S19_Louisiana Tech University_LTC2013 (1)

7/29/2019 S19_Louisiana Tech University_LTC2013 (1)

1/52

Tarbutton Road Interchange and I-20 Frontage Roads

Dr. N. Wasiuddin Instructor

Braden Smith Project Manager

Jared Taylor Transportation GroupJohn Harrison Geotechnical Group

Sarah Wells Water Group

Samantha Tatro Structural Group

Ryan Ross Estimating and Planning Group


2/52

Project Overview

Timeline

Current State

Transportation

Geotechnical

Water

Structural

Estimating and Planning

Questions


3/52

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 Waggoner Engineering

Boring Logs Copies Provided from DOTD Plans

Traffic Data Copies Provided from DOTD Plans


4/52

September

Teams Formed and Project Defined

October

Researching Manuals and Software

November Learning Software Packages

December

Calculations and ModifyingProcedures

January Design/Calculations

February

Design/Calculations

Transportation

Structures

Water

Estimatingand

Planning


5/52


6/52

Geometric Design

Followed AASHTO: Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets

AutoCad Civil3D Main Software

Horizontal Alignment

Vertical Alignment

Pavement Cross-Sections

Intersections Lane Widening


7/52

AutoCad Civil3D

Received *.dwg file

from Waggoner

Survey Data and

Topographic Maps


8/52

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


9/52

Vertical Alignment

Tarbutton Road

East Bound Ramps

West Bound Ramps


10/52

Cut/Fill

Calculated from the corridor to the existing surface


11/52

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


12/52

Pavement Analysis

Mechanistic approach

Two main failure modes

Fatigue Cracking

Rutting

Causes Tensile Strain

Compressive Strain

Fatigue Cracking

18 Kip ESAL

Rutting


13/52

Pavement Analysis

Kenpave

Evaluates Durability and Life Expectancy

Based on Load Repetitions

Repetitions Cause Pavement Failure

Rutting and Fatigue Cracking


14/52

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


15/52

Field Sampling

Disturbed soil sampling

1ft 4ft

Hand augers


16/52

Field Sampling

Initially brown clayey

soil.

Transitioned into

reddish sandy clay

material around 3 ftdepth.


17/52

Soil Tests

Moisture Content

Sieve Analysis

Specific Gravity

Plastic Limit

Liquid Limit


18/52

Soil Testing

Results correlated with

information provided inboring logs.

Provided hands on

experience withcollecting data and

performing tests.


19/52

Soil Profile


20/52

Bearing Capacities

Bearing Capacities

Driven - Software

LA DOTD Pile Capacity

Design Guide

Piles are being placed in

very dense gray clayey

sand layer.


21/52

Pile Grouping

3 or 4 Columns

16(18 piles)

Spacings

4.5ft center to center.

Group dimensions areB= 10.5ft and Z= 37.5ft


22/52

Objectives

Calculate Runoff

Ditch Analysis

Existing Culvert Analysis


23/52

CATCHMENT 3

AREA = 28.627 ACRE

GRADE: 2%

HYDRAULIC LENGTH: 2410FT

CATCHMENT 2

AREA = 11.485 ACRE

GRADE: 1%


CATCHMENT 4

AREA = 15.443 ACRE

GRADE: 4%


CATCHMENT 1

AREA = 11.577 ACRE

GRADE: 2%



24/52

Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion

College of Engineering and Science


25/52



Project Classification

Design type

Rural

Open ditch facilities

Frequency

50 year storm

DRAINAGE CLASSIFICATION FREQUENCY

Interstates 50 years

Roadway Grade, Bridges, Cross Drains, or Side Drains under

important side roads25 or 50 years

Side Drains under private drives & average conditions 5 years

Median Drains 10 years

Storm Drains and Inlets 10 years

Roadside Channel 5 years

Detour Road Structures 1 year minimum


26/52



Rational Method

Catchment Areas

Rainfall Region

Runoff Coefficient Time of Concentration

Intensity

Final Peak Runoff Data

Q= CiAQ= peak runoff rate (ft^3/sec)

C= runoff coefficienti= average rainfall intensity at time of

concentration

A= drainage area


27/52


Runoff

Coefficient

Hydraulics Manual

Industrial Light

Areas

Lincoln

Parish

C = 0.50


28/52


Results of Runoff

Catchment Area (acre)Hydraulic

Length (ft)Slope

Time of

Concentration

(hr)

Intensity

(in/hr)

Peak Runoff

(ft3

/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


29/52

Drainage

Side Ditch Cross Drain Culvert


30/52

Side Drainage Calculations

Side Drainage Calculations

Hydraulic Radius

Manning's Formula

Critical Depth

Ifd dc

then the flow is tranquil

Ifd dc

then the flow is turbulen


31/52

Side Ditch Results

Side DitchFlow 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


32/52

Design Approach

Manual Calculations using Excel Spreadsheets

Verifying design through use of softwares

Two main softwares used: QConBridge

STAAD Pro


33/52

QConBridge

Check maximum moment and shear

Manual calculations varied by less than 1%


34/52

STAAD Pro Finite element analysis and design software

Creates 3D model of bridge


35/52

Project Overview

Bridge length: 300 ft.

4 lanes


36/52

SideView

Span 1: Span 2: Span 3: Span 4:

50 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 90 ft.


37/52

Maximum Span Length: 100 ft

Girder Selection:

AASHTO


38/52

Bridge Cross-Section Girder spacing: 8ft.

Overhang spacing: 3ft. - 11in

Lane width: 12ft. Shoulder width: 10 ft.- 8 in


39/52

Slab Design Maximum Design Span: 6.667 ft


40/52

Slab Reinforcement


41/52

F- Shape (PL-2)


42/52

Initial Substructure Design


43/52

Resources


44/52

Calculating Estimate

Unit Price * Quantity = Total Cost per Bid Item

(7200 sy)*($38.43/sy) = $276,696.00


45/52

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) 950,459.62Traffic Engineering 80,204.68

Roadside Development 33,653.37

$ 6,223,103.45


46/52

Earthwork Roadway excavation

Embankment Borrow

$3,001,674.15


47/52

Asphalt Pavement Superpave asphaltic concrete

Class II Base Course (varying thicknesses)

$2,014,843.00


48/52

Drainage Storm drain pipe (18 RCP)

Class A concrete

Trenching

$142,268.63


49/52

Bridge Construction Class A & AA concrete

Precast concrete test piles

Reinforcing steel

Expansion joint seal

$950,459.62


50/52

Traffic Engineering Traffic signals

Signage

Pavement markings

$80,204.68


51/52

Roadside Development

Topsoil Seeding

$33,653.37


52/52

Questions

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	walaywan
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

S19_Louisiana Tech University_LTC2013 (1)

Documents