Port Huron, Michigan Gregg Aukeman Andrew Dobbs Adam Mueller Manuel Torreira

 Sponsor: Parsons Brinckerhoff – Jeff Chenault, Laurie Langlois  Faculty Advisor: Dr. Valerian Kwigizile  Professor: John Polasek ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

40 mph design speed Left-hand entrance onto I-69 WB Flooding due to wetlands BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION (Google, 2012)

 Problems are primarily concentrated west of Michigan Road.  Design is restricted to this half only.  Michigan Road serves as a tie in point.  Scope of design work:  Horizontal Alignment  Superelevation  Storm Water Consideration  Vertical Alignment  Earthwork  Wetlands Impact  Cost Estimate SCOPE OF WORK (Google, 2012)

CONSTRAINTS Narrow right-of-way Wetlands Tie in points

 Circular paths cause centripetal acceleration  Superelevation (e)  MDOT does not allow superelevation above 7%  Side friction factor (f)  Function of design speed HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT (AASHTO, 2004)

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT Friction Factor Design Speed (mph) Superelevation (%) Radius (ft)

Friction Factor Design Speed (mph) Superelevation (%) Radius (ft) COMPARISON TO MDOT STANDARDS (MDOT, 2012)

Ramp A is close to right-of-way Ramp D exits on left I-69 EB bridge has long spanSevere bridge skew angles Objective: Make design speeds as high as possible

Objective: Modify alternative 1 to increase feasibility and constructability Severe bridge skew angles

Objective: Eliminate severe skew angles Low design speeds

 Meetings were held with advisor and client.  Alternative 1: Safety hazard due to left hand exit; does not meet design criteria.  Alternative 3: Design speeds too low; does not meet design criteria.  Alternative 2: Meets design criteria and is constructable. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

OTHER HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS Lane Width (ft)Left Shoulder Width (ft)Right Shoulder Width (ft) Mainlines128 Ramps1668 (MDOT, 2012)

Entrance Ramps Taper Length = 300 feet Parallel Length = 360 feet OTHER HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS (MDOT, 2012)

Exit Ramps Taper Length = 300 feet Parallel Length = 360 – 150 = 210 feet OTHER HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS (MDOT, 2012)

 Superelevation rate (e%) and transition slope of pavement edges (∆%) depends on design speed and radius. SUPERELEVATION (MDOT, 2012)

SUPERELEVATION (MDOT, 2012)

Ramp A Ramp B Ramp D Mainlines (MDOT, 2012)

 MDOT allows a distance of 1/3 L after the PC or PT to fully transition to the required superelevation.  All roadways are being rotated about the centerline. SUPERELEVATION Speed (mph)Radius (ft)e %Δ %DSCL(S-D) / Δ % *1001/3*L2/3*L + C I-69 WB (1) I-69 WB (2) I-69 WB (3) I-69 EB (1) I-69 EB (2) I-94 WB I-94 EB Ramp A Ramp B Ramp D

SUPERELEVATION

STORM WATER CONSIDERATION

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (MDOT, 2012)

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT K Values for Crest CurvesK Values for Sag Curves Design Speed (mph)K K (AASHTO, 2004)

 Constraints:  Match existing elevations and grades at tie in points  I-94, I-69, Michigan Road  16’3” clearance for underpassing roads  assume conservative 84” bridge thickness  Target elevations for 100 year storm  MDOT vertical grade restrictions  Ramps: -5% to 5%  Mainlines: -3% to 3% VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

 Rigid pavements for entire interchange.  Long service lives  Less expensive to maintain than flexible pavements  Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)  Contraction Joints  Tie bars and dowel bars  Base Course  Provides additional load distribution, contributes to drainage  Open-Graded Drainage Course material  Assumptions for the purpose of earthwork computation  12 inch- Surface Course  16 inch- Base Course PAVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS

 Average end area method  Every station (100 feet intervals)  Necessary variables:  Proposed elevation  Existing elevation  Embankment ratios (2:1 for ramp D and eastbound I-69, 4:1 for all other roadways)  Pavement thickness (28 inches)  Elevations obtained from Microstation function. EARTHWORK

 Multiply area by station increment (100 feet) and divide by 27 to convert to cubic yards.  Earthwork was excluded where bridges exist. Summary: EARTHWORK EARTHWORK (cyd) ROADWAYCUTFILL WB9410,0813 EB9422,700- WB69134, EB696,784141,871 RAMPA1,21288,991 RAMPB36,88414,165 RAMPD-297,638 RAMPF2,6313,926 CUTFILL TOTAL215,117547,038 TOTAL FILL NEEDED331,922

 Slope stake lines: where embankments meet existing ground profile.  Everything within slope stake lines is part of the proposed footprint.  Wetlands within slope stake lines will be disturbed.  Must replace two acres for every acre disturbed (MDEQ requirement). WETLANDS IMPACT

 Equation used at every station (100 feet).  All points connected to generate slope stake lines. WETLANDS IMPACT

 Wetlands within footprint: 7.7 acres.  Restore 15.4 acres.  Within interchange or use wetlands bank. WETLANDS IMPACT

COST ESTIMATE

 Horizontal Alignment: Designed three alternatives  Selected alternative 2  Superelevation Transitions  Vertical Alignment: Match existing, provide necessary underclearance, hit storm water target points  Earthwork: 215,117 cyd of cut, 547,038 cyd of fill  Wetlands: Restore 15.4 acres  Cost Estimate: $31,768,277 SUMMARY

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?