U S 2 3 1 , N E W C O N S T RU C T I O N

I - 6 4 T O S R 5 6 , D I V I S I O N I I

P H A S E I I

D U B O I S C O U N T Y, I N

NOVEMBER 30, 2010

B E A R E N G I N E E R I N G , C E 4 9 8 T E A M 1 0

D A N I E L C R O N I N ( T E A M L E A D E R )

T U N Y A P O R N D E C H A V A S D A N I E L P A U L S E N A N D R E W S E N T E R

R O S S W A G N E R

i

TA B L E O F C ON TE N TS

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i  

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................ii  

List of Tables..............................................................................................................................ii  

List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... iii  

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................iv  

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1  

Environmental Considerations ....................................................................................................1  

Structural Considerations ............................................................................................................5  

Pavement Consideration............................................................................................................10  

At-Grade Intersection................................................................................................................12  

Culvert Considerations..............................................................................................................15  

Construction considerations ......................................................................................................19  

Cost Estimate............................................................................................................................23  

References ................................................................................................................................24  

ii

LIST OF FIG UR ES

Figure 1-1: Reduced Median for HCWC traverse........................................................................1  

Figure 2-1: Deck Design for the Straight River Bridge................................................................7  

Figure 2-2: Straight River Bridge Elevation ................................................................................9  

Figure 4-1: Planview of Wingwalls and Side-tapering.................................................................1  

Figure 4-2: Riprap Design Profile View......................................................................................1  

Figure 5-1: Haul Diagram .........................................................................................................20  

Figure 5-2: Mass Diagram.........................................................................................................20  

LIST OF TA B LE S

Table 2-1: Maximum Live Load Moment Demand for Straight River Bridge..............................6  

Table 2-2: Factored Moment Demand for Straight River Bridge .................................................7  

Table 3-1: MEPDG Input..........................................................................................................11  

Table 3-2: Climatic Input ..........................................................................................................11  

Table 3-3: Structural Input ........................................................................................................12  

Table 3-4: Cycle times for through traffic .................................................................................14  

Table 3-5: Cycle times for slotted left-turn traffic......................................................................14  

Table 4-1: Culvert - Channel's properties ..................................................................................15  

Table 4-2: Culvert Inlet Design Dimension ...............................................................................16  

Table 4-3: Riprap Design Dimension ........................................................................................17  

Table 4-4: The bearing capacity test and foundation design.......................................................18  

Table 4-5: Roadside Safety Design-Guardrails distances...........................................................19  

Table 5-1: Haul Data.................................................................................................................21  

Table 5-2: Equipment Recommendation Summary ...................................................................21  

Table 5-3: Cost Summary .........................................................................................................23  

iii

LIST OF AP PE N DIC ES

Appendix 1- Environmental Concerns and Mitigation and Pavement Selection

Appendix 2- Structural Considerations

Appendix 3- Pavement Design and At Grade Intersection

Appendix 4- Culvert Design

Appendix 5- Construction and Cost

Appendix 6- Bear Engineering Phase I Report

*See first page of each appendix for detailed list of contents

iv

E XE C U TIVE S U MM A RY

BEAR ENGINEERING COLLABORATION

US 231, in Dubois County, Indiana, currently produces substandard statistics in regards to traffic accidents, fatality rates and levels of service. This report provides final construction and design considerations for a proposed alignment of US 231 alleviating the aforementioned issues.

Environmental impacts and mitigation were considered throughout the design of new US 231. Approximately 2.7 acres of forested wetland were impacted in the Hunley Creek Wetland Complex. The median was reduced from 80 feet to 22 feet in order to minimize adverse impacts. A construction plan was designed including tree protection for all trees within 50 feet of construction. Silt fence, temporary seeding, riprap chutes, and a construction ingress were designed in order to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and other adverse impacts. The mitigation for the impacted wetland is designed to take place 10000 feet upstream on a 15.1 acre site. Pin Oak trees will be the focus of the 5 year vegetation based mitigation plan. The total cost for the mitigation project is estimated at $400,000. No endangered species will be negatively impacted due to the project.

For the structural aspects of this project a twin structure bridge over Straight River was designed. This bridge will be 85 feet long and 41 feet wide. Five W44x335 steel girders were made composite with a reinforced concrete deck. The bridge will rest on shallow reinforced concrete foundations with a bearing capacity of 26,800 pounds per square foot each. The clay under the foundations will undergo approximately 2.2 inches of consolidation settlement. The approaches to carry SR 162 over the mainline were also designed. The approaches will have a grade of +2% for the roadway. The side slopes of the approaches will have a grade of 4H:1V. This grade was determined to be stable with a factor of safety of 7.6.

Both an economic and site analysis were performed to determine whether rigid or flexible pavement should be used. Flexible pavement was chosen because the soil where the road is constructed is highly corrosive to concrete, and rigid pavement is initially twice as expensive as flexible pavement. The Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) was used to analyze the pavement over the design life of the roadway. Dimensions for the pavement are: 1.5” top asphalt layer, 2.5” intermediate asphalt layer, 8” base asphalt layer, 4.5” crushed gravel subbase layer, 3.5” crushed stone subbase layer, and a clay subgrade.

The at-grade intersection considered was at proposed US 231 and Schnellville Rd. The design vehicle was the IDV WB-65 Interstate Route Semitrailer. The intersection is signalized, has four legs, has left turn lanes on all approaches, right turn lanes on the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) approaches, and proposed US 231 intersects Schnellville Rd. perpendicularly. There is a 100’ taper lane, 680’ deceleration lane, and 100’ storage lane for the NB and SB approaches of proposed US 231. There is a 100’ storage lane for the eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) approaches of Schnellville Rd. The total cycle time for the intersection is 150 seconds with 100 sec. green cycle, 3 sec. yellow cycle, and 47 sec. red cycle for the NB and SB through lanes and a 27 sec. green cycle, 3 sec. yellow cycle, and 120 sec. red cycle for the EB and WB through lanes. The intersection will contain a slotted left-turn lane and a raised median to increase the level of service and safety of the intersection.

Culvert analyses were performed to ensure that the proposed culverts are cost effective while meeting performance needs. Structure 27-25 and Structure 27-26 were analyzed in depth. Based on flow rates for the one hundred year event and the channel properties, two 8 feet by 5 feet barrels were used for Structure 27-25 and one 8 feet by 5 feet culvert for Structure 27-26 was designed. Rectangular concrete slab headwalls and squared-edge wingwalls at a 45 degree angle will be constructed at both the inlet and outlet of the culvert structures. Class-II riprap will also be placed along the channel both upstream and downstream. Additionally, a bearing capacity test was performed, and soil replacement was suggested. The replacement material shall be saturated sand with medium density. End guardrails shall be placed along the road to ensure driver safety with total distance of 260 feet and 235 feet for Structures 27-25 and 27-26, respectively.

Considerations were made for the construction of proposed US 231. A haul road was designed, which will be composed of the compacted subgrade and maintained by motorgraders. Sample haul and mass diagrams were made for a ½ mile segment, simulating the transportation of soil. Over the sample segment, articulated trucks will move approximately 150000 cubic meters of soil an average of 492 meters. Bull dozers will move approximately 32500 cubic meters of soil an average of 110 meters. A construction plan was made for the transport and placement of the Straight River bridge beams. A list of equipment was made based on the required output and the manufacturer’s specifications. The project duration will be 21 weeks, assuming that the bridges and overpasses will be constructed simultaneously with the 4 lane roadway. This also assumes 40 hour weeks.

The total project cost was found to be 42.4 million dollars.

1

IN TROD U C TIO N

BEAR ENGINEERING COLLABORATION

The purpose of the Phase II Engineering Report is to provide an alternative to the existing US

231, producing a safer and more efficient mode of transportation through southern Indiana. US 231

traverses Dubois County, Indiana, bisecting the cities of Jasper and Huntingburg where congestion is an

issue. Levels of service and traffic accident rates in these areas are substandard compared to statewide

averages. This report will propose comprehensive design considerations for a new US 231 alignment.

Many considerations will be made to ensure the proposed US 231 alignment meets

safety and efficiency standards that are well above the statewide averages. This report will detail the

following considerations: environmental impacts and mitigation, structural considerations, pavement

selection and design, at-grade intersection considerations, culvert design, construction plans, and project

cost.

E NVI RO NM E N TA L CO NSI D ER A TI ON S

BY DANIEL CRONIN

In order for the benefits of the proposed project to continue to outweigh the costs, many

environmental considerations were analyzed. The following section discusses in detail methods used to

minimize environmental impacts, construction considerations, and a mitigation plan.

After the selection of alternative 27, an alignment adjustment was made in the vicinity of the

Hunley Creek Wetland Complex (HCWC). See Bear Engineering Phase I Report dated October 14, 2010

in Appendix 6 for further details.

In order to further reduce wetland impacts in the HCWC, the 80 foot median was reduced to a 22

foot median with concrete barriers while traversing the impacted site. A taper rate of 100:1 was used

while reducing the median width. This value surpasses the Indiana Department of Transportation

(INDOT) minimum design taper rate of 70:1. The required length for the complete taper from an 80 foot

2

to a 22 foot median is 2900 feet in the northbound and southbound travel lanes. Aerial photographs

confirm no crossings or potential entrances in the 2900 feet northbound or southbound on the proposed

alignment. The proposed cross section can be seen in Figure 1-1. The minimum right of way, as specified

in the Indiana Design Manual, is 15 feet beyond the edge of construction. The construction activities will

remain within the proposed road cross section of 90 feet. This minimum right of way necessitates an

additional 15 feet of land beyond the northbound and southbound shoulders. Plotting this width on the

proposed alignment (Appendix 1, Figure A1-1) yields 3560 square feet of affected wetland. This result in

approximately 2.7 acres of forested wetland affected.

Construction through the Hunley Creek Wetland Complex is designed to minimize disturbances

in the area. Prior to clearing and grubbing, all trees within 50 feet of the proposed right of way will be

flagged and marked with orange safety fence and signage. The construction equipment is to remain

outside of the area encompassed by the crown of the trees to protect the trees’ roots. The proposed

drainage pattern allows rainwater to continue

to reach the existing vegetation.

To begin construction of the 120 foot

cross section through the Hunley Creek

Wetland Complex, topsoil stockpiles will be

constructed. Boring log D-10-B (Appendix 1,

Figure A1-2), shows that the soil in the vicinity of the Hunley Creek Wetland Complex has a 5 inch

topsoil layer. After grading, the 75000 cubic feet of topsoil will be reapplied to a depth of four inches and

compacted in order to promote growth. This leaves an excess of 15000 cubic feet topsoil. 580 cubic feet

will be used to fill the 8 inch by 4 inch silt fence trench. The remaining 1440 cubic feet will be divided

into 12 topsoil stockpiles resting in the proposed median.

Any area to remain exposed for longer than one week shall have temporary seeding applied to

prevent erosion and downstream sedimentation. The temporary seeding selected is annual ryegrass. The

annual ryegrass seed will begin to germinate in approximately 7-10 days and shall be planted ¼ inch into

Figure 1-1: Reduced Median for HCWC traverse

3

the compacted topsoil. Forty pounds of seed will be applied per acre in order to attain 80 % vegetative

cover as per Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM) recommendations. Annual

ryegrass was chosen due to construction and economic factors as seen in Appendix 1, Table A1-1.

A 36 inch geofabric fence will be installed to a depth of 18 inches below the final grade. The

geofabric will curl and run horizontally towards the construction area at a depth of 8 inches. The trench

will then be filled with the stockpiled topsoil. The geofabric will trap any eroded soils and particles while

allowing groundwater to flow to the existing vegetation. Riprap lined-chutes are to be placed where the

proposed alignment comes in contact with Hunley Creek. The riprap lined-chutes are used primarily to

control excess storm water runoff in a high volume event while controlling erosion. The riprap-lined

chutes will consist of a 12 inch riprap layer above a 2 inch layer of fine aggregate consisting of CA No. 9,

11 & 12. The temporary construction ingress will be constructed to control erosion and minimize adverse

impacts of construction vehicles traversing the wetland complex. The ingress will access the site from CR

W 400 S. The ingress will be 20 feet wide, 50 feet in length and 8 inches thick. Geofabric will be placed

under CA No. 2 to construct the ingress, with the first 50 feet adjacent CR W 400 S being top dressed

with CA No. 53. An overall construction plan including details for the Geofabric Silt Fence and

Construction Ingress can be found in Appendix 1.

Mitigation for the affected 2.7 acres of forested wetlands in the Hunley Creek Wetland Complex

will take place approximately 10000 feet upstream Strait River. The mitigation site is located in the

Patoka Watershed. The watershed contains both the impacted and mitigated sites as recommended by the

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Guidance Letter dated December 24, 2002. The

proposed mitigation site is currently located on the northwest edge of the Barnes-Seng Wetland complex

and is surrounded by forested wetlands on its southern edge, and scrub-shrub wetlands on its northern and

eastern sides.

The 2.7 acres of directly affected wetland will be mitigated with 15.1 acres of forested wetland.

The excess of acreage upstream reduces excessive groundwater flow downstream at the impacted site.

The excess mitigation acreage allows an additional affected area spanning 38.7 feet into the Hunley Creek

4

Wetland Complex. If additional mitigation is needed for other impacted wetlands, this site will be well

suited to fulfill additional mitigation needs. If the project does not necessitate additional mitigation, the

area will be utilized as a contingency plan, as recommended by the USACE.

The soil of both the affected site and the mitigated site are recent alluvium deposits. Recent

alluvium deposits are soils formed from material deposits near rivers. Both areas have similar drainage

classifications of somewhat poorly drained areas according to the United States Department of

Agriculture’s “Integrating Spatial Educational Experiences”. By accessing the Web Soil Survey, as seen

in Appendix 1, the compatibility of the two sites is evident. Both sites contain Bonnie silt loam and

Stendal silt loam. The slow drainage characteristics in combination with the additional 15.1 acres of

vegetation added will alleviate the added stress of the 2.7 acre loss downstream.

The impacted site and mitigation site perform similar hydrologic functions and support similar

vegetation. The soil at the impacted site suggests the fully grown vegetation contains Quercus Palustris or

the Pin Oak. The Pin Oak is a known type of “Wetland Vegetation”. Other trees to manage include

Sycamores, Cypress, Oaks and Hickory. Additional tree species can be found in Appendix 1. The

aforementioned vegetation will be suitable for the mitigation site. The soil conditions at the mitigation

site suggest hand planted seedlings would have a high mortality rate due to the excessive wetness of the

soil. However, machine planted trees are well suited for the entire mitigation area. Therefore, machine

planting of the Pin Oak will be executed.

Due to the large size of the proposed project, many governing agencies are stakeholders.

Permitting needs include Construction in a Floodway for the IDNR, National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System & Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the IDEM office of Water Quality, and

Section 404 Water Quality Certification permit for the USACE. The IDNR Construction in Floodway has

the longest estimated review time of 150 days. The 150 days includes 120 days for review of the complex

project with a 30 day public hearing due to the numerous local stakeholders involved with the proposed

project. This makes the IDNR construction in a Floodway the critical path for the construction timeline.

The USACE recommends mitigation takes place before or while impacting waters of the US.

5

With a construction time of the mitigated site estimated at 20 days, the project will not be able to begin

until approximately seven months after permits are submitted (pending initial approval). Construction and

permitting timelines can be found in Appendix 1, Table A1-2.

The USACE defines wetlands as “Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground

water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for line in saturated soil conditions.” The proposed mitigation

site contains hydric soils and has slow drainage characteristics. With the addition of Pin Oak trees, the

area will meet all requirements defined by USACE. The performance standards for the mitigation site will

consist of tracking Pin Oak development and growth. The monitoring will also log the soil characteristics

to ensure hydric conditions are not lost.

The entire mitigation project is estimated to cost $400,000. The calculations and assumptions for

the estimating process can be seen in Appendix 1, Table A1-3.

Many other environmental considerations were assessed. The mitigation site is located

approximately 7.8 miles north of the Huntingburg Airport. The additional waterfowl that may be attracted

to the area will not adversely impact the air traffic as cautioned by the USACE. The Indiana bat, bald

eagle, cotton mouth snake and copperhead snake will not be adversely affected by the proposed project

according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

STRU C TU R AL CO N SID ER A TI ON S

BY ANDREW SENTER

The following structural report is a summary of the design elements for Division II of the US 231

New Construction project near Jasper, IN. These elements include: the realignment of the mainline near

Straight River, the bridge superstructure design, the bridge substructure design and the overpass approach

design. The need and considerations for the realignment and bridge choice can be found in the Structural

Considerations section of Appendix 6.

6

The three horizontal curves designed for the realignment of the mainline near Straight River can

be seen in Figure A2-1 of Appendix 2, and the calculations for these horizontal curves can be found in

Appendix 2-2. All of these curves satisfy the minimum stopping sight distance requirement for the design

speed of 70 MPH, which is 730 feet. [5]

The new alignment allows for two single span bridges over Straight River, with one structure

serving the northbound traffic and the other serving the southbound traffic. Using aerial photos, site maps

and contour maps, the span length needed for each bridge was determined to be 85 feet. The required

width of each bridge is 41 feet. This width includes two 12 foot travel lanes, a 10 foot outside shoulder, a

4 foot inside shoulder and 1.5 feet per side for reinforced concrete parapets. [1] A composite steel bridge

design, consisting of steel girders and a reinforced concrete deck, was chosen. The shear and moment

diagrams for the dead load and live load configurations for the bridge were calculated. The dead load

diagrams can be seen in Figures A2-2 and A2-3, and the live load diagrams can be seen in Figures A2-4

through A2-8 of Appendix 2. Figures A2-5 through A2-8 display different possible locations of the

AASHTO design truck along the length of the bridge. These locations were chosen to give the maximum

possible effect of moment and shear in the bridge. The maximum live load moment effect was found by

superimposing the diagrams in Figures A2-5 through A2-8 onto the diagram in Figure A2-4. The results

of this superimposition are summarized below in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Maximum Live Load Moment Demand for Straight River Bridge

Figure M-maximum (kip-ft) M-midspan (kip-ft) Total M-maximum superimposed (kip-ft)

A2-5 (CASE I) 645 518 1096 A2-6 (CASE II) 524 448 1035 A2-7 (CASE III) 773 588 1201 A2-8 (CASE IV) 1212 1212 1790

Once the maximum live load moments were calculated, the live load and dead load moments

were combined and increased by the appropriate load factors given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications Manual. [1] These calculations can be found in Appendix 2-3. The results of these

calculations are summarized below in Table 2-2. After the maximum factored moment demand was

7

calculated, an appropriately sized girder could be chosen for the bridge. Using the AISC Steel

Construction Manual, a W44x335 girder was chosen as the most economical size given the moment

demand. [2] A W44x335 girder, which has a factored shear capacity of 1350 kips, will also satisfy the 205

kip shear demand of the Straight River bridge. This maximum shear demand was found using the worst

case scenario for shear at the support of the bridge structure. Five girders will be used for the bridge. The

girders will be spaced 8 feet 9 inches from the center girder. This spacing satisfies the maximum spacing

limit set by AASHTO and INDOT. A cross section of the bridge can be found in Figure A2-9 of

Appendix 2.

Table 2-2: Factored Moment Demand for Straight River Bridge Load Case Maximum Moment Demand (kip-ft) Strength I 6004 Service I 3886

Service III 3458

The bridge deck was designed using the empirical method, as per the AASHTO LRFD Bridge

Design Specifications Manual. The results of the application of the empirical design method can be seen

below in Figure 2-1 and in Figure A2-10 of Appendix 2.

Figure 2-1: Deck Design for the Straight River Bridge

The epoxy coated, Grade 60 reinforcing bars will be set in a 12 inch by 12 inch grid both in the

longitudinal and transverse direction of the travel lanes. Shear stud connectors will be used to make the

steel girders composite with the reinforced concrete deck. These connectors will be ¾ inch diameter and 5

8

inches tall. There will be two rows of shear stud connectors per girder spaced at 1 foot 3 inches on center.

The design calculations for these shear stud connectors can be found in Appendix 2-4.

The dead load and live load of the bridge superstructure will be transferred to the bridge

substructure through elastomeric bearing pads. The substructure will consist of a shallow reinforced

concrete foundation. A cross section of the foundation can be seen in figure A2-11 of Appendix 2. The

foundation will be 45 feet long and 4 feet wide. The bottom of the foundation will be at a depth of 6 feet

below the surface. This depth is above the water table and well below the frost penetration depth. The

foundation will also feature wingwalls to hold the backfill behind the bridge foundation and to protect the

backfill against erosion in the case of a large flood. A plan view of the foundation can be seen in figure

A2-12 of Appendix 2.

The soil beneath the foundation will be approximately 4 feet of Sandy Silty Clay underlain by

Sandy Lean Clay to a great depth. Using the soil profile obtained from boring F-2-B (Appendix 2, Figure

A2-13) the foundation was determined to have an ultimate bearing capacity of 26,800 pounds per square

foot. The bearing capacity calculations can be found in Appendix 2-5. Using the shear demand from the

superstructure design and given the contact area of the foundation, a maximum applied bearing pressure

of 5,800 pounds per square foot was calculated. These calculations can be found in Appendix 2-6.

The immediate and consolidation settlements of the underlain clay layer were calculated. The

calculations reveal a total settlement of 6.32 inches. Of this total settlement, 4.14 inches occur

immediately, leaving only 2.18 inches of the settlement to occur from consolidation of the clay layer over

time. This settlement configuration will not adversely affect the performance of the bridge; therefore,

deep foundations will not be required. These calculations can be found in Appendix 2-7.

An elevation view of the Straight River Bridge can be seen in Figure 2-2 below and in Figure A2-

14 of Appendix 2. The 100 year flood elevation for this area of Straight River was determined to be 13.5

feet above the mean water elevation. Because of this, the elevation of the lowest part of the bridge will be

15 feet above the mean water level. This design provides 1.5 feet of clearance to protect the integrity of

the bridge.

9

Figure 2-2: Straight River Bridge Elevation

As discussed previously, the realignment of the mainline near Straight River will introduce three

horizontal curves within this area. Because of the introduction of horizontal curves, it is advisable that

vertical curves are not also introduced in this area. For this reason, the collector road, SR 162, will

overpass the mainline. No realignment of SR 162 will be required; however, the overpass approach

design will be discussed in further detail below.

The elevation of the overpass must be a minimum of 16.5 feet above the under passing roadway

according to the Indiana Design Manual.[8] The approaches will have a +2% grade as vehicles near the

overpass. This grade was chosen based on the maximum grade of +3% according to the Indiana Design

Manual. The fill slopes on either side of the approaches will have a grade of 4H:1V, which is the

desirable fill slope grade according to the Indiana Design Manual. A plan and profile view of the

approaches can be found in Figure A2-15 of Appendix 2, and an elevation view of the approaches can be

found in Figure A2-16 of Appendix 2. The interior grade of each approach will have a concrete facing to

stabilize the sloping soil. Each of the overpass approaches will require approximately 19,200 cubic yards

of soil. These calculations can be found in Appendix 2-8.

The stability of the fill slopes on either side of the approaches was calculated using: an internal

friction angle of 30 degrees, a cohesion of 1200 pounds per square foot and a unit weight of 125 pounds

per cubic foot. A factor of safety of 7.6 was determined by applying the Method of Slices to the 4H:1V

slope. [4] Therefore the slopes are more than adequate for stability requirements. The slope stability

calculations can be found in Table A2-1 of Appendix 2. Figure A2-17 accompanies these calculations.

10

PAV E M E N T C O NSID ER A TI O N

P AVEMENT SELECTION BY DANIEL CRO NIN

While analyzing the options of flexible and rigid pavement, two main analyses were conducted. A

site analysis was conducted to examine soil characteristics and site specific considerations. An economic

analysis was conducted to determine the practicality of our selection. Both analyses yielded the flexible

pavement option. Both analyses can be found in Appendix 1.

The site analysis showed that 94.7% of the soil was “highly” corrosive to concrete. The “high”

corrosion risk incorporates chemical and electrochemical characteristics including: sodium and sulfate

content, texture, acidity, and rate of corrosion. Concrete objects crossing many soil boundaries will have a

higher risk of corrosion. The analysis conducted shows the proposed alignment crossing twenty four soil

types, as seen in Appendix 1.

The economic analysis concentrated on initial costs for the pavement construction. The initial

cost of using flexible pavement was found to be $230,500 per mile, while rigid pavement initial cost was

found to be $490,000 per mile. The initial cost resulted in selecting flexible pavement.

Rigid pavement often becomes more economical throughout its lifetime due to the relatively

small amount of repairs and large time before first major rehabilitation. The aforementioned site analysis

shows these benefits would not be relevant to the US 231 project.

P AVEMENT DESIGN BY ROSS WAGNER

After the selection of flexible pavement was made, a full analysis was performed using the

Mechanistic Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG). See Appendix 3-1 for a description of MEPDG and

how it fits the project needs. MEPDG accepted inputs including traffic volumes, climate data, and

pavement cross-section dimensions. An analysis was performed over the pavement design life to

determine if the pavement will meet certain criteria requirements such as thermal cracking and permanent

deformation. This section will outline the specific inputs of the pavement design and the resulting outputs

from MEPDG.

11

There were three main categories of inputs used to analyze the pavement design: traffic, climate,

and structural data. Table 3-1 shows traffic data which was inputted into the program.

Table 3-1: MEPDG Input The values in Table 3-1 depict the roadway that has been

designed. These figures were found using traffic analyses

provided in the Engineer’s Report, and where exact data

was unavailable, recommended values from the Indiana

Design Manual were used. Other traffic values which

were considered include hourly truck distribution, traffic

growth factors, and axle load distribution factors.

Climatic data was generated by inputting latitude and longitude, elevation above sea level and an

annual average water table depth. From there, three points of interest, or stations, were selected. The

selection of stations that are geographically close in differing directions (i.e. north, south, etc.) produced

the best interpolation. Three stations were chosen: Evansville Regional Airport in Evansville, IN,

Bowman Field Airport in Louisville, KY, and Terra Haute Int’l Hulman Field Airport in Terra Haute, IN.

Table 3-2 summarizes the climatic inputs.

Table 3-2: Climatic Input As stated previously, both an economic and

site analysis were performed and resulted in the

decision to use flexible pavement. Figure 52-13B

from the Indiana Design Manual was used as a template to design the first iteration of the pavement. The

first iteration included a 3” top asphalt layer, 3” intermediate asphalt layer, 6” base asphalt layer, a 4.5”

crushed stone layer, a 7.5” crushed gravel layer, and a CL subgrade. The analysis was run and the

MEPDG output indicated the pavement failed in “Surface Down Cracking.” Research was performed to

identify the most effective way to fix this problem. A decision was made to decrease the top asphalt layer

in depth, increase the asphalt base layer depth and to decrease the crushed stone layer depth. Table 3-3

Design Life 20 years Opening Date Oct. 2011

Initial two-way AADTT 970 vpd

Number of Lanes in design direction 4

Percentage of trucks in design direction 55%

Percentage of trucks in design lane 90%

Operational speed 65mph Traffic Growth Compound 2.8%

Latitude 38 deg. 20 minutes Longitude -86 deg. 55 minutes

Elevation (above sea level) 502 ft Depth of water table 5 ft

12

shows the final asphalt pavement cross-sectional dimensions. The pavement passed in all criteria tested

by MEPDG. A sample collection of the results of the pavement analysis can be found in Appendix 3-2.

Table 3-3: Structural Input Top Asphalt Layer 1.5 in.

Intermediate Asphalt Layer 2.5 in. Base Asphalt Layer 8 in.

Subbase Layer 1 (Cr. Gravel) 4.5 in. Subbase Layer 2 (Cr. Stone) 3.5 in.

Subgrade N/A

A T- GR AD E I NTE RS EC TI O N

BY ROSS WAGNER

This section will outline a proposed at-grade intersection with Schnellville Road and proposed

US 231. The intersection will be a signalized, four-leg intersection with left turn lanes on all approaches

and right turn lanes on the US 231 Northbound and Southbound approaches. The design speed at the

intersection will be 45MPH. US 231 will be constructed to intersect Schnellville Rd. perpendicularly.

Construction considerations include land clearing, grading, paving, finishing, and selecting crews and

equipment. Design considerations included in this section are reducing median width at the intersection,

determining if right turns should be allowed on red signals, selecting an appropriate turning radius and

shoulder width, assigning safe storage and turn lanes and checking that encroachment limitations are met.

The following information will provide justification for the design and construction of the at-grade

intersection.

The intersection will consist of US 231 being aligned at a perpendicular angle with Schnellville

Rd. This is because an intersection at an acute angle presents additional challenges in design,

construction, and cost. These challenges include vehicular turning movements become more restricted,

accommodation of large trucks may require additional pavement and channelization, exposure time for

vehicles and pedestrians crossing main traffic flow is increased, and the driver’s line of sight for one of

the sight triangles becomes restricted.

13

The intersection profile includes considerations such as approach grade, storage and turning lanes

and cross-section transition. The approach grade shall be 0.5% minimizing issues which include

considerations such as flooding of the intersection. The following storage and turning lane lengths shall

be used: on US 231, both in the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) lanes, taper lane length is 100

feet, storage length is 100 feet, deceleration length is 680 feet, and the total turn length will be 880 feet.

On Schnellville Rd., in the eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) lanes, storage lane length is 100 feet,

and deceleration lanes are not necessary, giving a total turn length of 100 feet. The calculations for these

storage and deceleration lane lengths were based on the peak hour traffic volumes for both proposed US

231 and Schnellville Rd. See Appendix 3-3 for these calculations. The cross section of the minor road,

which in this case is Schnellville Rd., will be transitioned to meet the profile and cross slope of the major

road (proposed US 231).

The selection of the design vehicle was based on the INDOT Standards which consider the

location and traffic volume of the roadways involved. In this case the design vehicle selected was IDV

(WB-65) Interstate-route semitrailer combination. This will be used for both turning onto Schnellville Rd.

from proposed US 231 and onto proposed US 231 from Schnellville Rd. Because this intersection is

located in a rural area, the following standards will be met. The turning lanes from Schnellville Road (1

lane in each direction) onto US 231 (2 lanes in each direction) were designed such that the design vehicle

can occupy both travel lanes on US 231. The allowable encroachment value is 1 foot. Conversely, the

turning lanes from US 231 onto Schnellville Road will not be allowed an encroachment into the adjacent

lane because vehicles will be traveling in the opposite direction in this adjacent lane. Furthermore a

shoulder with a 10 foot width will be used and will also act as a parking lane. It will be available on both

approach legs and will be carried through the intersection. A plan view of the intersection with detailed

dimensions including a turning radius, typical lane width and median width can be found in Figure A3-1.

Because the AADT is greater than 25,000 vehicles per day for this section of proposed US 231, a

raised median and slotted left-turn lane will be used. A raised median may be able to provide a refuge

area for crossing pedestrians. With a raised median, the left turn movements are concentrated at the

14

intersections, thereby reducing the conflict area and increasing the safety of the facility. A slotted left-

turn lane increases visibility of opposing through traffic, decreases the possibility of conflict between

opposing left-turning vehicles and serves more vehicles overall.

An analysis was performed to determine if a right turn should be allowed on a red signal.

Allowing a right turn on red can increase the level of service of the intersection. The controlling factor

for determining if a right turn on red should be allowed is the Intersection Sight Distance (ISD). The ISD

describes the distance at which a driver can see oncoming traffic in order to make a turning movement.

There are two ISD values to investigate: Design ISD and Actual ISD. If the Actual ISD is greater than

the Design ISD, or in other words if the sight distance by the driver at the intersection exceeds the

minimum required sight distance for a right turn on red, then a right turn on red should be permitted. In

this case, the Design ISD = 450 feet which is based on the design speed 45 MPH of the intersection. The

Actual ISD = 370 feet. Thus, because the Design ISD was more than the Actual ISD, the conclusion was

made that a right turn on red should not be permitted. Calculations for finding the ISD values can be

found in Appendix 3-4.

An additional analysis was performed to determine the most appropriate cycle times for the

signals at the intersection. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 depict all the green, yellow and red cycle times for each

direction including the slotted left-turn lanes. These cycle times were determined using the peak hour

traffic volumes of both proposed US 231 and Schnellville Rd. See Appendix 3-3 for the derivations of

these times.

Table 3-4: Cycle times for through traffic Direction (Through Lanes) Green (sec) Yellow (sec) Red (sec) Total (sec)

NB (proposed US 231) 100 3 47 150 SB (proposed US 231) 100 3 47 150 EB (Schnellville Rd.) 27 3 120 150 WB (Schnellville Rd.) 27 3 120 150

Table 3-5: Cycle times for slotted left-turn traffic Direction (Slotted Left-Turn) Green (sec) Yellow (sec) Red (sec) Total (sec)

NB (proposed US 231) 15 3 132 150 SB (proposed US 231) 15 3 132 150

15

CU LV E RT C O NSI D ER A TI ON S

BY TUN YAPORN DECH AVAS

Culverts will be used when the roadway structure will be built across a waterway and when a

bridge is not necessary. Structures 27-25 and 27-26 from the Engineer’s Report were chosen to perform

sample calculations and design for culvert drainage systems.

ANALYSIS

According to the Engineer’s Report, the two structures are located at station 26+324.68 and

station 27+979.60. Channel properties and flow properties are tabulated in Table 4-1. The data in Table 4-

1 is used as the input for the HY-8 program to analyze the culvert performance. HY-8 was utilized to

analyze the culverts based on the channel properties and the culvert sizes.

Table 4-1: Culvert - Channel's properties Structure

No. Station Q

(cfs) Design Q

(cfs) Elevation Bottom

Width Manning

Values Channel Slope

27-25 26+324 358 500 462 ft 24 ft 0.014 0.015 ft/ft

27-26 27+979 205 300 456 ft 13.5 ft 0.014 0.0186 ft/ft

The flow rates for the one hundred year event are shown as Q, and the design flow rate is factored

due to the increasing trend of the rainfall in Indiana. [6] The bottom width, the elevation, and the channel

slope were estimated from the contour map. The Manning’s values are for concrete culverts range and

based on the culvert sizes.

The culverts’ sizing process was also performed throughout the analysis for culverts. The

selection is based on the culverts’ performances and available products, which have been used in past

projects by INDOT. [7]

Based on the results from HY-8, performance curves for the chosen culverts ensured that the

water in the channel will not overtop the roadway. The performance curves can be found in Appendix 4-

1. Likewise, the results from HY-8 also provided information for inlet and outlet design including the

water elevations and the outlet velocity.

16

From the analysis, two barrels of 8 feet x 5 feet reinforced concrete box were chosen for structure

No. 27-25, and an 8 feet x 5 feet reinforced concrete box was chosen for structure No. 27-26. The two

chosen culverts were analyzed and selected based on the performance and economic advantages.

DESIGN

For inlet design, it is required by INDOT that every reinforced concrete box culvert structure will

have headwalls and wingwalls. This helps retain the roadway embankment while preventing projecting

sediments into culvert barrels. [8] The headwalls

for the two structures will be rectangular concrete

slabs. The depth and width are shown in Table 4-

2. These headwalls will be placed on top of the

culvert structures. The wingwalls for the two

structures will be square edged wingwalls. In

addition to wingwalls, the option of tapering inlet

was considered. Side-tapering was designed for

the two culverts because it increased the efficiency of the structure and lowered both the outlet flow rate

and the outlet elevation of the water. The plan view of the wingwalls and side-tapering can be seen in

Figure 4-1. The dimensions corresponding to the design in Figure 4-1 are also presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Culvert Inlet Design Dimension Headwall Wingwall Side-Tapering

Structure No.

Control Depth

Elevation of the bottom

edge Width Rise Angle Ratio

Length (L1)

Face Width (Bf)

Width (B)

27-25 7.33 ft 470 ft 14 ft 2 ft 45 deg 4:1 4 ft 16 ft 14 ft 27-26 5.62 ft 462 ft 10 ft 3 ft 45 deg 6:1 3 ft 11 ft 10 ft

In Table 4-2, the control depths

are the difference between the bottom

elevation and the highest elevation found

from HY-8 program. Detailed results can

Figure 4-1: Planview of Wingwalls and Side-tapering [6]

Figure 4-2: Riprap Design Profile View [10]

17

be found in Appendix 4-2. The elevations of the bottom edge of the headwall were estimated based on the

culvert sizes with the thickness of the culverts’ walls being one inch. The rise of the headwall was chosen

according to the INDOT manual’s specification that the distance from top of the culvert and the roadway

must be greater than two inches. For wingwalls, the flare angles between 30 degrees and 60 degrees are

known to provide the best flow efficiency. Therefore, the wingwalls angles were decided to be 45

degrees. [8] For side-tapering, the design dimensions, including the taper ratio and face width, were chosen

based on the culvert structures and the bottom width of the channel and the control depth. The face width

must not exceed 110 percent of the control depth. [8] For outlet design, the designs for headwalls and

wingwalls will be the same as the inlet design, but there will not be any tapering.

In addition to the inlet and outlet designs, the channel-bank protection was taken into

consideration due to the flow rates of the two structures being higher than 50 cubic feet per second. [8] The

designed bank protection distances include a distance upstream of 1 channel width and a downstream

distance of 1.5 channel widths. [8] The height of the bank protection is required to have a three foot

freeboard elevation. [8] The profile view of the riprap design is shown in Figure 4-2 along with the

corresponding dimensions in Table 4-3

Table 4-3: Riprap Design Dimension

Based on the outlet velocity, Class 2 riprap is proposed to be the outlet protection material for

both structures. [8] The properties of the riprap can be found in Appendix 4-3. The distances upstream and

downstream were estimated from the recommended distance, excluding the distance of the wingwalls and

tapering. The face slopes for both structures were also based on the recommended slope. [8] The minimum

depths of riprap of 30 inches were also recommended for Class 2 riprap. [8] The calculations for riprap

design can be found in Appendix 4-4.

Structure No.

Outlet Velocity

Outlet Protection Distance Upstream

Distance Downstream

Face Slope

Height (H)

Minimum Depth (T)

27-25 11.72 ft/s Class II- RipRap 16 ft 36 ft 2H : 1V 7.5 ft 30 in 27-26 10.65 ft/s Class II- RipRap 8.5 ft 20.1 ft 2H : 1V 6 ft 30 in

18

FOUN DATION CONSIDER ATION

For the culvert design, proper foundation is required because the base support must be able to

withstand the loading combination of culvert self-weight, design trucks, pavement, and the full water

weight within the culverts. The calculation for loading combination can be found in Appendix 4-5. The

current soil types were identified based on boring log numbers D-14B and E-4B which are the

corresponded logs to the culverts’ stations. The boring logs can be found in Appendix 4-6. Soil

replacement was selected as a method to strengthen the foundation. The depth of the replacement is based

on the current soil type and bearing capacity was performed, see Appendix 4-7. The results of the bearing

capacity test and chosen material are presented in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: The bearing capacity test and foundation design

Structure No.

Boring No.

Soil replacement

depth

Replacement Material

Angle of Internal friction for SPT

value 0f 10

Bearing Capacity

(ksf)

Allowable Load (kips)

Demand load (kips)

27-25 D-14B 15 ft Sat. Sand – Medium Density 35 40 22400 663

27-26 E-4B 20 ft Sat. Sand – Medium Density 35 45.7 18300 461

In Table 4-4, from the boring log, the soil replacement depths were suggested for the culverts

locations. Saturated sand with medium density was selected as a replacing material; the saturated sand

with medium density has an angle of internal friction of 35 degrees for performing bearing capacity

calculation. [3] From the bearing capacity calculation, the allowable loads are well greater than the demand

load and that the foundation will be able to withstand the loading combination.

R OADSIDE SAFETY

In order to ensure the safety of the drivers, end guardrails are to be placed along the roadside. The

distances of the guardrails excluding the channel’s length are presented in Table 4-5. Figure 4-3 in

Appendix 4-8 shows a plan view of the design. The distances prior to the culverts were designed based on

the taper lengths and the wingwalls, which can also be seen in the plan view, and the calculation can be

found in Appendix 4-9.

19

Table 4-5: Roadside Safety Design-Guardrails distances Structure

No. Distance prior to

culvert (L1) Distance beyond

culvert (L2) Channel Width Total Guardrail

Length 27-25 211 ft 25 ft 24 ft 260 ft 27-26 197.5 ft 25 ft 13.5 ft 235 ft

CO N STRU C TI O N C ON SID ER A TI O NS

BY DANIEL PAULSEN

The key to the success of this project is safe, quick, and efficient construction operations.

Therefore, the construction must be considered carefully for every operation. This section summarizes the

construction considerations. This section focuses on the haul road design, a haul and mass diagram for the

movement of soil, special considerations for the Straight River Bridge, equipment recommendations, and

the project duration.

H AUL R OAD DESIGN

Equipment and materials will be transported along a haul road. The haul road will be located on

the future travel lanes. The haul road will consist of the compacted subgrade. The design of the haul road

is based on the soil bearing capacity. The maximum stress on the haul road is that of the articulated

trucks, which require 7,016 pounds per square foot (psf) bearing capacity. The available bearing capacity

of the soil, given the tire dimensions, is 17,411 psf, as shown in Appendix 1. Therefore, the existing soil

is suitable for a haul road. The design is also based on Web Soil Survey. Web Soil Survey is an

interactive map based on soil data from the National Cooperative Soil Survey. According to Web Soil

Survey, the soil may experience severe rutting (1.0 on a 0-1.0 scale). Motorgraders will smooth the haul

road when rutting impedes the construction process. Appendix 5-1-2 provides Web Soil Survey printouts

and an explanation of the soil rating.

SOIL TRANSPORTATION

Haul and mass diagrams were made to simulate the transportation of soil throughout the jobsite.

Figure 5-1 and 5-2 show the haul and mass diagrams, respectively. Both represent the same half-mile

section. Haul lines are displayed on the mass diagram. The dozer balance line marks 150 meters, which is

20

the maximum distance that bulldozers will push material. Above that line, articulated trucks will haul the

material. Average haul distances and the total material moved by both dozers and articulated trucks are

shown in Table 5-1. The data in Table 5-1 is the basis for estimating the project duration and cost for cut

and fill operations. Appendix Section 5-2 shows the calculations used to construct the haul and mass

diagrams and find the data in Table 5-1.

Figure 5-1: Haul Diagram

Figure 5-2: Mass Diagram

21

Table 5-1: Haul Data Haul Distance (m) Quantity (m3)

Truck Haul 1 410 127,051 Truck Haul 2 770 23,185

Average Truck Haul 492 150,236 Dozer Haul 1 135 9,298 Dozer Haul 2 100 23,185

Average Dozer Haul 110 32,483

The analysis performed on this section can be performed on the entire distance of proposed US

231 in order to find the deficit or surplus of material for the entire jobsite. Simultaneous analysis of all

three phases of proposed US 231 is necessary to accurately estimate the transportation of soil for the

project, as soil is likely be transported between phases.

STRAIGHT RIVER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

Special Considerations were made for the construction of the Straight River bridge. 85-foot

beams span the bridge. Confirmation was made that the beams can be transported to the jobsite. The

beams satisfy weight and length requirements for trucking. The beams will be transported down SR 162

and will travel 700 feet along a construction road south of the Straight River. The beams will be placed

using two Link Belt RTC-8090 Series 2 cranes situated on either side of the river. The cranes require

approximately 9,800 pounds of lifting capacity. The cranes have a lifting capacity of 11,500 pounds at the

required boom length and angle. Appendix 5-3-1 contains the calculations required to determine the crane

specifications. A bearing capacity analysis similar to that performed for the haul road confirmed that the

soil has sufficient load bearing capacity to support the cranes. Appendix 5-3-2 documents the bearing

capacity calculations.

EQUIPMENT

Table 5-2 contains a list of equipment recommendations. This list is only the minimum

equipment necessary. The equipment was chosen according to the manufacturer’s specifications and the

required equipment output. The equipment complement shown is that used in the calculation for the

project duration. These quantities can be increased in order to decrease the project duration.

Table 5-2: Equipment Recommendation Summary

22

Equipment Type Model Number Required Dump Truck Cat 772 2 Bull Dozer Cat D8 2

Motor Grader Cat 140M 1 Roller Cat CS76 2

Track Loader Cat 963 2 Asphalt Paver Cat AP655D 1

Articulated Truck Deere 300D 5 Rough Terrain Crane Linkbelt RTC 8090 Series 2 2

PROJECT DURATION

The project will take approximately 21 weeks to complete. This assumes that the bridges and

overpasses are built simultaneously with the 4-lane highway. If this is not the case, the project duration

will increase. For example, the bridge over the Straight River will add 8 weeks to the project duration if it

is constructed in series with the 4-lane roadway. The 21 week duration also assumes 40 hour weeks.

Durations were available for elements designed by Bear Engineering; other elements such as the Hunley

Creek Bridge were assumed to be parallel construction with the roadway. If these elements are not

constructed simultaneously with the 4-lane highway, accurate project duration requires determining their

duration.

The project duration was found by calculating the duration of each individual activity, as shown

in Appendix 5-4-1, and adding them in a critical path method with EZStrobe, a discrete event simulator.

Additional parameters include the equipment and personnel required and the time between activities.

Appendix 5-4-2 contains EZStrobe printouts. Appendix 5-4-3 contains an explanation and justification for

the software.

23

CO S T ES TI MA TE

BY DANIEL PAULSEN

The total project cost is estimated as 42.4 million dollars. Table 5-3 contains a breakdown of the

cost estimate according to each operation.

Table 5-3: Cost Summary Operation Cost

Clearing and Grubbing $136,157 Earthmoving $14,853,276

Grading $3,368,534 Paving $16,101,147

Culverts $976,876 Bridges $6,066,685

Miscellaneous $302,951 Wetland Mitigation $548,148

Total $42.4 Million

Operational costs were generally estimated from the unit prices available from RS Means and

INDOT. The RS Means unit prices were used because of the comprehensiveness of the information

available. When local information was preferable, the INDOT unit price summary was used. Several costs

were found by calculating the operation duration and multiplying this value by the hourly personnel and

equipment cost. The material cost was then added to attain a total cost for the operation. Appendix 5-5

contains the cost calculations.

24

REF ER E NC ES

[1] – “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.” Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2010.

[2] – “AISC Steel Construction Manual.” United States of America. AISC. 2008.

[3] – “Angle of Internal Friction on the Geotechnical Information Website." Geotechnical Information

Website. 2007. http://www.geotechnicalinfo.com/angle_of_internal_friction.html.

[4] – “Design Manual 7.” Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1986

[5] – Fricker, Jon and Robert Whitford. Fundamentals of Transportation Engineering. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.

[6] – “Indiana, Precipitation, August 1895-2010." NCDC. 2009. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-

precip/time-series/?parameter=pcp&month=8&year=2009&filter=1&state=12&div=0.

[7]: “Pay Items.” INDOT. 2010. http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/pay/index.html.

[8] – “The Indiana Design Manual.” Indiana. INDOT. 2010.