co
(0
O)
o
d
* p
o
d
CM
Co'
0) i
10.
UJ
UJ
I
0.
CM
O
o
d
en o
o
d
CM
CM
00
o
o
**
d
ao o
CO
co
r:
co
o
O
o
o
II
L.
03
o
a
a.
iN
!E
o
a
6
z
(0
1
i_
k.
"C
0)
a o a
o o U
CO
o'
z E 03
3 u
co
CO
CM
m
d
m
d
o
a
c
03
03
5o
03
(A
03 "D
n
c
o
oJH03ok.
t_
O
c
03
0.
a
!E
a
75
o"
(0
4">
"co a
o
a >^
oCO
o
To
t 75 4>
*>
0 d "co a
o
a o
l
o>
f
IN
O
II
I
Q.
co
i >
(0 <
I a.
Z or
UJ
UJ
O
UJ a.
<
lift:
u.
3
CO
Ul
CO
U.
Q
CD
O XJ
c
a. CD
i
o
CD
ac
o
J
<
<
0.
03
J
o0 .
Q.
<
CO
o
J
z
<
z
Ul
Ul
Ul
m
z
5
Ul
tc
cc
o
CM
O
CO*
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
O
CM
CO
O
co
O
co
cn o
cn
ao o
CO
h~
1 CO
< QOI
.
UJ c
DC 4CO
a: c
O CD
00
Iin
o
u
o o o to
CO 00* CO o"
CO
CO
o
o
o o o
o> o> l^
in
CO
CM
CO
o
d
o
d
CO
f
o
d
o
d
co
CO
CO
co
o
m'
CM
d
CO
d
CO
cn
o
co"
5
d
CM
"*
d
CO
CO
5
d
cn
o
o
d
CO
p o
CO d
CD
O
II
to
TO
oo
4
p
d
CO
CD
co
T7
CO
CO
d
CO
o
co
d
co
CM
o
CM
CD
CO
ID
CM
CD
CO
p o
in
d
GO
0)
CO
TJ
C
co
o
o
CO
CM
CO
3
O
CO
CO
r~
CM
CD
CM
m
d
o
d
(4
"C
*>
CA
TJ
CD
CD
co
CM
CJ
tf
CM
co co
CO
CO
to
m'
co
co
*;
CO
CM
OO
CM
CD
CM
p
d
00
CM
d
cn
d
o>
p
T
in
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
cn
CD
CD
Mco
CM
CO
CM
in
CM
a:
p
CO
CM
CO
CM
in
d
CM
cn
CO
CM
CO
cn
CD
CO
cn 00
m co
d
m o
CO
in
CM
CM
CM
cn
CM
CM
d
>
co
CA'
O
12 cCD
o
* 
O"
c
c
4>
CM
(A
U>
03
T
to
"0
0
'
03
"0 II a
"3
"5 >
41
o zd
3
03
?
0
a
0
4>
(0
(A
03
u
0
TJ
0
c
03
v. o a
'ic *5 sz
Q.
o
'6 E
3
Q
:Z
(3 c
Z CA
on *
CM
CO
03
CO v.
o
d
(O
d
o
d
CM
CO
o
d
CO
CM
r^
03
d
Q
C CM co
p CO
d
o cn
CO
o
d
ct
< o o CO o
n II
0.
p
UL
d
CO o
1
z
o
3
oo
z
1
o
UJ
a.
c
cn
to
4>
co
c
a: "5
a
c
O 03
r
03
CD
oo
o
43
CO
03
i_
i
o
o
II
a 2
CM
d
d
to
CM
in
d
CO
CM
CO
co
cn
CO
ID
id
CM
1^
r
C3
CO
m
d
m cn
rd
?
>.
.
to'
>
u
03
co
to
d
CO
3
O
CO
co
CO
4"
co
co
CO
CM
Qa.
_cl
C03
(A
03
CM
CM
d
in
CM
t
(A TJ
O
03
'u
fc
03
0
Q
o a
c
0
0 o 4rf 'to "S x:
o
"s o !c a.
CO
E
*03 03 0
d
CD
fc a. ; Z 3 u .
1(0
0
03
d a c
CO o
CO
d c 75
o 3
co
o
m
75
CM
d
O
CM
to
to a
CD 03
l_
N.
<t co
CM
4
in
CO
CO
o
d
TJ
03
CM
CO
CO
CO
30
03
T
p
d
o
d
3
03
X3.
C
a
Ez
4^
in
iC0 "5
UJ a
5 c
< 03
(0 03
o
II
o c TO
c
d 4i c
CA
o TJ c H
4d C CA
CO
o s
CM
o o
CD
d CA 4>
l_
o
TJ
d
03
<o o
O
CO
>
<
0.
<o
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
p
d
0
CO
to "C
a Q o a
c
CD
x:
03
o t
d a
u
41 O O o
II <*'E d E CO
co
CD
o > a
<
3
1d
CO
co
CM
CO
>
i_
>*
p
d
co
co o o
o
CO
CM
d
CD
(0*
CM
O)
CD
co
CM
O)
r
CM
CM
p ^
d
o
p 00
d
m o
O
d p CM
d
CO
p CM
a>
d d CM
o
co
CM
CO d
e'en
00
CM
CM
f
co
CM
CO
CM
TJ
CD
*
CO
CD
c
o
cn
o
CD
CA
CO
o
d
p
d
p p
d
00
co
co
CM
o
d
f
a
CM
CM
II
CO
J
II
TO
cn o
CM
o
o
d
co
*
o
d
4>
oo
in
CM
CM
cn
4>
CM
o
r" d
CD
xs
c
o
CM
O
co
03
o
d
p o
d d
o
u. u
O II
z3
0.
o
d
p o
CO
d
fc
z oO
CO
H
Z
co
p
d
o
s" d
* '
CO CO
Z cCD
CO
1
o
o
d
CM
O
m'
CO
TO
z 4c1
<
CM
O
CO
CM
O
>
a.<
N.
o>
<*
CO
CD
za:
CO
0>
o
o
cn
(0
co
cri
CO
x:
TO
C
o
t
CO
ex
03
TO
CO
a
CN
<
75
4J
41
o
1
&
CD
a
XI "to 0
50
a
o z 75a 75
CM
co
*
II
I
Q.
CO
CO
UI
0.
1 cr
UJ
CO
co
0
CD
O
CO
CM
O
0
0
m
0
id
CO
CM
CM
<o
0
j
Q.
<
CO
J
J
Ul
<
CO
z
z
LU
UJ
o
1
5
Ul
ct:
o
a
:
d
4
en
_l _i
CO
UJ (0
c
TO
CD
C
CD
a:
a:
0 3
n X)CD
C
ao
E
0CD
0
CO
CO
4<
(0 CO
4rf
CO
c 0
CD II
O
CO
CD
0
CO
0
CM
d
CO
0
in
Si
CO
CM
CM
CM
cn
CO
d
CM
CO
d
0
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
d d
co
TJ
CD
CO
co
0
CD
CM
CM
O
CO
Ol
CM
CO
4f
4*
1^
c
CD
a
O
0
>
CM
CO
T
00
CO
CD
CD
d
00
co
ao'
I CM
CM
CM
1"
0
CM
CO TJ
O
o>
.0
"3
CO
3
0
to
co
75
fc CD
Q
0
" 5 0 x:
4>
a 75 0
. ICO
x: 0 E 0)
3 V.
0
Q
...
CO
0
d
CD
CM
0
CO
00
0
CO
CO
UJ
CM
d
m
0
d
00
0
co
in
cn
CM
in
O
CO
CM
CO
m
co
CO
CM
a.1
3
CL
_J
to"
1
en
cn
p
en
CM
CO
a
TJ
O
c
"C
c CM CD
4*
Q
CO
*CD II O
TJ
>
"Si
4"
3
6
0 z
5
cn
tN
d
4t
CO
CM
CO
4J
co
<
a.
u.
O
p
co
in
0
d
10
0
CO
CO
CO
CO
4f
CM
CO
CO
d
p
d
0
CM
T
a a.
r0
c c
d
co
fc. O
fc.
O
O
II en
>
<
0.
8 cn
CO
4T
0
d
CO
0
cn
CM
CO
CO
0
CO
m
p
d
CM
CO
03
CO
m
in
03
d
033
rL.
;
fc.
0 4T CM CO
d
0
II
CM
in
CM
co
p
to
0.
_l
co
p
co'
N
p
d
id
cn
CM
CM
CO
4f
d
0
1
r_
CO
0
en
CO
>
fc.
03
ui
(0
i_
'
Q
0
0
0
f
'Jc
A E3
to
TJ
O
"C
03
a
c
>
fc.
03
03
0)
.
W,
TJ'
0) 0
a
x:
X)
ca
0)
b.
c
0
'3
fc.
75
uC
c
0!
x:
TO
C
o
t
m
1
CO
G
TO
CO
CM
a; c
03
or X5]
CO
3
0
CO
O 0
CO
CM
f^
CO
3
O
CO
CO
CO
0
CO
0
c
03
fc.
.24^0
<
I to
UJ 4^
0
<o
4*
CO
a
0 cc
0
1
a: to03
CO
03
03 CO 0
d
m
d
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
0
0
cn
p
CO
CM
in
4)4f
z3
*4
1.
0
0
c
0
a
c
0
p
4C
CM
cCO
II
II
CO
TO
II J
C
<
'C TO
to 4rTJ
d C co O
O
Z
0 O
03
d
CO
fc. 4*
0 fc.
14d TJ
fi
TJ
CM CD
03
0 4 4<
to to
d CD
03
4
0 0
0> rT T
0
0
03 CM
X
d
4f
CM
CM
CO
CO
Z
CO
0
0
0.
<
CO
0
CM
CM
CO
3
0ct
CO
0
s. 0
CO
CO
10
0
CM
CO
co
00
4f
CO
0
0
CM
r
co
m
CM
co
co d
co
CO
CO
0
0
d
* d
CO
en 0
0
0
d
4f
0
in 0
d
XT
CM
CM
CO
00
CM
0
0
d
0
0
0
CO
d
CM
0
0
d
CM
cn 0
0 0
r' d
r
To
CO
o> o>
CD
to
TJ
C
O
O
CD
(0
CM
CM
CD
O
Q
O
CO
4>
10
CO
O
O
d
cn
to
>
TJ
O
N
nO
CO
0
co
T?
CO
in
0
CM
00
d
d
CO
co
d
CO
4*
CM
CO
0
CO
co
<
0
d
r
CO
4f
CO
(0
TO
C
'C
CO
4*
0
CO
CO
r. m
.2
to
5
p
d
O
II
I< a.
d
d
a.
O
CO
0
CM
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
0
Z
CO
1
<
z
o
CL
LL
CO
CO
k.
CO
1
CO
CO
0
00
CO
CO
0
0
LL
Q
I 0 CO
1
 0  CDfc.
H CO
O
<
CO
to
TO
fc.
c
4^
4>
u.
z
X)
o z fc
4*
CO
0
d
II
0
0
0
0
0.
a.Oc
m COc
CO
CM
O
CD
z3
CO
00* CO
CO CO
CO CO
to
CO
o> o>
0
0
CM
4>
0
co
0
0
CM
O
00
CM
t O
l~'
t>."
CO
0
0
<*
cn O
d
o
d
00
0
0
DC
1
75 J3
CO
10
CO
ui TJ
O
03
"C
fc
03
0 to
0
0 a n c C
c
;Z
E
2
C/3
a
x:
0
CO
OJ
<a
A22/ page 1
Estimate of Correlation Between Points on Subbase and Base Surfaces
1.02
2.01
3.01
4.01
5.00
6.00
7.00
Total
Total corrs.
No. of bet.
pairs pairs
of pts. of pts.
8
8.00
9
9.00
(phil) to power y 0.90 0.59 0.36 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02
0.01
No. of Pairs
10
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
S u m of correls.
for each period
8.96 10.67 5.73 3.01
1.55 0.78 0.37 0.17 0.07
0.02
Calculation repeated for second set of adjacent strings =
Calculation repeated for third set of adjacent strings =
Calculation repeated for fourth set of adjacent strings =
Adjoining Strings  T w o Spaces Apart  Three Sets
w = 0.43
No. of periods
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.43
0.645
1.19
8.026
(phil) to power y
No. of Pairs
S u m of correls.
for each period
CORRELATION O
Periods (y)
(phii) to power y
No. Pairs
Sum of correls.
for each period
0.86
0.64
16
18
10
12
14
5.073 6.061
7.053 8.046
9.04
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.05
0.03
10
31.33
31.33
31.33
31.33
100
100
100
29.89
29.89
29.89
9.02
0.01
(phil) to power y 0.72 0.54 0.34 0.21 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02
4
2
12
10
8
6
18
16
No. of Pairs
14
10
S u m of correls.
0.02
for each period
7.193 9.801 5.469 2.92 1.515 0.761 0.367 0.165 0.066
Calculation repeated for second set of stringsthree apart=
Adjoining Strings  Four Spaces Apart  O n e Set
w = 0.86
9
8
7
5
6
4
3
2
No. of periods
1
0
100
100
100
9.01
(phil) to power y 0.80 0.57 0.35 0.21 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02
0.01
No. of Pairs
18
10
16
14
12
10
8
4
6
2
S u m of correls.
for each period
8.028 10.32 5.627 2.977 1.537 0.77 0.37 0.167 0.067
0.02
Calculation repeated for second set of stringstwo apart=
Calculation repeated for third set of stringstwo apart=
Adjoining Strings  Three Spaces Apart  T w o Sets
w =0.645
No. of periods
1
4
5
6
8
0
2
3
7
9
100
100
100
28.28
28.28
100
26.57
0.02
DINTS IN S A M E STRING
PAIFts  P<
1
0.60
9
5.4
0.36
0.22
0.13
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
45
0.01
GRAND TOTALS =
45
45
45
45
1225
11.27
11.27
11.27
11.27
11.27
354.45
A22/ page 2
Estimate of Correlation Between Thickness Measurements Newcastle Freeway
0.22
1.02
2.01
3.01
4.01
5.00
6.00
7.00
Total
Total corrs.
No. of bet.
pairs
pairs
of pts. of pts.
8
8.00
9.00
(phil) to power y 0.86 0.49 0.25 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.00
No. of Pairs
10
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
S u m of correls.
for each period
8.62 8.86 3.97 1.74 0.75 0.31 0.12 0.05 0.02
0.00
Calculation repeated for second set of adjacent str ngs =
Calculation repeated for third set of adjacent strings =
Calculation repeated for fourth set of adjacent strings =
Adjoining Strings  T w o Spaces Apart  T
hree sets
w = 0.43
No. of periods
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.43
1.09
2.05
3.03
4.02
5.02
6.02
7.01
8.01
9.01
(phM) to power y
No. of Pairs
S u m of correls.
for each period
0.74
0.47
0.24
0.12
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
10
18
16
14
12
10
7.42
8.46
3.88
1.71
0.74
0.31
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.675
1.19
7.03
8.026
0.86
7.053 8.046
0.01 0.00
100
100
100
24.43
24.43
24.43
24.43
100
100
100
22.71
22.71
22.71
9.02
0.00
(phil) to power y 0.626 0.438 0.233 0.119 0.06 0.03 0.015 0.008 0.004
2
4
8
6
12
10
14
18
16
No. of Pairs
10
Sum of correls.
0.00
for each period
6263 7.89 3.728 1.669 0.724 0.304 0.122 0.046 0.015
Calculation repeated for second set of stringsthree apart=
Adjoining Strings  Four Spaces Apart  One Set
w = 0.86
No. of periods
100
100
100
20.76
20.76
9.04
0.00
(phil) to power y 0.55
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No. of Pairs
18
10
Sum of correls.
0.00
0.70 0.30 0.12 0.05 0.02
3.54 1.61
for each period
5.51
7.21
:
CORRELATION O P A I R S  POINTS IN S A M E STRING
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Periods (y)
1
2
0.00
(phil) to power y 0.50 0.25 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No. Pairs
8
9
Sum of correls.
0.875 0.375 0.156 0.063 0.023 0.008 0.00
for each period
2
4.5
Calcu lation repe;ited for second string =
Calcu lation repe;ited for third string =
Calculation repeated f<>rfou rth string =
Calculation repeated fcjrfiftri string =
GRAr ID T OT A L S =
100
19.06
45
45
45
45
45
1225
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
266.46
JS
CO
Q
o
2
J2
"3
k.
i_
o
O
A24
0.42
2.40
2.30
3.24
6.10
8.10
5.46
0.44
3.60
0.90
3.78
6.00
3.86
0.64
3.20
0.42
5.50
1.11
0.60
6.36
6.96
0.67
5.26
7.85
1.86
3.68 50
1.60 50
2.77 50
3.89 50
2.86 50
3.27 50
2.83 50
4.02 50
10.43 50
2.11 50
3.65 50
2.02 50
3.23 50
1.82 50
1.82 50
3.70 50
2.89 50
3.10 50
2.90 50
2.49 50
3.91 50
3.00 49
2.96 50
16.93 40
3.12 50
3.76
2.43
2.63
0.47
2.17
6.78
5.68
0.36
1.50
4.98
1.36
4.08
2.52
5.14
1.70
2.97
5.19
0.38
1.00
1.38
6.84
0.30
3.06
0.41
0.36
8.82
3.06
3.65
2.65
3.74
4.61
4.66
4.47
6.03
8.45
4.18
4.16
3.76
6.64
2.71
4.34
4.42
4.94
4.85
4.46
5.32
4.60
4.46
6.82
4.64
50
49
48
49
48
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
47
50
25
50
50
50
50
37
50
225.82
225.17
225.08
227.23
226.07
228.68
230.22
229.92
232.10
225.92
224.86
228.08
228.66
235.78
234.90
226.61
219.31
223.34
228.40
234.98
230.12
230.97
232.20
238.26
228.50
226.20
225.34
225.50
228.30
226.88
229.40
230.90
228.68
232.34
226.74
224.62
228.34
229.12
234.61
234.64
226.25
219.68
227.78
228.04
235.74
230.38
231.36
232.96
237.16
228.90
3.23 50 0.38
2.72 50 0.17
3.74 50 0.43
4.25 50 1.07
4.49 50 0.81
5.94 50 0.72
5.58 50 0.68
3.88 50 1.24
12.16 50 0.24
2.78 50 0.82
3.82 50 0.24
4.04 50 0.26
3.69 50 0.46
2.75 50 1.17
2.55 50 0.26
6.39 49 0.36
4.67 47 0.37
3.94 50 0.73
4.13 25 0.36
5.01 50 0.76
3.70 50 0.26
4.46 50 0.39
4.97 50 0.76
16.56 37 1.09
5.08 50 0.40
Zn
pvalue
0.266
0.270
0.504
1.192
0.878
0.621
0.617
1.225
0.099
0.634
0.252
0.299
0.527
1.120
0.441
0.296
0.364
0.733
0.269
0.751
0.243
0.389
0.735
0.275
0.374
0.790
0.787
0.614
0.233
0.380
0.535
0.538
0.220
0.921
0.526
0.801
0.765
0.598
0.263
0.660
0.767
0.716
0.733
0.788
0.452
0.808
0.697
0.462
0.784
0.708
The columns of Tables 225 and 226 contain the following information:
Column 1 gives the start chainage of each 100 metre lot.
Columns 2,3 and 4 give the mean, standard deviation and sample size of the
sample surface level departures of the subbase surface for each lot.
Columns 5, 6 and 7 give the mean, standard deviation and sample size of the
sample surface level departures of the base surface for each lot.
Column 8 gives the estimated m e a n of the base thickness of each lot by (2.33).
Columns 9,10 and 11 give the mean, standard deviation and sample size of the
sample base thickness for each lot.
Column 12 gives the difference between estimates of the mean lot thickness.
Column 13 gives the Z 0 for the test statistic by (2.35)
Column 14 gives the pvalue derived by the standard normal distribution tables and
theZ 0 value in Column 13.
Page 1 of4
A24
TABLE 226 Test of S u m of Means  Barton Highway
Start
Chn.
of Lot
mm.
mm. "l
base
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
5600
5700
5800
5900
6000
6100
6200
6300
6400
6500
6600
6700
6800
6900
7000
7100
7200
1.71
4.83
5.28
2.43
5.42
5.96
5.23
4.37
3.73
0.04
0.90
2.22
4.55
4.33
1.25
4.03
4.22
0.38
2.72
1.95
3.45
3.00
1.52
1.13
2.97
0.75
1.22
1.33
0.02
2.61
7.52
6.18
3.70
1.94
8.67
6.04
5.00
0.98
2.08
4.72
1.37
1.55
2.45
0.10
0.27
0.80
1.82
1 57
2.58
4.17
5.78
3.79
2.99
5.09
4.84
5.09
4.85
5.42
4.97
4.23
4.80
4.32
5.28
6.01
4.86
5.48
5.55
5.06
4.40
4.11
5.26
4.86
4.12
4.39
3.89
4.82
5.21
5.15
5.27
4.82
4.98
5.09
5.43
6.10
6.50
6.21
7.30
8.00
5.54
4.53
6.16
3.76
3.83
5.92
5.75
5.36
4.54
5.82
5.03
4.66
5.31
3.48
6.53
2.77
5.57
15.82
11.08
10.13
8.82
11.40
7.85
4.68
11.37
11.83
9.58
7.42
7.07
9.48
8.43
12.67
7.70
8.57
9.18
7.97
8.23
5.73
10.57
4.42
4.87
6.52
4.32
4.30
2.62
4.72
2.52
5.78
3.53
5.93
8.85
3.42
5.42
1.25
5.45
5.75
6.12
7.72
7.10
7.50
5.95
5.02
5.00
4.37
6.42
x2
Sl
S2
63
60
60
60
63
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
60
60
60
69
79
74
63
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
mm.
7.06
7.30
4.60
10.42
3.90
3.82
4.96
4.22
5.00
6.17
5.57
4.73
6.44
5.14
6.64
5.17
5.37
6.43
4.51
5.64
8.54
6.88
4.97
5.93
5.59
6.51
4.91
5.08
3.65
6.43
5.36
4.37
6.22
6.20
3.44
7.87
6.67
4.38
3.94
5.51
4.71
5.66
4.09
4.71
6.15
5.11
5.95
5.02
5.06
4.89
3.31
?
60
60
60
62
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
58
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
58
48
12
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
*3
x4
mm.
mm.
diff.
s4
mm
Page 2 of4
mm.
Z0
pvalue
63
60
63
60
63
60
60
60
63
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
63
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
60
60
60
62
60
61
60
12
60
60
60
60
60
59
60
61
60
60
60
60
60
0.03
0.37
0.73
0.92
0.87
0.99
0.20
0.79
0.91
0.47
0.26
0.32
1.12
0.50
0.49
0.40
0.94
0.37
1.02
1.46
0.27
0.11
0.65
0.61
0.44
0.55
0.61
0.75
1.02
0.06
0.69
0.11
0.32
0.53
0.78
0.40
0.17
0.73
0.9/
1.10
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.60
0.73
0.92
0.45
0.15
0.025
0.255
0.623
0.461
0.876
1.024
0.160
0.773
0.898
0.366
0.227
0.286
0.853
0.473
0.331
0.311
0.830
0.297
1.122
1.218
0.168
0.086
0.671
0.536
0.362
0.377
0.555
0.624
1.068
0.044
0.582
0.107
0.228
0.385
0.618
0.247
0.106
0.398
1.071
0.862
1.018
0.875
0.801
0.575
0.593
0.842
0.362
0.138
0.980
0.799
0.533
0.645
0.381
0.306
0.873
0.440
0.369
0.714
0.820
0.775
0.394
0.636
0.741
0.756
0.407
0.766
0.262
0.223
0.867
0.931
0.502
0.592
0.717
0.706
0.579
0.533
0.286
0.965
0.561
0.915
0.820
0.700
0.537
0.805
0.916
0.691
0.284
0.389
0.309
0.382
0.423
0.565
0.553
0.400
0.717
0.890
A24
TABLE 227 Test of Sum of Variances  Newcastle Freeway
Start
Chn.
of Lot
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
5600
5700
5800
5900
6000
6100
6500
6600
6700
6800
6900
7000
I
"l
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
50
40
50
50
49
48
49
48
50
50
dfs
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
47
50
25
50
50
50
50
37
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
47
50
25
50
50
50
50
37
50
I
s4
mm.
Sl
S2
S3
mm.
mm.
mm.
65
72
89
86
89
88
80
97
78
55
96
71
96
56
86
94
80
58
42
77
90
84
85
51
86
3.68
1.60
2.77
3.89
2.86
3.27
2.83
4.02
10.43
2.11
3.65
2.02
3.23
1.82
1.82
3.70
2.89
16.44
2.90
2.49
3.91
3.00
2.96
16.93
3.12
8.82
3.06
3.65
2.65
3.74
4.61
4.66
4.47
6.03
8.45
4.18
4.16
3.76
6.64
2.71
4.34
4.42
4.94
4.85
4.46
5.32
4.60
4.46
6.82
4.64
3.23
9.56
3.45 2.72
3.74
4.59
4.25
4.71
4.49
4.71
5.66 5.94
5.58
5.45
3.88
6.01
12.05 12.16
2.78
8.71
5.55 3.82
4.62 4.04
4.95 3.69
2.75
6.88
3.26 2.55
5.70 6.39
5.28 4.67
17.17
3.94
5.65 4.13
5.10 5.01
6.60 3.70
5.49 4.46
5.35 4.97
18.26 16.56
5.59 5.08
s4/s3
0.3376
0.7892
0.8162
0.9025
0.9548
1.0507
1.0235
0.6461
1.0089
0.3188
0.6885
0.8746
0.7439
0.3998
0.7835
1.1208
0.8847
0.2292
0.7308
0.9814
0.5610
0.8125
0.9289
0.9070
0.9087
F
0.114
0.623
0.666
0.814
0.912
1.104
1.048
0.418
1.018
0.102
0.474
0.765
0.553
0.160
0.614
1.256
0.783
0.053
0.534
0.963
0.315
0.660
0.863
0.823
0,826
F Dist.
1.000
0.960
0.939
0.781
0.633
0.662
0.580
1.000
0.535
1.000
0.998
0.839
0.988
1.000
0.967
0.827
0.815
1.000
0.948
0.550
1.000
0.942
0.710
0.729
0.765
p value
0.000
0.080
0.122
0.438
0.734
0.677
0.840
0.001
0.930
0.000
0.005
0.323
0.024
0.000
0.065
0.346
0.370
0.000
0.105
0.900
0.000
0.116
0.581
0.543
0.470
The columns of Tables 227 and 228 contain the following information:
Column 1 gives the start chainage of each 100 metre lot.
Columns 2 and 3 give the sample sizes of the sample surface level departures of the
subbase and base surfaces for each lot.
Column 4 gives the degrees of freedom for the F test as estimated by
Satterthwaite's formula.
Column 5 gives the sample size of the thickness measurements for each lot.
Columns 6 and 7 give the sample standard deviations of the subbase and base
surface level departures for each lot.
Column 8 gives the estimated standard deviation of thickness of each lot by the
sample standard deviations of the surface level departures of the subbase and base
surfaces using (2.34). . ^M+c
Column 9 gives the sample standard deviation of the ^ ^ A n a ^ t t ^ h e x
Column 10 gives for the ratio of the estimates of the standard deviation of the base
course thickness in Columns 8 and 9.
^tcm^d m
C o u m n 11 gives the test statistic F0, which is the square of the values contained m
Column 10. +0/T0fF fnr an F distribution with parameters
Column 12 gives the upper percentage of f 0 tor an r aisxnuiu
4landc#j
A24
TABLE 228
Page 4 of4
APPENDIX
A41
SURVEY CONFORMANCE PROCEDURE FOR
PAVEMENT LAYERS
DOCUMENT
09SVY^S#6g
ORDERS OF ACCURACY
Position: 30 m m which is better than Order 2 as defined by procedure 09SVY017
"Procedure for Radiation"
Level: 3 m m , which is better than Order 1 as defined by procedure 09SVY019,
"Procedure for Trigonometrical Levelling"
General: Conformance surveys for pavement layers measure the level difference
between the constructed surface and the design surface. Horizontal position of the
surface is not checked for conformance by this work instruction. A grid pattern,
determined by pacing only, is used to give uniform coverage over the length of
pavement. Initially this will consist of three strings across the pavement running
parallel to the centre line. Points on each string will be picked up at 10 metre
intervals, at a chainage of approximately halfway between the chainages of the trim
pegs.
The work instruction consists of accurately determining the three dimensional
position of the total station then, by tacheometry, determining the three dimensional
position of points on the grid.
FIELD PROCEDURE
1 Place the Total Station at a convenient location, preferably on the pavement,
connect Sharp E500 and determine position by work instruction
09SVY009/W01, Resection Station Fix
2 Initialise the Pavement routine, and follow prompts, taking note of the
following:1. Enter combined scale factor as determined by the "Manual of the
N.S.W. Integrated Survey Grid"
2. Link observations to "Field Book"
3. N a m e the file by the following convention
4. First two characters for the day of the month, eg. 15
5. Next three characters for the month, eg. J A N
6. Next two character for the year, eg. 95, refers to 1995
7. Set vertical circle index correction
3 Orientate instrument by sighting to a tripod mounted prism placed over a
verified control point outside the working area. Measure height of pnsm.
(NOTE1)
.4 . ,.,
4 O n completion of the set up routine leave the Total Station pointed at the
backsight and observe a radiation to it (option number 2)
, utAH
5 Check Compare the calculated chainage, offset, and level of the backsighted
control point against the values shown on the Control Register. Investigate if
chainage or offset are different by more than 30 m m , or if level is different by
more than 10 m m .
6
Pick up points on the grid, with the strings running in the direction of the
chainages, following the requirements for trigonometrical levelling as set out in
procedure
09S VY019, Order 1.
7
Label strings as " L P A V " for the string on the left side of the pavement, " C P A V "
for the string on the centre of the pavement, and " R P A V for the string on the
right side of the pavement. If an additional string needed label it " E P A V "
8
Record any additional points where the pavement appears not to conform.
9
After picking up all points on the pavement, take a check shot to the control
point used during the Resection Station Fix that is nearest to the end of the
work. Compare to the values shown in the Control Register, investigate if level
difference is 4 m m or greater.
10 O n completion, check back to the backsight, checking the chainage, offset, and
level against the Control Register.
Data to stored on Sharp file
Record all observations taken in the field.
OFFICE PROCEDURES:
11 Down load field data as :1.Raw data.
2.Processed results.
12 D o w n load coordinate values from the Sharp of the control points used
13 Calculate the m e a n and standard deviation of the level differences between the
field level and design level, (field level minus the design level). Tabulate results
showing, chainage, offset, design level,fieldlevel and the difference, for each
point on the pavement radiated.
14 Prepare graphs for each of the strings used to pick up the pavement surface
(LPAV, C P A V , R P A V and E P A V , if used) showing the level differences,
against chainages along the pavement.
15 Prepare cover sheet for the report showing :1. Date of survey
2. People in the survey party
3. Equipment used.
4 Location of conformance survey
5 Pavement surface and template used to determine design levels.
6. Tolerance specified, and a statement of conformance to the tolerance
7. A unique number for each report.
8. Signature of the surveyor responsible for the survey
16 File a copy of the report under Conformance Surveys in the Construction
Surveysfilefor the project
17 Close out survey request and send original report to * e ProJect Engtneer
NOTE.1
For thefieldtest, the total station was oriented by sighting; to the
ranging pole placed on the control marks used for the resection only. J ^ a c k s . g h t
was not a rtpod placed over a verified control marks outs.de the work area.
APPENDIX A42
Appendix A42 contains the raw data of thefieldobservations from the Appin Road
field test and initial comparison of coordinates of datum pegs by the procedure and
traverse. The appendix is 18 tables showing the observations from each unique
combination LocationOperatorInstrument. Data contained each column of each
tables are:
Column 1 gives the datum peg number.
Column 2 gives the height of the ranging pole for each observation.
Column 3 gives the zenith angle measured to the reflector on the ranging pole. The
characters to the left of the decimal point of the zenith angle give the number of
degress, the first two characters to therightof the decimal point give the number of
minutes of arc, the remaining characters to therightof the decimal point give the
number of seconds of arc.
Column 4 gives the horizontal angle to the ranging pole measured from some fixed
azimuth line. The characters to the left of the decimal point of the horizontal angle
give the number of degress, thefirsttwo characters to therightof the decimal point
give the number of minutes of arc, the remaining characters to therightof the decimal
point give the number of seconds of arc.
Column 5 gives the sight distance, in metres, as the slope distance measured by the
total station.
Columns 6,7 and 8 give the comparison of the chainage of the datum peg. Column 6
gives the chainage of the datum peg (metres) as determined by the procedure during
thefieldtest. Column 7 gives the chainage of the datum peg (metres) as determined
by the control traverse (see Table 42). Column 8 gives the error in the determination
of the chainage (metres) defined as the difference (procedure minus traverse) between
the determination of the chainage by the procedure and the traverse.
Columns 9,10 and 11 give the comparison of the offset of the datum peg. Column 9
gives the offset of the datum peg (metres) as determined by the procedure during the
field test. Column 10 gives the offset of the datum peg (metres) as determined by the
control traverse (see Table 42). Column 11 gives the error in the determination of the
offset (metres) defined as the difference (procedure minus traverse) between the
determination of the offset by the procedure and the traverse.
Columns 12,13 and 14 give the comparison of the height of the datum peg. Column
12 gives the height of the datum peg (metres) as determined by the P " * ^ J
thefieldtest. C o l u m n 13 gives the height of the datum peg (metres) as
^ T ^
the control traverse (see Table 42). Column 14 gives the error in the ^ n a t i o n f
the height (metres) defined as the difference (procedure minus traverse) between the
determination of the height by the procedure and the traverse^
Each table includes the m e a n and standard deviation of the chainage, offset and height
errors of the procedure.
co co T
co r^ in
iri iri
C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O Ccd
O C O cd
C O cd
CM CD
O 00 cn
m
co o
CM 00
t r> h
oo co co
0)
en co co
m
00 co rr
t^SSSS^^^eMxcnco
fs. 00
CMOCOCOCMCMmOCMhCO
CM CO
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
9 9 9 99999999
o p
d11 9
m
o
UJ o
o
1
a
co
r^'m"
oo^r
co cd oo oo r^ r~
(0
u.
u.
O
(
r O
S * 0 ( O r
p oO r<rtco co
co) cn
>
UJ
Q <D
CO
o 2 o 2 2 2 2 o o o 2
o O o o o o g > o o
d 9 d 9 9 9 9 d d d 9
r o_ cn o m m co * oo ^ TfCMCocococncMcocDcno
o
CMcninTrscoococoooo
m
c
Dcocococoiommmmin
ddcricricncococdr^
ncMOOiooNiom^
u
CL
o
cn m
o R
o 9
d9
UJ
>
O E
3
<
<t a
z
T
Q CD
CO
O co .2
cncocncninoocMcococo
^r m CM o o * c o o
UJ c co co CM co co o co coxf st CD
co
o oo
Q.
CO CM Tn o * *'
CMNT *
cn r^' co iri iri
c3< CM
CD CO CD
CM
co
co
co
co
co
I
r cn co m m o m co cn o oo
o co
* m CD
in m co co o m co CD
c c r
co ^incno CM
oo
m
m
m
m
o o o o o o o m
o om
03 < <3 co co * *
cocncncncncncncncncnen
N
o a
<
o
o
z
y COCDCDCDCDCOCOCDCDpP
X
UJ
2 r3
*cMco*rwcoi^cocnO'o o o o o o o o p j  j DC <o a.
QOLQQCLQQQCLCLCL.
h(0
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q
*
CM
IO
CD
co CM
o
o
CO
O
O
d d
IO
CO * CO * T 11 ii
o
cn o
CM CO
CO CD m
CM oo CD cn CJ > c
c
n
CO
CO o CO
O CD
cn m
c
r
i
n
CO od
G CD
cri
dvT CO
od r~:
d CM
00 r^ CD m
M"
n lO
CD CD CD o
CD c
lO
UJ
U)
CO
*=
m
m
CO CM
cn st CO * r rs. CO
05 o X CO *
m r
n CO
oo r CM
oc
"3lO
n CM
cn en r cn CJ
o
o CO
cn m T  ls CO o CD CO
^_ n n o rocn cn oo CO CO ro in
sf
CO N CD UJ *
o CN
o CD CD r
nt
CD
CD o
CD c
LO
o to in UJ UJ
00
CL
co m o * r r
I
r CO o CO
OO CM m CM
T
co c
n CO N.
c
n CO
m
vT
Ci
^
en CO O CO
CD CD CO
m
m * CM
OO
00
oo N. r CD m *
st
CM
ope
tance
a 8
T~
r^
cn
f in
co .2
2UJ 3= J
CL
o
z
g
r<
to
C>1 st vf v
CM
sr ^;
CD
CM
P
^
Horizc
Ang
CM r co
r co co CD U
co co co co co "
cMco^rmcoroocn
rs
a) in
TStOO(l)(OON
CM * * T  o oo
CO m ^r * rr
CD hCD

rs CO CO
JO
Q>
Zenit
AngI
CM
oo
o cn cn cn oo co oo
cinD^r
c oC Oc CDMc oo ccn
D moo
m ri n CD
m imn m
e
LO CO to
en CD CO * rs. r CO
o 0 o o CO CM co CD CO
o o o o o o o o o
o o o
o o o
UJ 99
o o o
o1
rOCi
r cn
oo Ui CO r in
CM h" CO
o NO
o O o CO
o o o O O
o o 9 o o
t
d d
11
u
cn cn CO
T
CO
o
>
c
in * CM ro
CD m * Q a.
io rs
CO CM
CO
r * CO
o
cn in s roo
m c o o o c M c n ccn
o coo
ncn
CM
o
o> T
o
**
T  T X CD
sT
3 CO
CD CD CO
CO
*
(0 rs. CO CO OO CD
hs NQ
3 CO
T3
<D CO
o o S ^ D r S ^ ^ c M ^ c o c o co oo
^CD
CM CO CO
rco fs o
E CO
O) o
c o ^ r h s o c n c o c o o o c n <r C M
o co CM o CM r^ *
T cn
cn
c o oo^ r c o c o ccno cco
n c'sor m co o
r^oocricocboor^r^cDiri * CM
C N ^ C M ^ ^ I ^  ^ C O T
cn
cn fs. CO CM o N.
m
T ~ rf
ro o C_) CJ ro
o n u u o o o
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
t
II
r
(ONtDsomnmcocooo
O) CD CO
l^s. CM CD
co co
CM
* CO ^r rs.
o o CO
n r ro
CO m ^ CM on c
\r ro ST
a o
CO
ca IO u cn CO CD ro v o CO r m
IO * * T T * M CO ro CO
N hs r r r r^ r r rs r r.
V)
C) C) co co CO CO co CO co co
0.
o CO" CO
N CO
m
r"sf S S N
cococococococococo
iri iri
r  rs.
*"
D0257
30266
r
cn co r.
*
CO 00
o
o
o
o
NN. * r
 o CM ro r> T_ ^r
T
UJ IM Ct> in * vf in
roCO
u
H fc
T
OO UJ
CM oo r sT CO CO T > c
X 3 CJ
i
CO (
0)
00
CD
CO
ro
_
)
o
o
o
r
m
<0 m to
* T T * st CO ro CO Q CD
UJ
K r rs. rs. N. r
r
r
 r~ rQ hto PJ C) CO CO CO CO ro CO co co CO ^
X
O) 00 CO CO
^ "^ TT
co o ~
t"
in r rv.
0.0007
0.000'
in m ,_ ^_ co
n K * *
o o o o u o o o o o
UJ o o o o o o o o o o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o ooi o
o o
To o 2 o o o ot mv cn
o o
oo2 o oo
o" d 9 o d d 2 2 2
oo9ooooooo
rs M  r *
o CM CO O
9 9en 9
co 9
co
o CM
co co
m m
o
o
d
o
o
ro
Z
oo cn vt CO r^ m ro
Tf
 rs CD CO CD
cn r
CO
CO
a>
oo en o
PP P
CM CO sf LO CD rs
(0
IO rn r hs oo r CD ,_ m CO CO
Tt n \ LO n CN o o UJ * CJ
(0 ro CN cn r^ O CD oo * vT to
CM
O o o C3 a f CO CM *
CM "st m r CO LO LO vT
^r *
CM rs. CD CD CD CD CD CD CO to CO
CM
*
,_ rcn r~ O) ^_ st CO CD
1X1n o sf x >
r
o
m
n
ro m CO
 CD CD UJ CO
m CN oo st
LO r
co
m U5 UJ UJ UJ
d
rs!
n
d
d d
d d
Hn ri
00 c
cn cn cn cn d<s>
cn 0) o>0)
'0
IO IO
H co CO
X
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
P P
UJ
r\ro vt LO CO r oo en o ,^ *
u CJ
o o n n o a
0. CO 0_
LL u
LL LL CL
n n n a. 0. CL
CO
Q
.
Q
H
a o o D a a a o CJ U
CO
CM
ro CO
H
T
CM CM CD
CJ UJ CM
O 2 2
O o o
CM n CM UJ <* CO
O x n u t_j o
O n n u CJ o
1o o o
d d d d d d o o o o 9 o o
1
1
d d
s
I  M r ^t h~ O CM ro o
fc co CM co m
rr ^t UJ
CT) CJ
yf
3 o oo in i CM oo r
 O
co o ro oo co coT^
(0 UJ m <r xj xr TJ ^r st
s
UJ
co ro 25 9
oo rro ro CO Q $
LU
: : : ^ I  N r r rs. r rs, coS
X a CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 co CO co co
r~ UJ
*
CO ro CD rs.
CM o CD
O
o
O o
o
9 d o o 9
d d
i
0.00293
0.00131
o
o
u. 41
a
CO CO CO CO COr.ls co U) M" Q
cu
co o rroCMCO co cn "3
>8 00 CM "^ CO ^f
S 3 <D ! CM COMT

cn UJ o UJ cn m
UJ
o
o o CO vT cn o
T
T
^ COn r
 >=r
ro
CO UJ
sf o XJ CD CD c
u rCO oo CO CO CO r rCD
0.
o
CM
<*
UJ oo CO O
CM CO CO xr
o 2 S co jo O o
2 2 CD 2 o CD o n o n o
CM
3 CM oo UJ
O CJ T
TJ
ro
O o CD o O o o o o o
UJ O
9 9 d 9 d do o o o o
oo CO CO CO r~Tf
T~
o
o ^ o o
o o o o o CJ CJ o
o o o o o o o o
UJ o o o g o o o o
00 CO
xj UJ
UJ
UJ
XT 00 <3 T " n
r oroo m in CO
CM oo CO ro o
sr CM co co co ro
< E
3 CM ro in t N co o CD
CO o 00 ro ro
rs.'
CO
z< Qro m^ d
d d cri cn CO
ro CO CD
od ^r O 0J
UJ
<r co CM o ro UJ r
.
UJ UJ UJ U) CO ^
3
z<
T
O
co co co co co m
o
TJ
e
o
O
CL
fs. CD CO CO CM CO ^r UJ oo
T
co UJ CM co m UJ r
 CO N^ t ^ in co o> CM CO
CM ro in  r co
o CO 00
 o o ororo ro CO CO
m
T co CM o ro o r CO
CO CO CO CO CD UJ o
UJ UJ UJ
m
rt
Q
2
^
co .2N
o
h
UJ
0.
8
0
2
Ul
t CM CO t LO CD
UJ CO CO UJ CO UJ CO
f O CM UJ
c S. tro^UJ CN
CM co r* oUJ
O n> CM x o o o CO o
CM t' cn r' CD UJ UJ
CM r co co co coCO
a: 2 v CM CO 2T UJ CO o CO ro o v
o o LL LL
4> Q o o o o o o
0) 3 0 D_ D_ 0 0_ 0. D_ a. CL LL
Q G U
aaaaaaaa
S
sf
CM rs.
T r^ CO \r CO
vf vT
sr oo o
o 'f
U)
CO ro CM
r
o
T h CO
UJ
cn
o
r^ CM
CD
^
r oo
^r r ^
oo co OJ OJ
rs.
co CJ o
CO rs.
CO
CD UJ
UJ UJ UJ
^
CO UJ CO o O
o
vt rs.
vt V ~ 00
CO
o
r CO CM
1 ^ CO
cn ro oo oo r r rs. CO
sT n n rn OJ OJ OJ OJ ro cn ro
CM CM CO vt UJ CO r oo OJ
M
sf
CM
CU
D)
CO
n CO r^ rs. CO r "sT o
2c UJ CM^r CM ro
UJ CO
n ^r CM CO
a
UJ CJ CD
f CO
cnn en CM
UJ
CM
CM
CJ
"
s
S g> CMvl ^Mr CM cncn oLO o^OJr OJCO oCJ
CM CM
OJ 0) OJ
q
sf
o<
M o UJ T OJ
^r UJ CO
r co CD
UJ
UJ
U) UJ UJ
d d
d d d ro
ro
ro ro ro
CO
CD
CD
YCO CO CO CO CO CO CO CD
r fO CD T CO
* CM o w
o r
o o OO
o o
o o O
0_
r^ oo ro o
^r ro CO CM
UJ CJ
U)
rs. "vt CM UJ
sf CJ
^r T vl xf
CD co CO li)
u ,_ o CO
n o
cn cn cn CO
CM o ro oo hs
xr
o to
CD CD CD CD CD UJ UJ UJ
00
CM NT T ro ro T Ul *t CO
CD CO CD CN
r
"T
ro
uj Tsr

sr
co rcoco CO CO CJ
Zenith
Angle
87.4345
90.3554
90.3935
90.4229
90.4803
90.545
<
00
UJ UJ
U)
o^
o
Z X
o
T
UJ T
UJ CO
CO
vt CM
UJ tf
r
v^
to
CM
ro
CM
3 CM
73 xr
ro CM
00 UJ
1s.
ro o
Slope
Distance
ro o UJ UJ CD T oo sT T
" n
CO CO CO OJ CN CO CO OJ o
CJ
CD
CJ
CM ro UJ
O
CO
r~
o
ro m
*>
d d d ro cri ro CO CO 00
Q CD
Qro U) <T CO CM o ro CO r CD U) ^r
CD CD CD CD CO UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ CO ^
E3
X
<
Q)
Zenit
AngI
CO
CO
U)
0.00342
0.00079
(Cl
o rs cn CM
r^ "sr o CO
S o T ^ o ro ro CO UJ
UJ
o :
P od
O od
T cd
CO cd
CO od
COr r CO
0L
p
3
"O
CO
in UJ ro r T
u> ro in
n ro
o o o
o o o
d d d
CM ro UJ
OJ ^ o
CO CD
rr 1<J T
o
n o O CO To o o CJ o o
d d 9" d o o
d d
1 E CO r co rs. o UJ CO UJ OJ CD oo
u c
T
T~
s M o co
OJ
UJ
n rro
>
'sf CD CD c
CO
UJ sT CM ro
3 CO o
ca
o
c
o
wLL 4>
ro r
00 CO OO OO CO h r~ CD UJ "3 Q CD
Q
1 E C O N t D N O l O CO UJ cn cn CO
ro o  T T  ro r T o CO
UJ
> c
(0 3 co o ^r co co coro CO UJ ^f CM ro
UL Q
<*
o
o o o o
o
UJ o o l_J
O
d
d d
o
=
=
UJ
0.003
0.0013
0.004
0.0023
0.0031
0.0008
"<*
s
s
*
mo ro
*fr
r
r^ UJ
ro ro
fs. ^ fs. r r rs N r
CO
CO CO
CO CO CO co co
CL
hs o CM CO n ^_ *vr
M" vt UJ
OJ CO
CM CO
NT CO CO
CJ OJ CO CD CO r^ O CO rUJ ^t ^f
<r * ^r CO ro CO LJ < D
rs. N. r r r r rs hs r r " ^
CJ CJ co co co co co CO co co CO " =
^r ls ^T
CM co UJ
CO UJ T
ro ^t CD cn CO r T ro ro UJ CO
3 CD CJ CD "<3CO cn
co h fl CO
n CJ
TJ CJ CO UJ T CM CO
ro
ro CJ o ro OO CD co
o
o
o
r UJ
UJ UJ ^t <* ^r
^r
CJ CJ CO
r rs. rs rs. r r rs r r 1" h0. CJ CJ co CO co co CO CO co co co
CO UJ CM
h cofein in ^f
v T
3
TJ
r TO c
o
ro 2 00 S t CM COT
CO
CO i
ori P
CO CO
CO XT
5" *)'
rr M=
CO
u m'
rs. fs ;
CO CO "
CJ
CD
N.
CD
hX 3 CJ
IO
O
roUJ
UJ
rs.
X Q CJ
41
u
d d d d
O r~ CO
O sr
o CD
o o O O o
o o o O o o
d d d 9 d d
T
0.00130
0.00060
fN
=
=
roroco co r~ coUi
0.002
0.00'
l_
o o o o o lu_) n o o
ofc oo o
o o o o
o o o
o
o
o o o ou o o o
UJ
O
_J
H
X
CM
KZ
UJ
3
or
r(0
n CN CM CN CM IM
nc
CM CO n
CO cn
CM c
CM
CM
CD CO
n CO on ^r OO cn en r^ o
sT
CM ** o sT CO (
.
M
n
n LO
rs.
CO r h (0 o a T LJ IM
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
UJ
CM co
fO rri d d d d d d d d d
CO CO ro OJ OJ cn cn 0) OJ 0) OJ

CO
co CO
CD CD CD CO CD CD
p p
f\ ro <sf UJ co r CO OJ o T
o
n o o o o LL
u LL
roCL nn nn CL
LL a.
CL
n
ro a.Q Q a a a a.
Q Q Q Q D U
y
CM
i
<
Ul
X
s r
CM CO
UJ x
xf
o o
d d
O xx ro " II
co co ro 5=
CO
\ fc
T 3 CJ
CJ
C!>
CM co UJ
CU UJ T ~
C_) OJ CO
ro UJ UJ xf xf
111 Q
55S
co
co x orox CO
UJ o xr rs
CM x co
r
UJ uj xf in x CD
3 fxf
UJ x CM00 r xf
TOJ OCO CO
O OJ CO CO CO X  o co r
O U) UJ xj xj xf xf xf xf CO CO
fs.fSsfs.fs.fs.
rr
 rs.
 r^.
CO CO
00
CO r
00
co co co co co
a.
CO
8 xCM CD
o o o o 2 o r> n o 2
2 CM CM
UJ o o o o 9 o o o o 9 OO OO
d d d d ^ o o o dg
d d
ro o co fexf o CO MCM x* o CM 2 xf xf xf ^
LL
hLU
(0
sS
Q <g
r xf
C(J CO
o O
o o
o o
1
8^
rCO r CD
o UJ CO UJ roroOO
OJ o T T T cn N. xf o CO
3 CJ o xf CO co CO roCO UJ xf CM
CO rs. CO CO oo oo oo r r CD UJ xf
11
..
JlD roro
CO UJ
3 CM ro o oo coxf o co xr r~
UJ x cororo ror.roxco CO
co
ro x T  x o OJ r xf
TJ CO
ro O xj CD CO CO roCO UJ xjo r^. co co co coCO r r.co UJ
CO
3 co r CJ
roo x
TJ
roCO CJ Xf
r CO CO
u
o
CL
0
CO CO UJ xf xf UJ CO
UJ r CM
UJ CO CM
T
xf O CCJ
ro
r CO
CD o
CO
co ro UJ xf
CO 00 CO r r CO UJ
CO
xf
CM
xf
UJ C M f UJ UJ xf x
O UJ x CO UJ CO U)
0.00185
0.00294
CL
co x CO
o o o o oo o o o o
o o o o oo o o o o
UJ g o o o o o o o o o
u. Q
CO **
xf UJ
x roCO
CO r xf cn ro xf
CO T o oo r UJ
xf xf xf ro ro rd
CO in xf xf r UJ CD xf UJ
o o IM x x CM T o TO
o n o o o o o o
o oo oo o oo oo oa od oo
o
g
Ul
1 E C O N C O N O UJ CO UJ ro ro
ro o x x xOJ rs xf o CD
Ul
(0 3 CO O xj co CO CO roCO UJ xj QS. <Dro
u. a S CO CO CO COoo r rs co UJ
xf
CM
CD
xf
r
 fs.
r r r r
 r fs r fs. fs.
CJ
CJ c
o co co CJ co CO 00 CO CO co2
roUJ CO U) x
CO 00 CO CO m rn CM
3
CJ CD UJ xf CO CO cn cn ro
8
U)
CM oo r CO UJ ro xf
x
CO
TJ CJ
CD co x o CO r UJ
roUJ o
ro
o
o
xf xf xf xf xf xf CO ro CO
o r UJ
r r r^ r r r r fs fs. fs
CL
o CJ CJ CJ CO CJ CO co co CO CO CO
CM
CM
CJ
0.00
2
2 C2
D
3
o CO fs.
o ro co co
ro co
+2
UJ U J xj xr xj N xf xf co co Q
fs. rs. fs^ fs. fs_
Q
h~ N r.
r
CO C O CO CO CO r 00 CO co co
r UJ
roCM co v CM CO
t_> u O CJ T x
o CJ
CJ
CJ
o o
n n n n
o o o o o o o o
9d d d d d 9d d
CM 2
r CM
CM o 2
O
o
x o
O
o
o g
i
i
i
i
UJ
i
d
r>s xf rs. xf r o CM ro n
xf
r r
 o.oc
r rr fs. xj fs.
CN CO IT) xjCO UJ x CM
E CO
O
ro o
co ro r CM
o xf UJ
UJ T ~ CO xf T ~ V ~ UJ
o
o o o o o o o
o o o
i_
o o o o o o o O o o o
UJ o g g d 9 o g d o 9 g
UJ xf UJ
UJ in T ~
0.00301
0.00239
H
X
ro co xf CD
o u x CM
r> lu_> o
O
O
O
o
o 9 O O
o o o o O O o
fcg g o o o o
ooooo
UJ o
o ooooo
0.002
0.001
t_ CD hs CO UJ xj CO
UJ
UJ CD xf CO xjOJ CM OO co ro
CJ
rs. O CD CO o
<
fo ro o UJ
xf CM CO CD CO
E
3
z
<
ro UJ xcri cri CO
od cd
r^
UJ
xjdCO dCMdooi
rooo ls, co UJ
CO CO CO CO CO U) UJ U) UJ UJ
CM
ro
LU
"
II
<
3s
co
z
<f Q
T
UJ
CL
z
o
1<
o
u
J
Ui
oo CO CO
T
xf CO
xf CO
o cn CM
o o CO O xf
UJ xf CO CO CM
ro
rororo ro
CM CM CM CM CM
CM f xj in CM xf o
?= UJ o uj co x CM c
xf
CO UJ
CJ O
00
r^ xf
CO CM
o
( D T  C D S N
CD o o x O
xf UJ x CM CO xf UJ UJ UJ UJ
coroo o o o o o O o
co corororo roroOJ ro ro
CO CO CO C O CO
p p p P P
x CM CO xj UJ CO rs oo ro o
3
O xo o o o o o o CJ
+*
ro
K
CL DL CL CL D_ CL
CL QLL D_ CL
O Q
r ro Q_ Q a o a a o a
Q
(0
7
io,
CO
a:
O
c? 3
UJ
CL
c o
5?
O o <
CO
CD CO
od CO
T~
o > c
oo
o
<
o
o
_1
CM
H
Z
UJ
S
&
r(0
UJ in
CO CD
xf
CO
UJ
OJ
r
fs
xf
UJ
CO o CM
ro
CD CM
xr r^ xf
oo
n
00
CO
roro
r rr r CO
n o rn rn OJ rororororo
CM CM CO xf UJ CO h~ oo OJ
CM CO r xf xf rororoxf
CD CM o CM lO n CM CJ CJ UJ
UJ xf
CO
CM UJ CJ
UJ xf xf CM r~ o ro
xf
o C) o
CM xf r
CM
\lrn co UJ xf CO CO
OJ
OJ
M
r
>
r
n
r
n
c
n
ro
ro
CM CO CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CO
CD
OJ
(0
rs.
IM
CO
IM
CM
OJ
IM
X
_ ,_ CM CO
cn rorn o Xf r OJ ,
T
in
xf
CM
xf to *
xf
m
<o
r
 n CD r
 CCJ U o T U IM
CM^ r
Xf to
co xf UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ

Zenit
AngI
Horizont
Angle
24.2849
314.4342
302.4101
298.2609
296.1800
H
o
V
o r C D
58 x xj r. o xf
00 00 o
r^ r r5*j!
co
xro
ro
OJ
_
,
:
o
o
ro
ro
ro ro
ro
ro
co .2 v
xf UJ CD r co
T  CM CM ro
Zenil
AngI
a:
UJ CM UJ xj CO UJ CO CM x
Slope
Distance
(n
roUJ
U) co UJ o co UJ ls ro roCO
3
xf rroCO CM oo CO CM
TJ xf x CO CD UJ roCM a> CD OJ
roCM roUJ CJ r CO O CD CO CO
a
o in
T_ r> n CM OJ cn en oo oo
CO
hCO
UJ
y
xr o
o cn
CL CD CD CD CD CD UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
CO CO UJ UJ CO roxf ro CM
xj fs. co ro
o CM CO CM
Tl xr x co U J UJ cn CM 00 co ro
CO
O CD CO o
CM
ro
U
J
xre
o UJ
x xjo o
o
ro
c
n
ro00 CO oo
CO CM o cn CO r CO UJ
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
UJ
UJ UJ UJ
UJ
CL
o5
CM
ro x
UJ
3 co
CM
" II
ro
a
ro
d d eri cri cri
CO r^
UJ dxf CO CM o
CO r
UJ
xf Q ro
ro
~
c
o
CD CO CD CD CD UJ UJ UJ U) UJ UJ CO "^
xf CO xf
o UJ UJ CO
r CM
o ro
xf
CO c
o co roCM CO CO OJ
ro
E
3
> c
CD cri
CO CO
I co CD
X
d d d d d d d d d
rorocn rorororocn ro
CO CD CO
co CD
CD CD
P P
 oo roo T r\i ro xf UJ CD r
 ro n o
CJ u u
"
n o o CD
CL CL CL LL LL CL
o_ n
n
n
.
3roro
D
Q
1
3
Q
CL Q Q n
a aaaD
*
CM
<
UJ
do'9d9d9'ggdd
IV Xf fv xf IV g CM coO X Xf
11
CD CM CD "f
UJ
II
O CO UJ xCM xf UJ xxroco
00
fxf
CO
CO
xf
* ri
co orocoCO
xf CO x O co tv m
ro
UJ UJ xf
xf
jr f' xf
C
C O CvO CfV
O CV
O Cfs.
O Cco
J C J Ccd
O
co
(VO C
fVO C
VO fs.
fs.fs.fv
CO x xf ,n x O oo m fs. o CO
rv co UJ 12 CO xj CM CO fv O UJ
xf
o co UJ S CM CO CO UJ xfUJ
xf
co o ro P CD CO O CO
Iv CO
CO
ft CO
rr iv rUJ uj xj=
00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
552
frvrv
oo co co
ooooogooooo
d
do
dgg ggogsdSdododod
oo
fcJfc^^OrMCOOrTf
CDCMCDUJxjrjinTxroCJ
F
~T S K i S  CMCOrvxfcOCOxj
a COCJCOCOCOCJCOCOCJCOCO
CO0pCMCMCOCJCMCOrvv
j
fcCMfs.UJxfcOCDxxOxf
T
2 2 i 5 " CM0OlvxfcDxjxf
u
roporocococoxocoivuj
iP 5 1 ^ ""*: "^ M 1 xf cd cd cd
u !P
^trt^^^^f^rvrvivtv
CL C O C O C O C O C J C J C J C J C J C O C O
P
Xm
09990090090 d g
x  C O O O p x  C M x  o j U J U J C M fs. CO
O
OOx
OC
OMx
OC
OMx
Or
O:x
njOts
O.c
O D CM CM
1
.1
c
CD
oorororooocdoo
UJ ,A IV IN U O ) W M i l U) ^
C JO UUJ)U J
CD^CC
O CO OCCMDOUOJJU CJ O
UN
JU
oococoroujujcocM
0 g
E
3
99dggd999o'9
0 p
o P
d g
UJ
rvorooujujcoxfcoxfxxfcMcococDrocMoocDroo
3 CMroujxrvcjocDcoooo
O CO
rroorOoOoId
oOdUcJdxijvU J^xdfdCdJr
Co
MO
vC
< rox
CO *==X a C O C D C O C D C D U J U J U J U J U J U J
0
O
< E
d11 19
1
> c
CO
roxrocoroxfroxjinujcn
o m
3
roorocDxPcocMujuJiv
TJ coxcjujcorocMoocDroro
CMOxjinxUJCOUJCOOJ
v CO
O v
CxfTooxjcorocMcorvroro
Mrouj
roro
ro
00co00
00
o
co
o
d
0
UJ xjuj
C O C O CCOD CM
C D CoDro
U J U00
J U fv
J U co
JUJ
roCMcnujxivcoococoor
0 xooorororocooooofP UJxfcOCMOroOOIvCDUJxf
a. C O C D C D C D C D U J U J U J U J U J U J
ro
xfxftvOCOUJCOCDCOCOC^
ro
ro
OCMxrvtvxxcOCMCOrS
o
n ro
CM
cMrocoocorocDcocMO.
C
M
r
o
c
o
o
c
o
r
o
c
D
c
o
c
M
o
P
xflv'ujxfcdcMCMCMCMCMcD
_
C o
xf
fv'
UJ
xf
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
ij
xxcMcoxfujcDrvcoro^i
O
O Q xcMooxjmcorvooroi^
UJOrs.CMxfcOroOCDCMx
ro 00roxf CO CO K n
xf 00 f OO
_ ro xO C JC xJ C xOjxCCJOxCJxxjxCfDOU UJ JO CC OO
UJ _
m 0 0 xfUJxfTxfrxfUJCOCJCO
UJ
UJ CO
0 0 0
Q.
CO CM
CL
00 x ro LO S?
xf O CN^ CO iv xf T cri CO f' op'
x^y,
l sf O r v U J x j  C J C O C O C M C M C M C M
g
n cUJ
oo
c oQ x ^J.
fPcM
xfto^ ^
XTc CM
O
ro
xCDxfOCOOOCMUJCOro^,
O C M C M O O I V x  x CO x CO <S,
SI.
Dist
x  r o c n ^ ^ x j  x  c o u j ^ x  co P
r v r o o c o c o o C M x  c M ^ c o CO Is*
CO CM
UJ O O o O O g O O O n O 0
O O 0 C D C D Q O O O 0 O
UJ co
I
3 CMCDxfxfCOCMxCDxfTxrooxxororvxjocox0 cooxjcococorocoujxfCM
0
ivoooooooooorvivcoujxf
0
a.
0
ddddddddridd
I
roivcMCMrooororoujujoo
g g g o o o o o g o o 0
s*
C M r v x f T  U J U J f s . C O _ . o u j co 2
x j r o x f x j  c o c o o O r T Z x  T  co 8
cofcofs.oujcoujroroco d 9
UJ
roo xxroivxfocDx > c
CO
cooxfcococjrocoujxfcM
ra
rv
cd cd cd 00 co s s to iri xraS ro
CD
LL
O
CO *
iv cd od od cd cd iv iv co uj xf
CM rooujujcoxjcoxjSSCJCDCOroCMOOCDOJO
P ujxrvcoococoooo
99999990999
ujcocMCJxcorooujxcM
cDxfocOxujxrororvco
rooxTxroivxfocoxp o xr p co co cn p uj xf CM
O O O x  O O O O o O O
11 11
ro rci
pgrococDcOxooofin
0 41
1 :
ro
2
UJ roiP IP' 5 ^N N"^s ^ ^ "^ cd cd cd
t ; f c t : '  N N r s r s r s CO 2
Q
8 8 8 8 8 8 CM
8 UJ8O O 8O O
O O
corvcoivoujcoujrorooo 11
>
rogxTxrorvxjocDxpoxjcDcpprocoujxfCM Q
rv 00 cd od 00 cd iv r." co uj x^ CO
r*i f> r
T
H
X
OJ g CM CM
ro M^
8 g 8fc ^ o in
0.00065
0.00050
oojrSjroCMCMcog
OOpoCDoOOO8
cn
CO
_s
z
o
<
o
o
z
<
O X0
CM
X
*>
c
N <
S
0,
CO xCM M"
O CO
oCO'COo
CM 00 CO 00
xf
x in xf uj co
uj
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
'oogggg
rorororororororo
h c o c o c o c o c o c o c o p p p p
X
Ul
xfToujroxftocorvxfrv
z
g
C 0 u j c o x  x f u j x f o o g x f g
1<
cororororororororororo
o
Z
UJ
o
_
_
Zenit
AngI
CM
ooooocDcoxujxjincjuj
CMxCOCJxfUJUJUJUJUJp
aidddddddddd
1 C D C O C D C O C D C D C O p p P P
X
(0
ro CLQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C I O Q
CM
x f c o C M C M O
_ C M
 o C D i s
UJ
"
iiilsiiilll o
8S8852
o d o
8 CD o 2
2 oP O2o o 2
o
O O O CD
d d d d 9 d do
9
o o 9 9s 9 d 9 d d 9 d rt o
8 S is a 8 s ? e 5 3
" II
8 8 S co 8 i S S 3ro ro
TD ro
IPtP^^^^^^co'cJcd co
. 5 J5 28
CM 00
O O N
N M" Xf CD
TJ CD
O N fv
JQ x CM CO
CO CO CO
OJ CO CD CO
CO N UJ
CO
^CCO
C O C O?
C O C O?
CJCJ
J C J CCO
J
rv N . iv
N N N v
fc IV
fcfs.
fcV
ftco ^ & co co fc
CM CM
S f e ^ C ^ C O C M C M U J o e O x  oo ro
COgOxOxcOCMCMfMCMCO
g g o o o o o S o o o CM CO
9
90
9"0
90
90
90
980090989o g
00
n S R S R o o d g o o 88
pggoooooooo d d
CO No dco UJ
o fs o
dcnro
d co
d d d d
o
CO 2
Nfvlv
O 5 co uj co
CM  t xf
CO g W x CM
5" co
5"co"CO
**cov OM  cdi CO CO
ujP ro
oorvcorvoujcoujroroco
rooxTxcntvxjoco^pgxjcpcDcorocoujxjrcM
2 CD
oo
o 2
dgd
o o
co co R K fcfcfccoCO
fcCO
co CO
Q
85 CO
co i5
co CM
Jofv
co Jo cofc
" t Ofc
l O fefe
r
UJ
CM UJ
> c
IV
co o
o P.
X T
g xf CD
QJ
00 00
cn iv xf o co CM >
s Nco co
ri xf ro
UJ ixf
CO coro
a
co
ro N(v CM
N CO CM CM UJ O
co in N
ro
Nxf
ro
co UJ
ro x xf CD co co
Nco oo
o od od od od iv fs! co uj
co uj
iv od od cd od 00 iv rsl co iri xj
cB S CM S 5 5  8 CD "5
o> JB
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CO
JM
g gooo 0
0 0 0
0
2
O CD
f o roo i o m c o x ]  .
CO
xf
d g
CM
ro uj
xfCMcococorocMcocoroo
>
ro
d 0
iv. co o co co o 00
UJ xjQ
C D C O C_D Cd
Dro'
C D ro
U J Uro
J Ucd
J U cd
J U cd
J U N"
J
CO
cocMorocorvcoujxf
rvorooujujcoxfcoxfT " I.
^CMCOCDCOroCMOOCDOJO > c
xo g oro"cri cri od od od N
cMroujxivcoocDcoooo
UJ xf c o c M o r o o o r v C D U j x f * ro
CDCOCOCDCDUJUJUJUJUJUJ
Q ai
CO
UJxfoOxxf(vcOCOrvCM
xfroujoroujeorocoro
CMroUJ
coujcDrocMoocororo
rooo oo co N
r d d ro
doro
oCO
cD
o oUJ
r vxf
, N
O cO)
N cCD
UJ xj co CM
CDCOCOCDCDUJUJUJUJUJUJ
o
ro o
UJ x
co o
n o 5
cMrocoocorocDcocMoP
CO CO
CO [v CO O CO N CD
o. co .52 xf iv UJ xf cd CM CM CM
on CM CM xf
1d CO v CD CD CD UJ UJ
0
O
Q
xcMcoxfujcoivcoro
o co .2 x  c M C M c o x f i n c D i v o o r o
rr, pn CO CM xf
ro ro
I a a oo ro
2x?4?g^c^cocoroco
_ CO
00
UJ UJ
kftcDxocororo
o
xf
O
UJ
xf
O CO x o 6d co
co UJ x x o CM o o
UJ co
CM o
S
ro
CL
CO CM
CM
c ^ O xj CM UJ T UJ
o
CM
' N
CO CD UJ xf
a a
m
cu
oororoxf m xf o
xf co UJ co oo co co
O)
UJ
ro
a
CO
d rv" od cri
co cd
00 xj CM x
CM
T
UJ UJ
o 8 gro" " ?
cocococococo
UJ
CO CO CO CO
c Sooujujcoxoxfrorof2CMxxjOxfTOOxfO
o "*
ro UJ coO
z 5X CD
CO UJ CM O
fv Xf CM
c CM~ xCO xf
g c >
ro o
o
CM
OO x 00 CO CO CO
CM O
CM xro N
oo UJ
roUJ
UJ
xf UJ
p
rooogcoxfTujxjincouj
d
d
d
d
CM Tcocoxfmujujujujuj
odd
< oororororororororororo
< ro
CM
S S o o d d d d d d dN
COCDCDCOCOCOCOCDCOCOp
C
OCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCDCO
oororoenrororororororo
o
o
s
UJ
jcNcoxfmcoN.corooxg g o o o o o o o x  x CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CM CO
DC 3 > o o o
CL
js ro
ICL CL a
ro a.
co
aa
in CD
co ro
o o
o o CL CL
CL CL
aa
CM
<
 ^zrCMroroNivxocM
8
a J M  o o c o e o M  o r v x f T   . M O
2 j  r o 2 o x ^ o o o S CD CO
2 2 2 o 2 o o o o o 2 2 o
g g o o p o o o o o 8
xf ^
d "*
d d
d 0xf
fc
rv d
fvdg dCMdcoOd XO O
g CM CDUJ M xf m T x ro co >
CD CO Xf d d
o COLO
CM 00 N xf ro N UJ ro
5"x^o'*
co o ro CO ?
CD
CO
o
co Iv
coco co cd
N co
N N
uj uj xf co co
N N N hN N N
CO CO CO
CD 00
CM CD CD ,tv 00 co
CO CO CO rv 2 xf CO
UJ xf xf to f> ?K ro J
CM 00
00 CO
CO rv
O O O O O O T  O W N S
0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09
d d 9 9 fv9 gO CMg 00
g Og xg xf
g
fv Xf fs, Xf
g CM CD UJ M" xj UJ x T cn co II II
O CO
 UJ
CM CD
N. xj co CJ y ro 5
CO "o
" ro co p co
^ o c o s m S ro
1
uj
C O CUJ
O C xf
O C Oxj
C O Cxf
O C xf
OCJCOCJCO
^ xf cd CO COCO 2
v fv fv fv N
in co ro x C M
co UJ co00
co co o CO N CO
IS r: CM CO" fv xf UJ CO xf
xf M" xf
x O P N UJ
co 9 ro co p fv fv
fv
CO CO CO
UJ 5" 5" "*
cd cd cd
fv fv fv fs. fv fv
in CO CO CM 00
8 s
N
N. N.
N. N
UJ UJ xf xf xf xf
Xf
v
ivs N, s, Jjr fC. fv
N
CO CO " CO CO CO co co
CO CO CO
roTcncoujcoivujxjujco
co co co
XCMCOXTCOCOXCMCOX
>JSC0coOJxCOUJUJc0x
c JB
2&2O;TCMCMCMCMXCO
0 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 CM fM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0d9999999gd
corvcoivoujcoujroroco
o 2 2 o g o o o o x  o
o p g s o o o o o o o
d 9 9 d 9 9 9 9 d d 0
cofvCDfvOujcoujrorooo
o 2
o o
09
"
ro
poxfggcocncoujxjcM
O
NooodcdcdcdrvNcoujxf CO (D
O J O x x x O J N x f o c O T
gggooogooRR
0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 8
Q
9 9 9 9 9 d g'g'dd
cn 2
co 2
co 2
o o
o o
<
1
CM
z
o
<
z
UJ
s
z
C0
\tc
3
+2 ro
ro
o
COCOCOUJCnxUJOOOONxjCMUJOOfvOxjcDxNxjcO
CO UJ CD CO
x CD N 00
xf T~ co UJ
CM roUJ x
T 0 0 0
UJ xf CO CM
co CD CO CD
rov 0
0 00 0
CO 00 CM
fs CO O
UJ
0
00
CD
rororo CO
0 ro00 N
CD UJ UJ UJ
0 00 CM
xf UJ CM
O
c
COo 0cn CO
00 00 NUJ xf
c
UJo UJ UJ
CO
0
CJ
0
x x CM
N roXf
xf xf CO
CJ fv CJ
rv CO CO
CJ xf UJ
CO N
roC) N00 N co
UJ UJ UJ
N 00 ro
CM . N . UJ CO
cororo
0
CM CO UJ xxf UJ UJ
UJ
O xf
"
od dCM uj
CO N ro UJ
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
co
co
co
co
N co
co uj N CO CO xf fv xUJ CM
xf
CO
ro rv o CM
3: M CM
00
CO xf xf
CM x CO
Xf XO xro N
 uj
O OUJ OUJO
OJ O O O O O UJx o
rororororororororororo
3
j
CM
CD
OJ
CM
0
CJ
f v o r o o m u j c D x f c o x f T  II II
xfCMCOCDCDroCMOOCDroO > c
C M r o p x  ; I v C 0 O C D C J O 0 0 ro cn
U ro
d d o" ro ro ro" 00 00 00 iv
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCD
o d d
O
o
o
O. 00 CM CM
fs
CM
O o
0
oo *o
" o 0
0 d 0
fvorooujujcoxjcoxjTxfcMcocDcorocMcocoroo o'9
C M r o p x  ; r v C O O C O C O O p Q CD
^ o g d o i c f l c o c o ' c o c d N CO
JSrStcocMorororvcoinxf
cocDcococoujujujujujuj
x f C J C M O r o o O N C D U J x f CO
CDCDCOCDUJUJUJUJUJUJ
xcMcoxfmcorvcorooxO O O O O O O O O x  x a.CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL
O O O O O O O O O Q O
CO
CD
IV
xUJ
a a
a a
UJ
CL
"f xf T CO CD
xf
0 0 0
0 0 0
99
xfxcoujcorocMoocoroo
cMropxfvcqococooco
_ d d o"rororo00" 00 00 fv
ujxfcocMorocoivcDUjxjCD
e CDCOCOCOCOUJUJUJUJUJUJ
COOOCJOJOOCOOfvOOUJCM
ro
o
e o ivcDocoxfxjcooococorv
CM
CO
QC
xCOpCOCONCOOOOIvg
DC
O
UJ xf d cd iv co co co ui uiO UJco
h co .5 xxcMCMCjxjmcorvcoro
Iro Q
UJ v 00 00
ra a
ro C M 00
co ro CM
_ CM
xf xf
Xf T X
=
xf UJ
UJ CO
op
co 2
o 2
o 9
0II 9
SgTTTOJSXfOCOT
ro od cd co cd iv iv! C D uj xj
rvxjxjujTroioCMCMis_.<*
CO
p g x f g c p c o r o c o u j x f C M O CD
Nodododododrv'ivcDirixf CO
2jriCMUJCMCOUJCOUJxf
2rrocMujooxrococDoco
rogxxorocoxjocDxpgxjgcpprocoujxjCM
N
co
UJ
a.
O
s
8 g>
CO
N
00
xf
CO
CO
CJ
00
CM
N
00
0
CO
CO
i^.
x  C M C M l O r.o C M. xf UJ
UJ UJ CM CM
fc^COCOxfxfxffo J"
iv UJ CO x o cororo
UJ O
N CO
CO UJ
CO
IO
x T,,, S
1 UJ

o O CM O O
: ro cUJo cxfo cxfo cxfo ccd
ocd
o ciri
o c o xf
o ** rv CJ
m rn
co co co co
Z X
CO ro xf CD
ro co x CO xf
xf 2 UJ CM
O CM. O O xO
ro
rv
00 ro rv 00
xf
o UJ UJ UJ UJ
r> o 0 0 0
N < cOroC'rorororororororo
<
d d d d
CM
O
H
COCOCDCDCOCDCOCOCDCDCO
O
X
Z
LU
2
TcMCjxfincofvcorooxDC 3 0> O O O O O O O O O x  x CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL
h ro 0.
co a
Qaaaoaoooaa
CM
CD
OJ
CO
CM
I
i_
t
UJ
N. O CM CO O X Xf
h F r v x f f s . x f f s . o c M C O O ' r  x * 11 11
CDCMTOinxfxf'io^OoJrt
2JST~CM0ONxfcDCJxf
J. 1 2
9 9 9 9 99
g o P o o
rogxTxroNxfocoxpOxfpcOcO(3)COUJxfCM
LL
U.
N"ro"od od oo od rv N co d xf
co p
UJ
1
wu.
ro
O CD
CO
u.
0
<
X
o "O3
ro UJ co coroco UJ
xf
CO UJ
x xf
 UJ CM UJ 00
CO xf
UJ ro
coo
. xf
ro o x co
N g ro Orooxf o o O O CO UJ UJ
CM p
UJ
x CO xf xf p
rv o9 O CO
o<roCO coCJ COCO
roCO
d CO
c >
3
N <
IX
CM CO CO
CO N xf CO
UJ x CM xf
xf UJ UJ xCM O xf CO
d d CM CM
CM xf
UJ fv fv CD N CM
CM UJ Xf
UJ
CO xf Xf 00 o f~
CM x^ o UJ UJ xf
CM CM CM x' x" x_
rorororororororororo
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCO
xcMcjxfiocprvcoroox< ro O O O O O O O O O x  x 
roo.CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL
OOOQOOOOOOO
g o
o g
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
0 00 000000d g
UJ
UJ
vorooujujcDxfcoxfT0 E ixfCMcorororocMrororoo
< 3
cMroujxNcoocDcooro
rox  d d d e n r o r o r o r o r o i v
z
< a UJxfcOCMOrooONCDUJxf
a
co
11
11
ro I5
O OJ
cororororoujujujujujuj CO "^
rocOCOrvxfNCOCJxfCMxf
3 CMCMroujcnroooocDxro
TJ xfxcoujujrocMrvrororo
roC M r o u j x  N C O O C D C O O N
0 xooorororororoooN
0 ujxfcocMorooofvCDUjxf
0 corocDCDcoujujujujujuj
CMroUJxtvCOOCDCOO
>
ro
CMfvcocorocoNNCDroro
SttO'f^CDUJUJxCMxf
00 CO CD CD UJ UJ N xf UJ N O
UJ UJ fv xf 10 CM
c o u j c o r o c M 0CM
0 NCM
. rUJ
o CM
xf
CL
ro
UJCDOcorvooujcorocM
0 ococoujxcooroxfocD
CM 0 jS xroxfrorouJeDrocoro co
DC co .52 r v c n u j c M o r o o o N N C D O
CMCMcoxfiniororvcorox
roro
2 aro
C
UJ
CL
O
CO
z
g
<
ro ro xf co
xujcnujcorocooxxfuj
xfoxfOxxooroujuj
P. OJ rodo'x^oddrv'dT
9 d
c ro
o
o
roxCOxfxfUJUJOCMxfUJ
CM CO CO CO CO CO CO
coLnrv^cMxfrorororoco
UjSoSjXfCMUJxfTUJxN7Sroy.xcoxfxfcogrv
TCMo^COCMxOUJp,if
d f O cO OJcMCMCMCMx^xfxf
ro0>roc"rororororororo
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCOCOCOCD
X
UJ
2
. x  c M c o x f u j c o f v r o r o o x DC E
3 O) O O O O O O O O O j  x Q.CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL
H
ro CL Q Q Q O Q Q O O O O Q
C0
rv
CD
U)
CO
Q.
COCOCMxxfUJUJCONCON
Horiz
An
xcogoujcMujoooroo
3 fvroOCOxCOCMNOOCJO
"O
rogxTTroivxfocoxro p O x f c D C O C O r o c O U J x f C M
0
0 N 00 00 00 00 od iv N ro iri xf
xxfTio^cMxfTJGr^o O CM
CO S
O O O O o O O o S o r i
0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 2
9 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 o 9
d 9
NOOJOUJUJCOxfcOxf
xfCMcococorocMoocDro
C
M p p x  ; N_ O
O_C.O C_J .
O.. ,
UJ
_ O_
dddrororocdcdro
corocococoujujujujujuj
xfcocMoencofvcouj
<
a S
Zenil
AngI
UJ
corvcDNoujcoujrorooo
> c
rogxTTroNxfocoxcooxfcorocorocoujxfcM
ro N ro 00ro00 00 N ! N ro m' xf ro
+J
C M f v x f x f y s i o c O C D i o i s /   , O CM
i
O
F3
c
d> 9
3 CMxOCOCOCOCMCDrvfvCO
"O rooxTorofvxfocoxO poxfpcpprocoujxfcM
o iv oo ro odI cdi cdi tv! jv dI ui xf
UJ
o o p o 5 S o o o o 9
d d00d 0 d0 d0 9
o roxfcoxfinxfivroNxfoo
HCOOOIOCMSOOOX,.,
O O 2 2 O O O C D O O 2
1
cofvcoNoujcoujcnroro o" 19
UJ
CO
SS^'Q^^^OOJOr
u fefefctcfc'v'srvNNN
CL
2 COCJCOCOCOCOCOCOCJCOCO
S 8 S* 8 8 x? 8 ?2 2 <. CM
fN
CM cn
tu
fcCjtX^rvNNNIVNN
COCOCJCJCJCOCOCOCOCOCO
3 22fctrl'C0xfoOOCM
U 222x;CMrofvxfroxfxf
rop p r o r o r o c o x  o r o r v i n
O CO UJ x CM 00 CO CD CO xf
O UJ
co UJ
o ro 00 CO CO O CO
CO CO
fv CO
UJ
fv
^f Xf Xf
o N.
C O C O C 0 Cfv
O C fv
0 C 0 C J C J Crv
0 Crv
O C 0N
o
58888888888
stdev.
Mean
r xf
= 0.00412
= 0.00106
LU
w2
0.00228
0.00438
0.0002
0.0009
0.0007
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0008
0.0013
0.0001
0.0009
0.0013
0.00078
0.00016
2 i co ,_ S S ^ ^ C O U J ^
o 2
8 8=5JR 2 2 o o o ro
o o q M q q o o g g o
d o ' 9 9 g g g g 0 0 d
CN
1
0.00086
0.00041
o 8 r in UJ fv xf N o UJ
x
o o 5 o o o o o CM
O o
O o
o
UJ i o 9
9 9 od do o9 do
o9 o
o o o o n
n
o
fv <f N xf fv o CM ro o ^_
II
CM ro UJ xf xf UJ x
ro
1 E ro
CO UJ x
00 N xf ro CO
X 3 C_)
c
^
.
>
c
CO
ro
O CO fv 5 ro ro
CO
o ro
ro UJ UJ
xf xf xf xf CO CO roTD
f xf ro
ro
52
fv N fs fv N N N rv rv iv
Ui Q NCO 00
co 2
X
co CO CO co CO CO CO co CO
3 ro
CO xf UJ CO CM UJ UJ fv fv x rn
CM ro xf xf CM xf x
rv xfo
o
U) T CM 00 rv xf CO CO r
o
o
ro C) oo OJ 00 ro CO x o 00 fs UJ
UJ xf xf xf xf xf xf CJ ro CJ
u UJ
N rv v fv fv fv fv fv fv N fv
CO co CJ CO co 00 CO 00 00 00 co
s
n o rn TCM"

CD
CM ro
T
UJ
0.00
O.OC
=
Ul
9 o 9
H E CO N CD N o
OJ o T ~ v T
uu 3 CJ
CO
o ^r ro CO
u. ro fv oo CO oo CO
Q

co^
UJ o o
3 x ro T
x
ro
o
ro CO o Xf
o
N
OO
00
u
ro OO CM xf Nf
o UJ
o
o
UJ xf
UJ
CD
<
N
xf
3 CM
E
* *
z
<
T
o
ro
UJ
CD
3 N
o CO ro CO
CO ro
CM
CO CO CO N N ro UJ xf
CO
CC
O
H
LU
CL
s?
(0
0
z
0
<
0
0
J
CO
CO CO
x UJ
xf o
ro T
CM d
CJ
rv
Q.
h
W
?
UJ
UJ
0 E
3
<
<
z
T
CO CM ro UJ N ro o
U)
CM ro CO xf V""
ro oo UJ UJ ro CJ OJ
CM o ro 00 N N CO
xf UJ UJ ro N co OJ
xj
xf
CM
ro
ro
CJ CJ
xf CJ
CM xf
UJ x
xf CO
CM CM
ro ro
o
o
d o o
fv
T_
CJ CJ d
o
CO CO N o rv fs
UJ 00 CJ v
c
o CM
ro
f~ Xf
CO T
CO ro CO o
UJ xf CM
fv
CO N
ro UJ xf
N o ro o UJ UJ CO xf 00 xf x 11
xf CM CO CO CO cn CM oo ro OJ CJ
CM ro UJ
N CO O ro CJ o CO
..
d cri ro ro ro ro ro fv j> ro
ro 00 N ro UJ
O ro
ro ro CO o
ro UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 3 CO **
d
CO
UJ CO CO CO N CJ N UJ
xf CM o fv ro OJ
o UJ
xf
UJ o OJ CM
OJ
Xf xf
o CO
ro
CJ CD
ro CM ro UJ x c
N CJ O o
00
CO
ro
ro
ro
oo
o ,_ n
n o
P m xf CO CM o ro CO N CD UJ
CL ro ro ro CD ro UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
r
DC
o
\
UJ
CL
ci>
X " ro
fv
CM
oo
CD UJ
ro N
d
CM d
CO d
xf
o
ro
CO
CD
(T)
x
ro xf CM
f1v
O) UJ CM N ro CM
UJ CO
CM
CM CM CM
ro ro ro ro ro
CM OJ
CJ CJ
1 C 0
CO
CM
CM
ro
UJ xf
x x
0) UJ
O
O N <
co
ro CD
CJ CJ v tM
xf xf
d LU OJ o
x
xf UJ d
ro N
CM xf
xf m o
N
UJ
CO n
UJ
CM
o
xf
(0 (0 CM
Txf CO N 0D
C\\
CM CM CM CM CM
2 o>
o .a c
1
CM
tM
O
CO
N
xf
UJ
^_ CO N OJ CO
CM CO ro N N CO
fv CO CM xf T OJ T  tM M ro
o
rn
ro rv m
CM N
xf x
Xf f oo
o U)
CM CM 1
ro ro OJ
IV
CJ UJ
3 xf
Xf
Z
T~
O
O
<>
d
ro UJ xf CO CM
CO
o
CMo UJ
ro CD CD ro CD ro
x
ro Xf UJ CO fv CO ro o
x
*
o
n
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CL CL n,n CL CL CL CL LL LL LL
Q Q Q Q o a Q Q a CJ U
x CM
00
x
T
CD
CO
CO CO xf 00 o CO xf
CCJ o fv N IV x j xf
CO ro CM 00 co ro ro
f CO O ro CO o N
ro oo 00 oo N
cn ro
ro 00 fv ro UJ xf
o
ro UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
S
3
UJ CO UJ cn rn oo
ro N xf n CO T > C
CO ro CO UJ Xf CM
2.roro
CO (v N ro UJ xf Q
O
O
(v
CJ
CJ
N
CO
CM
CO
CD
O)
CO
N
o CO ro
T
u
o
OJ ro CM u
OJ
ro
to
M
CJ xf x <_J M
T  xf N
ro O
ro OJ 0) OJ l_)
CM CM CM tM to
T_ f~ 00 ro CD CO
in CJ CJ CM x xl
UJ CO xf
O
xf xf
CM CM CM
ro
ro cn ro ro ro
OJ
_i
(Ml
K ro CO
X
2
Ul
IV UJ UJ CM xf fv CO
co CO UJ CM
u. CM
CM UJ
x UJ
UJ x xf
CO
x
O O
O
fv ,_
N
co UJ CJ UJ UJ CM
CM CM
CO ro ro
xf
ro
xf Xf
UJ
x
xf
xf
CM
ro
cS xf
CO xf xf UJ U)
CO xf o
UJ
fi 2UJ
N xf UJ
x CM o
CO ro
N < CO
ro ro ro
CO xf xf
CO CM N
d
CO
CO xf U J
N o CO
UJ
o CO 5
o
O
o
O O O o
O d d d
u
CL
rv CD CM **
ro o
V  CM
co o xf o CO
o CO TT
o o O c
o
o
o CO CM
o o o O o o OO o
o o o o o g
o 2
1
1
o 9
d9
ro o UJ UJ ro xf 00 xf T " 11
o
CM CJ ro CO ro CM 00 CD ro o
ro UJ
N CO O ro CJ O oo ro
d d ro ro ro d ro d fv' Q ro
d
xf CO CM
ro 00 v ro UJ xf
ro ro CO o
ro UJ UJ m UJ UJ UJ CO *
ro UJ
CO co
ro xf
ro UJ
CM CO
00 UJ
CM
T  CJ
T~ T~
00 o
o CO o xf CD
o
ro N 00 CO OO
fv 00 UJ x xf CO
UJ
x
ro N xf
CO x
ro
CO CM ro CO
7J xf CO co CO
UJ
TI xf x CO
O CM ro UJ x
U ., o o o
UJ xf CO CM
P
CL ro ro ro CO
o
CM
o "o
o 5
55 . NCM
r
o ro ro
fv tv tv
00 co CO
dope
stance
xf rn cn
O m
<n Nro
00
LI.
a.
o
^r ro xf
CM CO CM
O
O
2
L. O o O
o
UJ O o O
o
o o
d d d di
9d
U)
UJ
CO N xf
CO
o
xf Xf xf
N tv fs
CJ CO CO
fv UJ ro CO
xf
UJ CO xf CJ x x O
O O O
O O
O O
CD
E oo o
UJ
CO fv CD fv o UJ CO UJ ro ro CO d g
T~
r
ro
*^ x OJ N xf UJ CO
" .1
xf ro ro CO ro CO o
xf CM
CO 3 CO o
ro
o
fv
LL a
ro 00 CO CO 00 N v CO UJ xf a CD
UL (J
1
cn UJ
m on
XCM
UJ
CJ CO CO C)
r~i O o
2 o CM
o o o
n O o o o o CO CM
UJ o o o o o o o o o o o 2
d
d d d d
d
d
UJ xf ro CO
CJ to UJ xf
00 UJ T ~ CM
CD
o OJ CO
UJ
xf xf
N N N fv
CJ CJ C) CJ
0.00
O.OC
X"
fi CM
3 fv
CJ
"O
ro CJ
UJ
o N
CL CJ
=
=
Q. UJ
co UJ *f x CO Oil CO CM on ^ S
x CJ n t_) tM n o o O x ro 2
o
o o O o n CJ U n (1 o CJ O o o
Ul o o o o CJ CJ O o o O o
d d 9 d d g d d 9 d 9
N ^r N f fs O CM CO n l Xf
1
ro CM OJ UJ xf xf UJ X x
ii
ro
t
3 u CO UJ x CM CO N Xf (0 m
X +*
> c
ro xf
CJ CJ OJ 00 CO CO x O oo fv
UJ ro
oUJ lU UJ UJ Tf xf xf xf xf Xf ro ro ro a Sj
Q
v IV N N N fv N fv N N N
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CO CO CO CO CO co^
X
>_ in
0.00356
0.00096
O
O
O
O
UJ
ro ro P
 CD CO ro CD ro CD ro ro
T_
T
v
" " x
z^
ro xf UJ CO N 00 ro o x
CJ
DC
o O0 . o o o o CJ
CL D CL CL
CL
3 ro
co ro o.n
Q CL
Q 0O a u u G D
Q Q
n Q CL
O
z
I a, o
CM
CM
IX
CD
UJ
X
inroroocMcocOeoorvr ro o
o o o o o o 2 o x  x  x  ro co
o o o o o o 2 o o o 2 o o
2 o
o o o o o o 9 o o o 9 o o
iv^rrvxfvocMcooxxf
" n
ddddddQddd^?
ro CM ro UJ xf xf UJ
roro
co co d> d
o 00 UJ x CM co fv
c
x
N co ro ro
oo
co o ro corocoxf
co co
ui
C O Cui
O Cxj:
O Cxj;
O Cxf
O Cxf
O CNO C O Cr
OvC N
O C JN
fv N fv N N N
ro *frocororoCM oo
N UJ xf Xf Xf
o
O O r o o O C M C M o r v c M C D C M O 00 9
O x CO CO uj co
g o d
80 O 0 o o
2 2 2
O 9 oo o o O
d
0 0d 0d d g d 9 d 9 9
g o o o o o o o
dP'o'o 9 9 9 d
LU
CO
LL
U.
g
0
co
ui
N tv
cq rv Q ro
fv
c o cNo cN o cNo c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c
o
d d d
N xf
N
UJ CO UJroUJ
UJ UJ xr ro
2 ro
j
co ^
o o
0* d
" 2
fv 0 CM CO O x xf
1
CMroin xf xf UJ xo" .9
xroco > c
00
UJ
CM CO iv xf
o
9
ro co d
ca
ro xf
00 ro co
uixf
tv CO N UJ CO
UJ T IN m
O CO UJ
x CM
OJ ro
CO O xf
xf ro
xf P
d ui N N N f
N fs CO CO CO v
00
CO CO
x o co ro N UJ
UJ x CM CO N 3d xf UJ
xf xf
CO fv
en
coroco xf
xIvrv
r v i r :fv
r v rNv r v iNv .rv
rvrvsrvrv
C O C ^ C O C O C J C O C O C O ^ Cd
O C Od
N N
O N ro CM ^
N T  O O N O J T  O m
H O O x f C M C M U J c D ro oro_ xi WJ
xf xf
S O x  O O O O o
CO x ro uj o
N xf UJ CO xf
x O 00 N  m
sf
co
cococo
co coxr
co co
N fs. fv N N
00 00 uj 00 CM rn ro
rn cu
xf
rv o coro
ro
0
o
o co
o rooUJro
o CMCM CO
00 00
o 0
o
o
0 0o 0 o o
0 0
.1
d d
d
3 o
o 9
cofvCDNoujcoujcnrooo 09
rooxxxo>NxfocoxcooxfrococorocopxfCM
CO
iv'odcddddrvivrouj'sf
corvcofvoujcoujcnroco
00
ro
co
CM ro CM co
UJ
CM
CO ro UJ CM
x sN
< SM rn >4 u ro
x oCOroCO P xfCO UJuj
0J
O CO
iv g
00 co
00fv
00 co
"
xf
co o xf
ro o rvxCOUJCMCMUJCMOO
11 II
> r
OJOxxxroNxfOCOx (
U m
cooxfcorocorocoujxfCM CJ CD
tv o d d d d d t v t v c d d x f CO
o
to N C M O C O O r o O O C O C M U J
oxororocoocoxCOCOCOOOtvtvCDUJ
co roxfcDCOCOrocOUJxfCM
00 ro
fv V
NtDUJ
^cMofOcocOiooroxfCO
U
OOOCMCMQOOXX2
0J o
~
^
LU o o 8 2 o 2 o o o o O
o 9 o . o o o o 9
o
<
tc
UJ
CL
0
0
rororororororoenrororo
<
roroco co co co co p p p P
z
LU
2
tc
h(0
z
d
NorooujujcD^rroxfj ". 11
xfcMcorororocMcgrorog
c Mor oou j x  N c o o r o p p p
5co droroujujujujujuj
ro ro ro d ro co rJ Q ro
ro CM o ro co tv CD p xj co ^
n
> r
ro m
CJ ro
*<
CO
a rorororocMCMxfcocMCM^
o o orococM^xcoxcMUJcn
o 5 rxvcdPocofvCDujxjxf
rooocoujxocofvCM.
co .<2 CMCMcoxfxfujcorvOoen
a
CO CO fv CM
o O O CM CO
a
xf
_
o
co
o
O^ O CO x xf
c
ro co CM en 2
co co g .. CO CO xf x O xf
0 0)
I
CM
o o o o o g g o o 2 2 xf
oooooooogP 9o
d d g d d d g d do 9 9
II
fv CO
p rv x: xf N ro d
N C CM CO CO O
o " ro ro CM <f cororororog
CM f co .
I
CM
CMC CM
o o CM
oro
o oCM
f vCM
CO
M C oCO
rt x
ro
00 CM
CM CM
CMcXf
xf
CO CM
CO
UJ
xf
o
Z
UJ
00
xf
xf
N
ro
x o
E CM N ro
UJ
0 N < NCUJM dxc Nuji ecoM CCMN CxNCNCNxxx
0
0
0
0
d 9 d 9 d d d d 9
fvorooujujro^rcoxfvxfcMcorororocMrororog
cMroujxfvCJOcopop
dddaiaiaicodcot^
ujxfcocMorooorv.couj"5
rorocDcocoujujujujujuj
CO OO O tv ro CM UJ o ro xf
x x co
OJ Nco ro
xfro
UJ co ro CM
ro UJ
c
M
r
o
u
j
x
i
v
c
o
o
r
o
p 00
x o o o ro ro ro 00 co
P xf CO CM o
s ro co N ro UJ
rorocococoujujujujuj
CM
DC
xocooujujenioxfOCM o
rofvOfvOCMCPcMxfCOUJ
o
co
I ro
UJ xf o
UJ
o N o UJ
xf C M ro ro CM
co N ro ro
uj ro ro
co co
00 co
CMroUJ
o
ro
o N
N
co
criroro00co
roro
r^ dCOdCMdo ro
N
 '
co Ur>
J CD p
UJ
ro co co UJ UJ
uj UJ UJ
ro
ro 10 ro co ro 3
TcMCOxfujgrvogroox
roa,CLCLCLa.CLCLCLCLa.CLCL
oooaQOoaaao
" * 3
o a
CL
O
I
CO
x CO 00 o UJ xi ro ro CM ro
CM CO p O UJ CO CO xf x o
00 roCMro
C^jCDS CMS tv
C^ 00
CM CM
CM ro
CM
d
*""CM "f CO
8 i>
O
X
aa
o
o
N <
J
I
z
LU
O N CM
UJ
OJ
CO
CM St xf CJ CO CM 3
OJ 2 iJ m CO 3
CM T". x O UJ xf xf
CM
I roroCD p p p P d <. 9 d
X
io.^ c M C J ^ j o c q ^ g g ? ^
ro
5
DC ro a.
\ O
V)
CO
O)
CO
PICn^xfCocOCMCMUJ
5
CM
f
3 OI
 ro o o o o o o g g g x  x 
CM CM
ro $2 o N CO CM xf ro xCM UJ rn
CO
ro p ro p o p >. C M . d
DC
tv ro d d co t~i d ui
"* St 0
O co CM CM CO xf xfUJ ro N corohr
H
roa ro o N N x ro co ro x ro CM
 *f
LU c C O r  O UJ CM xf O x CM o
ISSiiiSiiss
CM
R T A
A draft report prepared by the project has recognised the important role that sur
in deliveringridequality and pavement thickness. It states that the proposed acceptance
sampling scheme can only proceed if it can be shown that survey can match the higher
quality of processes to be sought from R T A contractors. There is also recognition that,
even though other means exist, survey is the only way of verifying thickness during
construction.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR ANSWER on the line provided or tick a box. If answering
electronically, place a capital " X " beside the box..
Even though there are a number of questions, the questionnaire should only take a
minutes to complete. Answers to the questions should (?) be available from the
surveying procedures submitted by the contract surveyor, but information will also be
required from site surveillance. For R T A projects the answers will reflect R T A
procedures.
Separate questions have been prepared for set out and conformance even though both
may use the same levelling procedure, this is because they may not be the same.
DEFTNITION.of a "Trim Peg" for this questionnaire, is a mark placed to control the
pavement level during construction.
Trim peg
TrimPeg
Stringline
Pavement
Page 2 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire'
2.
3.
4.
5.
Is there a documented procedure specifically written for construction set out of pavement
layers?
D
Yes
(Go to Question 8)
No
(Go to Question 7)
7.
Is there one generic documented procedure covering all types of set out for the whole project?
Yes
No
8.
(Go to Question 9)
( G o t o Question 15)
Other (Specify
9.
tape measurement only between control point on which the instrument is placed up to the
trunion axis
calculated from readings to range pole targets placed on remote control points
(Specify the minimum number of control points used
)
10.
11.
Each day.
Each week.
)
)
Page 3 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire'
12.
Note: Question 13 is to determine if the nominal ch. & o/s of the trim peg (ie. the ch. &
o/s written on the trim pegs) is accepted as being correct, or if the procedure is to
remeasure the position of the trim peg, as placed, to find it's true position, before
calculating it's design level.
13.
H o w is the design level of the pavement layer determined at the position of the trim peg?
Calculation of the design level at the true position of the trim peg which is determined by
(Go to Question 14
radiation observations taken to level the trim peg.
Calculation of the design level at the true position of the trim peg which is determined by
radiation observations taken independently of levelling the trim peg. (Go to Question 18)
B y precalculation of the design level at the nominal chainage and offset of the trim peg, ie.
accepting that the nominal ch. & o/s is correct.
(Go to Question 18)
14.
Calculation of the design level at the true position of the trim peg.
Electronic transfer of data to computer linked to Total Station for instantaneous processing.
(Specify Software
Electronic transfer of data from Total Station to data recorder then computer for latter
processing (Specify Software
)
( G o to Question 18 )
this section is for levelling with level and staff
15.
Optical
Laser
Other (Specify
16.
17.
18.
Other (Specify
Page 4 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire'
19.
Estimated accuracy of the trim pegs' positions compared to the nominal chainage and offset
Which range would cover 9 9 % of the errors in position of the trim pegs?
within 20 m m
within 20 to 70 m m
within 70 to 200 m m
Unknown
20.
W h a t is the m i n i m u m number of control points used to determine level on each trim peg?
( G o to Question 23)
( G o to Question 22)
22.
23.
24.
metres
W o o d e n stakes
Others (Specify
25.
W h a t is the relationship between the constructing organisation and the surveyor w h o sets out
the work.
Other (Specify
Yes
( G o to Question 28)
No
( G o to Question 27)
27.
Is there one generic documented procedure covering all types of conformance surveys for the
whole
project?
Yes
N Q
Page 5 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire"
28.
The number of points to be observed, other than reference to the one point per 25m 2
required by the specifications.
N o n e of the above
29.
Other (Specify
)
this section is for levelling with level and staff
30.
Optical
Laser
Other (Specify
31.
tape measurement only between control point on which the instrument is placed up to the
trunion axis
33.
calculated from readings to range pole targets placed on remote control points
(Specify the minimum number of control points used
Other (Specify
Is there a required m i n i m u m height for the line of sight above the ground?
Yes.
No.
34.
(Specify
Each day.
Each week.
35.
B y hand on paper
Other (Specify
37.
B y radiation of points from control stations taken independently of the levelling process.
(Specify
Other
)
Other (Specify
39.
40.
W h a t is the m i n i m u m number of control points used to determine level for each sampling
point?
42.
Estimated accuracy of the sample point locations. Which range would cover 9 9 % of the errors
in position of the sampling points?
within 20 m m
within 20 to 70 m m
within 70 to 200 m m
Unknown
H o w many sample points per 100 metres are observed along the carriageway?
Page 7 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire"
43.
Yes
44.
45.
46.
metres.
Yes
No
47.
W h a t is the relationship between the constructing organisation and the surveyor w h o carries
out the conformance surveys.
Other (Specify
Base Layer
Subbase layer
Select (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) for each layer to describe the material used
(a)
Concrete
(b)
Flexible (bound)
(c)
Flexible (Unbound)
(d)
Sandstone
(e)
Layer not used in design
(f)
Other material.
Please Specify
49.
Base Layer
Subbase layer
Subgrade
Select (a), (b), (c) or (d) for each layer for the method of trimming
(a)
Grader and taping from stringline across pavement between formation stakes
(b)
(c)
(d)
Autograde
Paving Machine
Other (Specify
,
'
Page 8 of 8
Field Surveying Procedures Questionnaire"
50.
W h a t is the approximate m a x i m u m distance between the Bench Marks along the job when the
pavement is being constructed?
/>
c!
1
o LU
c
4)
>
LU
ro
43
<L>
c
D)
"5
"cu
Q
UJ
1
n >
h
0
0
U)
r
CI)
(!)
jr
cn
c
a)
E
>
ro
CL
CO
CO
o
u_
o
CD
<D
C
"cb
*^
CO
_cu
ro
"o
4=
c
o
(1)
L.
cn
cu
ro
cu
c
cu
ro
ro E
O)
'co
cu
TJ
O)
ro
cn
c
>
ro
<U
L.
3
T3
CD
O
O
O)
c
>
<u
3
CO
o
0)
(0
10
.a
(0
Q
IO
<
CM
c
o
CO
cu
cu
>.
Q.
o
o
x:
ro
CO
fc
c c ^
c
,0 o o E
"v3 ro > cu o
a
w D cu
CJ
O
3
K 0
co
6
z
CL
cn
o
o
t>
CO
c
o
(J
Q
Cl
to
cu CU L B o
o
cu OJ
>> >. >. o
O
o ro ro
CL o
CL 4=
E Q. E c o
o
OJ E
cu o X)
cu
o 3
JCI
to
3
to
ID
CU
ts
k
OJ
cu O
>. O
o ro
i_
CL o
E o
JO
3
(JJ
c
<
to
i_
cu
O OJ
OJ OJ
o >. >.
ro o o
c: a. Q.
o
E E
o
OJ
Jd
cu
3
c
JO
to
<
3
CO
o
O
o tj
ro CO
L.
J=
C
c
o
o
o
X) o
3
to
CO
CN
0
Z
C
CO
CN
CO
.3
cu
0 o
CO c
cu cu
3 3=
rUJ
CO
z
o
1
CO
CM CM
CN
CM CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
a
CM
CM
CM
cu
Jr
<0
E E
TJ
CU
CO
3
CO
OJ
L_
TJ
0)
CO
3
o
CO
3
o
OJ
o
a.
o
L_
OJ
CL
CU
c
o
c
CO
"53
>
TJ
H
CO
1>
e^
aj
o J2
E CD
CL ca
CO *"
oj
to
j; co
OJ c JJC:
1cu g
II II
00 CMo
r
CO
II II
CO *
CO
cu o
LO LO
o
o
CL
o o
O o O o
CM CM CM CM
CD
00
o o
o o o
cu
X!
Mfc
CN
CN
t
CD
C
E
fc
a:
o LU
Z
o
CN LU
01 TJ
^_
CM
CM f"53 CO V V OJ
>
en cn c
O 01 c _cu 1=c .c c "55
3
0 E o "cu "53 >
c > > Q>
DC
tn _Q ro CD cu V
CO V V rK
3
CM
CO _l
LL a CD en ^
CJ a.
<
rQ
<
0.
o
*~ rt
CM
UJ
CO
Z
a.
c cn
ab
c
o
c:
o CO
^~
t
DC CO
>
z>
to UJ zE
CU
CO
>UJ
>
OJ
OJ
io CD
E E ^f
o
fc
5 CO
o
15
1)
CD
3
u
OJ o
o OJ CU o OJ OJ
cu OJ "G G OJ cu
cu OJ o
>. >. >.
>. ; > N V > >. 6
ro CO
o o o
o o roo o ro
c
CL
CL
CL o .
C L C L fc
a.
o
E E E
E E
E E co
o
OJ o
OJ cu
cu
cu
XI
cu c
o <a
o
o 3
c < XI
o c
CO
J3
<
<
X)
3
3
3
CO
CO
CO
cu
fllllP"~ fc^Bi
cn cn cn v 77/ffi0%0y ^ fWm co
c c c
c ^ ^ ,c
"53 "cu "cu S 4w//y/6Kfc ">53 ^^ ^ ">35
> > >
cu cu OJ > vfi/MMml OJ cu ^ M oj
V TV V OJ flllllp V v tfflzb V
,f
*~
* ^ ^ ^ p ( N
^^P
aI
CM
"53
>
cu
V
CM
c ts
c "33 "53 "53
"53 "53 ts:
> > OJ OJ >
>
OJ >
cu cu _0)
> _>
cu 4)
0J V V
V
V V
* *p
"53
>J
O
V

OJ
tOJ3 CO
a>
OJ
CO CO
3 L.
3
O O
O O
JC JC
CJ o
CO
ro
OJ cu
i
3
O
Q. O
J3
OJ CJ
CL CO
"o
i
cu
to
3
o
o
x:
o
CO
k_
i_
i_
i_
L.
i_
cn
CO g.
CM CM CM
*
<o
l~~ CN CM
CN CN CM CN
V V V ^ ., V V V
V
CD CD CD V V CD CD CD en
c.C .c cn cn c c c c
2 "53
0 CO >
2 o _OJ
C
o .^
5 TJ
'03 xi
CU
3
CM
V V V
CD
cn
,C c a vr
=
"53 iOJ
"53 z
>
>
OJ
> OJ
V to V
^B
mw,
"cu
zd cc _>a;
CO
c
cn
o
+J
cu
40 o a.
IV
CN
mB, t. ^
CN CM CN
V V V ^ ^^^^^^ V V fflvw V
cu CU cu cu cu OJ CU "u o
CO CO CO CO CO
% OJ
L_
I
3 3 o 3 3 3 3 "o1 C?
O o o o o o O l _ t~
cj o o o u o o CL CL
x: JC JO JO SI JC jr CU cu
o CO
o o o o o o
CO Q. CL
ro CU <rJo
ro ro Oro
J c
cu
u cu J cu CU cu
CO
>
HIP
OJ OJ cu CU cu OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
to
!2 fc?to to CO c2 !2 to
L3 3 1
3 L3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3
3
O O o o o O O o O o O
O
C
J
C
J
C
O
o
o o o o o
o J o
x: x: x: sz.JO x: x: JC x: JC JC JC
o o o o o o o o CJ o o o
ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
CU OJ OJ OJ cu OJ OJ OJ cu cu OJ OJ OJ
0) cu 1_
L_
t.
5 E
o o
o t_
,_
*_ t i_
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
c
o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o o o o o o o
c
LL LL O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
o fcsLL LL. LL LL LL. LL LL O
CN _f
0)
nump
3
Z
co r
CM CM CM CM CM
CM
CM CM CM CO CM CO CO CO CN CO CO OO CM
CM
0)
TJ
CU
CU
o
o
Tio
6
2c
O
CL
cu
E
CO
o O
r
V
O
L_
1_
O
CM
o
CM
O
O
CM
V
1^
V
L_
c
o
o V V o
o
fc
o
o o
cn
C
U
OJ
o CL
cu Vcu V Vd)
cu
V
V
3
CO
ai HJ
V
o
o
o
OJ CU
o
o
CM CM CM
CM o
CM
3 CO "o
LU
I
l_
O
O
CM
V
O
CM
O
O
CM
V
O
V
O
CM
o
V
L. CM
V
L.
o
CM
O V V o o o
o o o o o V o o
L.
b o o L. b b
b
b o
o
I
O
J
CU
O
J
OJ
CU OJ cu
a3
oj
aj
cu !_
cu V V V V V CU V V V ijj cu V V V
o o o
b t
u VOJ 4J
Vc
L
l_
L
oCM O
CM o
o oCM oCM o
CM
o
o
CM oCM CM
oCM
CM o
CM
oCM
z6
e
0
E
'fc
cu
ro
xto* 3
3 Io
CL
cr
cr rr cr rr
Jo
CO
to
ro cu
>>
co o
OJ
OJ
TJ OJ
c c.
IH
fc .
CO
OJ
S
c
CJ
&
or cr cr h cr cr cr cr cr cr cr cr cr rr cr cr cr cr cr
3
00
H
o
OJ
CO
JQ
0)
CO CD
.a
s.zE
<0
41
T
CN CO <t to
to r. CO CT>o
r
<N
CO
IO CO
h
CO
on
CM
CN
CN
CM
CO
CN
10 3
CM
IO
CM
CO
CM
d)
T
cr
CO
CO
TJ
C
>.
"LC
CO
a
c
CO
OJ
o
c
0.
TJ
_i
CU a C c c c c c c c c
c c c C LT c c c c c c c c C c
O
o
o
g
o
o
o
o
o o o ao 'o
o ao
o
o
o
o o Vo o '*Z
o o 'o
^1
c
4^
a
p
CO
':
J^ o ^
i
t
e
CL ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro o CO ro 'r
o ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
CO TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ T3 TJ TJ cu TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ T) TJ TJ TJ T) TJ
cn
ro ro CO CO ro ro CO ro ro ro CL CO ro ro CO ro ro ro ro ro CO ro CO ro ro ro
CU
CC
ct
ro
+*
0
* j
o
CO
T
15
E
<i
00
>LU
2
=>
00
LU
O
z
O
TJ
O
cu
CD .P
CO
tfl
oo
iY
rr
r 1
O O CD LU o
cr
IY iT IT > c
Hr r! 1 t _1 l
_1
LU
_i
LU
rr >
LU H rr
t LU
>
_1
_1
C3
O
iY rr"
H H
: h
rr
IT
H i
o o o o
cr i cr
cr
i i cr
i
c
o
'c
it
IS
o
I
co
I<
0.
o S  
rr
LU
o .c?
10
CO
CO
to
LL
<
 D)
CD
C
c
OJ
CO \
CM
cu
k_
3
TJ
O
4*
CD
TJ
o
CL
a.
cu to
CL
O
o Fro O
"c CO E
* nCU
o o
n o m
o a
0) Z
fc
F
O
r II CM
n
CO JO o
rocu
o
c
o
cu
>
ro
CU
JO
o o
C 0J
O J=
CD
cu
T
t0) o
> ^II
II
CO
IO
<
RJ
CD
5
co
oi
OJ
>
J
CO CD
CL XI
M 
XI
CO
g J> CO
.L?i
CO
o
CO
CO
4
E
lo
o
TJ
c
CD
c
ro
CO
c
tu
o
iZ
4<
8
cu
TJ
CJ
> c
c
co
r
cu
o
CL
ID
OJ
<D
CO
IO
<
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.