Tarbutton Road Interchange and I-20 Frontage Roads Dr. N. Wasiuddin Braden Smith Jared Taylor John Harrison Sarah Wells Samantha Tatro Ryan Ross Instructor Project Manager Transportation Group Geotechnical Group Water Group Structural Group Estimating and Planning Group
Project Overview Timeline Current State Transportation Geotechnical Water Structural Estimating and Planning Questions
Working Period: September, 2012 May, 2013 Objectives: Add Exit 83 at Tarbutton Road Construct a Wider Tarbutton Road Bridge Relativeness: Under Review by LA DOTD Preliminary Data: Survey Data Boring Logs Traffic Data Waggoner Engineering Copies Provided from DOTD Plans Copies Provided from DOTD Plans
September Teams Formed and Project Defined October Researching Manuals and Software November Learning Software Packages December Calculations and Modifying Procedures January Design/Calculations February Design/Calculations Estimating and Planning Structures Water Transportation
Objectives Improve I-20 Access Alignment for Tarbutton Interchange Ruston Jr. High Pavement Design Traffic Design Minimize Project Cost Misc. Businesses
Geometric Design Followed AASHTO: Geometric Design of Highways and Streets AutoCad Civil3D Main Software Horizontal Alignment Vertical Alignment Pavement Cross-Sections Intersections Lane Widening
AutoCad Civil3D Received *.dwg file from Waggoner Survey Data and Topographic Maps
Tarbutton Road Alignment Multiple problem areas to avoid Main Roadway and all entrance and exit ramps Civil 3D uses Design Speed, minimum radius of curvature, and super elevation to govern curves 45 mph design for Tarbutton 35 mph design for ramps
Vertical Alignment Tarbutton Road East Bound Ramps West Bound Ramps
Cut/Fill Calculated from the corridor to the existing surface
Pavement Design AI Method Initial AADT 3990 veh/day Asphalt Institute SW-1 Input: Vehicle Type Percentage Truck Factors Minor Arterial System Initial Year ESAL Design Period ESAL 6.6 HMA over 8 Aggregate Base
Pavement Analysis Mechanistic approach Fatigue Cracking 18 Kip ESAL Two main failure modes Fatigue Cracking Rutting Rutting Causes Tensile Strain Compressive Strain
Pavement Analysis Kenpave Evaluates Durability and Life Expectancy Based on Load Repetitions Repetitions Cause Pavement Failure Rutting and Fatigue Cracking
Tasks Soil Investigation Fall Quarter Soil Sampling Soil Testing Soil Profile Pile Design Winter Quarter Ultimate Bearing Capacity Pile Grouping Design Slope Stability Spring Quarter Slope Stability
Field Sampling Disturbed soil sampling 1ft 4ft Hand augers
Field Sampling Initially brown clayey soil. Transitioned into reddish sandy clay material around 3 ft depth.
Soil Tests Moisture Content Sieve Analysis Specific Gravity Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Soil Testing Results correlated with information provided in boring logs. Provided hands on experience with collecting data and performing tests.
Soil Profile
Bearing Capacities Bearing Capacities Driven - Software LA DOTD Pile Capacity Design Guide Piles are being placed in very dense gray clayey sand layer.
Pile Grouping 3 or 4 Columns 16 (18 piles) Spacings 4.5ft center to center. Group dimensions are B= 10.5ft and Z= 37.5ft
Objectives Calculate Runoff Ditch Analysis Existing Culvert Analysis
CATCHMENT 3 AREA = 28.627 ACRE GRADE: 2% HYDRAULIC LENGTH: 2410FT CATCHMENT 2 AREA = 11.485 ACRE GRADE: 1% HYDRAULIC LENGTH: 1733FT CATCHMENT 4 AREA = 15.443 ACRE GRADE: 4% HYDRAULIC LENGTH: 1687FT CATCHMENT 1 AREA = 11.577 ACRE GRADE: 2% HYDRAULIC LENGTH: 1733FT
College of Engineering and Science Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion
College of Engineering and Science Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion Project Classification Design type Rural Open ditch facilities Frequency 50 year storm DRAINAGE CLASSIFICATION Interstates Roadway Grade, Bridges, Cross Drains, or Side Drains under important side roads Side Drains under private drives & average conditions Median Drains Storm Drains and Inlets Roadside Channel Detour Road Structures FREQUENCY 50 years 25 or 50 years 5 years 10 years 10 years 5 years 1 year minimum
College of Engineering and Science Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion Rational Method Catchment Areas Rainfall Region Runoff Coefficient Time of Concentration Intensity Final Peak Runoff Data Q= CiA Q= peak runoff rate (ft^3/sec) C= runoff coefficient i= average rainfall intensity at time of concentration A= drainage area
Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion Runoff Coefficient Lincoln Parish Hydraulics Manual Industrial Light Areas C = 0.50
Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion Results of Runoff Catchment Area (acre) Hydraulic Length (ft) Slope Time of Concentration (hr) Intensity (in/hr) Peak Runoff (ft 3 /sec) 1 11.6 1733 2% 1.04 0.234 1.363 2 11.5 1733 1% 1.19 0.215 1.243 3 28.6 2410 2% 1.18 0.216 3.114 4 15.4 1687 4% 0.89 0.255 1.986
Drainage Side Ditch Cross Drain Culvert
Side Drainage Calculations Side Drainage Calculations Hydraulic Radius Manning's Formula Critical Depth If d If d d c then the flow is tranquil d c then the flow is turbulent
Side Ditch Results Side Ditch Flow Rate (ft^3/sec) Slope (%) Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) New Slope (%) New Depth (ft) 1 1.363 3.12 0.179 0.285 0.112 0.439 2 1.243 3.12 0.17 0.269 0.112 0.42 3 3.114 2.37 0.304 0.4517 0.37 0.494 4 1.986 2.25 0.242 0.352 0.25 0.434
Design Approach Manual Calculations using Excel Spreadsheets Verifying design through use of softwares Two main softwares used: QConBridge STAAD Pro
QConBridge Check maximum moment and shear Manual calculations varied by less than 1%
STAAD Pro Finite element analysis and design software Creates 3D model of bridge
Project Overview Bridge length: 300 ft. 4 lanes
Side View Span 1: Span 2: Span 3: Span 4: 50 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 90 ft.
Girder Selection: Maximum Span Length: 100 ft AASHTO
Bridge Cross-Section Girder spacing: 8ft. Overhang spacing: 3ft. - 11in Lane width: 12ft. Shoulder width: 10 ft.- 8 in
Slab Design Maximum Design Span: 6.667 ft
Slab Reinforcement
F- Shape (PL-2)
Initial Substructure Design
Resources
Calculating Estimate Unit Price * Quantity = Total Cost per Bid Item (7200 sy)*($38.43/sy) = $276,696.00
Construction Cost Estimate Summary Project Estimated Cost Earthwork 3,001,674.15 Tarbutton Road 797,136.00 Interchange Ramps 1,217,707.00 Drainage 142,268.63 Bridge (Partial Estimate) 950,459.62 Traffic Engineering 80,204.68 Roadside Development 33,653.37 $ 6,223,103.45
Earthwork Roadway excavation Embankment Borrow $3,001,674.15
Asphalt Pavement Superpave asphaltic concrete Class II Base Course (varying thicknesses) $2,014,843.00
Drainage Storm drain pipe (18 RCP) Class A concrete Trenching $142,268.63
Bridge Construction Class A & AA concrete Precast concrete test piles Reinforcing steel Expansion joint seal $950,459.62
Traffic Engineering Traffic signals Signage Pavement markings $80,204.68
Roadside Development Topsoil Seeding $33,653.37
Questions