RTI
PROJECT AGREEMENT
Between the
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(RECEIVING AGENCY)
AND
University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) and Texas Tech
University (TTU)
Form ProjAgre
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Fiscal Year
2015
Research Project
Implementation Project
(PERFORMING AGENCY/S )
Project Number:
Project Title:
0-6843
Document Date:
12/30/2014
Evaluating Use of Sub-Grade Drains with PFC for Stormwater Drainage
THIS PROJECT AGREEMENT is made pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Research and Implementation
Agreement(s) (CRIA) entered into by and between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and UTSA and TTU.
This project agreement is under the terms of:
CRIA Article 9A and is considered a part of the Annual Program.
CRIA Article 9B and is considered an independent project.
PART I. Project Description. The Performing Agency(s) will undertake and complete the project named above and as further
described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this Project Agreement. Exhibit B must comply with the requirements of
the most recent Research Manual.
PART II. Project Duration and Performance Period. Continuation of the project beyond August 31 each year is subject to
authorization by TxDOT and the availability of funds. TxDOT will notify the Performing Agency(s) of initial project approval and
annual continuation approvals by Activation Letters. The Activation Letter will signify final approval and authorization to the
Performing Agency(s) to initiate the work for a fiscal year. Each Activation Letter shall include the project activation date and shall
be attached hereto and made a part of this agreement as if it had been attached at the time this Project Agreement is signed. The
Activation Letters will specify the remaining project duration unless terminated in accordance with Article 29 of the CRIA.
12/31/2016
Project Termination Date
PART III. Project Budget. The total estimated project cost, which includes all authorized direct and indirect costs which may be
incurred by the Performing Agency(s), is shown below along with a breakdown by fiscal year and agency. Attached hereto as Exhibit
A and made a part of this agreement is an annual Itemized Budget for each Performing Agency which details approved project costs
for each fiscal year of this project.
Budget Breakdown
(Attach an itemized budget
for each fiscal year
for each Performing Agency.)
Total Project Budget:
FY
2015
2016
2017
Agency
UTSA
UTSA
UTSA
Budget
38,539
52,580
9,411
FY
2015
2016
2017
Agency
TTU
TTU
TTU
Budget
85,010
71,570
20,183
277,293
PART IV. Project Supervision. The Performing Agency Research Supervisor, whose agency shall be the lead agency, and other
primary research staff are named below.
Name
Title
Agency
Phone No.
Email
Research Supervisor Jie Huang
Assistant Professor
UTSA
210-458-7908
Jie.huang@utsa.edu
Researcher or PI
Hatim Sharif
Associate Professor
UTSA
210-458-6478
Hatim.sharif@utsa.edu
Researcher or PI
Samer Dessouky
Associate Professor
UTSA
210-458-7072
Samer.dessouky@utsa.ed
u
Researcher or PI
Ted Cleveland
Associate Professor
TTU
832-722-4185
Theodore.cleveland@ttu.
edu
Researcher or PI
Elma Annette Hernandez
Assistant Professor
1 of 2
TTU
806-742-3523
Annette.hernandez@ttu.e
du
Form ProjAgre
(Rev. 5/2013)
PART V. No Waiver. This Project Agreement does not waive the rights, responsibilities, and obligations provided each party under
the CRIA and incorporates all the provisions of the CRIA as if set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Project Agreement is hereby accepted and executed.
Approved and Accepted by the Performing Agency:
Date:
Amy Ossola-Phillips, Director
University of Texas at San Antonio
Engineering Research Service Center
Date:
Kathleen Harris, Senior Associate VP for Research
Texas Tech University
Approved and Accepted by TxDOT:
Date:
Kenneth Stewart,
Director of Contract Services
Texas Department of Transportation maintains the information collected through this form. With few exceptions, you are entitled on request to be informed about the
information that we collect about you. Under §§552.021 and 552.023 of the Texas Government Code, you also are entitled to receive and review the information. Under
§559.004 of the Government Code, you are also entitled to have us correct information about you that is incorrect. For inquiries call 512/416-4730.
2 of Project No. 0-6843
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
UTSA
2015
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
13,349 Jie Huang
10,640 Hatim Sharif
Samer Dessouky
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
4,046
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
1,000
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
$
1,000
Out-of-State Travel
Other
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
Total
Costs
% of time*
8%
2%
2%
$
23,989
$
4,046
$
1,000
$
1,000
$
5,000
$
$
35,035
35035 $
$
$
16,466
12,963
3,504
$
38,539
-
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
Xiaofeng LiuProvide assistance with numerical simulation$
5,000
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
INDIRECT COSTS
47.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** =
less University's Contribution
-37%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
1 of 6
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
UTSA
2016
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
18,781 Jie Huang
16,282 Hatim Sharif
Samer Dessouky
Total
Costs
% of time*
8%
4%
4%
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
5,737
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
1,000
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
$
1,000
Out-of-State Travel
Other
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
$
35,063
$
5,737
$
1,000
$
1,000
-
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
Xiaofeng LiuProvide assistance with numerical simulation$
5,000
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$
5,000
$
$
47,800
INDIRECT COSTS
47.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** = $ 47,800
less University's Contribution
-37%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
$
$
$
22,466
17,686
4,780
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
52,580
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
2 of 6
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
UTSA
2017
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
- Jie Huang
7,181 Hatim Sharif
Samer Dessouky
Total
Costs
% of time*
0%
0%
0%
$
7,181
$
574
$
500
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
$
300
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$
-
$
$
8,555
INDIRECT COSTS
47.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** = $ 8,555
less University's Contribution
-37%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
$
$
$
4,021
3,165
856
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
9,411
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
574
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
500
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
$
300
Out-of-State Travel
Other
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
-
-
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
3 of 6
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
Texas Tech University
2015
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
Total
Costs
% of time*
9,946 Theodore G. Cleveland
2%
Elma A H Uddameri
6%
30,400 Graduate & Undergraduate Students
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
5,893
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
23,000 materials to build models
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
$
2,740 2 trips to AUS to meet PMC
Out-of-State Travel
Other
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
$
40,346
$
5,893
$
23,000
$
8,573
5,833
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
$
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$
-
$
$
77,812
INDIRECT COSTS
49.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** = $ 71,979
less University's Contribution
39%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
$
$
$
35,270
28,072
7,198
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
85,010
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
4 of 6
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
Texas Tech University
2016
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
Total
Costs
% of time*
8,388 Theodore G. Cleveland
8%
7448 Elma A H Uddameri
8%
29,664 Graduate & Undergraduate Students
$
45,500
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
9,542
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
Out-of-State Travel
Other
$
-
$
1,370
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
9,517
$
10,887
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
9,542
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
$
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$
-
$
$
65,929
INDIRECT COSTS
49.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** = $ 56,412
less University's Contribution
39%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
$
$
$
27,642
22,001
5,641
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
71,570
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
5 of 6
Form ExhA
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Itemized Budget - Exhibit A
Project No: 0-6843
Agency:
Fiscal Year:
Indirect Rate:
Texas Tech University
2017
10%
Revision Number:
Revision Date:
Estimated
Budget
DIRECT COSTS
Salaries & Wages (by category)
Professional (Combine all Professionals)
Subprofessional & Technical
Clerical (Non-routine)
Itemization
list each Professional individually
$
$
Total
Costs
% of time*
- Theodore G. Cleveland
0%
Elma A H Uddameri
0%
11,458 Graduate & Undergraduate Students
$
11,458
Total Fringe Benefits
Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option)
$
2,282
Total Expendable Goods & Supplies
Operating & Other Expenses
Included in Modified Total Direct Costs
In-State Travel
Out-of-State Travel
Other
$
-
$
1,370
Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs **
Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary)
Other
$
3,562
$
4,932
Total Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option)
$
2,282
Total Operating & Other Expenses
Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work)
$
Total Subcontracts
Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately)
$
Total Equipment
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$
-
$
$
18,672
INDIRECT COSTS
49.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs ***
MTDC ** = $ 15,110
less University's Contribution
39%
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page)
$
$
$
7,404
5,893
1,511
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
20,183
* Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget
** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21,
MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships,
and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000.
*** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC.
Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by
conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted.
6 of 6
0-6843 Exhibit B
TxDOT Project 0-6843: Evaluating Use of Sub-Grade Drains with PFC for Stormwater
Drainage
1. Abstract
Water standing on pavements is a major safety concern. Water accumulation on roadways leads
to splash and spray and even hydroplaning, which contribute significantly to auto accidents. This
project will develop a design method for the underdrains of porous friction course (PFC) to
eliminate standing water on roadway surfaces, especially difficult drain segments. The project
includes both large-scale testing and numerical modeling of storm water drainage. The large–
scale testing involves testing a few pavement sections and measuring water surface within and on
the PFC. The numerical model will couple the run-off on PFC surface with the seepage within
the PFC to avoid the limitations of existing numerical models. After calibrated by the test data,
the numerical model will be used to simulate the dynamic process of infiltration, run-off and
seepage for various pavement conditions under different rainfall events. With the results from
the numerical modeling, the effect of underdrains on removing standing water on PFC will be
quantified and a number of design charts, equations or similar tools will be developed to assist in
determining the size, spacing and configuration of the underdrains. The Performing Agency
shall provide these design charts to TxDOT which will be used for regular segments as well as
difficult drainage segments.
2. Implementation
Project 0-6843 will result in a design procedure and a number of design charts to assist the
design of underdrains that are used in conjunction with PFC to eliminate standing water during
extreme rainfall events. The design procedure will determine the size, spacing and configuration
of the underdrains, particularly for difficult drainage segments such as super-elevation transitions
and roadway sags. Implementation will include development of a self-documented design
module suitable for direct inclusion into the hydraulic design manual. The Performing Agency
shall provide handouts, documentation and a presentation summarizing the research results with
the approval of the Receiving Agency’s Project Team.
3. Work Plan
At the beginning of the project, a kick-off meeting to seek feedbacks, instructions, information,
and suggestions for how the work plan shall proceed. During the project, the researchers shall
keep frequent contact with the Receiving Agency’s Project Team and Project Manager to update
the progress and resolve any issue.
Task 1: Literature Survey and Summary of Existing Models.
The researchers shall conduct a thorough literature review on the subject of drainage for PFCs.
Specifically, the researchers will synthesize existing knowledge in the literature based on
research-related information including but not limited to:

State-of-art techniques regarding drainage prediction.
1
0-6843 Exhibit B




The strengths and weaknesses of the existing prediction tools (including the model to be
developed by the research team).
Classification of the existing prediction tools into theoretical, empirical, and numerical
categories and their ranges of applicability.
The designing tools and chart and relative performance.
Relevant laboratory and field measurement data available and incorporated usage to this
project.
Task 1 Deliverables: Technical memorandum1 (TM1) shall summarize the important findings
of the literature review, including information related to the above itemized issues and others as
discovered during Task 1. This task will be jointly undertaken by UTSA and TTU. UTSA will be
responsible for the synthesis and writing of the technical memorandum.
Task 2: Physical Modeling – Large-scale Testing.
The goal of this task is to develop a physical model to measure water depth both within and on
the pavement surface for various road geometries. The Performing Agency will conduct a set of
physical model tests on a reasonably large (but not full scale) apparatus to develop a data set to
calibrate the numerical model so it can be used for the parametric study in a subsequent task.
Task 2.1: Lab facility modification
It is relatively easy to measure flow depth and velocity on the pavement surface. However, to
measure flow properties inside the pavement is not that straightforward. Thus, a specially
designed measurement device and procedure will be used inside the pavement. Essentially, an
array of holes with a diameter of 0.5 inch will be drilled into the PFC distributed over the test
section of the pavement. Visual inspection as well as tape measurement of flow depth inside
these holes will be carried out during the experiment. In addition, inclined manometers will be
placed on the bottom side of the PFCs to measure the hydrostatic pressure at these hole locations.
Task 2.2: Quantification of drainage properties of PFC
The drainage properties (mainly the hydraulic conductivity) of typical PFC materials will be
tested using standard procedures, such as constant head and falling head tests. These values will
be very important for the calibration of numerical models.
Task 2.3: Experiment set
As specified in the research project statement, the physical modeling work will consider various
road geometries. Accordingly, four general configurations will be examined: 1. a normal
pavement with PFC (baseline), 2. a super-elevation transition, 3. a sag condition, and 4. a nearzero longitudinal slope. The rainfall rates will be adjusted to model three conditions: trace
rainfall to only slightly involve the PFC, mid-range rate to fully involve the PFC, but not produce
ponding, and high-range to generate ponding and over-pavement flow conditions. Longitudinal
(along travel direction) slopes will be varied to be representative of existing conditions.
Corresponding to the three conditions, the free-surface profile along the cross slope has three
possibilities which are presented in Fig. 1.
2
0-6843 Exhibit B
Figure 1. Possible free surface profiles along the cross slope.
In the design of various roadway geometries, both an approach and exit slope is anticipated as a
super-elevation transition, sag or fly-over return to grade will involve a mid-section slope change.
In Table 1 below, the experimental conditions for the slopes are listed.
Table 1: List of the experiments that will be conducted
Configuration
Approach
Exit Longitudinal Slope
Longitudinal
Slope
Normal
0.005, 0.01,0.05 N/A
condition
Super-elevation 0.005,0.01,0.05 0.001, 0.002, 0.003
transition
Fly-over return 0.005,0.01,0.05 0.001, 0.002, 0.003
to grade
Multi-lane, low 0.001,0.005,0.01 0.001,0.005,0.01
slope
Average Transverse
(cross) Slope
0.001, 0.002, 0.005
0.001,0.002,0.005
0.001,0.002,0.005
0.001,0.002,0.005
Task 2 Deliverables: TTU shall lead this task. At the end of this task, the performing agency
shall submit technical memorandum 2 (TM2) to the Receiving Agency, which shall include the
details of the experiment conditions, results, and analysis.
Task 3: Numerical Modeling.
The water flow induced by rainfall is a complicated dynamic process involving infiltration,
seepage and run-off. To cope with the complexity and requirements of TxDOT practice, a
comprehensive numerical modeling package will be used to simulate the coupling process of
run-off over the pavement surface and subsurface flow (seepage) inside the PFC. Figure 2 shows
the schematic of the modeling framework. It consists of two parts: 2D nonlinear hydrodynamic
model for the surface run-off and fully 3D subsurface flow model for seepage within the PFC.
3
0-6843 Exhibit B
Figure 2. Modeling framework for the coupling between surface run-off and subsurface flow in
PFC.
Various numerical modeling techniques for shallow flows (sheet flow in this case) have been
used for surface run-off problems. They are based on kinematic wave model (KW, balance
between gravity and resistance), diffusion wave model (DW, balance between gravity, pressure
gradient, and resistance), or dynamic wave model (DYW, considering all forces). KW and DW
models are useful for moderate slopes in a super-elevation transition; however, for very small
slopes, their applicability is questionable due to oversimplification. The Performing Agency will
utilize DYW for the run-off which involves both longitudinal variation and lateral spreading as
shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. Schematic view of the 2D sheet flow over curbed pavement. The spread T changes
along the longitudinal direction. However, water depth H and velocity U are both functions of x
and y.
For the seepage within the PFC, a fully 3D porous media flow equation will be solved. The
equation has the form of
4
0-6843 Exhibit B
[𝐶(ℎ) + 𝑆𝑠 𝑆𝑤 ]
𝜕ℎ
= ∇ ∙ [𝐾(ℎ) ∙ ∇(ℎ + 𝑧)] + 𝑄
𝜕𝑡
where h is the head, K(h) is the hydraulic conductivity, z is the vertical position, and Q is the
source term due to rainfall. Q only applies at upper boundary of the PFC.
The run-off and seepage will be coupled through the conservation of mass and momentum at the
interface.
Task 3.1: Model calibration
The researchers shall calibrate numerical models using the experimental data obtained from Task
2. The slopes, the pavement conditions and rainfall intensity will be the same as the experiments.
The hydraulic conductivity obtained from Task 2 will be used in the modeling. The Manning's
roughness n will be adjusted until the numerical models yield good predictions of spread and
water depth with the experiments. If the calibration is not successful for certain experimental
condition, it suggests that the measurement error in the experiment might be too large and
unacceptable. It could also be due to the error in the numerical model setup. Both possibilities
will be explored. This exercise is necessary to guarantee the high quality of results.
Task 3.2: Water flow within and on PFC without underdrain
The focus of this sub-task is to investigate the water within and on PFC without underdrain.
Various pavement slopes (transverse and longitudinal), rain intensities, and pavement widths will
be studied in this sub-task. The PFC thickness will be 2 inches (50 mm) or otherwise specified
by TxDOT. The water surface under various conditions will be developed. The important
parameter obtained from this sub-task is the thickness of the water layer, Hw that is a function of
rainfall intensity, and pavement slopes (longitudinal and transverse). The hydraulic conductivity
of PFC, of course, influences the water flow; however, it is not considered as a variable in this
study. The thickness of the water will be presented as pavement transverse slope and rainfall
intensity in a figure. A series of figures will be developed to vary the longitudinal slope.
For pavement sections with changing longitudinal slopes such as super-elevation transitions
listed in Table 1, different combination of approach and exist longitudinal slopes will be
investigated to develop figures.
Task 3.3: Water flow within and on PFC with underdrain
The focus of this sub-task is to investigate the water within and on PFC with underdrain. Various
pavement slopes, rain intensities, and underdrain sizes will be studied in this sub-task. The
achieved results will be compared with these from Task 3.2 to obtain the reduction of water
thickness, ∆H, due to underdrains. The reduction will be maximal at the locations directly above
the underdrains and decrease gradually as getting further from the underdrains as illustrated in
Fig. 4. For this sub-task, the reduction of water thickness will be presented in a figure as a
function of underdrain sizes and the distance from the underdrains. Since rainfall intensities and
pavement slopes are also variables, a number of similar figures will be created to consider the
different rainfall intensities and pavement slopes.
5
0-6843 Exhibit B
Figure 4. Water reduction due to underdrain.
Task 3 Deliverables: UTSA shall lead this task. At the end of this task, the performing agency
shall submit the technical memorandum 3 (TM3) to the Receiving Agency, which will include
the details of the method, numerical models, completed parametric study and important findings.
Task 4: Analysis Procedures, and Design Procedure and Tools for PFCs.
Task 4.1 Analysis procedure
Some of the field conditions may not be fully covered in this study. Task 4.1 serves as a
foundation to analyze any particular condition encountered. The major product of this sub-task
is a well calibrated numerical model with operation details for the use of TxDOT engineers.
Task 4.2 Design tools
For commonly encountered situations, a design procedure will be formed and is outlined in Fig.
5. With the yielded data from Tasks 1-4, the Performing Agency may make modifications.
Figure 5. Preliminary design procedure.
6
0-6843 Exhibit B
4.3 Design of sag segments
To allow the design procedure shown in Fig. 5 applicable for sag segments, a conversion of
water thickness, Hw is needed. The conversion follows the principle of mass conservation of
water, namely the total amount of rainfall for two equal areas should be the same, which leads to
the conversion shown in Fig. 6. First, the total volume of water for the none-sag segment,
having an area equal to the projected area of the sag segment, is calculated. This volume should
be equal to the volume of water at the sag segment. Thus, the water thickness, Hw' at the sag
segment can be calculated. Once the water thickness is obtained, the design procedure presented
in Fig. 5 can be used to design underdrain. It is noteworthy that the calculation of the total water
volume may need to consider the shape of the water surface.
Figure 6. Conversion to water thickness for sag segment
Task 4 Deliverables: UTSA shall lead this task in writing up the analysis and design procedures
and the detailed documentation on how the use the design tools developed in this project. TTU
shall participate in this task by summarizing the relevant parts of work.
Task 5: Project Management
The research team shall implement a project management plan that will foster communication
between the research team and the Receiving Agency Project Team, and ensure the results of the
research are implementable to TxDOT. This project management plan includes the preparation
of monthly progress reports as well as frequent meetings between the Research Team and
TxDOT.
To ensure a continuous flow of information between the Performing Agency and TxDOT, the
Project Supervisor (PS) will provide the TxDOT Project Manager (PM) with monthly status
reports. The PS shall provide status reports within the first five working days at the beginning of
each month and will continue throughout the duration of the project.
In addition to monthly progress reports, the research team shall meet with the TxDOT Project
Team at least twice a year to discuss progress on the research, obtain direction, and address any
critical issues that may impact progress or implementation of the research results. The
anticipated meeting schedule for the project is as follows:



A kick-off meeting within the first two weeks from the notice to proceed.
A mid-term progress meeting approximately 18 months after the notice to proceed.
A wrap-up meeting one month before the end date of the project.
7
0-6843 Exhibit B
The Performing Agency shall conduct each meeting in Austin, unless an alternate location is
agreed upon by the Project Team. The PS shall attend each meeting in person. Other members
of the research team may participate in person or via web conferencing as needed. Receiving
Agency will make web-conferencing available to those participants who are unable to attend in
person.
The research team shall be responsible for preparing the presentation materials for the meetings
as well as providing meeting notes after each meeting. The PS will prepare and distribute
meeting notes to the Project Team within two weeks of each meeting. This task will continue
throughout the duration of the project.
In addition, the Performing Agency shall produce a set of examples of how to use design tools,
which warrants a task-level consideration. The examples will be part of the final report. UTSA
will lead this task with the help of TTU.
4. Identification of Information Technology (IT)
None.
5. Assistance by TxDOT Personnel
Guidance from the TxDOT Project Team will be provided throughout the duration of the project.
Assistance from TxDOT hydraulic and pavement engineers will be required, as well as
communications through phone and email, and to obtain relevant data. Some involvement of
TxDOT personnel on developing application examples is also anticipated. A preliminary list of
the anticipated assistance from TxDOT is presented below for each task:





Task 1 – none
Task 2 – TxDOT needs to provide research team with PFC design information to allow
the research team to build pavement sections for large-scale testing.
Task 3 – none
Task 4 – none
Task 5 – provide a typical case to allow the research team to develop a design example
8
Form DelTable
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Deliverables Table
Project No. 0-6843
Note: Deliverables on this Table are not considered accepted by TxDOT until formal notice is
provided by the RTI Project Manager. All written deliverables should be submitted to
RTIMain@txdot.gov. For instructions of submission procedures for other formats, see chapter 7 of RTI’s
University Handbook. The Research Supervisor is ultimately responsible to TxDOT for all
deliverables, no matter what agency is assigned as the primary developer. However, the primary
developer should be listed under the column “Primary Agency” for each deliverable.
Status Reports: The research supervisor must submit written progress reports at least monthly
rd
outlining work and staff utilization. Reports should be submitted to the project manager no later than the 3
day of the following month (July 3 for the June status, August 3 for July status, etc.).
Technical Memoranda: A technical memorandum documenting work completed for each task shall be
listed on this table as deliverables.
Deliverables: Deliverables will be as specified on the Project Statement (Research Project) or IPR
(Implementation Project). Examples of products typically most appropriate as stand-alone items include
Guidebooks, Training Materials, Devices, Instruction Manuals, Brochures, and Software.
Due Date
No.
R1
PSR
TM-1
TM-2
TM-3
TM-4
Deliverable Description
Primary
Agency
Comments
Research Report
11/30/2016
UTSA
Summary of work
performed, findings and
recommendations
Technical Memorandum for
Task 1
Technical Memorandum for
Task 2
Technical Memorandum for
Task 3
12/31/2016
UTSA
2/28/2015
UTSA
Summary of the literature review
06/30/2016
TTU
09/30/2016
UTSA
Technical Memorandum for
Task 4
10/31/2016
UTSA
The experiment conditions,
results, and analysis
Numerical simulations details,
including the method, models,
parametric study and important
findings
The analysis and design
procedures
Revision Number:
Date Updated: 12/31/2014
9 of 10
(before project
termination)
Literature review, details of the
experimental and numerical
study, and design procedure
Outline of the study and
important findinds
Schedule of Research Activities
Project 0-6843: Evaluating Use of Sub-Grade Drains with PFC for Stormwater Drainage
Form Schedule
(Rev. 5/2013)
(RTI)
Created Date:
Original Schedule
Note: Each task must produce one or more deliverables. All deliverables should be submitted to RTIMain@txdot.gov.
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Work Completed
RRRRR Revised Schedule
Research Activity
Estimated Cost of
Task
Task 1
Literature review
$
5,850.00
Task 2
Physical model modification
and tests
$
180,405.00
Task 3
Numerical modeling
$
52,298.00
Task 4
Analysis and design tools
$
18,860.00
Task 5
Project management
$
19,880.00
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug
Monthy Progress Reports
Total (should = total budget)
Revision History:
$ 277,293.00
11/20/2014
Project #0-6843
10 of 10