For example, in the faulting data, one segment was plotted and it showed that in a tenth mile segment there should be approximately twenty-six faults identified. The automated faulting software identified a maximum of thirteen faults in a tenth mile for this project. For some road segments that were in question the profile plots showed slab curl or slab warp. Slab curl is defined as the slab curling upward from the center of the slab to the joints. Slab warp is defined as the downward curling of the slab from the center to the joints. The faulting software was not intended to identify slab curl or warp since they are different distresses exhibited by concrete pavements but a better estimate of the actual faulting was expected.
The rut information provided by the ARAN road profiler depicted less rut than visual inspection provided. Two situations were identified that indicated a need for research. In the first the current data showed no rutting but visually there appeared to be rutting and the data from the old profiler indicated a tenth of an inch rut throughout the project. The second was a situation where there was shoving in the outer wheel track. The road profiler will not be able to pick up the full amount of rut in this situation because the profiler uses just three data points and is not capable of picking up rutting caused by shoving.
In addition to these concerns, research study SD96-03, Review of SDDOT's Field Collected Roadway Data, recommended that protocols be adopted for the profile data. This study will provide the protocols to fulfill these recommendations.