TIM BEARDMORE
3/7/2014




Project Overview
Procurement/Design
Equipment Selection
Construction
Total Project SY:
2,800,000 SY
Total SY complete 2010:
Total SY compete 2011:
Total SY complete 2012:
380,993 SY
1,380,061 SY
1,038,946 SY

Four Construction Joint Venture Team Members
•Integrated Management Team in all Disciplines
•Treated All Partners as Equals
•Weekly and as Needed PM, AM and Field Meetings
•Visibility and Availability of Leadership to all





$1.1B design-build UDOT
project in Utah County, Utah
Fixed-price, best-design
procurement approach
UDOT Ultimate Infrastructure
Configuration (UIC)
UDOT required project
completion date by fall 2014
Minimize number and
duration of roadway closures
Focused on all Scoring Criteria
 Scope
60%
 Provided 10 Miles more than Base Project
 2 Miles more than Competitors
 MOT
20%
 Maintained More Capacity During
Construction Then Before Project Started
 ABC Bridges
 Advanced Traveler Information Systems
 Schedule/Interim Milestones
20%
 35 Month Schedule – 9 Months Shorter
than Competition
 Delivered Northern 5 Miles 6 months early








Pavement design objectives & criteria
Traffic loads
Existing pavement and embankment
PCCP overlay design
PCCP new alignment design
Transverse joint design
Longitudinal joint design
Design during construction




Official design procedure: 1993 AASHTO/UDOT
Design features:
 Mainline 10 traffic lanes, including HOV
 Ramps
 Cross streets
Design life: 30-years (minimal maintenance) per
UDOT RFP
Performance criteria:
 Initial smoothness
 Terminal smoothness

Existing pavement/embankment/subgrade:



HMA (several layers of overlays)
Untreated aggregate base
Embankment material: slag, other

Subgrade support along a long project was
characterized using soil classification & structural
deflection testing.


Geotechnical boring logs (RB&G Engineering) provided to PRC
indicated the presence of slag embankment in some areas, while other
areas were built upon silty sands and gravels with low embankments.
PRC utilized Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data
provided by UDOT to structurally characterize the
subgrade materials along the Project.

The FWD data, combined with known layer thicknesses from the
geotechnical exploration, was analyzed through a process known as
back calculation to develop the key subgrade inputs for pavement
design
 Concrete pavement: modulus of subgrade reaction, or k-value.
 Flexible pavement: resilient modulus for flexible pavements).




1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide methodology to back
calculate subgrade resilient moduli along the project length.
Back calculation was performed considering the existing 11-in AC
thickness over 6-in UTBC, over embankment/subgrade.
By cross-referencing the back calculated subgrade resilient
modulus profile with geotechnical boring logs, project length was
divided into three foundation stiffness areas along the project
length.
Categorized as “Strong” and “Weak”
“Strong” subgrade has Mr = 25,000 psi.
 “Weak” subgrade has Mr = 12,500 psi.


Back calculated elastic moduli adjusted to appropriate design
input lab values at optimum moisture content.
“Strong” subgrade has design Mr = 9,250 psi.
 “Weak” subgrade has design Mr = 4,625 psi.

Table 1. PRC PJCP Designs for I-15 CORE
Base
Type
Subgrade
Support
Description
6.5 miles
‘Strong’
Slag Embank
PJCP ‘Widening’
6.5 miles
‘Strong’
Slag Embank
600’ North of Geneva Road
Bridge to SR 75
PJCP ‘Reconstruct in
Weak Subgrade Area’
11.2
miles
‘Weak’
Fine grain Emb
SR 75 to Spanish Fork Main
Street
PJCP ‘Reconstruct in
Strong Subgrade Area’
4.1 miles
‘Strong’
Slag Embank
Location
Description
Lehi Main Street to 600’
North of Geneva Road Bridge
PJCP
‘Whitetopping’ over
existing HMA
Lehi Main Street to 600’
North of Geneva Road Bridge
??-in PCCP
Top HMA
K-Value
Top OGB/GB
K-Value
HMA: 7-in Exist or 3-in New
6-in UTBC Exist or 6-in OGB
12-in GB New
Subgrade K-Value
“Strong” =
203psi/in
“Weak” = 94 psi/in
Embankment/Subgrade


Cores indicated 9 to 13-in thickness.
Some deterioration of HMA
Significant cores show stripping, disintegration
 Some layer debonding
 Back calculated modulus along project indicated
reasonable in situ modulus for support of PCCP


Inputs
Traffic: 95 million heaviest trafficked lane
 Subgrade: Segment design k-value
 Base HMA: 3-in
 Subbase OGB: 6-in
 Tied PCC shoulders
 Joint spacing: 15-ft
 PCC mean strength: 720-psi

40-year PCCP Mainline Concrete Overlay Designs
Location Along Project
Project
Centerline
Length
JPCP
Thickness
Base
Layer
Whitetopping Overlay –
Lehi Main Street to 600’
North of Geneva Road
6.5 miles
12.0 in
7 in
Existing
Widening Adjacent to
Whitetopping –
Lehi Main Street to 600’
North of Geneva Road
6.5 miles
12.0 in
3 in ACB
Subbase
Layer
Design
Life
Design
ESALs
6 in UTBC
40
Years
95.5M
6 in OGB
12 in GB
40
Years
95.5M
40-year PCCP Mainline Reconstruction and Ramp Designs
Location Along Project
Project
Centerline
Length
JPCP
Thickness
Base
Layer
Subbase
Layer
Design
Life
Design
ESALs
40
Years
95.5M
Reconstruction –
600’ North of Geneva Road
to SR 75
11.2 miles
12.5 in
3 in ACB
6 in OGB
12 in GB
Reconstruction – SR 75 to
Spanish Fork Main Street
4.6 miles
12.0 in
3 in ACB
6 in OGB
12 in GB
40
Years
95.5M
N/A
10 in
3 in ACB
6 in OGB
12 in GB
40
Years
32.5M
Ramps
1.5-in diameter dowels
5 / wheelpath, 12-in spacing
Table 9. M-E PDG results for 40-year PJCP Reconstruction
12-in PJCP, 3-in HMA, 6-in OGB, 12-in GB, weak subgrade
Performance Criteria
Distress
Target
Reliability Distress Reliability AcceptTarget
Predicted Predicted
able
Terminal IRI (in/mi)
172
95
103.2
97.5
Pass
Transverse Cracking
(% slabs cracked)
15
95
0
99.999
Pass
Mean Joint Faulting
(in)
0.12
95
0.032
99.87
Pass

Equipment selection was based
upon meeting the project goals of
delivering a high quality pavement
product in less than 3 years under
heavy traffic in tight work areas.

1 - GP 4000 with IDBI (In-The-Pan Dowel Bar Inserter)-4 Track

2 - GP 2800 with IDBI- 4 Track

1- GP 2800-2 Track

3 - Commander III’s

2 with a zero clearance kit

1 with a v-mold kit (variable width)

3 – 9500 Trimmer/Placer (set up for a concrete placer)

4 – Texture/Cure 600

4 – Leica PaveSmart 3D
CONVENTIONAL SET UP:







Sell grade Survey
Drill through asphalt to
set pins
Set Pins
Set Wire
Measure Each Pin
Eyeball the wire line
Check wire prior to
paving
LEICA PAVESMART






Set up in a controlled
environment (office)
Sell grade
Check control, Import the
design into the paver
Paving the day after
selling grade
Know where you are at all
times
Safer working conditions
Paving in Organized
Chaos
Total Scope SY of pavement
 Schedule
 Traffic
 Planning Tools
 Special Equipment
 Machine selection
 Detailed paving passes
 Smoothness
 Quality Considerations
 Paving in inclement weather (hot/cold)




April 1, 2010 started temporary widening for
phase I construction. PRC has until Dec 30,
2012 to complete the project.
PRC’s decisions on pave passes were based on
schedule considerations and on MOT plans
rather than on paving efficiencies. It is a
different mindset.
Started paving September 15, 2010




MOT was worth 20% of the scoring criteria
when UDOT evaluated proposals for I-15:
CORE
UDOT was determined to minimize impacts to
the traveling public during the project
This determination forced the Construction
Joint Venture to think outside of the box in
construction techniques
Many construction means and methods were
driven by schedule and MOT rather than
production efficiencies.
Paver selection (including IDBI’s)
and survey selection was driven
by space limitations due to
phasing, truck access, working in
tight quarters, and not having
enough room for staging




Extensive Paving Plans.
Detailed out all paving passes
Daily meetings amongst the paving group to cover new issues that
arose that day.
Coordination with Other discipline work going on.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Side slopes being finished
Noise Wall Posts being drilled, set, concreted in place
Noise wall panels
Sharing the same haul road
Barrier
Curb and Gutter
Drillers for sign foundation





Verification of Mix
Designs
Inspection of Aggregate
Sources
Inspection of Batch
Plants
Sampling and Testing of
Stock Piles (Daily)
Sampling and Testing of
Concrete in Front of
Paver





Inspection of Dowel
and Tie Bar Insertion
Ensuring Paving
Equipment is in Good
Condition (inc.
Vibrators)
Inspection of the
Finishing Operation
Check on the Texturing
Measurement of the
Curing Compound
Application

Hot


Paved w/ the big
pavers at night
Increased efforts to
keep asphalt cool

Cold


3000 blankets for 5
miles
Increased monitoring
 Surface thermometers
 Maturity meters



From procurement through execution, UDOT was
committed to delivering the best value while
taking all steps possible to minimize impacts to the
traveling public.
Best value approach and acceptance of MEPDG
design yielded a 40 yr pavement design, 10 years
higher than the specified 30 yr requirement.
Schedule and MOT constraints made the
construction team research and procure equipment
that allowed them to step outside of the traditional
mindset


Steeves, Kelly ACPA Paving Powerpoint Paving
Presentation. 2012
Barnes, Tuhr. Risley, Scott. Tolbert, Brian. Wood,
Darren. I-15 Case Study: Powerpoint. 2013