Washington Ave Las Vegas Presentation

817 views

Published on

Shows design, evaluation, and construction of a busy Las Vegas street using full depth reclamation with engineered asphalt emulsion

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
817
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
16
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Nova 99 short.ppt
  • Washington Ave Las Vegas Presentation

    1. 1. Granular Base Stabilization with Emulsion in Las Vegas, Nevada Washington Avenue Rehabilitation Project Todd Thomas, P.E. - Presenter
    2. 2. Authors <ul><li>Chris Finberg, City of Las Vegas Department of Field Operations </li></ul><ul><li>Dan Quire, Account Manager, SemMaterials, L.P. </li></ul><ul><li>Todd Thomas, Product Development Engineer, SemMaterials, L.P. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Outline <ul><li>Purpose of the project </li></ul><ul><li>Project description </li></ul><ul><li>Existing conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Laboratory evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Construction </li></ul><ul><li>Observations </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul>
    4. 4. Purpose <ul><li>Provide structural capacity, saving time and money relative to the alternative </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss technical aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss improvements </li></ul>
    5. 5. Project Limits Rancho Drive Martin L. King Washington Ave. 0.8 Miles Las Vegas, Nevada
    6. 6. Project Description <ul><ul><li>2 Lanes in each direction, turn lanes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>0.8 miles long (37,143 yd 2 ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mix of residential, small businesses, a school and fire station </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curb and gutter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15,500 AADT, 3% Trucks, TI = 9 </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Project Description <ul><ul><li>Existing asphalt was milled off in order to stabilize the remaining aggregate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HMA overlay over the emulsion-stabilized base – match curb height </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Existing Pavement <ul><ul><li>Pavement Evaluation by Stantec </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GPR – asphalt thickness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FWD – before and after </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing SN = 3.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PQI = 6.5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Layer Thickness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>HMA: 4.5 to 7 inches </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Base: 13.5 to 19.5 inches </li></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Existing Pavement - Base <ul><ul><li>Poorly graded sand or gravel with silty clay (fines PI of 6 or 7) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modified Proctor density of 145.2 pcf and OMC of 5.7% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Passing No. 200 = 11.0% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Material stabilized with asphalt emulsion – 5% </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Existing Pavement <ul><ul><li>Subgrade </li></ul></ul>Symbol PI R-value GC 28 18 SM 9 35 CL-ML 7 13
    11. 11. Challenges <ul><ul><li>Existing base material was contaminated – need for removal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conventional design - remove and replace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>18” agg base had to be removed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>18” of Type II had to be placed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Utilities were 6” deep in the base </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Construction Time (120 days) – Access and traffic delays </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Asphalt Emulsion <ul><li>Provides flexibility and lower susceptibility to cracking </li></ul><ul><li>Binds the materials for improved cohesion and strength </li></ul><ul><li>Improved formulas that coat better and build strength faster </li></ul>
    13. 13. Mix Design <ul><ul><li>4, 5, 6, and 7% emulsion evaluated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5% used during construction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4% water before mixing with emulsion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Superpave gyratory compactor – 150 mm mold, 30 gyrations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>276,000 psi resilient modulus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>40 psi indirect tensile strength (dry) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>27 psi conditioned ITS </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Construction Process
    15. 15. Construction Process
    16. 16. Construction Process
    17. 17. FDR Quality Control <ul><li>Moisture content </li></ul><ul><li>Emulsion content </li></ul><ul><li>Density </li></ul><ul><li>Depth </li></ul>
    18. 18. Structural Comparison Emulsion FDR Typical Reconstruction Design SN = 4.35 6” HMA 18” Type II Aggregate Base 5.5” HMA 6” FDR Total SN = 4.73 (from FWD) $925,685 Total SN = 4.50 $1,248,346 7-12” existing Aggregate Base
    19. 19. FWD Results – Before and After FDR AASHTO Layer Coefficient 0.28 per FWD testing. (HMA is typically 0.35 to 0.42)
    20. 20. Advantages <ul><li>$322,661 cost savings (30%) </li></ul><ul><li>Construction time reduced from 120 to 40 days </li></ul><ul><li>3,000 fewer loads of materials were trucked on and off the project </li></ul><ul><li>Almost immediate traffic access to business </li></ul><ul><li>Underground utilities weren’t affected </li></ul>
    21. 21. Chris Finberg (City of Las Vegas) – 702-236-4759 Dan Quire (SemMaterials, L.P.) – 303-915-2851 Todd Thomas (SemMaterials, L.P.) – 918-960-3828 Questions?

    ×