Tarbutton Road Interchange and I-20 Frontage Roads

Dr. N. Wasiuddin – Instructor

Braden Smith – Project Manager

Jared Taylor – Transportation Group

John Harrison – Geotechnical Group

Sarah Wells – Water Group

Samantha Tatro – Structural Group

Ryan Ross – 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 – Waggoner Engineering

Boring Logs – Copies Provided from DOTD Plans

Traffic Data – 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

Transportation

Structures

Water

Estimating and

Planning

Ruston

Jr. High

Misc. Businesses

Objectives • Improve I-20 Access

• Alignment for Tarbutton Interchange

• Pavement Design

• Traffic Design

• Minimize Project Cost

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

• Two main failure modes • Fatigue Cracking • Rutting

• Causes

• Tensile Strain • Compressive Strain

Fatigue Cracking

18 Kip ESAL

Rutting

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

Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion

College of Engineering and Science

Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion

College of Engineering and Science

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 roads 25 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

Introduction Existing Conditions Catchment Areas Analysis Conclusion

College of Engineering and Science

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

• Hydraulics Manual

• Industrial Light Areas

Lincoln Parish

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 (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

Drainage

Side Ditch Cross Drain Culvert

Side Drainage Calculations

Side Drainage Calculations

• Hydraulic Radius

• Manning's Formula

• Critical Depth

If d dc then the flow is tranquil

If d dc 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.

• Maximum Span Length: 100 ft

Girder Selection:

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