1 / 23

INVERTED BASE Pavement Design Ju ne 1, 2010 The Virginia Experience

INVERTED BASE Pavement Design Ju ne 1, 2010 The Virginia Experience. Randy Weingart, P.E. Director: Materials Management / Product Research Luck Stone Corporation Richmond, Virginia. Inverted Base. Characterize the materials for use in the Mechanistic design equations for the ICAR protocols

uzuri
Download Presentation

INVERTED BASE Pavement Design Ju ne 1, 2010 The Virginia Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INVERTED BASEPavement DesignJune 1, 2010The Virginia Experience Randy Weingart, P.E. Director: Materials Management / Product Research Luck Stone Corporation Richmond, Virginia

  2. Inverted Base • Characterize the materials for use in the Mechanistic design equations for the ICAR protocols • Design an inverted base using the ICAR Model and compare to the current MEPDG AASHTO model • Estimate comparable construction and material costs of alternative designs.

  3. Luck Stone Bull RunHighway 659 Bypass

  4. Primary Outcomes • Develop and Document a Case study for an Inverted Pavement application • Design • Construction and Instrumentation • Periodic Performance testing • Collaborative effort between Industry, VDOT and FHWA • Provide knowledge to Pavement Design Community of alternative performing design choice • Demonstrate predictive aspects of ICAR model relative to actual documented performance.

  5. Bypass Location

  6. State Geology

  7. Test Section LocationLooking North-West

  8. Test Section - Current Design48+00 to 53+00 500 ft Current Design - Instrumented Inverted Design

  9. Test Section - Inverted Design53+00 to 58+25 500 ft Inverted Design Inverted Design

  10. Original Section Inverted Section 1.5" SM-9.5D 2" HMA Surface 2.0" IM-19.0A 3" HMA Intermediate 6" Unbound Aggregate Base 7.5" BM-25.0 3.0" ODGL (Open Graded Drainage Layer) 10" Cement Treated 8.0" Cement Treated Sub-grade (Design CBR 5.0) Untreated Subgrade 10,000 psi

  11. PAVEMENT DESIGN BULL RUN BYPASS • MEPDG (Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide) • ICAR (International Center Aggregate Research)

  12. Advantages of ICAR Approach • ICAR Considers the UAB (Unbound Aggregate Base) as a nonlinear and stress sensitive particulate medium. • ICAR models account for directional dependency of the stiffnesses in the unbound layer (Anisotropic vs Isotropic behavior) • Accurate modeling of UAB stress states • Gives realistic stress distribution • Eliminates or reduces significant horizontal tension

  13. Nonlinear Anisotropic Ex= 0.3 Ey Linear Isotropic Ex = Ey 25 38 20 30 15 25 10 5 20 0 -10 15 -20 10 -30 5 -40 2 Pavement Response AnalysisHorizontal Stress in Base layer

  14. Anisotropic Life vs Isotropic Life

  15. = EASL ( ADT ) ( T ) ( T ) ( G ) ( D ) ( L ) ( 365 ) ( Y ) f Traffic Calculation Design Period ADT % Truck Growth Rate Growth factor Truck Factor % Truck in Design Lane ESAL 30 10,000 0.21 0.05 66.44 0.413 0.85 17,877,353 25 10,000 0.21 0.05 47.73 0.413 0.85 12,842,399 20 10,000 0.21 0.05 33.07 0.413 0.85 8,897,381 15 10,000 0.21 0.05 21.58 0.413 0.85 5,806,356 10 10,000 0.21 0.05 12.58 0.413 0.85 3,384,457 5 10,000 0.21 0.05 5.53 0.413 0.85 1,486,836

  16. Design Iterations

  17. Original Section Inverted Section 1.5" SM-9.5D 2" HMA Surface 2.0" IM-19.0A 3" HMA Intermediate 6" Unbound Aggregate Base 7.5" BM-25.0 3.0" ODGL (Open Graded Drainage Layer) 10" Cement Treated 8.0" Cement Treated Sub-grade (Design CBR 5.0) Untreated Subgrade 10,000 psi

  18. INSTRUMENTATIONFHWA

  19. Construction Cost Comparison - Original Section vs. Inverted Section

  20. Potential Savings • Original section $20,640 per 100 linear ft • Inverted section $16,071 per 100 linear ft • Difference of 22.14%

  21. INVERTED BASEPavement DesignJune 1, 2010The Virginia Experience Randy Weingart, P.E. Director: Materials Management / Product Research Luck Stone Corporation Richmond, Virginia

More Related