Our Design unit carries out a lot of granular pavement overlay projects which requires us to bring the carriageway width up to standard (usually wider than existing).
OverlayMillandLevel2 carries out the minimum overlay depth over high spots well for us, but we need to add full depth pavement widening when the design carriageway width is wider than the existing. We could add a lane SA to OverlayMillandLevel2 but not all cross sections would need to use the Lane SA.
Has anybody tried to carry out a similar design? Has anybody developed a subassembly to workout fulldepth widening in addition to a minimum depth overlay over highspots?
Solved! Go to Solution.
What about using the OverlayWidenMatchSlope1 or the OverlayWidenWithSuper1 subassemblies?
Another option might be to add the Lane SA on the outside of the OverlayMillandLevel2. If you use an alignment to set the outside width of the OverlayMillandLevel2 and use an alignment to set the width of the widening. If the widening alignment is the same width as the alignment to set the Trim Point Offset, the Lane SA will not be created.
I had a look at OverlayWidenMatchSlope1 and OverlayWidenWithSuper1 but they only apply the overlay depth at the Control Point, which in our case would be the Crown Point.
The attached image shows one of our most common cases. The overlay depth is 100mm over the highest point of the cross section (under the arrow).
I will give your suggestion of the two alignments a try, you may have sparked an idea there. Do you think if the second alignment (for the Lane SA) created a 'negative' offset the Lane SA would be ignored?
The Min clearance paramter doesn't take that into account?
Do you think if the second alignment (for the Lane SA) created a 'negative' offset the Lane SA would be ignored?
Yes, I tried this and the Lane SA does not get used in the corridor if the second alignment creates a 'negative' offset.