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: Objectives:

September, 2012 May, 2013 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

Water

Structures

Estimating and Planning

Transportation

Objectives
Improve I-20 Access Alignment for Tarbutton Interchange Pavement Design Traffic Design Minimize Project Cost
Misc. Businesses Ruston Jr. High

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

Causes Tensile Strain Compressive Strain

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

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
DRAINAGE CLASSIFICATION

Frequency 50 year storm

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
Hydraulics Manual Industrial Light Areas

Lincoln Parish

C = 0.50

Introduction

Existing Conditions

Catchment Areas

Analysis

Conclusion

Results of Runoff
Hydraulic Catchment Area (acre) Length (ft) 1 2 3 4 11.6 11.5 28.6 15.4 1733 1733 2410 1687 Slope Time of Concentration (hr) 1.04 1.19 1.18 0.89 Intensity (in/hr) 0.234 0.215 0.216 0.255 Peak Runoff (ft3/sec) 1.363 1.243 3.114 1.986

2% 1% 2% 4%

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

Flow Rate Side Ditch (ft^3/sec) 1 1.363
2 3 4 1.243 3.114 1.986

Slope (%) 3.12

3.12 2.37 2.25

Depth Critical Depth New Slope New Depth (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) 0.179 0.285 0.112 0.439
0.17 0.304 0.242 0.269 0.4517 0.352 0.112 0.37 0.25 0.42 0.494 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: 50 ft. Span 2: 80 ft. Span 3: 80 ft. Span 4: 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

Earthwork Tarbutton Road Interchange Ramps Drainage Bridge (Partial Estimate) Traffic Engineering Roadside Development

Estimated Cost 3,001,674.15 797,136.00 1,217,707.00 142,268.63 950,459.62 80,204.68 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