Internal Forces in A Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert

University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange
Masters Theses Graduate School
5-2000
Internal Forces in a Reinforced Concrete Box

Culvert
Scott Mitchell Wood
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Recommended Citation
Wood, Scott Mitchell, "Internal Forces in a Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2000.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1239
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information,
please contact trace@utk.edu.
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Scott Mitchell Wood entitled "Internal Forces in a
Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and
content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science, with a major in Civil Engineering.
Richard M. Bennett, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Eric C. Drumm, Edwin G. Burdette
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Scott Mitchell Wood entitled

ulntemal Forces in a Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert." I have examined the
final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science, with a major in Civil Engineering.
Dr. Richard M. Bennett, Major Professor
We have read this thesis

And recommend its acceptance
Dr. Eric C. Drumm
cit.,,J G ..
Dr. Edwin G. Burdette
Accepted for the Council:
Associate Vice Chancellor and

Dean of the Graduate School
Internal Forces in a Reinforced
Concrete Box Culvert.
A Thesis
Presented for the
Master of Science
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Scott Mitchell Wood

May 2000
ACKNOWLEDGE MENTS
I would like to thank the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville for the valuable knowledge
that I received during both as an undergraduate and graduate student. I would
especially like to thank my Major Professor, Dr. Richard Bennett, and my other
committee members Dr. Eric Drumm and Dr. Edwin Burrdette. I would also like
to recognize the Institute of Geotechnology for all the support that they give to so
many graduate students.
ii
Ab st ract
In 1996, a reinforced concrete box culvert with approximately 19 meters of
embankment fill was instrwnented with strain gages and pressure cells to detennine
the internal forces applied to the culvert. Strain and pressure readings were taken for a
period of 3 years during and after the construction of the embankment. From a
knowledge of the culvert's dimensions and material properties, the strain readings
were converted to forces and bending moments. These forces were then compared to
the allowable criteria from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. A

computer model of the culvert was performed to compare the results of the strain
gages and pressure cells to the unit weight of the embankment fill. The computer
model was also used to study the changes in internal forces due to different boundary
conditions.
The results showed that axial forces and bending moments are linearly related
to the embankment fill height. The box culvert has adequate capacity according to the
design equations from AASHTO. Computer modeling of the culvert showed that the
effects of different boundary conditions give slightly different moments in the roof
and the wall. Load distributions on the roof show very little change in bending
moments and shears, but when the load distribution on the wall increases on the
bottom, a significant increase in shear forces is seen.
iii
Table of Contents
Pa ge Numbe r
Cha pte r1 Int roduction
1.1 - Introduction .... . .... . ... . ...... ........................................ 1
1. 2 - Background . . .. .... .. . .. . . . ....
.. . .. ... . ... . .. .. . .. .... .. ....
.. . . . . . . . . I
1.3 - Description of Culvert ... .. . . . .... .. ... . .. ... ........ . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . 2
1.4 - Factors Affecting the Performance of
Cast-in-Place Box Culverts . . ...... . ... .... ... ... . . .. .. . ... . ....... . 3
1. 5 - Design and Installation of Instrumented
Culvert Sections ... . ... ... . . . .. . . . .. .......... . .. .. . . . .. ........... ... 3
1.6 - Monitoring Earth Pressures and Strains . ... .. .. . . . .. ... . ... . . . . ... . 5
Cha pte r2 Lite ratu re Review

2. 1 - Classification of Culverts .. . . ... . . ... .. . . . ... .... ... .. .. . . ...... . .. .. 7
2.2 - Recommended Earth Pressures. . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . .. .... .. .. . . .. . .... 9
2.3 - Earth Pressures on Buried Box Culverts .... ...... . .. ...... . ....... 13
Cha pte r3 Inst rumentat ion

3 . 1 - Measurement of Strain in Reinforced
Concrete Sections. . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. ... ..... ... . .. ... ... . . . . .... 17
3 . 2 - Measuring Strain ..... .. . ... . .. . . . .. . . . ... .. .. ..... . ..... .. . .. . .... . . . . 20
3.3 - Installation of Vibrating Wire Strain Gage ..... .. . . ... . ... . . .. . ... 20
3.4 - Temperature Correction. . . . ... . .. .. ..... .. ..... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... . . . . 21
3 . 5 - Strain Gage Datums .... . .. . . . .... . ... .. ..... .. ..... . .. .......... . .... 26
3.6 -Pressure Cells... ...... ... . .... . .... . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ........ .. ... . .. 29
Cha pte r4 Inte rnal Fo rces

4. 1 - Conversion of Strain to Forces
4.1.1 - Modulus ofElasticity............... . .. .................. . 3 1
4.1.2 - Modulus of Rupture . . . ... .. . . . .. . . .. ..... ..... . .. . . . . . .. .. 3 2
4. 1.3 - Axial Force and Bending Moments . ........ .. .. .... .. .. 3 2
4.1. 4 - Back Calculated Pressures
From CulvertForces .. ... ....... .. . . .. . ... . . .. ..... . . .... 33
4. 1.5 - Calculation of ShearForces . . .. .. . ...... ........ ... . ..... 3 4
4. 2 -Forces Results . . .. ... .. .... . . ..... . . ....... .. . . . .. . .... ........ . . .. ... . 3 5
4. 2. 1 -Axial Forces
4. 2.la - Wall Axial Forces . ... . .. . . .. ....... ... ... ... ... .3 6
4. 2. 1b - Roof AxialForces .. . .. .. ....... . .... .. . . . ... . . . 40
iv
Table of Contents
Pa ge Numbe r
4.2.2 - Bending Moments
4.2.2a - Wall Bending Moments ........................ 41
4.2.2b - Roof Bending Moments ........................ 45
4.3 - Pressures ............................................................... 48
4.3.1 - Roof Pressures ............................................. 48
4.3.2 - Wall Pressures ............................................. 53
4.4 - Pressure Differences in the Sections A and B .............. 57
4.5 - S hears
4.5.1 - Wall Shears ................................................ 58
4.5.2 - Roof Shears ................................................ 5 9
Cha pte r5 Com pute rModelin g of Bu ried Bo x Culve rt

5.1 - Introduction ............................................................ 60
5.2 - Roof Forces
5.2.1 - Effeects of Boundary Conditions ........................ 60
5.2.1a - Bending Moments .............................. 6 2
5.2.1b - Shear Forces ..................................... 6 2
5.2.2 - Effects of Load Distributions ............................ 6 2
5 .2.2a - Bending Moments...... ......... .. .... ......... 6 5
5.2.2b - Shear Forces ..................................... 6 8
5.2.3 - Conclusions o n Roof Forces ............................. 6 8
5.3 - Wall Forces ............................................................ 6 8
5.3.1 - Bending Moments ......................................... 7 1
5.3.2 - Shear Forces ................................................ 7 1
5.3.3 - Conclusions on Wall Forces ............................. 7 9
5.4 - Roof Bending Moments with
Varying Fill Height................................................... 7 9
Cha pte r6 Com pa rison of Fo rces to Culve rt Ca paci ty

6.1 - Introduction........................................................ 88
6.2 - Comparison of Axial Force and Moment
to Culvert Capacity
6.2.1 - Development of Capacity
Interaction Diagram..................................... 88
6.2.2 - Comparison of Axial Forces
and Moment to Capacity ................................ 89
v
Table of Contents
Pa ge Number
6.3 - Shear Capacity .......................................... ... ....... .... 89 .
6.3.1 - Comparison of Shear Forces and

Capacity in the Culvert Wall... . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 97
6.3.2 - Comparison of Shear Forces and
Capacity in the Culvert Roof.......... .. . .. . .. . . . ... .. . 10 1
6.4 Conclusion o n Culvert Capacity . ................. ........... ....... 103
. .
Cha pter 7 Conclu sion

7.1 - Internal Forces..................................................... 10 4
7.2 - Capacity... ... . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. ... ... ... . .. ... .... .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . 10 4
Reference s.................................................................... 106
Appendi xe s
A ppendi x A - Greene County Dimen sion sand Detail s......... 109
A ppendi x B-Section A Strain Gage Re sult s..................... 112
A ppendi x C-Section BStrain Gage Re sul ts....................... 13 7
A ppendi x D -Pre ssure and Shear Force Mea surement s...... 16 2
A ppendi x E -Greene County Culvert Concrete Te st Data ..... 17 1
Vita ................................................................................ 177
vi
List of Tables
Page Number
Cha pter 2
2-1 Summary of AASHTO Design Pressures
for Buried box Culverts................................................... 9
2-2 S umm ary of Design Earth Pressures

for Buried Structures.......................... ......................... 13
Cha pter 4
4- 1 Wall Axial Force vs Fill Height with
Equivalent Unit Weight............................ ....................... 3 6
.
4-2 Section B Axial Forces vs.Fill Height

at Section B and Section A......................................... ...... 38
4-3 Roof Axial Forces vs. Fill Height.................................... 41
4-4 Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height............................ 42
4- 5 Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height... .... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. . ... 45
4- 6 Soil ModificationFactors for Different Average

Pressure Measurements................................................... 52
4-7 Different Load Distribution Cases ............................ ............ 5 6
4-8 Wall Pressure per Meter Height of Fill

Using Different Load Cases............................................. 57
4-9 Wall S hear Forces with Various Load Distributions.......... .... 58
4-10 Roof Shear Forces with Different Load Distributions .............. .. 5 9 .
vii
List of Figures
Pa ge Number
Cha pter 1
1-1 Typical Culvert Instrumentation and
Numbering Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
.
1-2 Schematic of Embankment and Culvert

Cross-Section. . ... ......... ....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .... . .. 6
Cha pter 2
2-1 Various Classes of Culvert Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2- 2 Classififcation of Culverts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2-3 Pressure Distribution with 2.4 m sand Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Cha pter 3
3-1 Strain in Concrete and Steel in Cracked
Reinforced Concrete Member. . . . . . . . ... .................. .. 17
3-2 Creep Coefficient Versus Time after

Application of Load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
3-3 Schematic of Strain Gage Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-4 Reference Gage Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-5 Reference Gage Reading vs Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
3-6 Corrected Reference Gage Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
3-7 Corrected Reference Gage Reading

vs Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3-8 Pressure Cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
viii
List of Figures
Page Number
Cha pter 4
4-1 Conversion of Strain to Stress and Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 33
4-2 Beam with Distributed Load.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4-3 Axial Force vs. Fill Height at Section A3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4-4 Section B l Axial Force vs. Fill Height

from Section A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 39
. . .
4-5 Deflected Shape of Culvert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
4-6 Section A Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4-7 Section B Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . 44 .
4-8 Section A Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . ........ 4 6
4-9 Section B Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . .. . . . . . . 47 .
4-1 0 Location of Pressure Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4-11 Section A Roof Pressure Cell Readings

vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4-12 Section B Roof Pressure Cell Readings

vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 51
4-13 Section A Wall Pressure Cell Readings

vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54
4-14 Section B Wall Pressure Cell Readings

vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
4-15 Example Pressure Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
ix
List of Figures
Page Number
Cha pter S
5-1 Boundary Conditions for Roof Forces ......... . ................ 61
5-2 Bending Moments in Top Slab with Different

Support Conditions .. . . .. . ..... .... .. ............ . . ..... . .......... 63
5-3 Shear Forces in Top Slab with Different

Support Conditions . . . ........ .. .. .......... . . . ......... . . . ........ 64
5- 4 Approximated Linear Pressure Distribution ............... .. ... 65
5-5 Load Distributions for Roof Forces ............. .. .. . ........... 66
5-6 Effect of Load Distribution on Culvert Roof Moments ...... . 67
5-7 Effect of Load Distribution on Culvert Roof

Shear Forces . . ...... . .. . .
... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . ........... . .. . . .
.. . .. . .. 69
5-8 Load Distributions and Boundary Conditions on

Wall Forces ......................................................... 70
5-9 Wall Bending Moments with Varying Load Distributions

Flexible Support ... .. . .
............. . . . . . 72 ... . .... . ......... . .. .... ..

Rigid Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... ............ ...... ..... 73

Simple Support..................................................... 7 4
5-12 Wall Shear Forces with Uniform Load and

Different Support Conditions .................................... 7 5
5-13 Wall Shear Forces with Varying Load Distributions

Flexible Support ................................................... 76
X
List of Figures
Page Number
5-14 Wall Shear Forces with Varying Load Distributions
Rigid Support ...................................................... . 77
5-1 5 Wall Shear Forces with Varying Load Distributions

Simple Support . . .... ..
.. . . ........ .......... . ...................... 78
5- 16 Location of Roof Bending Moments ..................... . . ..... 80
5- 1 7 Section A Roof Bending Moments at Side Wall. . ............ 81
5-1 8 Section A Roof Bending Moments at Center . . ................ 82
5-19 Section A Roof Bending Moments at Middle Wall. . . . . . . . . . . 83
5-20 Section B Roof Bending Moments at Side Wall. ....... . .

. .... 84
5-2 1 Section B Roof Bending Moments at Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5-22 Section B Roof Bending Moments at Middle Wall. .......... 86
Cha pter 6
6- 1 Section AI - Moment Interaction Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90
6-2 Section A2- Moment Interaction Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
6-3 Section A3 - Moment Interaction Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92
6-4 Section A4 - Moment Interaction Diagram ...... . . .

. . ......... . 93
6-5 Section A5 - Moment Interaction Diagram ..................... 94
6-6 Section A6 - Moment Interaction Diagram ............... . .... . 95
6-7 Comparison of AASHTO Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
xi
List of Figures
Page Number
6- 8 Shear Force vs. A<ial Force
Case 1 (Uniform Load) . ..... ... ... . .... . ...... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . 9 8
6-9 Shear Force vs. Axial Force

Case 2 (Triangular Load).. . ...... .. . ..... . .......... .... .... ... .. 99
6-10 Shear Force vs. Axial Force

Case 3 (High Pressure at Base) . . . .. . . .. . .. . ...... . .... . . . ... ... . 1 00
6-1 1 Section A Roof Shear Strength . ... . . .... ......... . . .. . . .... .. . .. 1 02
A ppend i'"' A
A - 1 Reinforcement Details. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . .. 1 10
A - 2 Strain Gage Locations. . .. . ... . .... .... .. ... . .. . .. ..... . .. .. 111
A ppend ix B
B- 1 Strain Readings Section AI. .. .. ... . . ... ............ . . . . .. . .... 1 1 3

B-2 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section AI.. . . .... . 1 14
B-3 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section AI... ..... . ..... . ... . . .. .... liS
B-4 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section AI. ... ....... ..... 1 16
B-S Strain Readings Section A2....... . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ..... 1 1 7
Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A2.........
.
B-6 118
B-7 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A2.... .. . . . .. . .... . . .. . .... 1 1 9
Bending Force vs Fill Height Section A2................
.
B- 8 120
B-9 Strain Readings Section A3.......... . .... . . ...... . . ... . .. . .... 1 2 1
B - 10 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A3......... 122
B- 11 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A3 ... . . ........ .. ...... ..... 123
B - 12 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section A3 . .. ........ . .... 1 24
B - 13 Strain Readings Section A4.. . .... .. ....... . . .......... ... ..... 12S
B - 14 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A4. . ..... . . 126
B - IS Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A4 . ... .. . ..... . . ..... .. . .... 1 27
B - 16 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section A4.. ... ..... ... . . . 12 8
B - 17 Strain Readings Section AS. ........... . . ...... ...... . ... . ..... 1 29
B- 18 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section AS..... ... . 1 30
xii
List of Figures
Page Number
B - 19 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section AS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
B - 20 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section AS. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 132
B-2 1 Strain Readings Section A6 ....... . . . . .... . ......... ... . ....... 1 33
B - 22 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A6.. .... ... 1 34
B - 23 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A6 . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13S
B - 24 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
A ppend ix C
c- 1 Strain Readings Section B 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 138

C- 2 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section Bl. . . . . . . . . 1 39
c- 3 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140
C-4 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section Bl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
c- s Strain Readings Section B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142
C-6 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section B2. . . . . . . . . 143
C-7 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 144
c- 8 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 14S
C-9 Strain Readings Section B3. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. 146
c- 10 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section B3. . . . . . . . . 147
c- 1 1 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148
c- 12 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section B3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
C - 13 Strain Readings Section B4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 SO
c-14 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section B4. . . . . . . . . 1S1
c - 1S Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B4 . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 S2
c- 1 6 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section B4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S3
C - 17 Strain Readings Section BS. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 S4
c- 1 8 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section BS. . . . . . . . . 1 SS
c- 19 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section BS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1S6
C - 20 Bending Force vs Fill Height Section BS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S7
c- 2 1 Strain Readings Section B6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1S8
C - 22 Axial Force and Bending Moment Section B6 . . . . . . . . . 1S9
c - 23 Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160
C-24 Bending Force v s Fill Height Section B6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
xiii
List of Figures
Page Number
A ppend i1:D
D- 1 Roof Pressure vs Days Section A .................. . .... 163

D-2 Roof Shear Forces vs Days Section A..... . . . ... . ... . . . . 164
D-3 Wall Pressure vs Days Section A . .... . . . .... ... . ....... 165
D-4 Wall Shear Forces vs Days Section A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
D-5 Roof Pressure vs Days Section B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167
D-6 Roof Shear Forces vs Days Section B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8
D-7 Wall Pressure vs Days Section B . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 169
D- 8 Wall Shear Forces vs Days Section B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 70
xiv
1
Chap ter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Cast-in-place concrete box culverts are often used to as conduits to carry water
from one side of a highway to the other. Although this is a simple role, the loadings
applied to these structures are rather complex. These structures must resist large
vertical and lateral earth pressures, and are often subjected to significant loadings
during construction of the embankment. Due to the soil-structure interaction effects,
the state of stress on the culvert depends on the stiffhess of both the structure and the
backfill material. Although the pressures applied to the structure are quite complex, a
simple approach must be used for analysis and design due to the large number of
culverts that are being built.
1.2 Bac kground
In late 1 995 a reinforced concrete box culvert in Sullivan County, Tennessee
with approximately 1 2 meters of clayey black shale fill failed shortly after being
placed in service. The mode of failure was a shear failure at the bottom of the culvert
wall. Earth pressures in excess of the design pressure could have contributed to the
failure. Uncertainties in the estimation of earth pressures for culverts have resulted in
several changes to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Specifications during the period 1 973 - 1996 (AASHTO 1 1 th to
1 6th editions).
2
To investigate the earth pressures acting on box culverts, an instrumentation
project was initiated in March 1996. Pressure cells and strain gages were installed on
the new replacement culvert constructed in Sullivan County. The new replacement
culvert, which was much stiffer then the old culvert, was backfilled with a minimum
compactive effort to reduce the applied earth pressures. To confirm the recorded
pressures on the Sullivan County culvert and to study the effects of compaction,
another culvert was instrumented in Greene County, Tennessee. The culvert in
Greene County was constructed according to Tennessee Department of Transportation
Standards and has approximately 1 9 meters of silty clay fill. The Greene County
culvert is the culvert discussed in this thesis.
1.3 Desc rip tion of Culvert
The culvert in Greene County, Tennessee is a cast-in-place double cell culvert
made with reinforced concrete. The dimensions of the culvert are 4 meters high, 7
meters wide and 92 meters long. The backfill has a slope of 2 to 1 , with a height of 19
meters, and supports a 2-lane highway. To aid in the construction of the culvert, a
prestressed panel was used in the roof. The dimensions and amount of reinforcing in
the culvert vary slightly along the length to account for the different fill heights.
Typical concrete and steel strengths, 20.67 kPa (3 ksi) and 4 1 3 kPa (60 ksi)
respectively, were used for the materials in the culvert.

3
1.4 Factors Affecting the Performance of Cast-in -Place Box Cu v

l erts
There are several factors that may affect the performance of cast-in-place
concrete box culverts. Some of the factors are as follows:
height of embankment
orientation of culvert with respect to the alignment of the embankment
analysis and design procedures for concrete box culvert structures
lateral earth pressures induced during compaction of the backfill
loadings due to construction equipment
foundation support condition (yielding/unyielding foundation)
expansive minerals in the backfill material
changes in backfill material over time due to weathering, grain size distribution
seasonal groundwater table fluctuations
1.5 Design and Insta llation of Instrumented Cu v

l ert Sections
Both strain gages and pressure cells were used to determine the internal forces
and pressures in the culvert due to the backfill. Only one cell of the culvert was
instrumented since the loading and response may be assumed to be symmetrical about
the culvert centerline. The locations of the pressure cells and the strain gages are
shown in Figure 1 - 1 .
4
0 Earth Pressure Cell
I Embedded Concrete Strain gage
Figure 1 - 1 . Typical Culvert Instrumentation Layout and Numbering Scheme.

5
Two sections along the length of the culvert were instrumented, Figure 1-2.
Section A is located approximately in the center of the culvert length under the full
embankment height. Section B is located so that the embankment height is less than
the maximum height.
Instruments were installed to measure both the loading and strain response of
the culvert. From these strains and pressures and also the material properties, internal
forces can be determined. These internal forces include axial force, bending moments
and shear forces.
1.6 Monitoring Earth Pressures and Strains
The box culvert was monitored from the time of installation through the end of
the research period, thus providing a series of background and service measurements
for approximately three years. This period should be sufficient to determine any
seasonal changes in embankment water content and temperature effects.

6
Backfill
Box Culvert
Instrumentation S ection A Instrumentation Section B
Figure 1 -2. Schematic of Embankment and Culvert Cross-Section

with Typical Sections A and B
7
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Classi fication of Culverts
Culverts are classified as rigid or flexible depending on their structural
stiffness and are further divided by the installation method used. Based on the
construction and environmental conditions, culvert installation may be classified as a
trench condition or an embankment condition. The embankment condition is further
subdivided into positive embankment condition and negative projecting embankment
condition (Spangler and Handy, 1982).
A trench condition is defmed as an installation in a narrow trench that is dug in
undisturbed soil and then covered with earth backfill, as shown in Figure 2-lA. Many
utility pipes are installed using the trench method. A positive embankment condition
is constructed by placing the culvert on the natural ground and then covering it with an
embankment, as shown in Figure 2-lB. Railway and highway culverts are frequently
installed with the positive embankment method. A negative projecting embankment is
installed in a relatively narrow and shallow trench below the ground surface and then
covered with an embankment that is above the natural ground surface, as shown in
Figure 2-1C. This is a favorable condition for small highway and railway construction
since it produces a smaller vertical load than the positive embankment condition. The
negative embankment condition can be even more effective with respect to vertical
pressures if the backfill in the trench is filled with a highly compressible material. The
imperfect trench condition, also known as induced trench condition, Figure 2-lD, is a
8
Top ofEmba nkment
(a)
0 (b)
---------opofEmba nkment _').----
1
-
surr\...::L..-
L oose ------..- ; ,--
L oose-----,.....-- ----
l
Soi l
tur
! Soi l !
Na alaround -_ _
.;::.. -
____
o _o::;. __
.___c _ o
_\ a_
cte
d-
-
(c) <d>
Figure 2-1. Various classes of culvert installation. (a) Trench Condition; (b) Positive
projection embankment condition; (c) Negative projection embankment condition; (d)
Imperfect trench condition (Spangler, 1982).
9
special mixed case. The culvert is placed on the natural ground and then an extremely
compressible material is placed immediately above the culvert to some height and then
covered with normal compacted materials. This installation method can also greatly
reduce the vertical pressures on the culvert. These installation methods are used in the
AASHTO 1 996 design guideline to distinguish soil-structure interaction effects.
Figure 2-2 shows a summery of the classification of culverts.
2.2 Recommended Earth Pressures
AASHTO design guidelines state that vertical and horizontal earth pressures
may be computed by recognized or appropriately documented tests, or may be
assumed by an equivalent fluid weight using the pressures in the design guide. These
pressures in the design guide distinguish between rigid and flexible culverts, and
reinforced concrete box culverts. These pressures also assume a yielding foundation,
whereas an unyielding foundation would require a special analysis. The design
pressures make no distinction between a trench and an untrenched installation. Table
2-1 shows a summ ary of the assumed pressures
Table 2-1. Summary of AASHTO Design Pressures for Buried Box Culverts
Max. Pressure Min. Pressure

Equivalent Unit Weight for
3 18.8 18.8
Vertical Earth Pressure (kN/m )
Equivalent Unit Weight for
3 9.4 4.7
Horizontal Earth Pressure (kN/m )
10
I I
I I
Underground Culverts
I
1
J
Stiffness Installation Me thod
I J I I
I I I I
I
Trench Embankment Imperfe ct
Fle xible Ri gid
I I
Condition Condition Tre nch
Positive Proje cting Ne gative Proje cting

Condition Condition
Figure 2-2. Classification of Culverts

ll
AASHTO takes account of soil structure interaction by means of a
modification factor applied to the assumed soil pressure. This modification factor is
based on the design earth cover, sidefill compaction and bedding characteristics. The
total load, We, on the box section is:
(2-1)
where Fe is the modification factor that is based on the Marston-Spangler theory of
earth loads, Be is the width of the culvert and H is the backfill height.
The modification factor, Fe, is calculated based on the installation condition.
For an embankment condition, Fe1 is calculated as:
Fcl = 1 + 0.20-
H (2-2)
Bc
Fe1 need not be greater than 1.15 for installations with compacted fill at the sides of
the culvert, and need not be greater than 1.4 for installations with uncompacted fill on
the sides of the culvert. For a trench condition, the modification factor is calculated
C B2
F = d d
as:
e2 --=--=-
HB
c (2-3)
where Cd is a load coefficient and Bd is the width of the trench. The maximum value
of Fe2 need not exceed Fel
For the design of railway culverts (AREA, 1996), the vertical earth pressure is
taken as that due to an equivalent fluid pressure with a unit weight of 18.8 kN/m3
without a factor for soil-structure interaction. The horizontal earth pressures are
12
calculated by multiplying the vertical pressure by a coefficient. The maximum
coefficient is 1.0 and the minimum coefficient is 0.33. This corresponds to lateral
2
pressures of 18.8 kN/m3 and 6.2 kN/m , respectively. Compared to AASHTO
pressures, the vertical pressure is smaller since there is no modification factor;
however, the lateral pressure is greater than the AASHTO lateral pressure with the
modification factor.
The lateral thrust on basement walls and similar vertical structures below grade
is given in ASCE "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures:
(ASCE 7-95). The load magnitude depends on the soil type and structure stiffuess. It
suggests a lateral pressure for cohesionless backfill material on a relatively flexible
structure of about 5.5 kPa per meter depth, and about 9.43 kPa per meter height for a
relatively stiff structure. For silty soil backfill the lateral pressure is 13 .4 kPa for
flexible structures and 15.7 kPa for rigid structures. These design pressures are for
moist conditions at the soil optimum densities above the ground water line.
Table 2-2 shows a summary of the different design earth pressures for wtder
ground structures. As can be seen, there is significant difference among the different
guidelines with both vertical and horizontal pressures. These wide differences in
lateral pressure may reflect the uncertainties of the earth pressures on buried
structures.
13
Table 2-2. Summary of Equivalent Fluid Pressure for the Design Earth Pressures for
Vertical Earth Lateral Earth

Design Guide Pressure (kN/rn3) Pressure (kN/rn3)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
AASHTO 18.8 18.8 9.4 4.7
AREA 18.8 18 8
. 18.8 6.2
ASCE 7-95 NA NA 15.7 5.5
Buried Structures.
2.3 Earth Pressures on Buried Box Culverts
While there has been an extensive amount of research done on flexible metal
and circular concrete culverts (Davis and Bacher, 1 972; Selig et al. 1 982; Duncan and
Seed, 1996), there has been limited research done on concrete box culverts. Soil
arching effects are greater on circular culverts and also the lateral pressure provides
some added support. Typically, metal and circular culverts are also more flexible than
concrete box culverts. Therefore, research done on metal and circular culverts is of
limited use in the study of concrete box culverts.
Tadros et al, (1 989) conducted a full scale test on a functional cast-in-place
reinforced concrete culvert in Sarpy County, Nebraska. The culvert was a double-cell
box on a 35 skew with a soil fill height of 8.5 feet. Measurement of soil pressures,
strains, deflections and settlements were made both during and after construction.
Some of the results concluded that AASHTO values were unconservative with respect
to the lateral earth pressure. When the study was conducted, AASHTO allowed the
use of a vertical soil pressure of 0.7 of 1 8.8 kN/m3 (120 pcf) and a lateral soil pressure
14
of 4.7 kN/m3 (30 pet) equivalent fluid pressure. Current AASHTO specifications do
not have the reduction factor for the vertical pressure, and have increased the lateral
3 3
equivalent fluid pressure to a range from 4.7 kN/m (30 pet) to 9.4 kN/m (60 pet).
The study also mentioned that both the magnitude and distribution of the actual
pressures are greatly influenced by the effects of compaction.
In another study done by Tadros, Benak and Gilliland (1998), a computer
analysis was performed on two different buried box culverts with average fill heights.
The computer software used was CANDE-1980. The developers of the computer
program compared the results to actual field data from circular and buried box
culverts. In the computer modeling study done by Tadros, Benak and Gilliland, they
found that the soil pressures can be much greater than AASHTO specifications.
CANDE pressures were also found to be higher at the more rigid comers and less at
the midspan of the top and bottom slabs.
In a study done by Dasgupta and Sengupta (199 1 ) a concrete box culvert was
constructed in a sand bed and backfilled to a height of 2.4 meters above the top slab of
the culvert. The culvert dimensions were 1200 by 1200 mm with 75 mm thick walls.
Deflections, strains and pressures were recorded at different sections in the culvert.
Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of pressure from the completed fill on the top and
bottom slabs and also the walls of the culvert. The pressure distribution on the top and
bottom slabs shows a parabolic distribution where the higher pressure was measured at
the more rigid comers. The pressure distribution on the wall was not trapezoidal, as
15
- THEORETICAl
-EXPERIMENTAl
0
0

All PRESSURES ARE IN kPo
Figure 2-3. Pressure Distribution with a 2.4 meter sand fill.

Dasgupta, A. and Sengupta, B. (1991). "Large-Scale Model Test On Square
Box Culvert Backfilled With Sand." Journal of Geotechenia/ Engineering.
Div., ASCE, 117(1), 156-161:
16
AASHTO assumes, but more of a parabolic distribution with the maximum pressure at
about 0.3 times the height of the wall from the base of the culvert.
17
Chapter 3
Instrumentation
3.1 Measurement of Strain in Reinforced Concrete Sections
Concrete can be assumed to be a homogeneous, isotropic material at the macro
level. However, at the micro level, concrete is not homogeneous, consisting of coarse
and fine aggregates and hydrated cement. There can be large local variations in strain
at the micro level. The strain at the micro level is not the strain of interest in this
project, but rather the average strain at the macro level is of importance. To obtain the
average strain, the gage length for measuring the strain needs to be several times
longer than the largest aggregate size.
After cracking in the concrete, there are strain variations between the cracks in
the concrete and steel, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 . To obtain an average strain, a gage
length must be several times longer than the crack spacing. Thus, gage lengths of up
to 1 meter have been used to measure strain in reinforced concrete members.
===:=::::;=:;:
:;=:;:---
C or=;;:
e=s
k ===;:---- = J..:; M\
::==:::===::=:
\
Reinforced Concrete Beam
. { '__/
- Concrete Tensile Stress Distribution
Steel Tensile Stress Distribution
Figure 3-1. Strain in Concrete and Steel in Cracked Reinforced Concrete Member.
18
In a reinforced concrete box culvert, there are large differences between
bending moments across a particular section. For example, the moment at the ends of
the culvert roof would be negative, while towards the center, the bending moments
would be positive, with the typical box culvert roof being 3-4 meters long. Thus, with
such large changes in moments, and strains, a gage length of 1 meter would be too
long. The gage length chosen must be small enough to show the large gradients, but it
must also be long enough to extend across several cracks.
For the present project, a gage length of 150 mm was chosen for measuring the
strain. This gage length is long enough to avoid the strain variations due to the
variation at the micro level, and it is also small enough to have nearly a constant strain
over the gage length. However, if the concrete were to crack in flexure this gage
length would probably not be sufficient to span several cracks. Nonetheless, it was
felt that the 1 50-mm gage length would be best suited for these conflicting
requirements.
The strain in the concrete not only comes from the load on the culvert, but also
from the creep and shrinkage of the concrete. Both creep and shrinkage are primarily
a function of relative humidity, thickness of the concrete member, the fines coefficient
and the air content. Because the culvert is buried, the relative humidity will remain
high which will decrease the effects of both creep and shrinkage.
Creep strains were estimated for the culvert using ACI 209 ( 1 971 ). The creep
coefficient (Ct) is the ratio of creep strains to the initial elastic strain. The creep
coefficient is obtained as:

19
(3- 1)
Where Cu is the ultimate creep coefficient, which can range from 1 .30 to 4. 15,
with an average of 2.35. The average value of 2.35 was used herein. Kt is the time
under load, and is t0'6/( 10+t0<), with t in days. Ka is the age when the structure was
loaded. It was assumed that the structure was moist cured, and loaded at 220 days,
resulting in Ka=0.66. % is the relative humidity coefficient. A relative humidity of
90% was assumed, resulting in Kh=0.67. Kth is the minimum thickness of the member
coefficient, and is 0.82 for member greater than 25-mm thick. The other coefficients
are the slump coefficient (Ks}, the fines coefficient (Kr), and the air content coefficient
(Ke), which are all assumed to be 1.0. This results in a creep coefficient of 1.16 for the
time equal to infinity. The creep coefficient versus time to 100 days is plotted in
Figure 3-2.
I I l
0.6
I I
I I I
I
!!
I
I i
i .J
I
0.5
I
c 0.4
......-
I I
i
i
I v I
s I
u
E
:3
'
CD
0.3 / I i
I
v
I
I
a. I'
/
I
I i
u 02
i
I I I
I
l
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40
I
50 6
0 70 80
I
90 100
Tlme(Days)
Figure 3-2. Creep coefficient versus time after application of load.

20
Although creep will affect the strain readings, it is difficult to detennine the
magnitude of creep. Also as the creep occurs, the concrete culvert will continue to be
loaded which will in turn effect the amount of creep. Creep is expected to cause the
strain readings to increase, but the amount of the increase is unknown.
3.2 Measuring S train
Vibrating wire strain gages were used for all strain measurements involving
long tenn internal forces in the culvert. The Goekon Model VCE-4200 vibrating wire
strain gage chosen for this project is designed for long tenn strain measurements in
concrete structures. The strain gages were embedded in the concrete and attached to
the steel reinforcement. The measured frequency of the gages was automatically
converted to strain readings by use of the microprocessor in the Geokon Model GK-
403 readout box. The readout box automatically reads strain and the real time
temperature, which was used for temperature correction.
3.3 Ins talla tion of Vibra ting Wire S train Gages
Before the concrete was poured, the vibrating wire strain gages were installed
by tying the gages to the rebar with plastic ties. The gages were separated from the
rebar with Styrofoam blocks at the ends of each gage. The Styrofoam blocks served
as isolators to prevent possible high frequency oscillation generated by the concrete
vibrator during the placement of the concrete. The Styrofoam block also prevented
the gages from direct pull damage, which may happen from the movement of the
21
reinforcing bars during placement of the concrete. It is assumed that there is no
relative slip between the concrete and the rebar provided the concrete is not cracked.
On the bottom of the culvert roof, a 1 50-mm thick prestressed pre-cast concrete panel
was used, so that reinforcing bars were not available to mount the gage. To
compensate for this, "dummy" rebars of the same diameter as the top reinforcing bars
were suspended about 25-mm above the concrete panel and used to mount the strain
gages. A schematic of a typical gage installation is shown in Figure 3-3.
The gages were mounted to the reinforcing rebar, such that the concrete
deformation can be recorded by the strain along the active length of the gage. The
gage length of 1 50 mm is long enough to cross several interfaces between the
aggregate and the cement, which are the locations where micro-cracks would likely
develop first.
In order to measure the axial forces and bending moments in the culvert, the
gages were installed in pairs at each particular location. The position of the gages was
recorded so that it was possible to convert the strains into moments and axial forces
(Yang 2000).
3.4 Tempera ture Correc tion
Although the vibrating wire strain gages have a self-temperature-compensation
mechanism, the gages would still likely undergo some temperature induced no-stress
readings. In order to provide some correction for temperature effects, a stress-free
reference gage was placed in the culvert. The procedure for installing the stress-free
gage was placing a vibrating wire gage in a 1 50-mm dia. cylinder of the same concrete
22
Rebar
j
J
Cable Ties / Vibrating Wire Gage
Styrofoam
Figure 3-3. Schematic of strain gage installation.

23
used in the culvert. The cylinder was then placed in the bottom of the culvert wall and
isolated from the surrounding concrete by approximately a 30-mm thick layer of
Styrofoam so that the gages in the cylinder would not be affected by the external stress
by the backfill. The stress-free gage should then experience the same temperature as
the gages mounted to the reinforcing steel. The reference gage was monitored
throughout the study to find a correlation between temperature and strain readings.
Figure 3-4 shows that, over time there is some relationship between temperature and
strain readings.
A correlation value was needed in order to correct for temperature changes in
all of the strain gages. Figure 3-5 shows a graph of the stress free reference gage
readings vs. temperature; a best-fit trend line was generated through the points. From
the slope of the best-fit trend line, a correction factor (k) was found to be 1 .0026
J.l.e/C. An value of 0.3627 was proven to be significant by the R.A. Fisher method
using the t-distribution with a significance level of 5%(Sachs, 1 984).
The corrected reading can be found by using the equation:
(3-2)
where R is the corrected reading, R1 is the original reading, k is the correction factor,
T0 is the average initial temperature and T1 is the temperature of the gage when the
reading was taken.
Before the stress free reference gage readings were corrected, the standard
deviation of the reference gage readings was 7.02 J.I.E After the temperature correction
2730 25
2725 +------+---------__,
20
- 2720 I liM. 1 'M I I'
' I '( II =-I &i'iill I I I
w
C)
c - -
:c 2715
.. 15 0
0
-

-
2710 e
&
C) /
Bc 10 E
v
e
_
2700 l I / \ 1-t------;
.. 5
2695 I '
I .....-- I
2690 I - -- -
I 0
BOO
&- Reference_a9Biding - Temperature I

200 300 400 500 600 700 900 1000
Days
Figure 3-4. Reference Gage Readings

2730
:
2725 '
J
y = -1 .0026x +
27
-2720 R2 = 0.3627
---------..--
g>
:0 2715 ...
ro
Q)
(!)
Q)
2710

- --
---- -- - -------..----

"'"
2705
. ....... ..
2700

.
.
""#-#
----- --
-----

2695 ---

2690 . -------- --
0 5 10 15 20 25
Temperature (C)
Figure 3-5. Reference Gage Readings vs Temperature
!)!
26
was applied the standard deviation decreased to 5.61 J.l&. A strain of 5.61 J.lE
corresponds to a change in concrete stress of approximately 142 kPa (20 psi). This
shows the relative stability the stress free reference gage reading, and the long term
stability of the vibrating wire strain gages. Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the stress free
gage readings after the temperature correction.
3.5 Strain Gage Datums
Finding the correct datum for each of the strain gages was very important since
all other readings would be compared to it in order to find the change in strain. The
time period after the concrete was poured and before the backfill was placed was the
best time for datum readings. Between 9 and 20 readings were taken from each of the
strain gages before the backfill was placed. This many readings from each strain gage
allowed for a good average value for a datum.
Before an average was taken for the datum, the readings that were considered
outliers were removed. An outlier is a reading that is much higher or lower than the
rest of the data set. Several factors such as equipment malfunctions or improper
readings of the strain gage could cause these outliers. The statistical test chosen for
the detection of outliers was the Maximum Normed Residual (MNR) method (DOD,
1 997). By this method, a reading is labeled an outlier if it has an absolute deviation
from the sample mean when compared to the sample standard deviation and is too
distinct to be due to chance.

2730 .---------.-- 25
2725
20
- 2720 i ll!lla 1 YfP i 1--- t-
w
:1.
-
C)
.5 2715
,
cu
1 5
-
!
Q)
& .a
cu
2710
l!
Q)
(!) c.
g
Q)
10 E
!
2705 -

.e
Q)
2700
5
---- 1---
2695 --- /-1-------1
_j_
_ --- -1----- --1-------- L
----- -- --
1-+- Reference Gage Reading + iemperati]

2690
200
L_ _
300 _----:
400 ::-- 500 600 700 800 900
0
1000
Figure 3-6
Corrected Reference Gage Readings

2720 '
-

271 5 . '
.. ---------- --
-- -- I
-
- -
'i -j------f--1-- - - -- --- L
-1
- - -- - __ _ ______ _ -
- r--- ---
.,:, 2710 --
- --- --
-- - -
11)
-- - - - ----
y = -0.0523x + 2703
-g R2 = 0.001 4
- --- - -- --
I ll
--- - - - --- - --- --- ---- ---- ---- - - -- -- --
&
I
_ll_lll
I I I
- - -- -- ___
CD I - I I I -t-1--
en 2705 I I -- ------
ftJ
I I I

C)
t
B

' . - -1

-r I 1., I I I I 1U'

I
c t---
r
1!1
e
J!! 2700 -1--+-1--1--t-- -+ -----
--
- -
& --- I 1--1= ---.1 I 1-1= ---

- - -- ----
f-- -1-------l - --+--- --1 I ---
f-l-- 1--+----1-- ---1 I 1- -1-- --

1------1 :
2695 I I I I I I i I 1-1=1-U----' ---

I I I Ll t=J
--1--i---1 ----1--l---t--l---- l--l - -l-- t=l I 1=1
I I I I 11-1 -g I I I l--1 -f---l--l---1- 1-t-l-l I I
1-----t--t-- 1- 1---t-- 1--l ---1--1---l-- l--l--l 1 --1--1---1 I I I
1 --
2690 +---1...--'--- '---'----+--'---'

0 5 10 15 20 25
Temperature (C)
Figure 3-7. Corrected Reference Gage Readings vs Temperature
N
00
29
The MNR statistical test is the maximum absolute deviation from the sample
mean, divided by the sample standard deviation:
1 xi - x 1 , 1 = 1,2,. . , n
MNR = maxi (3-3)

where Xi is the ith observation, x is the sample mean, and s is the sample standard
deviation. This equation is then compared to the critical value for the specified sample
size n. These critical values are calculated by the following formula:
(3-4)
where n is the number of samples, t is the value from the t-distribution with n-2
degrees of freedom. The significance level used for this test was a=0.05. If the MNR
value is smaller than the critical value, the value is not an outlier. If the MNR value is
larger than the critical value then the data value with the largest I x i - x I is recognized
as an outlier. If an outlier is found, that data value is omitted from the set and the test
is run again until no outliers are found.
All of the readings taken before the backfill was placed were run through a
MNR test. In all of the strain gage locations only four outliers were found and
removed, then the average of each data set was used for the datums.
3.6 Pressure Cells
Earth pressure cells were used to measure the contact pressure between the
walls and roof of the culvert. The type pressure cells used for this study were the
vibrating wire type, Goekon model 48 1 0. Pressure cells are useful to compare the
30
pressure results from the strain gage measurements. The pressure cells register the
stress input into the structure, whereas the strain gages in the concrete give the
structural response. Figure 3-8 shows a diagram of the pressure cells used.
P ress ure Ce ll
Transducer
Hous ing
Figure 3-8. Pressure Cell

31
Chap ter 4
Internal Forces
4.1 Conversion of S train to Forces
4.1.1 Modulus of Elas ticity
Strain gage readings are converted to axial force and bending moments at each
cross section. It is assumed that plane sections remain plane and the strains are small
enough so that the materials are linear elastic. The modulus of elasticity of the
concrete is obtained from the equations (Mirza et al, 1979):
Ec = 60,400r 1
12 (4 - 1 )
fer = 0.89fc3s(1 + 0.08 log R) (4-2)
in which Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete in psi, fer is the corrected
strength of the concrete due to speed of loading in psi, r cJs is the 28-day compressive
strength of the concrete in psi loaded at the nominal testing speed for cylinder test
which is approximately 35 psi/sec, and R is the loading rate (0. 1 R psi/sec 1 0,000).
Equation 4-1 is a mean relationship between compressive strength and modulus, and
Equation 4-2 accounts for changes in ultimate compressive strength due to the rate of
loading (Mirza et al, 1 979).
The average concrete cylinder strength from five cylinders was 33,000 kPa
The rate of loading of the culvert was quite slow, with R being assumed to be 0.1
psi/sec. This results in a corrected strength of the concrete (fer) of 27,000 kPa (3930
psi). The value for the modulus of elasticity (Ec) was found to be 25,200,000 kPa
(3668 ksi).
32
4.1.2 Modulus of Rupture
To account for changes in concrete stress due to cracking, the extreme fiber
tensile strain was compared to the cracking strain of the concrete. The cracking strain
was calculated by dividing the modulus of rupture by the modulus of elasticity. The
modulus of rupture is obtained from the empirical mean relationship (Mirza et al,
1 979):
(4-3)
where fr is the modulus of rupture (psi), and f is the compressive strength of the
c
concrete (psi). The equation was obtained from Mirza et al. ( 1979) to compare the
modulus of rupture to the compressive strength of the concrete. Using the above
equation, the modulus of rupture of the concrete was found to be 3,870 kPa. When
divided by the modulus of elasticity, the cracking strain was calculated as 1 53 Jl&.
4.1 .3 Axial Forces and Bending Moments
Using the strain from the strain gages and the dimensions from the cross
section, a strain distribution was obtained for a particular cross-section. By use of the
modulus of elasticity of the concrete and the modulus of elasticity of the steel, the
strain was converted to stress, which is then converted to compressive and tensile
forces in the concrete and reinforcement, Figure 4- 1 . The axial force is the sum of the
forces, and the bending moment is the sum of the moments taken about the mid-point
of the cross-section. Compressive forces were taken as positive. Bending moments
were considered positive when the tensile stressses were on the inside of the culvert.
33
Concrctc Compressive
----=-'7
Streu .-----"7
comp!!sie Fon:e

I I
Steel
_/
I C oncrclc Compressive force
Reinron:ing
Steel
Mid-point or
Stnin Gage
Rc:dings
Conerc-;- Crou-Section
Tensile Cncking Tensile fon:e
- - -
Stras or Concrete
Steel Tensile Stress Steel Tensile force:
STRAIN STRESS FORCE
Figure 4-1 Conversion of Strain to Stress and Forces
4.1.4 Bac kCalcula ted Pressures from Culver tForces
Applied pressures acting on the culvert were calculated using the moments
from the strain gages. Consider the beam segment in Figure 4-2 with an assumed
parabolic load distribution. Since the force on the beam segment is the second
derivative of the bending moment, only one unknown can be solved for. Thus, values
of k., k2, and k3 are assumed such that equation 4-5 holds true. The value of the
average pressure can then be calculated by the following equation:
(4 -4)
with: (4 -5)
34
Figure 4-2 Beam with Distributed Load
where w is the average pressure, or the total area under the load diagram divided by
the length, and MA, Me, and M8 is the moment at the left, center, and right of the
beam section.
Using equation 4 -4 different load patterns could be analyzed. For example, a
uniform load would have values of k 1 = k2 = k3 = 1 , and a triangular load could be
presumed by making kt = 2, k2 = 1 , and k3 = 0.
4.1.5 Calculation of Shear Forces
Shear strength of reinforced concrete comes from many sources, including the
tensile strength of concrete, dowel action of the reinforcing bars, aggregate interlock,
and the shear transfer in the flexural compression regions. With all these different
sources of shear strength, there is virtually no method of measuring the actual shear
35
force in reinforced concrete. However, internal shear forces can be obtained from the
derivative of the bending moment with respect to length along the beam.
Based on the assumption of the same pressure distribution as above and given
the moments at A and B, a shear force at each of these section can then be calculated
by the following equations:
(4 -6)
where MA and M8 are the moments at section A and B respectively, L is the length of
the beam section and w is the average pressure.
4.2 Force Results
Forces are per meter length of the culvert. For example, an axial force shown
as 30 kN/m would mean the 30 kN was applied over a 1 m length.
Force result values are shown by comparing the force with the fill height above
the culvert roof. A linear regression was performed between the force and the fill
height for each location. The slope of the line gave the change in force per unit
increase in backfill height. With this method, the variations between the readings are
reduced.
36
4.2.1 Axial Forces
4.2.l.a Wall Axial Forces
A typical graph of the axial force in a wall section versus the fill height is
shown in Figure 4-3. Results of the axial forces in the wall from each section are
shown in Table 4-1 . Using half of the distance along the roof to the center wall as the
tributary width, an equivalent unit weight can be obtained. This equivalent unit
weight is then compared to the measured soil unit weight of 1 8 kN/m3
Sections AI and A2 are essentially the same, while the axial force at section
A3, the top of the wall, is about 23% greater. Section B shows variability between
each location and also a lower equivalent unit weight than from section A.
Table 4-1 . Wall axial forces versus fill height with equivalent unit weight.

Equivalent Equivalent Unit Weight
Section Slope (kN/mlm) 3
Unit Weight (kN/m ) Divided by Soil Unit Weight
A1 67.4 0.903 38.5 2. 1 4
A2 67.9 0.925 38.7 2. 1 5
A3 83. 1 0.982 47.4 2.63
81 45.0 0.958 25.7 1 .43
82 22.1 0.653 1 2.6 0.70
83 9.58 0.495 5.5 0.30
2500
t
rl
.,. I'
2000 :.,... I
I(
y = 83.057x + 71 0.6

.,..
t... ..,.
R2 = 0.9822
.....
..,.
rr
l.,..o
i 1500 , :;;..
z .,..
l.,.oo rl"
.lll:
-
af -i--"'
,
iii I'
1000

...
...
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fill Height Above Culvert (meters)
Figure 4-3. Axial Force vs Fill Height at Section A3
w
...:a
38
The axial force in the wall at section B indicates a continued increase of axial
force after the fill at section B was completed. A linear regression line was plotted to
find a correlation between the axial force in the wall at B and the fill height at A. A
typical graph of this is shown in Figure 4-4. Table 4-2 shows a summary of the results
from section B.
The American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges gives earth pressures for the
design of a buried box culvert. AASHTO uses a vertical earth pressure of 1 8.9 kN/m3
with a modification factor for soil structure interaction.
Table 4-2. Section B axial forces versus fill height at section B and section A.
I Fill from Section 8 I

Equivalent Unit Weight
Section Slope (kN/m/m)
Divided by Soil Unit Weight
81 45.0 0.958 1 .43
82 22.1 0.653 0.70
83 9.58 0.495 0.30
I Fill from Section A I

Section Slope (kN/m/m) Equivalent Unit Weight
81 32.3 0.9323 1 .02
82 1 6.4 0.6869 0.52
83 1 .34 0.01 0.04
Fill from Section A above Section B
Section Slope (kN/m/m) Equivalent Unit Weight

81 23.4 0.9091 0.74
82 24.4 0.8731 0.77
83 30.8 0.7383 0.98
1 400
'
..,.. I
_:,... I""'" ,.
-
1 200

-
.-1'
-
..

- -
-
1 000
L,..o -
:,... -
- -
e
E ... y = 32.318x + 747.79
- ....,....
z
800
- ... R2 = 0.9323
c
Q) ""
'--- - --- I L I I _I__LL
e
- - --
0
IL.
600
]i
)(
<(
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fill Height Above Culvert from Section A (m)
Figure 4-4. Section 81 Axial Force vs Fill height from Section A

\0
40
The modification factor for this type of embankment culvert is given by the following
formula:
Fe1
H
= I + 0.20- (4-7)
Bc
Where Fet is the modification factor that is multiplied by the soil pressure and need
not be greater than 1 . 1 5, H is the fill height, Be: is the width of the culvert. For this
project, the width of the culvert is 7 meters so with any fill over 5.26 meters the
modification factor is 1 . 1 5. This modification factor can then be compared to the
equivalent unit weight divided by the soil unit weight as shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
The wall at section A shows a high soil modification factor when compared to
AASHTO. At section B 1 , which is at the bottom of the wall, the soil modification
factor is higher than AASHTO but at sections B2 and B3 the value is lower.
4.2.1.b Roof Axial Force
The results of the axial forces versus fill height on the culvert roof are shown
in Table 4-3. Axial forces in the culvert roof are more variable with respect to each
other. Also, the correlation coefficients are much lower. The axial force in the roof at
section B indicates a continued increase of axial force after the fill at section B was
completed. A linear regression line was preformed with the axial force at B versus the
fill height at A.
41
Table 4-3. Roof axial forces verses fill height.
Fill Heioht From Resoective Sectio.

Section Slope {kN/m/m ) w2
A4 59.20 0.7375
AS 1 5.05 0.2405
A6 12.20 0.2951
84 50.64 0.6343
85 35.73 0.4544
86 79.08 0.6935
I Fill Height From Section A
Section Slope {kN/m/m) w2
I
84 33.27 0.5078
85 25.26 0.41 68
86 63.06 0.7635
Using the fill at section A proved no greater correlation than using the fill at section B.
Axial forces decreased at section B at all three locations. Using the fill height at
section A also lowered the correlation coefficient when compared to using the fill
height at section B.
4.2.2 Bending Moments
4.2.2.a Wall Bending Moments
Figure 4-5 qualitatively shows the bending induced in the culvert by both
vertical and horizontal loads. Vertical loads will induce primarily negative moments
in the wall, while horizontal loads will induce primarily positive moments in the wall.
42
V ertical Loads H orizootal L oads
Figure 4-5. Deflected shape of culvert
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show wall bending moments versus fill height above the
roo On sections A I and A2 there appears to be two distinct linear regression lines.
The two distinct lines show that the culvert forces may behave differently for low fill
heights and high fill heights. The change in the moment behavior occurs
approximately at a fill height equal to the culvert width. A summary of the applied
bending moments for the high fill heights in the culvert wall versus fill height above
the roof is shown in Table 4-4.
I I I I
Table 4-4. Wall bending moments versus fill height.
Section Slo2e {kN*m/m/m) .-2

A1 -19.3 0.985
A2 -8.82 0.9237
A3 -9.29 0.9369
81 -0.965 0.7852
82 5.59 0.9288
83 1 5.7 0.9631
50
Section A1
0 y = - 1 9 .277x + 1 39.94
II
R2 = 0.985
e
-50
-1 00
A
Ill
E
0
::!!: -150
1:11 Section A2
c
Ill
y = -8.81 85x + 25.875
R2 = 0.9237
IJl -200
Section A3
-250
y = -9.2943x - 60.943
R2 = 0. 9369
-300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
[-u Moments A1 Moments AS_____J

m Moments A2 . A
Figure 4-6. Section A Wall Bending Moment vs. Fill Height

200
A
A
150
'E
Section 81
.. Section 83
y = -0.9648x - 1 8.284
E y = 1 5.731 x - 32.858
z 100 R2 = 0.7852
R2
= 0.9631
:!:
50
;:;
c
Section 82
0 y = 5.5927x - 23.432
R2 = 0.9288
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I Moment;83]
Moments 81 a Moments 82 A
Figure 4-7. Section B Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height

t
45
The bending moments at section A are all negative, indicating that lateral
pressure has little effect and that the vertical pressure controls in the wall bending
moments. Section B has a negative bending moment at the bottom of the culvert wall
and is positive in the middle and upper part of the wall indicating that the lateral
pressure has an influence on the bending moment on the culvert wall.
4.2.2.b Roof Bending Moments
Figures 4-8 and 4-9 show the roof bending moments versus fill height above
the culvert roof. A summary ofroofbending moments versus fill heights are shown in
Table 4-5. Both sections show positive moments close to the center section, while the
sections close to the center wall show a negative moment, Figure 4-5. Since the top
slab is a continuous member this moment distribution would be qualitatively correct.
Also, both sections have close to the same magnitudes across the section, except for
near the center wall.
Table 4-5. Roof bending moments verses fill height.
Section Slope (kN*m/m/m)

A4 1 1 .6 0.9126
A5 12.1 0.9295
A6 -22.2 0.9046
84 13.8 0.9038
85 10.2 0.8357
86 -6.9 0.7029
300
200 Section AS
J!liit
y = 1 2.1 32x - 42.281 118
..Jl!JI &
R2 = 0.9295 ""'
1 00

;-r
m lliil 1!1!1
-
- 0
E
..
..... . Section A4
E .. . ' *
z -100 y - 5.208x - 86.447
--+--.
R2 = 0.6052
-200
1:
A
II
0 j
A----
-300
1------ """"' . ,. .&.
--......
t----.
;:;
c
Q
Ill -400 ... r---..
A -
A.
-500 Section A6
y = -22.1 52x - 1 52.24 b A r----...-
-600 R2 = 0.9046
-- --
-700
J
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
I
Moments A4 Moments A5 A Moments A6
Figure 4-8. Section A Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height

0\
250
l
200 1-- Section 84
y = 1 3.825x - 9.3 1 26
R2 = 0.9038

1 50 -
.
e 1 00
-1

.. _s..-
-------
-
E ----
z 50 -.
-
-
.. tit Section 85
c mm
cu 0 y = 1 0.21 2x - 36.654
E .... m
0 ... ...
:::E
IIIII:
- R2 = 0.8357
g' . -50 IIi
.A
;;
c .... A
Ql Ill
A: ...
m -100 ...
A
A
-a A
'"J
-1 50
A
Section 86 4o
-200 y = -6.9661x - 75.288
R2 = 0.7029
-250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I Moments 84 Moments 85 ments 86 I
Figure 4-9. Section 8 Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height

A
....:a
48
4.3 Pressures
Pressure cells were installed at each section on the culvert to measure the
actual pressure that was applied to the culvert from the fill. At each section, three
pressure cells were attached to the wall and three pressure cells were attached to the
roof, Figure 4- 1 0. The average pressure from the three pressure cell readings was then
compared to the calculated pressure from the bending moments. Consistent with the
assumption that the pressure distribution is parabolic, which was used to back
calculate pressure from the bending moments. Simpson's rule was used to calculate
an average pressure from the pressure cell readings.
4.3.1 Roof Pressures
Roof pressures versus fill height above the culvert roof at section A are shown
in Figure 4-1 1 . The average roof pressure from the pressure cells is 30.9 kPa per
meter height of fill. The pressure cell near the end wall is the highest reading while
the middle and center are close to the same.
4 PRE 5 PRE 6 PRE

r:l r-1 _r--"1
3 PRE
[
2 PRE
[
1 PRE
[
Figure 4-1 0. Location of the pressure cells
800
/
700 4PRE
y = 39.354x - 40.734 #.
R 2 = 0.9865
v.
600
v-
500 ... ---"
-
./
ftl 5PRE
0.

.r
c 400 y = 29.51 3x - 8. 1 073
!
:I
R2 = 0.9876
Ill
.. v
Ill
G) 300

0.

_,......
'
200
:

6PRE
y = 27.867x - 1 0.677
1 00
R2 = 0.9845
,.
0
/
-100 - --
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fill Height Above Culvert (m)
I 4PREA I! SPREA " 6PREA I
Figure 4-1 1 . Section A Roof Pressure Cell Readings vs Fill Height

\0
50
Roof pressures at section B are shown in Figure 4- 1 2. The average roof
pressure reading is 1 9.6 kPa per meter height of fill. All three pressure cell readings
have a relatively uniform pressure distribution with the pressure cell near the end of
the wall having the highest pressure.
To back calculate the pressure from the moments an assumption has to be
made for the values of k., k2 and k3. Two different load cases were examined for the
roof. One was an assumed uniform pressure (k1 = k2 = k3 = 1 ). The other pressure
distribution was obtained by performing a linear regression between pressure cells to
determine the relationship between pressures at different locations. This resulted in kt
= 1 . 1 8, k2 = 0.97, and k3 = 092 for section A and kt = 1 .24, k2 = 0.94 and k3 = 1 .00 for
section B.
Results for the average roof pressures from the pressure cells, the bending
moments and the wall axial force are summarized in Table 4-6.
At section A, the three methods of calculating an equivalent unit weight do not
vary much from each other. The calculated equivalent unit weight from the axial
forces in the wall is the highest followed by the calculated pressure from the bending
moment in the roof and then the pressure cell readings. It is also noted that all of the
equivalent unit weights divided by the soil unit weight are all higher than AASHTO's
soil modification factor (Fc1). The equivalent unit weight is nearly twice the soil
weight.
350 --------,--.---r--
300 --*' I I
r---t----t-/---:-
4PRE
250
Y = 26.736x - 3. 1 0 1 3
R2 = 0.9855
111
200 I I I I :/. I
-
_ _ 1111 I I I
e!
iil I I
5PRE
150 t--j Y I 1 1
K':i
= 1 7.807x +
1 2.827 1 1
a.
R2 = 0.9642
100 :A"im 1 I I 6PRE

y = 1 9.377x - 4.0847
R2 = 0.97 1 8
50 1 I I I I I I
6 8
0
0 2 4 10 12 14
I 4PREB BIB SPREB 6PREB I

Figure 4-1 2. Section 8 Roof Pressure Cell Readings vs Fill Height
VI
-
52
Table 4-6. Soil modification factors for different average pressure measurements.
Section A Section B
From Pressure Cells 30. 9 1 .72 19 6

. 1 .09
From Roof Moments
Assumed Uniform Pressure 34.5 1 .92 1 1 .8 0.66

Pressure Dist. as Measured 36.1 2.01 1 3.06 0.73
From Wall Axial Force
Section 1 38.5 2.14 25.7 1 .43

Section 2 38.7 2.1 5 1 2.6 0.70
Section 3 47.4 2.63 5.5 0.31
53
At section B, the three methods of calculating an equivalent unit weight vary
slightly from each other but are still fairly close to one another. The calculated unit
weight is highest in the pressure cell readings, and the average of the wall axial force
unit weight and the calculated pressure from the bending moments are about the same.
The equivalent unit weight is near the soil unit weight.
4.3.2 Wall Pressure
The wall pressures are shown in Figures 4-1 3 and 4-14. In both sections A and
B, the wall has a high pressure at the base compared to the rest of the wall. With this
high pressure at the base it is difficult to back calculate the pressure from the
moments. The pressure cell at the bottom of the wall at section A failed shortly after
installation, thus readings are only available up to about 3 meters of backfill height.
To use equation 4-4 to back calculate the pressure from the moments an
assumption has to be made for the values of k, k2 and k3 Five different load cases
were examined, as summarized in Table 4 -7. The first load case assumes a uniform
load, the second load case assumes a triangular load and the third, fourth, and fifth
case are used to simulate a high base pressure. Some example pressure distributions
are shown in Figure 4-15.
A calculated wall pressure could be found by using the strain gage bending
moments, but an assumption of the value of k to use in equation 4-4 was difficult to
assume with such a pressure distribution. The first five load cases were examined and
the calculated average pressures are summarized in Table 4-8.

300

250

1 PRE
200 I
ti'
Q.
:.
e 1 5o I y=
R2 = 0.8797
84.293 + 34.85
v
=
U)
U)
e
Q.
t J
100
: ;
'
2PRE 3PRE
I
y = 0.4177x + 1 0.476 y = -0. 1 81 6x + 7.829
. R2 = 0.2524 R2 = 0.0468
' le.
50 1----
II ... -
-
mil
W '!llllfl'
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
[ 1 PREA 111 . 2PREA

3PREAI
Figure 4-1 3. Section A Wall Pressure Cell Readings vs Fill Height
I.A
A
500
450
I

1 PRE

y = 26.2 1 1 x + 1 25.05
400
R2 = 0.9602 ;;iii' .

V"
350

,.,
ii" 300
-
0..
..

I!!
:l
250
Ill

Ill
Q)
Q. 200

;
2PRE 3PRE
150 .,
y = 4. 1442x + 7.0303 y = 0.21 83x + 1 4.874

R2 = 0.8202 R2 = 0.0253
100 .....
50
I
... .,.,
A
--- .IW l'ill

..
.. .. ..
w 'I' ....
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
[-- . 1 PREB 2PREB ----JPREe___J

Figure 4-14. Section B Wall Pressure Cell Readings vs Fill Height

VI
VI
56
Table 4-7. Different load distribution Cases.
Case k1 k2 k3
(j) 1 1 1 (uniform)

}
2 1 0 (triangular)
3 0.75 0
@ 4 0.5 0 (High Pressure at Base)
@ 6 0 0
U n i fo rm
AIL T r ia n g u l a r H i g h P re s s u re a t B a s e
Figure 4-1 5. Example Pressure Distributions

57
Table 4-8. Wall pressure per meter height of fill using different load cases.
Pressure Slope {kPa/m)

Case CD @ (4) ()
Section A Wall 22.01 22.01 35.21 88.04 -44.02
Section B Wall -6.07 -6.07 -9.71 -24.28 1 2.14
At section A, the average pressure from the pressure cell readings usmg
Simpson's rule is 14.3 kPa per meter of fill height. Using the calculated pressure with
the different load cases gives values that are higher than the pressure cell readings. At
section B the average pressure from the pressure cell readings using Simpson's rule is
7.2 kPa per meter height of fill. The calculated pressures from the bending moments
are not close to the pressure cell readings except for case six, which is higher than the
pressure cells.
4.4 Pressure Differences in the Sections A and B
Section A consistently showed higher pressures than at section B. One
possible reason for this may be due to the stiffuess of the culvert. A stiffer culvert
may attract more of the soil load that is above it, thus the soil does not have any
arching effect. The wall at Section A has a height to thickness ratio of 6 while at
section B the height to thickness ratio is 6.86. This shows that section A is a stiffer
section and thus attracts more of the soil load to it.

58
The roof at section A has a length to thickness ratio of 3.76 and at section B
the length to thickness ratio is 4. 1 5 . Again, this shows that section A i s a stiffer
section and thus attracts more of the soil load .
4.5 Shears
4.5.1 Wall Shears
Wall shears were calculated from equation 4-6 using the five different load
combinations from the wall pressure distribution, Table 4-7. As with the pressure
distribution, the wall shear was difficult to determine because of the high pressure at
the base of the culvert. The results of the shear forces are shown in Table 4-9. VA is
the shear force near the bottom of the wall and V8 is the shear force near the top.
Section A
Case CD (2) @ @
VA {kN/m) 1 6.39 21 .98 39.87 1 1 1 .43 -67.46
V8 {kN/m) 1 7.15 1 1 .56 1 3.79 22.74 0.38
Section B
Case .Q).. (2) ( (5)
VA (kN/m) 5.54 4.00 -0.94 -20.67 28.66
V8 (kN/m) -14.79 -13.25 -13.86 -1 6.33 -10.16
Table 4-9. Wall shear forces with various load distributions.

59
4.5.2 Roof Shears
The roof shears were calculated using equation 4-6 with the assumed unifonn
loading and the pressure distribution from the pressure cell readings. Results from
each section are shown in Table 4-1 0. Significantly higher shear forces exist near the
center wall than near the outside wall.
Table 4- 1 0. Roof shear forces with different load distributions.
Section A
Case Uniform Measured
Pressure Distribution
VA (kN/m) 25.2 28.5
V8 (kN/m ) 50.3 50.1
Section B
Measured
Case Uniform Pressure Distribution
VA (kN/m) 6.08 8.09
V8 (kN/m) 21 .9 22.6
60
Chapter S
Computer Modeling of Buried Box Culvert
5.1 Introduction
A computer analysis was performed on the buried box culvert at Greene
County to study the behavior of the culvert using different unit load distributions and
boundary conditions. The analysis was a frame model using Visual Analysis 3 . 1 .
Different unit load distributions were applied to both the roof and wall of the culvert
model to determine if there were any significant changes in shear forces and bending
moments. Different boundary conditions with uniform unit loads were also applied to
the model to study the change in forces in the culvert due to support conditions.
An analysis was also performed on the culvert to study changes in the culvert
forces by varying the fill height. The forces from the fill height were calculated using
AASHTO loads, pressure cell readings and strain gage calculated pressures.
5.2 Roof Forces
5.2.1 Effects of Boundary Conditions
Three different boundary conditions were modeled and are shown in Figure 5-
1 . The first condition that was analyzed was an assumed flexible support where the
pressure was applied equally to both the top and bottom of the culvert. The second
condition was a stiff support where the bottom of the culvert was assumed to have
fixed supports. On the third boundary condition the roof of the culvert was assumed
to be a continuous beam.
61
(a)
(b)
Figure 5-1. Boundary Conditions for Roof Forces. (a) Bottom Support
Assumed to Provide Uniform Pressure.(b) Bottom Support Assumed to be a Stiff
Support.(c) Culvert Roof Assumed to Be a Continuous Beam.

62
S.2.1 a Bending Moments
Figure 5-2 shows the results of the roof bending moments with the three
boundary conditions for a uniform distributed load. There is not much difference in
the maximum positive moment between the three support conditions with the
continuous beam being the lowest and the fixed support being approximately 7%
higher. The continuous beam gives the greatest negative moment, which is about
50% higher than the fixed support. The uniform support pressure gives intermediate
values which are only about 4% lower than the fixed support for the positive moment
and about 25% lower than the continuous support for the negative moment. For all
three conditions, the negative moment at the outside wall was much smaller than the
negative moment at the middle wall.
5.2.1b Shear Forces
Figure 5-3 show the results of the shear forces with the three different support
conditions. The shear forces change only slightly with a change in the support
conditions. The percent change between the maximum and minimum shear force is
about 1 6% between the different support conditions.
5.2.2 Effects of Load Distributions
Three load distribution cases were applied to see the effect on bending
moments and shear forces. The first load distribution was a uniform load, which is
what is assumed by AASHTO. The second and third load distributions were the load
1 ---------.--
0.5 I ::>19'7 I I ""ltd: ......,..

. "..,... I I I
-
E
.
z
' '
=- 0
-
c
Cl)
E
0
:E
-0.5 '
:0
c
Cl)
m
-1 +---------+--r--+---
-1.5 L---------
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Offset from end (meters)
-+- Uniform Support Pressure ----:- Bott Support Fixed

.
-

-+- Continuous B
Figure 6-2. Bending Moments In Top Slab with Different Support Conditions
0\

2
1.5
-
0.5
z
-
CD 0
fJ
...
0
-0.5
u..
CD
.c
tn
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Offset from end (meters)
--+-- Uniform Support Pressure - Bottom Support Fixed .......,.._ Continuous Beam
Figure 63. Shear Force In Top Slab with Different Support Conditions

65
distributions measured from the pressure cells that were installed on the culvert at
sections A and B. These three load distributions are shown in Figure 5-4. In all these
analysis, no load was applied to the culvert wall.
The same average load was used in all cases, that is, the total area under the
load diagram was the same in all cases. The measured pressure distribution from the
pressure cells was modeled with a parabolic load, but the computer model can only
apply linear loads. The parabolic loads were approximated by four line segments,
Figure 5-5. Interstices were chosen at quarter points of the span so that the area under
the piecewise linear approximation had the same area under the load curve as the
parabolic load distribution. The equations used for the interstices are shown in Figure
5-5.
S.2.2a Bending Moments
The effects of the three load distributions are shown in Figure 5-6. The
different load distributions cause almost no difference in the bending moments.
k) s 1
-+-k2 --k.
3 6 6
I 1 12 1 12
I
Figure 5-4. Approximated Linear Pressure Distribution.
66
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5-5. Load Distributions for Roof Forces. (a) Uniform Load Distribution
(AASHTO). (b) Pressure Distribution from Pressure Cells at Section A. (c) Pressure
Distribution from Pressure Cells at Section B.

1 ------r-----.--
I
0.5
z '
c 0
s
c
m
E
0
c
m
45 I
-1 +------+--;---r-------4
-1 .5 L ___L __ _j ___ ---:--------;

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
I
Offset From End (meters)
-+- Uniform (AASHTO) - Pressur Cells at A --.- Pressure Cells at B

Figure 6-6. Effect of Load Distribution on Culvert Roof Moments
0\
-..I
68
5.2.2b Shear Forces
Figure S-7 shows the effect on the roof shear forces of the three different load
distributions. The different load distributions produce almost no difference in the
shear forces.
5.2.3 Conclusions on Roof Forces
The effects of using different support conditions on the culvert roof give a
slightly higher positive bending moment using a fixed support and much higher
negative moment using a continuous beam. Roof shear forces are not affected much
by changing the support condition.
The effect of changing the load distribution on the culvert roof gives almost no
change in the bending moment and shear forces. This infers that the AASHTO
method of using a uniform pressure on the culvert roof is adequate for obtaining
internal culvert forces.
5.3 Wall Forces
Three boundary conditions along with three load distributions are modeled on
the exterior culvert wall. The three load distributions and boundary conditions are
shown in Figure S-8. The first load distribution is a uniform load which is close to
AASHTO specifications for high embankments. The second load distribution is a
triangular load which is close to what AASHTO assumes for low embankments. The
third load distribution is a parabolic load with a high pressure at the base, similar to
2
1.5
1
---- - ----- - -- . - - --- - - --- - - -- - - - ----

0.5

-
=
!

0
.......
l
tl.

I
:a -0. 5 r-
Q)
.c
U)
-1 """"
-1.5 ------ - ----- - -- -- ---- -

-

-2 ---- 1----- -

- --

-2.5 --
0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-+- Uniform (AASHTO) - Pressure Cells at A --.- Pressure Cells at s]

Offset From End (meters)
Figure 5-7. Effect of Load Distribution on Culvert Roof Shear Forces

$
70
__,.,
...
..
...
..
...
...
(a) (d)
(b) (e)
(c) (f)
Figure 5-8. Load Distributions and Boundary conditions on wall Forces. (a) Uniform
Pressure. (b) Triangular Pressure. (c) Parabolic Pressure. (d) Flexible Support. (e)
Rigid Support. (f) Simple Support.

71
what was measured by the pressure cells. The vertex o f the parabola is at the top of
the culvert. In all these analysis, no load was applied to either the base or roof of the
culvert.
The three boundary conditions are similar to what was assumed in the culvert
roof. The three different boundary conditions are a flexible support, a fixed support
and a simple beam. An equal lateral load is applied to each side of the culvert.
5.3.1 Bending Moments
Figures 5-9, 5-10 and 5-1 1 show the effects of different boundary conditions
and load distributions on wall bending moments. Varying the load distribution has
very little effect on the wall bending moments when using the flexible and rigid
support. Using a simple support increased the positive moment in the wall by
approximately 270%, and also since a simple support has no continuity, the wall
shows no negative moment.
5.3.2 Shear Forces
Figure 5- 1 2 shows the effects of different boundary conditions on wall shear
forces for a uniform lateral load. The support conditions did not have a significant
affect on the shear force.
Figures 5-13 to 5-1 5 show the effect of different load distributions on the shear
force for the three different support conditions. Using different load distributions has
a large effect on the shear at the base of the culvert. Using a uniform pressure, which
3.5
e .
-
s 25
--
.5.
Ql
Ql
Ul
CIS 2 --- -------
al
s
Ql
(.) 1 .5
g
e
a;
0.5 -
0
12 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
J
08
Bending Moment (kN*m)
- . .
-+- Uniform - Triang ular -+- arabolic

---

Figure 6-9. Wall Bending Moment with varying Load Distributions
Flexible Support
jj
3.5
i'
.s
Q)
-------
2.5
E
-
t:
Q)
:s 2 --
0
0
Q)
= 1 .5
ID
E
,g
0.5
0 I --- - . ....
- -
-1 .4 -1 .2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -o.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
I J
Bending Moments (kN*m)
-+- Uniform - Triangular -+- Parabolic
Figure 51 0. Wall Bending Moments with Varying load Distributions

Rigid Support
;:i
---r--.---.---
3.5
.-
3 1 T- :c::==- ---L:: I I I I I I
f
11
..
2.5
t::
2 I I I I I 1 ::s::.,.... I'q I I
0
'0
II)
CD
r------------------t---------i----------t------------------::1---------_j '
,
n I 1
1 .5
Jl
E
1 I I I I I I ..,.,...... I ........- .,/ I I

o
0.5 -t-----t-t-
--- --
- !---- -- ----1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6

Bending Moment (kN*m)
--+- Uniform - Triangular -+- Parabolic
L______ ------ -----
Figure 51 1 . Bending Moments with Varying Pressure Distributions

Simple Supported

3.5 .------.---.---r---.
'
3 I I '?.so: I I -t
2.5 1-------+-- """'= I ------ - - --------------- -- --
E
....
CP
&I
Cll
2
:I ,
0 1 .5
E
0
.:::
a;
1
0
0.5 '...,. I I
---1- --- --
0
-2 -1 .5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2
]
Shear Force (kN)
- Ri Support
.
-+- Flexible Support __..._ Simple Supported
Figure 5-1 2. Wall Shear Forces with Uniform Load and Different Support Conditions
V!
3.5
' -i
3 r-.... ,
'!'
41 2.5

-
"'
Gi
E
i'...
41
.! 2
llij
'
t::

I
!
:; r...... I
0 1 .5

,g
E

:!
Gi
1 .. -
0.5
0
-2 -1 .5 -1 -0.5 0
-
0.5 1

h::---
1 .5 2
--
2.5
-
3
[
Shear Force (kN)
-+- Uniform - Triangular -+- Parabolic
Figure 5-1 3. Wall Shear Forces with varying Load Distributions

Flexible Support

3.5
i
s
G)
.
E 25
-
t:
G)
>
a 2
0
=
1 .5 - -- -----
.g
E
0.5
0
-2 -1 .5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Shear Force {kN)
-+-- Uniform ____ - Tri;;91;r --11-- Pa_bo_l i

Figure 6-14. Wall Shear Forces with Varying load Distributions
Rigid Support
:::1
3.5
3
I!
-
J!1
Q)
-
E 2.5
1::
Q)
:s 2
0
0
1 .5
Q)
m
E
,g
0
0.5
0
-2 -1 .5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3
J
Shear Force (kN)
-+- Uniform --Triangular __.__ Para bo l ic

Figure 5-1 5. Shear Forceswith Varying Pressure Distributions
Simple Supported

79
is about what AASHTO assumes for high embankments, gives the lowest value for
shear at the base while using a triangular load distribution is about 36% higher and
using a parabolic load distribution gives a 66% higher pressure at the base.
Different load distribution also has a large effect on the shear at the top of the
culvert. Using the triangular load distribution gives the lowest shear at the top of the
culvert while a parabolic distribution is only about 7% greater and a uniform pressure
is approximately 60% greater.
5.3.3 Conclusions on Wall Forces
Load distributions have almost no effect on the bending moments in the culvert
wall. Varying the support conditions does not have much of an effect between flexible
and rigid but the bending moment is greatly increased when using a simple support.
Load distributions have a great affect on the shear forces on the wall of the
culvert. Using a load distribution that has a higher load at the base gives a much
higher shear at the base of the culvert while using a uniform load gives a much higher
shear force at the top of the culvert. The support conditions did not have a significant
affect on the shear force.
5.4 Roof Bending Moments with Varying Fill Height
An analysis was performed to study the effects of bending moment in the
culvert roof with increase in fill height. Loads were applied to both the culvert roof,
and walls in these analyses. Three pressure distributions were considered and were
80
then compared to the moments calculated from the strain gages. The first pressure
distribution that was considered was the measured pressure from the pressure cells.
The second and third pressure distributions were the pressure distributions from
AASHTO, which gives a maximum and a minimum wall pressure. Three locations
from each section were looked at and are located on the culvert roof next to the
outside wall, half-way between the outside wall and the middle wall, and next to the
middle wall, Figure 5-1 6 .
Figures 5-1 7 to 5-22 show the bending moments versus fill height for all the
pressure distributions. The bending moments calculated from the strain gages and the
slope of the measured bending moments from the strain gages are also included. The
slope of the strain gage bending moments was found by fitting a best-fit trend line
through the measured bending moments and then ignoring the y-intercept.
Outside Wall Middle Wall
Figure 5-1 6. Location of Roof Bending Moments.

0 - r- -
1 . :
1 00 I
- '
I
-
E
F -2oo
z
-
-e
-300 .
0
::
CD
-400 -
c
:s
c
CD
m
-500 -1----t
--l---- ------- 1 1----ir----t---+---
-600 l_ L_ ---------L------------L-----------
0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
____ __
2
Fill Height above Culvert Roof (meters)
-+- MSHTO Min Wall Pressure - AASHTO Max Wall Pressure

_.__ Pressure Cell Loading Strain Gage Moments
- Strain Gage Moment Calculated Slo------- _____ __________ __________
Figure 51 7. Section A Roof Bending Moments at Side Wall

00
-
500 ---------.--
400
e
E
..
300 -
z
-
...
c
Cl
E 200
0
:!1
C)
c
:0 1 00
c
Gl
m
- 1 00 J_ __L____JL____L___
-- ---
____
-+- MSHTO Min Wall Pressure

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

- MSHTO Max Wall Pressure
- - -- - -
r------ - - --- -
-.- Pressure Cell Loading "' Strain Gage Moments

- Strain Gage Moment Calculated Slope
----- - -------- --- -------1
Figure 51 8
Section A Roof Bending Moments at Center 00
N
200
e -2oo
-
.e
z
-400 --
-
-
c
Q)
E -600
0
::2:
g -800
:0
c
Q)
m -1 000
-1 200
-1400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-+- AASHTO Min Wall Pressure - AASHTO Max Wall Pressure

Pressure Cell Loading
---.- Strain Gage Moments
- Strain Gage Moment Calculated SI<?Q_e_____
Figure 5-1 9
Section A Roof Bending Moments at Middle Wall 00
\H
200
1 50
-
E
-
1 00
2
-
.. 50
c
Q)
E
0
2 0
m
c
:g
c
Q) -50
m
-1 00
-1 50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fill Height Above Culvert Roof (meters)
- AASHTO Max Wall Pressure AASHTO Min Wall Pressure

-+-
--.- Pressure Cell Loading - Strain Gage Moment Calculated Slope
Strain Gage Ments . . . . '" - --- - -- --- - - ---------- ----
-
Figure 520

Section 8 Roof Bending Moments at Outside Wall
250
200
:e
E 1 50
;:
c
1 00
CD
E
0
:I! 50
en
.5
'C
I
c
CD 0
..
Dl

-5o
- 1 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-+- AASHTO
------
- AASHTO Max Wall Pressure Min Wall Pressure
-+- Pressure Cell Loading - Strain Gage Moment Calculated Slope
Strain Gage Momnts -- --
Figure 5-21 . Section B Roof Bending Moments at Center

00
VI
---------r--r---
50
0 L:: =--- I I -------
-50 --------dr--;---+-
i
-100 -r------------+--+-
z
..
1: -150 I
-
:a I a: .......__ I P' ..:;::> ....... -..... ........J =:::,.. ........: I I I

Cl)
E
-200 I 1:---
m
c
:g
c
-250 +-----
Cl)
m
-300 I I . I 1......_-...:

-350
400 1_ ------------------L-------------------
14
______
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
- AASHTO Max Wall Pressure --+-

AASHTO Min Wall Pressure
-+- Pressure Cell Loading - Strain Gage Moment Calculated Slope
Strain Gage Mom nt:.s .::. ____
Figure 5-22. Section B Roof Bending Moments at Middle Wall

co
Q\
87
At section A, the pressure cell distribution gives a slightly higher bending
moment next to the outside wall and at the center but shows a small decrease in the
bending moment next to the middle wall when compared to the AASHTO pressure
distribution. The strain gage moments show a slightly higher moment than AASHTO
at the outside wall and the middle wall but are less at the center location.
At section B the pressure cell distribution gives a slightly higher moment at the
outside wall when compared to AASHTO loadings, but at the center the bending
moments are about the same as the AASHTO loadings. The bending moments
calculated from the strain gages near the middle wall show a positive moment at this
location unlike the AASHTO and pressure cell distribution which show a positive
moment. This may be due to the high pressure that was applied to the wall.
88
Chapter 6
Comparison of Forces to Culvert Capacity
6.1 Introduction
The Greene county culvert is compared to allowable design criteria according
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. The capacity of the roof
and wall is expressed in terms of an axial force-moment interaction diagram. The
shear strength of the roof and walls is compared to the design criteria of AASHTO
design guides.
6.2 Comparison of Axial Force and Moment to Culvert Capacity
6.2.1 Development of Capacity Interaction Diagrams
The interaction diagram was first constructed for the ultimate capacity of the
culvert. Concrete was assumed to fail at a strain of 0.003, and an equivalent
rectangular stress block was used for the concrete stress. The reinforcing steel was
assumed to have an elastic-plastic stress-strain diagram neglecting strain hardening.
A factored interaction diagram was obtained by multiplying the ultimate
capacity by the appropriate strength reduction factor. AASHTO specifications give a
strength reduction factor of 0. 75 for compression members with spiral reinforcement
and 0.70 for members with tie reinforcement. Since the culvert roof and wall is not
confined by reinforcement a strength reduction factor of 0.70 was used to create the
interaction diagrams. When the axial load is less than 0. 1 Of'cAg, the strength reduction
factor is increased linearly to 0.9, per AASHTO specifications.

89
A working stress interaction diagram was also constructed for the culvert.
With working stress design, the concrete is assumed to behave linear elastic and the
allowable concrete compressive stress is 0.40f c The allowable concrete compressive
stress was taken as 1 1 ,000 kPa. and the allowable steel reinforcement stress was taken
as 1 65 MPa
6.2.2 Comparison of Axial Forces and Moments to Capacity
The axial forces and bending moments calculated from the strain gages at
section A are plotted along with the interaction diagrams in figures 6-1 to 6-6.
Generally, the applied forces should be within the working stress interaction range.
Obviously, if the forces exceed the nominal capacity of the interaction diagram, the
culvert has theoretically failed.
At all six locations in section A the applied axial force and bending moment is
well within the ultimate capacity of the culvert. In fact, all sections are within the
working stress diagram, with the exception of Al, which is only slightly outside the
working stress range.
6.3 Shear Capacity
The typical cast-in-place box culvert does not have any shear reinforcement in
the walls and roof. In general, there will also not be any prestressing, except in the
case when precast panels are used to form the top slab. Neglecting the contribution of
II
1 4000
1 2000
. .. ..
I
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
..
1 0000 .. .. ..
.. ..
....
- ....
z ....
'
8000
CD ...
...

0
IL ...
...
iii ..
6000
..
'
'
'
'
'\
4000
_,

,. "'
- - - - ,.
,
2000 ,.
...
0
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200
Moment (kN*m)

N ominal Capacity -- Factored Capacity Working Stress Section A1 Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6- . .
Section A1 Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall \0
0
14000
1 2000
.._ . ..
. ..
. .. ..
.
.. ..
.. .. ..
.. ..
1 0000 .
.. ..
.. .. .. ..
- .. ....
z '
- ....
8000
4 - ...
...
...
0 ...
u. ...
6000
...
...
I
..

..
...
'
'
4000 ...
.. ..
..
,
/
,
-;
, ,.

- - - -
2000
.
.,- "'
.a lit- "* .. ..
. ... .
..

.. ..
0
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200
Moment (kN*m)

Nominal Capacity -- Factored Capacity Working Stress Section A2 Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6-2.
Section A2- Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall \0
-
14000
..
-...

1 2000
..
. ...

... ..
.. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. ..
!I. ..
1 0000 .. ...
.....
.....
....
- ....
....
z ....
....
8000
Q) ...
...
e
0
1&.
6000
4000
, ,
. . . . ,
2000
..
. - ,
0
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200
Moment (kN*m)
Unfactored -- Factored Working Stress Section A3 Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6-3.
IS
Section A3- Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall
20000
1 8000
1 6000
14000
12000
CD
-
u.
1 0000
iii
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 2500
Moment (kN*m)
Unfactored -- Factored Working Stress Section A4 Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6-4.
Section A4- Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall \0

20000
..
....
....
.. ..
..
1 8000 .. ..
.. ..
- ...

.... ....
....
1 6000 - ...
... ....
... ...
...
.
1 4000 ..
-
..
..
.
.. ..
..
-
- 1 2000

"
..
Gl
..
1 0000
..
....
..
:::::;:: "
LL.
:!
_/
8000 1..... -
l/
6000
-j
,_ .- !
.
,_ .-
.. -
... ...
...
4000
""
- - - - - - - - -
}
.-
.- ..
---
...
...
...
. ...
.-. .-.
. __,.,.,.,.,.
.. loo..
2000
---
....... __... ...
' .. ..
.. ..
---
- -- ----
--- - ____
_.
0 __
0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 2500

Moment (kN*m)
Unfactored -- Factored Working Stress Section AS Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6-5.
':f
Section AS- Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall
..
20000 I
I I
1 8000
"'
"'
"'
-

-
._, 1-oo
- ..
-
- - --r;_=r===+===-
16000
r==t"'"'=
....
.... ...
..
. .. ..
...
.. .. ..
-
14000
-
12000
-
-
-,
'-..
CD
1 0000 =--
-
- - .
'
-
u..
s
8000
6000
'
4000
L/ -- .. ..
.. .-----
.. .. .. .. .. --1
- - - - - ----- - - ---)

- . . .
# # -
--
./
-
.. .. ... ...1
2000
....... .... .... .,..
- - - -
__,..-
....
....
-.l
0 L

0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 2500

Moment (kN*m)
Unfactored -- Factored - - - Working Stress Section A6 Strain Gage Forces
Figure 6-6.
Section A6 Moment Interaction Diagram for Culvert Wall \0
VI
96
prestresses to the shear strength, AASHTO nominal shear stress for slabs of box
culverts with 2 feet or more of fill is determined from the equation:
(6-1 )
in which f i s the concrete compressive strength,

c p i s the tension reinforcement ratio,
V is the design shear force, d is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the
centroid of the tension reinforcement and M is the computed moment capacity. For a
non-slab member the nominal shear stress may be taken as:
(6-2)
where Pw is a reinforcement ratio. Taking these two equations results in equation 6-1
giving slightly higher allowable shear capacity, as can be seen in figure 6-7.
According the figure 6-7 it is shown that slab shear capacity can be taken as
approximately 1 1% greater than wall shear. Due to the uncertainties in the bending
moment in the culvert, the shear force is only compared to the axial force by the
AASHTO equation:
(
vc = 2 1 +
N
2000A 8
JF: (6-3)
where N is the design axial force and A8 is the gross cross-sectional area. The
quantity N/A8 shall be expressed in pounds per square inch. To get the factored
capacity of the walls this equation is multiplied by 0.85.

97
4.5
/
4
/
3.5 . -
,..../
/ _...,---
3
"'
2.5
/_.....
- Eq 6-2
flo!
:;; 2 - Eq 6-1
>
1 .5
1
0. 5
I
0 i
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 i
p Vd/M(fJ05
----- ___j
Figure 6-7. Comparison of AASHTO Shear Strength.
For the allowable shear stress of the culvert, the shear forces are compared to
the equation in AASHTO for allowable shear stress for member in compression:
(6-4)
6.3.1 Comparison of Shear Forces and Capacity in the Culvert Wall
The shear force from the strain gages along with the shear capacity of the
culvert wall is shown in figures 6-8 through 6-1 0. Three different load cases were
examined for the wall of the culvert. These include a uniform load, a triangular load
and a parabolic load with a high pressure at the base. According to AASHTO
specifications the maximum shear force should be taken at a distance d from the face
600 -------.----
600
500
z
400
-
0 300 -- ---- - -- --
...
- ----- -- --
u.
al
Cl)
.c
(/) 200

,.
.
1 00
0 - -- -
0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 2500
-A3j
Axial Force (kN)
Nominal Capacity - Factored Capaty -Alloable -:s A1

=:::

Figure 6-9.
Shear Force vs. Axial Force
Case 2 (Triangular Load)
\0
\0
900
800

700
- 600
- , - - .. . .
- - - -
- -
-
-
--
-
" 500
-
-
-
I
.
- -
.
- --
-
0 - -
-
'!:nl 400 -
-

- -
- -
- -
- --
-- -
Q)
.c -.
UJ 300 -- --- -- -- - --- -- - - -

--
- " "
-
' 4-
-a ""-

200 - -
.4
-
...
.. - -
1 00
I S
.. . I
--
-
0 ..l -
-t
0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 2500

Axial Force (kN)
-
A1
Nominal Capacity -- Factored Capacity - Allowable Stress
3]
Figu re 6-1 0.
Shear Force vs. Axial Force
Case 3 (High Pressure at Base) ....
0
0
101
of the support. Due to the complexity of finding the shear force at a distance d from
the face of the support the maximum shear force was taken at the location of the strain
gages, which are approximately 1 0 em from shear stress at a distance d from the face
of the support.
When an assumed uniform load distribution is applied to the wall of the
culvert, all of the shear forces are below the factored shear capacity. When an
assumed triangular distribution is applied to the wall, the shear forces near the bottom
of the culvert are close to the factored shear capacity. Using an assumed parabolic
load with a high pressure at the base results in shear forces at the bottom of the wall
that exceeds the shear capacity of the section. When the shear forces are compared
with the allowable shear stress, all three cases show shear forces that are above the
allowable.
6.3.2 Comparison of Shear Forces and Capacity in the Culvert Roof
Figure 6-1 1 shows a comparison of the roof shear forces calculated from the
strain gages along with the allowable shear capacity from AASHTO design criteria.
An assumed uniform load distribution was used for the calculation of the shear forces.
Due to the uncertainties in the applied axial force in the roof of the culvert, a different
method was used to calculate the shear capacity of the roof that did not take account of
the increase in shear strength due to axial compression. The maximum applied shear
800 -
700 - - - --- -.

600
-
E -..
-
z 500 - - - -- - -
.:.:::
-
400

-"-
0
LL
...
m 3oo
.c

en

go

.. )
200
II
<:o <>
.

<>
. .. <>
1 00 -
o$
0 et --
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
VB ]
Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity Allowable Stress <> VA
Figure 6-1 1 .
Section A Roof Shear Strength -
s
103
forces in the culvert roof are taken at a distance d from the face of the support. Roof
shear forces and the shear capacity are plotted versus the fill height.
The calculated roof shear forces from the strain gages are all below the
factored shear capacity of the roof section. The actual shear capacity of the roof may
also be higher due to the prestressing panels that were used in the roof.
6.4 Conclusion on Culvert Capacity
The culvert has adequate capacity based on comparison of the applied loads
from the strain gages to the moment-interaction diagram, and the applied loads are
often within the allowable stress range. When the shear capacity of the culvert wall is
compared to the applied wall shear forces, it can be seen that a change in the pressure
distribution from uniform to a higher pressure at the base can result in shear forces that
are higher than the shear capacities of the wall. The roof shear forces come close to
the factored capacity of the roof, but due to the prestressing panel used the actual shear
capacity may be slightly higher.

104
Chapter 7
Conclusion
7.1 Internal Forces
Based on the strain gage results, axial forces and bending moments in the box
culvert are linearly related to the embankment height. The external pressures,
measured from the pressure cells, gave results consistent with the strain gage
calculations.
The roof pressures at section A gave results that were higher than the design
pressures given in AASHTO, but section B gave results that near the design values.
The roof pressures measured were not uniform, but this does not affect the internal
forces.
Wall internal forces are affected by the load distribution applied to the wall.
AASHTO assumes an almost uniform pressure for high embankment heights, but on
this culvert a much higher pressure was measured at the base of the culvert. With the
higher pressures applied at the base of the culvert, the shear force in the bottom of the
wall increases greatly. Although the total horizontal design force on the wall of the
culvert may be reasonable, a change in the load distribution significantly affects wall
shears.
7.2 Capacity
The box culvert has adequate capacity according to the design equations from
AASHTO. Most of the calculated pressures at section A were higher than the
1 05
recommended pressures from AASHTO, but almost all of the forces were within the
working stress rage of the moment-interaction diagram. Shear forces on the roof are
below the shear capacity of the culvert. When the load distribution is increased on the
bottom of the wall, shear forces develop that exceed the capacity of the culvert.
The computer modeling of the culvert showed that the effects of boundary
conditions give slightly different moments in the roof and wall. Load distributions on
the roof show very little change in the bending moments and shears, but when the load
distribution on the wall increases on the bottom, a significant increase in shear force is
seen.
106
REFERENCES
1 07
References
I. Dasgup A. and Sengup B. (1991). "Large-Scale Model Test On Square

Box Culvert Backfilled With Sand." Journal of Geotechenial Engineering.
Div. , ASCE, 1 1 7(1}, 1 56- 1 6 1 .
2. Design and Cnstruction ofReinforced Concrete Box Culverts (1996},

American Railway Engineering Association, Vol. 97, Bulletin 758, 625-639.
3. Minimum Design Loadsfor Buildings and Other Structures, (ANSIIASCE 7-

95, 1995). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
4. Sachs, L. (1 984), Applied Statistics a Handbook of Techniques, 2nd Edition,

Springier-Verlag, New York.
5. Spangler, M. G. and Handy, R . L. (1992). Soil Engineering. 4th edition, Harper

& Row, New York.
6. th
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. (1996). 1 6 Ed., The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
Washington, D .C.
7. Tadros, M. K., Benak, J. V., Abdel-Karim, A. M. and Bexten, K. A. (1 989).

"Field Testing of a Concrete Box Culvert." Transportation Research Record
1231, 49 55.
8. Yang, M. Z. (2000). "Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Earth pressures on

Buried Box Culverts." Disseration, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1 08
APPENDIXES
109
Appendix A
Greene County Culvert
Dimensions and Details
1 10
BARS N
a c.c. NAUPA.
-7 vz
---S
---M -------
II 18' c.c. MAX. SPA.
PEINFOP.CED DE TAIL - SECTION THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESEE

_ .,.
GPEENE COUNTY CULVERT - . -
BAR N
'---A
----B RS N------'
t JQ c.c. MAX. Sl'"-
REINFOP.CED DETAIL - SECTION B THE UNIVERSI T Y OF TENNE$SEE

'"- ""
GREENE COUNTY CULVERT - a. -
.,...-,- -.-
. -. -
Figure A-1 . Reinforcement Details.
'
'
111
: T?AIN GAGE - 3ECTION A THE UNIVERS ITY 0 TENNESSEE

....
GFE:EIE C OUNTY CULVERT
:TRAIN GAGES - SECTIDN B THE UNIVERSITY Or TENNESSEE

.....
GREENE COUNTY CULVERT
Figure A-2. Strain Gage Locations.

1 12
Appendix B
Section A Strain Gage Results
Figure B-1
1 1
Strain Readings Section A1
-+-:- 1VIA _._1vouA
350.00
1-
r.
.....
f- - -
300.00

-
f- i- --
:-- 1- -
-
1- r
..
:--- 1- -
250.00 --
-
c-- - -
1-
200.00 - --
,----
1- -
Cll
- -- -
..
-- -
-- -
I-f--
1 50.00 --
Cll I- 1
m -- -
c - - - -
1 00.00 :--
- -
Cll
_ ...,
a::
c ...
I!II -
-
:9"
j
50.00
Jll
tn - I'""
-
0.00
- --
-50.00
-
1-
I- 1-
-1 00. 00 --
1-1-
-1 50.00
--
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
w
I I
Figure B-2
Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A1
--+- Axial Force (Kn/m) - Bending Moment (kN/m - m)
1 800.00 --
50.00
16
'
"" -
I
I .II. - I'.. a-
..- I'W
1600.00
-....
.... ..... 0.00
!r
-- - -1- --
.,
-- - ..
:- I- --
1400.00 N

-
I --
'
- -
I-
, "--
-- - -
I-I-
I
'E
- ---
-50.00
__
L
- -
1200.00
I
1--
- , _
- -
I- -
-1 00.00
1 000.00
. ..
...
0
Gl .. - 1- - I- c
r-1
- -
e -
.f
-- -- -
J
-- - - - -

--
.,.:
- 800.00 - 1- - --
--!-- 1-r , ..
-- - - -1 50.00
c
-- - -1--
' \ IP\.
--
/ :a
-
c
. .B
- - -
600.00 a 'if"
-
..... ......
-
l .. L. -200.00
y
\
-
---
-
400.00
-
I- ..
-
1--
f
-- . . --- - - --- - -- - -- - -- - - --
-250.00
200.00 If
- ::-411 - - L_ - - -- -
0.00 -300.00
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
-
-
-'="
Figure B-3
Axial Force va. Fill Height Section A1
1800.00
1 600.00 - 1- I-

-
.....
y = 67.366x + 344.27 ,
1400.00 R2 = 0.9033 1- - -
.-:-
,
-
,.
--

-- --- -- -
1200.00 - - -
1-1- --
,
e
--
,.
--
,
-
z
:!. J!
1000.00 , -
Gl ,.
- -
e
0 ,.
-- -
1.1.
..... 1-1-
- ,- 1- -
- - -
iii 800.00 .
- - --
1C - , I . .
--
c( 1- , :-"
I .....
- - - -- - - -
,__
-
!"": ..
600.00 - - -
, 1- I- 1-
-
- - -

..
1-
400.00 1- -
- -
1-
.
- -
- - -
200.00
-
.
-
1-1-
0.00 - ' - --
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
VI
-
Figure B-4
Bending Moment vs Fill Height Section A1
50.00

I""'+
0.00
"

"
1'1
- - - "
50.00
"
--

i1 - -
"
f
!\..
'
100.00
:a
1Y = 19.468x + 21 7.951
I R2 = 0.9852 I '
i-
I

150.00

1\..
""
, ,;
"
200.00

250.00 -- ---
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fill Holght (m)
-
0\
1 17
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I
I ! I I I
I I 0
I I
0
I co
II
i'lll
v, I
1'1.. I I
"""' I
-..I IJ I
l.
0
g

'
I 1'-
I I I
I
I I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
II' I
I I I
I
I I
'
1
,,
'
I i
I
I j\
I . I
I I I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I
I I 1/ I IJi I
i 0
i1 g
<( I I.
I I
+
,.I
'
I I 14 I
I I I I

I : I
'
, .'Ill
I
I I

f"'l
I ' '
I' 0
I I
0
.,....
I I I
I
I
I
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 0
g
0 0 0 0
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
., 0 ., 0 .,. 0
.,....
N N .,.... .,....
(ew) s5ulpee}f UleJlS

Figure B-6
Axial Force and Bending Moment Section A2
-+- Axial Force (Kn/m) - sending Moment (kN/m - m)

2000.00 0.00
1'\.
:-
J!
1 800.00 - - - -20.00
r- -
-
1 600.00 - r
""' -- :.. -40.00
- - -
1.. ......

/_ lliili". .
-
4
..so.oo e
1400.00
.';! i
- --

.L r-=
-
g
-
e
1 200.00 ...
z -
c - -80.00
-
-
QJ
{t,
1 000.00 E
::&
- 0
17'

ii -1- - ...
-100.00

800.00 ,. / 1-
...IS
.!

- -120.00
1
600.00
- .Jill 1-
- -140.00
400.00 - .- ..
,
200.00 -160.00
-1-
0.00 -180.00
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
-
00
Figure 87
Axial Force vs Fill Height Above Culvert Section A2
2000.00
1 800.00 ...
y = 67.891x + 547.09 """I"""
R2 = 0.9249 - """
....
1 600.00 1-
..,
-
- -4 - i-i-
1 400.00
,
..... r-
e
1- ..,. ,
1 2oo.oo i.ol"!
,.
z ......
,.
-- """
1 000.00 """
0
11. ,_
ct 800.00
- ,
..,
, """
..,
l A"
600.00
-
,_
1-
400.00 -- ,_
1-
-- -
- --
200.00 -
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
FIJI Height Above Culvert (m)
-
-
\0
Figure B-8
Bending Moment vs Fill Height Above Culvert Section A2
0.00
-20.00
-40.00 .. 1-
.... -...
-....
--
1- - : ..
- - - -
""'!
-
1--
-r-
1e i""'" -- -I- - - - 1-1---

r- -
- -60.00 1-1- - 1- -1- 1-
E --
- '"""
"""'
""""'
..... fooo.. - -
r-o .....
- -
; -80.00 1- - -
!- r-
1: -
-
. -
Gl
....;
E i""'"
0
r""o 1-
::i -100.00 ,...,

,...,
;; .. too..
c 1- ...
CD 1-
.. 1-
m -1 20.00 """ io...
y = -8.82x - 29 304 1- 1-
.
-
R2 = 0.9237 I.
1 41
-
-140.00 -
-160.00
--
1--
-1 80.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
FIJI Height Above Culvert (m)
-
I-.)
0
1 21
I i I I I
I
I I I I
I I I
I . I
.. I I I
, ..
I
I . I
.--- I I I
I I
I
'
I I I
I
"'
I 1.1 I I
l "r..
I
""-- I ,_ I
I II
<C
::> '
0
+
,., .
"" :I
II
I
I 1\ i
I ' I I
I I
I
1\

I I I I I
I I I I
t I
'
I I
I i
4 i I II
I I I I II
<C
>
+
(") ! 141.
I ! I I
I I I I
I I I
I
I
..
l.l
I I i'\'1\
'---
jll
0
8
0
122
(IU. III/II I IIIIWOII IIIfP11811

8
8
0 ;
I I
-
E
I I I
.E I
z I
..lll::
-
-
c: :...
Q)
E
1

0
:E
C> II..
1:1
'
.5 ["'. r--...
')!
"C
c:
+

IL..
Q)
CD l-11111
11 ..

"'
c(
L
c
.
0
-
u
Gl a:: .....
I'll
rn
-
c
ill
Gl
\
o E
m :2
... 0
! CD I I I =.
a
=
I I I I \
I
If I
I
CD "D
IIIIi
- c
u. Gl
ID
\ 1/ 1
"D

c i
ftl
\

0

0
u.
J.
ii

-

\... I
E
-
- ....... -:. ....
c: \
il

-
Q)
e II 1 I I!
0 _j
LL !..!Ill l....
m "\
\
+
""r
1'\.
-.

;
I 0
!
!
8
I i
8
l-'11 -o IO!IIY
Figure B-1 1
Axial Force vs Fill Height at Section A3
2500
--
t
L.,. ,..
83.057x + 71 0.6 :..,..
L.,.lr... .-
y=
= 0.9822
2000
R2 t.
...
I
!..oo
l,oooo
l,.ooo"""'
l,.ooo
1 500
1.-o
1- ...
if I-
....
tl. I-
ii 1.-o

!Jill
1000 -
-
, .,..
...
-
500 - 1-
1-I-
-
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-
N
w
Figure 8-1 2
0.00
-
--
-- - -
-50.00 f-- f--
-
....
.. - - - - --
e
- .::'11:

e 1 oo oo
..... ....
-
z
.....
- .
i""'o ..... -
- r..
- 4
.....
c i"'oo -
CD ..... .....
-1 50.00
E
0 r--.... ...
I"""'1'-oo
:5 ..
C)
.....

.E ....
, ..... ..... t
; -200.00 -- - f--
... .....
.....
m .....
y = -9.290x - 58.427 ..... ..

-250.00
R2 = 0.9369
-
-300.00 - -- - -- -- -
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
2
125
I
I
'
I
I
I
I !.
r-..,. .
!..-v v
v""
II
,.
< ..,.vi
>
m
li
+
"'t
I(

... .
""': ....
1 ..
.- ....
Ill ....
...
i\

1\
'
i
! ! I' !
i I i
" I
I I . i'll
'
:
I :
I
1/
Ji
I If
!J
I
'
' I
a...
lU ..
1\
+
I
"'t
l i'l ..
'
1
i
I "
!:II lA.
'/' i i't-..
i't---
IW
I '
I
0
126
(W.WfNll) }U8WOIN 6UJpU88

0 0
0 0 0 0 U)
U) 0 0 U) T"" T""
..- U) 0 I I I
I I 'I I
T""
I ! I 'I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
i
II
I I I I
I
I I
I
i I i
I
I I I I
i
I
I I
I I
I.
I
I ... !
I I
I
I
I I I
.... I
I .I i I
II
!
I
I 1'-o_
rf
l I'll ' I
! I
1 .:-- I I
I I
I I I
:... t-- I I
I'll' I
I I I

,I I I I I
I
!
I
'
I I I I
'
I I I I I
I
i
I r-'{..!... I
e '
i I I I
I I' I
I I I ,_,.
i i I r.: I I ! I I i'1l
.X
;: '
I I
!'( I I I
I I I I
i ! I
0
IiI I I I
::!!
I II
5
T
,.. e -
I I I I II I
I
I
"
I I
c
;6
i !5 I I' I 1
.. i t.-'
II
I I
I
I I i I
I
m

I I I I :
I i I I I i i
I'
I j
I I I I i I 1 ! 1 I I
li: .
I
m
I !.I
I
..
I
c

I I
I I I .
!
,f I ll I
I
'
v
I
i jI I
t
' I
i II.
!
I I I I
I I )/ I I I I ! \ I
I
I
I
I I I I
'
I I
I I
I
I
..
'
'
"' I
I
l
I
I
I II i
I
.!.
--
I
I
I
I
I I ... II I
I I I I (1111 I
I I
I
' I
I
I
"'i--1 I
I
I
I :.- .. ...
-.!I'"
I
I
I
'
I I I I
' I
I
I
I
I I I I I
I
!
I I I I I I I
I I I
I
I I I
!
Figure B15
Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A4
2500
'
--
-
2000
L.---""
__..
.....
...... ..
1-- -

,-
- j....-o"""
. !...,.....oo-'
--
1 500
j
I;.
.
j....-o"""
1-
l.,.......
.--" .
--

:i

-"""'

1 000
v
__..
.......
-- - - - -
....,.
1- - y = 59. 1 85x + 876.88 - -
R2 = 0.7375

-
500 1------
-
--
1- -- -
-
1-
-- -
0 --- ----
-5 0 5 10 15 20
8
Figure B-16
Bending Moment vs. Fill Height Section A4
60
I
--
- --
-- -
--1-
-
40
R2 = 0.91 26
- y = 1 1 .629x - 1 72 . 89
1-
_/ ..... _j
-
- ._ 1-
20 --
-
e
,
. -
-:
.... -
0 ';7
-E _, -
z
.liC
- - -
.. -
c:
CD
-20 ,
E -- .. _,
0
== -- - 7 --
-- --
m
--
-
c:
- --
- -
=a -40
c:
CD --
m , -
_/
- 7
-60

...,;
" --
--
-80 ,
- _/
- - lo.. --
.; - - - --- ---
-100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-
t,J
00
129
I I
i I I I
I
I I
I ' ' I
I 'I I I
I
I I
I I I I I I I
I I I i I t--- W, I
I I
I I 1\
I ! I ll I I I I I I
17 I I I I I I I I
I
I
--
I I I
I

lJ
1..1 ! ...., :..-
II I
< I I
> !!
, .. ..
al
+
1.0
" I
I "' " """
I I t1 I
I I Iit'
I' I I ! t'-N.._ I ! I I I
! I I I I I i I I I I
I I I
I
! I I I I I ! I
I I I I I i I I I I
I I I I I I '. I I i I
I I
!
I I
i
I I \ I
I

II y'
I !lr' I
I
i
i I I
I
I I
1M
I I 'I i r
g I I I I \o.'
t
I j
i
I
I I I
....
I
1.0 '
I
I
l l:h.
I
I
I
I I ....N-. I
I Ia!. , ..
I
i
I II!:-'! l!bil
I I I I II'
I I IJ
I
I--
Ill
I
I I I
I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
0
0
(ow) dUIPll 111"'18

1 30
;
(... 111111'11 1-N IIII-

8 8 8
:1 !! ! 8
..
";'
I I I I
-
E
I
.E
I J ,. l I I
z
I. I

-
-
c I 1--
Q) !..-
E I
14 I I I
0
I I I I
8
!..-!-"
...
I'-
I I
C)
c i' I
:0 I
c
+
Q) II I

m
10 loJ

<
c I I
I I
0
;::: ..,....
,...1-4 I
u

t'--p
U)
I
1:! I I ---- I;' I
I I 1 r II I I I I I

II) E I
m :::s I I i I ! 1\ I I I
..- o
I
I i I
.i
I I I
I I I i
'
e m
,
i
I I I
i I
I
1\
I
::I .E I
I I I
at 'a
- c j
I i
U. e
Ill
I I I I j '

'
'a
c I ; I I
I ! I I I I I I I i I I I
ca i .
e0
I I :
I l ,..o:1 ' I ! I I I I
\
I I I
u.
i I 1-- I I I I
I
II
ii
...H-""
- Ill I II" I I
I
E I I I
I I I ! I I I
- I
c I :j

- I I I
'
I'-!..I I
1--
I
ill I
0
LL 1:!:: 11!1
m I I I I
I I
I
t
!..- 1--
I I"'
!i!
I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I ..
b ! l!
0
'-) N10 11111V

131
I
I
I
I I I I
I I
I
'
I I I
fa,'-
&ri I
.... It)
co o
I + -.r
I
)(
I
lt) O i I I
I
II I
lt) N
- o::
I n
>-
p
i
I I
I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I

I
I
!
I
I I
I
...
I
i I
I '
i I I
I I I
' I I
I I
I ...
I
I I I
I I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I I I I I I I 0
0
Figure B-20
Bending Moment vs Fill Height Section AS
;
200
1-

,.

1 2.146x - 39. 1 37
1 50
y=
R2 = 0.9295 ,
..;.
-
e 1- -
-- -
,
II"""
.s
- - - -

1 00 - - r--
....
.
-

411
,
[.....-. - -

:::!!!
gt
1- -

-
!...oo' , !
=g
50
,
-
1-
EZ -
"""'
!..,..Oo ,
- - -
r-
--
r--
--
,
!...oo'
"""'
1- -- - --
,
- - --
0
l.ooo' ..
,
-- -

-- -- --
1- r--
..
1- -
- - -
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-
w
N
1 33
I : I ! I
' I I
I
I
i I
I
i I I I
I I ' If I I I I I
I
I
I I I i I I I
I
I
I 'i I I
J
rii I
>
+
'
I
-
11::
co

IJ..,; I I I
1
t I
I
',}
I , ,.. ,1
I
I '
I i ' 1 r I I
c
I I I\ ' i I'
0
t;
I I i I '
I
I 'X I I I I i I
..
m
N CI) I
I I
u: j
I!! I I
I I i I :-... .
:I c
=- I
I I
''
I
I I
c ! I I
g I I I I I I 1
I
I I i I
I
I
I I i I I I / !
en I
ll
I
I
I I I I
ir ., I
IIIII I l!

+
II
I
co
:'I-
I
:.
.. 11.. 1 I
... l.
rl\.
'

I I I
I
I I I
I
I
i I I I
I I
I I I
1 34
I
I I
I
I ! !
I ! i I I I
i I I I
I I
I
I
1.. r
' I
-
E
/'
.A I

I
_
4
!\,. -
' .
z

- I .....
-
I . I
I il l
c i
11
:;:, I I
CD
E
I
I I I
7
0
:E

,.
c
C)
c .. II

0
= "'0
1\
u
c
+
Gl
U)
I
CD
- al
I
c
I
Gl
I'-..
I I I
"' e I
m :E
N 0 ' I
iJI I
I
l! g' I "'N I I I
I
I !
::J -
m "D I I I I ""' i I I I
I I I
- c
IL GI I I II
I
I
ID
"D I I I I I I
I
c
10
I ..A I
I
CD
1:!
-
.,..,
0
: _
u..
c -
I
..
4l"
IIll
'
- !
CD " I
e
I
0 I I
u.
i .... ......., I li
(ij I "'--1. I I
1 11: _...
I
t
I _ _.
I " I ' I"'

...... 1_/

I
I I
I I I
I
I I I
0
Figure B-23
Axial Force vs Fill Height Section A6
1 600
- --
1 400
1 ...
1-
"""
-- -
r-
1 200
t:: 1-
"""
"""
.E
- -4 -

1 000 " -- " - - -
z
-
.:.c:
-

Cl)
800 I- -
0
I.L
a;
600 y = 1 2 . 1 99x + 1 035.9
- - -- - -
R2 = 0.295 1
-
400
r-
200 - - - "- -
- -
1- -
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
FIJI Height (m)

-
w
v.
Figure B-24
0
- - -
1-
- --
- - - --
1-
- - - -
-100
- -
- - - -
- -- - --
1- -
1- -
1- -
1-
4
- --
-200 1-
....
-- -- -- -
'i

-
!"""'
-
-411 1-
!"""'....
..
- - - - -
iooo.
1-
!
-300
-
i'oo.
..
._
I:
CD 1-
I'
- - -
....;
-
c- 1-
....
CD -400 .... ....
I:
........
rZ .....
._
4 """ !'oo.
1--
....
- -- - - -
-500
....
1- 1-
I'
- - - - -
or
i""" ....
!"""' ....
- - - -
1-
-600 y = -22.234x 1 59.61
:
-
R2 = 0.9046
II I II II JI
-
,.._
I
-700 I - - - L__ -
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
w
-
0>
137
Appendix C
"'
-
. Section B Strain Gage Results
-
-
Figure C-1
Strain Readings 1B
I-+- 1VOUB -- 1VIB I

250 --------
200 I I . . ;
i.
I I 1:-=- - I I
& 150 1_-----

!'
-----
-
I
CD
E
-
c -J
:c
Cl
CD _1_-----t--;
0:::
c
1 00
tn
50 -1 I I - I I- ..... 1-------lf--1--l
0 +------------r---+--_,--r-
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Days
-
w
. ..' 00
I
':

,,
Figure C-2
Axial Force and Bendig:Moment Section 81
.... . . . , , ,
,.. .. ..1' '
-+-Axial Force (Kn/m)
- sending Moment (kN/m - m)

1600 0.00
:
1400 - -10.00
- ....

- 1.6
..... ...
1 200
I ,...-l 1._
.. .
1 '1.
e
-20.00
I 16.. J
1--
/ ""9"
e
..
.s
Ill I 'Ill r-.... , --t..
1ooo
- ... r-. T 1"'\ .....
-30.00
... ,/
;t
z I'll I 'L -
-
-. "''I c
\. CD
800
/ ... 'lf' - ..... I - E
ii
u. ..... .. v ......
IIIII _ ., 0
I J _J,
. -40.00
-
c
600 \ :0
&;
/ c
-50.00
400
-1- ,, ..
..
-
I.
""""
200 i"'- -60.00
r
-
'--
- - - - --- --- - - - -- - ,_ - -- -- -'-- --
0 -70.00
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
....
w
\0
Fi g ure C-3
-l
Section 81 Axial Force vs Fill Heig ht
;.
' ! 1
!:
,: ' t lJ
1400 rL I
I
I I I I I J I I . I ::CI L=r=LI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
!
t=t=t=l=l=t=-1=1=- 1=1=11=1-=!=
f-. I I l--+-l--l-l--1--1--l--l-- l- - l-l - l---l---l- 1 -l-+-f--l - l I I I I I=J!:_I-1---1--+ ---
1 200
I I I l=t=l 1-1 I I
- 1 - -1-+-l--l-- l-+ - -l--l-+--
..
I I I 1-1-1--l-1 1-!- l--l---l- -l - l-- l . - j - -.-j-
1000 .
j[-l- 1-l-!l--l--l
.......
I I I I I 1-l-l-+--l-- 1 --l-l- ' 1- 1-t-t--1--1--t-+-- -
.=1= =t=-t-:1-=l=l=l=i---=--=1--1=1-l=!==t=l=l=l-=+=t=--=1--=.
I I
e
-
z I I I I I
+6a7.3mml
800 I I
-
: l-l- t---r t-- l -- t - - -l--1 --l-!--1-1 -t-1 I I I I I I I I I 1--
0
e
0
1--1-I-I--I-1-I-1-HY = 44. 63x
600
=::;;==
u.
9 o

.
ii
I I I t=l 1---1=1--1-1--1-1-I=I=IJ:l:i IR' .l959 I
I I I I I
400 .
I 1-1-l--l-- l - l-1 --l-l-t- 1 - - l- l--l -1--1- -- -t--t-- 1 - 1 -1--1- -t-- !----- - -
tl=l-t=t=l=l-=t=J=I=I=L
I=H--I=t=t=t=t=l=l=t=!=l-=1_
I I I I !-!-1--l-1--1--l- 1-l-+-l--l I I I I I I 1-1 I I I I I 1--1 I
2oo I I 1=1=r-t-1 I I
I I I 1--1-1 1--1-l--t---r-l-l-l- +- t -1--l-l-1--l 1-1----1- -1--1--t-1--1--1-
l
0 I I I I I l__j I I I I .J._L L_j_l--l - -- 1. -1-l-t--J--1-L-- 1-...IL. -...1--L-+----''--'
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
___J

-------- -
' j
Figure C-4
Section 81 Bending Moment vs Fill Height
0
'
-5
-1 o
i 'I
-
-1 5
--
y= -
0 965 1 x 1 8 599
.
-
.
c
CD
E
R2 = 0.7852
0 .....
E -20
-
c:n
.5 r-ioo....
...... -
c
-
I
-25
r-ioo....
--
.....
""""- - -
..... - "'""
-
-. I

-30
- -- --- --
-35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-
.j:o.
-
,,
:
Figur, C-5
1- --2vous - -=;... 2v18 ,

Strain Readings 28
- .
160
- 120
140 -
Cl)
E
-
0 100
C')
c
:0
ns 80
&
.5 60
-
I!
-- -..
U) 40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Days
s
Figure C-6
I -- --- 1
Axial Force and Bending Moment Section 82
Axial Force (Kn/m) -- Bending Moment (kNJm-=--m) u
1 400 60
--
- '
./ " 1 ... 50
111 1. '-
1 200
""'l './
M1
''""'

ll"'
1.. 40
'
rr -

1 000 ill.. / -- 4 30
-"" ,.. ... v r. I
.e
-
- ., )( )( r-..-I--
r. iP"'
i
. .. ..... A 20 E

IIIII' 'I WI' IJ z
z 800 V" .lll:
-
.lll: / I
- 10 c
CD .. I
CD
u
.. - E
0 I . - .. 0
1&.
j
0 ::E
600 .I. .
_... r 01
:g
)( c
< 1.1 .... - -1 0
i
1-1- CD
'J CD

400 - -20
-
1- -I-
/". -30
200 / -
-40
0 -50
0 1 00 200 300 4QQ 1 500 600 700 800 900
Days
E
,,
"
Fig ure C-7

Section 82 Axial Force vs Fill Heig ht
1 400
- - -- 1-
1- - -
1 200 --
1- - I

I ll
-
I
-
..
1 000
...

.E
-
_'9'
1-

z
.
-
800
-
CD
e
0
IL
a; 600
y - 22.085x + 867.36 - -
R2 = 0.6527
400
--
-
1- --
--- - -- -- - -L___ ----- - .. -- -- --- - ------
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
t
.;
Figure C-8
50 I

.-: I
40 - .... I
....,
.., i
..,. ":.....

30 ,.
1-
.......
- .. __..
E

.s
20 :;;; ...
z ,
.:.: .,
- ..7
10 --
c
..
CD ..,
..;,..
E
0
E 0 .,.
C) ..,.
R2
c -
_..,
;;
c -1 0
... ......
y = 5.59x - 27.336
-
CD ,
m -1
-
-1
= 0.9288
,.
-
- --1
-20 -
..,.

-30
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-

146
0
0
CJ)
0
0
co
0
0
r--
0
0
m
co
m 5
('f)
+
0
0
tn LO
CJ
-
Vf:,
c
...
en
m
>a
-__
I
0 cu
c
"'C :::> 0
-
as 0 0
Q) > v
CJ O:: ('f)
+
:I
u. .5
-
0
t! 0
U'J
.. ('I')
0
0
N
0
0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0
LO 0 LO 0 LO
N N "r"
(aw) s6U!PB8H U!BJJS

---
Figure C-10
I
Axial Force and Bending Moment Section 3B
-+- Axial Force (Kn/m) -- ... -r.w- Bending Moment (kN/m - m)

1400 200.00
.--.-

- :-11 '.E
-
1 200
I ... .
-
I
L
!A
-
1 50.00
,.
. ' -
--
1- -1- - 1-
1
tM :..... ....
.1\ . lj
' It:'
e
1000 v - I
1\. " T ll
I-" ' F - I[_
I=
-
800 F .. . 1 0QOO

.......

/ _......
G
1- --
c
e 'I
0 .. /
"" 0
:i

600 I
..,.. 5QOO

--
1- c
J- u
m
-1- - -
- f
400 ....... I'"'
....... - - - ,_1-

- 0.00
--
200 --1--- 1-
---- - _ K I -- - - --
0 -50.00
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days

i
..
:
Figure C-1 1
Section 83 Axial Force vs Fill Height
1 120
1 1 00
1 080
1 - I-
1 060 -
-
1-
-
....
1 040
.:.= --1-
-
G)
-
-
-- 1-
e 1 020
0 - -.-
II. ----
-- .
iii -
')< 1 000
<(
....
980 y = 9.579 1 x + 976.52

R2 = 0.4952
...

960 - r-
940
.
920
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-

00
;'
Figure C-1 2
200
I l l I I I
y= 1 5.695x - 36.888
R2 = 0.9631
1 50
-
,

e
f--- -
.. I"
i

.E
1 00
...
L I"
- """
/
CD ....
""

E
0
f- --
50

"""' ,
E

m

=
"0
...,. I"'"
.
c -
CD
...
-
m
- I""
0
,
"'

-*-

jY -
-- - - -- -
-50
- - - ---- -
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
i
I
Figure C-1 3
Strain Readings 84
l=+-4vss -+.:4vrs 1
160.0
140.0
-
120.0
Q)
.s 1 00.0
U)
en
c 80.0
'0
-
CG
40.0
& 60.0
c
UJ
20.0
0.0
-20.0
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Day
.....
VI
0
I I
Figure C-14
-+- Axial Force (Kn/m) - sending Moment (kN/m m)

1800 200.00
-
IY
if
1600
lllll"' - - ... . '\
.. ' ,_ 1- - ..
I .. loo 1 50.00
1 400 , ... "
fl-1-

e
'\ -
../.. - _,

9 c. , _I ... ...
- -
. - I
1200 - ' ,. --
I ' "'
/ ...
I ... .
1 00.00 -
'..L ...
:!S. 1000 c
Ill CD
J
0 "" - E
LL. 0
1! ==
800

- - en
- 50.00
c
... .. - =s
600 _, .... c
I CD
I .. m
,..
400
0.00
-
200 -
0 -50.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
-
u.
Flgure C-16
Axial Force vs Fill Height Section B4
1800
1600 ... LA
- ... - - r
- -i"""" I.
-- - .....
--
--
1400 --
-io'"""'
-
- --
..
---
1200 --
,_
- ..
..... -

-
E -
50.644x + 971 .69 t

-
1 000

y-
.. -
R2 = 0.6343 :
{l.
...
...
iii 800
600
400
200
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
Fil Height Above Culvert (m)

-
Figure C-16
Bending Moments vs Fill Height Section 84
I
200
--
"""
t
,.
,- it
1 50
-
i
-
1-- --

i"
,_
e .,. ":"

- ..,.io"""" ...
1 00
., - - c--
,-

..,.
g
CD
""""' ..
::E - ,.
,.i"
1--
y - 1 3.844x - 8.051 3
:a
50
t.,...oo' ........ R2 = 0.9038
II
c

"""'io""""
,...1..
-

....... ,
....
-- - - -
.
0
,_ ,--
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-
VI
w
154
0
0
CD
0
0

co
.> I 0
0
......
\;

..;::: ' 0
0
l'
co
m -
It)
aJ
m
>
+
0
LO 0
tn 10

......
l
... CD
e m
o :c
I c
)
'
ca
co c
! 0
/
0
::J a::
t
.....
/
LO
CD
-
c
LL -

..... I ' 0
tn
0
('t)
0
t'a 0
N

IT -.......:.
/ 0
0
T""
I 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 co co ..... N
T""
I I
Figure C-18
-+- Axial Force (Kn/m) - sending Moment (kN/m - m)

1800 200
1-
1600 1-
-- -
1-
I _ L\ 1---' 1 50
-I ,_ 1--'1 -1-
.. ... l..o. .....
1400 ..,,.
.. I
\
F
\ -\ -
I - -- 1oo
1 200 '1. -
I& .. v
..I&
,
lA

... .. -
1 1000 r L - , ..
0 - .... ..... "
c
0
-. ,....
v.
e 1"\. 50 E
0 0
u.
:!
800 :&
en

.r c
-
=s
c
600 / 0 Ill
I t-- 1- !- m
-
400 =- -
t-t- - --
-50
200
-
0 . -1 00
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
...
u.
u.
Figure C-19
Axial Force vs Fill Height Section 85
1 800
1 600
!
-
1.11

1400 .-
...
-
-
1 200
'E

...:!
-
1 000
-
t 1-
CD _...
- --
u
..
0
u.
y = 35.734x + 1 020.1
R2 = 0.4544
800
)C
..:
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fll Height Above Culvert (m)
-
u.
0\
Figure C-20
Bending Moments vs Fill Height Section B6
I
1 50
II
I I
]
- _j
100

_,. _,- !
- ____ ,
'E _.__
-
- -
_,.
_,
50 """
-- """'
-
....,.P"'

-
c .,. -
CD _,-
E ..
....
0
::E _,_,. --
CD
c - _,
0 ""
:a _,-
l..,..ooo
c
CD y - 1 0.21 1 x - 35.288
R2 = 0.. 8357
ID
- _,- r

-50 ---

- - - -- - -- - ---- - --- ---- --- 1 1 1 1 1 1
-1 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-
v.
-..J
Figure C-21
Strain Readings 86
1-+- 6VTB - 6VBB I

160
140
-
120
CD
.5. 1 00 -
U)
m
.5 80
"C
ca
CD 60
0::
c
-
-
40
U)
20
0
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
-
Ul
00
--
I
Figure C-22
.. ---+=Ax F
ial orce (Kn/m) - Bending Moment (kN/m - m)
--- -u
3000 1 50
100
I
2500
-..
\ -

e
.11 50
i\ 1
-,
II!. \
-
I
2000

I r' \
-
I 0
...
1-- I :\.\ /
G)
/ I'""'I \ 1:
'f/1' I clli "\ Q)
1 500 E
{l
-so
I '\ IB \
0
If lll ...... I :E
iii .....

./ .,
-
iD)
II -100 c
-
/ .. :a
il.
1\
1000 c
L
I ,
Q)
I . ....
\ " '-
_ m
-1 50
I
_
I. II ,_

500
-\ II
- ---
-200
._
'-
0 -250
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
-
1.11
1.0
Figure C-23
Axial Force vs Fill Height Section 86
3000
-
2500 t-
...
1!.
-
t-
-
I ""
2000 - I-
---
- ......
-I-"""

-
I
-
- 1-
:..,.....;
Ill
1:! 1 500 :.,..... ......
&f ...... -

......
iii 1-
- ...
_ ......
- I""""""
1 000 !
+ 1 069.6
R2 = 0.6935
y = 79.081 x
500 - --
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fll Height Above Culvert (m)
-
01
0
Figure C-24
Bending Moments vs Fill Height Section B6
1 50
- -
100 -
--
--
50 1-- -
--
it!
,_
y - -6.9661x - 75.288
- - --
0 R2 = 0.7029
f--- 1-
--- - ----- -
- - . -
-50

0 1 - ---
liE
Cl
=g

""'
c

....
-100
Ill
...
--

.....
-150
i--
...
1e
I
-200
-- - - -- - -- - --
-250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0\
-
162
Appendix D
Pressure and Shear Force Measurements
0
0
---
'
163
I
I
en
I
!
'
I
i 0
' !
I 0
CIO

0
0
(
......
L 0
I
0
< !+--. I <0

c
0 I
;
(,) I
CD
tl) i I 0
0
\1\ I I
rn 10
'"" >-
ca
c c
! rn
i
v
= >
C) ...
Q) : 0
I
0
I
-
LL ::::s '
'
rn
\
41
rn
! ! I
D.
I
....
0 I l
I 0
0
ti.
,
! M

1\..
!
1 I
0
0
......
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
en CIO 0 0 0 0 0 0
...... <0 10 ' (") N ......
( WJed)f) &JnSSeJd
Fig ure D-2
C -1
Roof Shear Forces vs Days Section A
----
--.- vA
- . - - - - - -- -
-- vs
1 200 -------
1 000 I I --1-----+-----+
- 800
z
E
.
-
Cl)
Q)
e 600
0
u.
..
ca
CD
.c
t/) 400
200 -t---
1-----t- 1 --------
0 I
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days

-
1 65
I
0
I i
I
I
1:
I
i
i
!
!
__ .______,:_I ____,l g
_
I 0
\ I 0
0
1----1_\--+-----
--'-!
...... 4-----+--1 :

ns
0
!:
f
1
I
<1\
----+-+------------
,

:

I ) ,i :
! I !
C") ::s
tn
i
I fn
0
!
D..
Q)
l 0
m=
I \ I c------1
II \\_
u. ;:
- ns
I ' i
<
c
I
0
;; o
--------+--+
, ------
Q)
en

.
------+---=
I?'- -+- -!-
1 ,I -
0
I II
,
! 0
I
0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
...,. (f) N ..... (f)
I I
(Wfed>l) 8JnSS8Jd
------- --- ----,
r=
I
]
I
------ --
I
Fig ure D-4 !
Section A Wall Shear Forces vs Days
- - --- - - - -
-+- VA - ve
--- - - - - - - - --
300

-''LU""
250
7= -
,1,..-
r - - - ---
---- ;t..---
200

--- - --- - -- -
__..m
I ..._ --
- -
1 50 ---- - - --- - - -
I I
e
-

1 00
z
.
-
I
en 50
CD
v--
u
-- ------
...
0
- -,
-------- --
IL 0 1----
-- -
1--- -
- - - -- - -
...
ftl
CD

._,
-50 - --
en
-
--
-1 00

-1 50
-, .
-200 ,___ __ _ _
------- - -- - - - - --
-250 - - - - -- - - - - -- - --- ___ _ L ____ . .. - - - -- --
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900
Days
---------- - -- - --- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -- -------
-
0\
0\
--------------
Fig ure D-5
..,..-----r--r---r-1--T--1-1--l
Section B Roof Pressure vs Days
2so
2oo l------+----+----t---j--
150-1 I
1 00
-
e
=
:I
e
D.
50
00 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

f- ---- -- ----+
0
Days
- -j
r-----
c---+V -II
----- ----------- - - -- - - - - - ---- --- - - ------- - - - -
A
Fig ure D-6
:=:J
Roof Shear Forces vs Days
--- B
__
450
- . ---- -- --- !\ - - -- - -
400
-

350
I
- ---- -- - - - - - -- --- - --- - -

- - -
300
...
I
I e - 2so
/ \_..!
z
.:.:
:B
- 200
v I

0
u. 1 50 r .! I
\ /"
...
I

A
ra
/ 1\ I I
C1l
.c ..l!l. .,., J
(/) 1 00
,
.f'/

- -- ---
50
,
-It
" ;L-
0 - -- 1--- - ----
-/
-
-50
..
-
-1 00 ---- - - - ---- ------- . - - --- ----- - - - -
-
0 1 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Days
--- - -- . -- -
0\
00
1 69
.----- - ------ - -------- ---- ------
0
0
en
0
0
a)
0
0
""
0
0
<0
m
c
0
I
CJ 0
;:;
CD 0
UJ U')
..... tn "'
, >- I >o
tU ca
c
j
C c
CD
tn 0
::::s > 0
a..
.21 e
u.. ::::s
tn
tn
e
Q. 0
0
'i
-

(")
0
0
N
0
0
.....
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
10 10I 0 10
....I
....I .
--
-
-- -------
----- - -- 1
-]-
Fig ure D-8
[___-+-VA - -VB
I
Wall Shear Forces vs Days Section B
, ---- ..=_ ...
--- -- -- --
. I
-a- .
I
- -
1 50
1 00
50
-
E
- 0
z
- 9(!)0
1.0
Q)
e
0
II.

'-
tV
.! 1 00
U)
1 50
-200
I
-250
I
I
_j
Days
. . ---- --- -------- __
-
-.J
0
i
171
" Appendix E
Greene County Culvert Concrete Test Data
1 72
GREENE CO. CULVERT CONCRETE TEST CYLINDERS
I 9/2519&1 Test Date 1 6126197 1

Dia.1(in.) 6.06
.CVIinder_U Date Cast Dia.2(in.) 6.05
Deformation(in. *0.00005) Ave.Dia. 6.055 I
first run second run ave. Load(lbs"1 0., I Stress(J<Pa)l Strain(mmlmm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5 4.5 4.5 5 1 197.321 0.0000225
10 10 10 10.1 1 10.3 10.2 2442.536 0.0000500
15.5 15 15.3 15 3591.964 0.0000763
21 21 21 20 4789.285 0.0001050
XT 27 XT 25 5986.607 0.0001350
33 33 33 30 7183.928 0.0001650
39 38.5 38.8 35 8381.249 0.0001938
45 44.5 44.8 40 9578.571 0.0002238
51 50.5 50.8 45 1 0n5.89 0.0002538
57.5 57 57.3 50 1 1973.21 0.0002863
84 83 83.5 55 1 31 70.53 0.0003175
70 89.5 89.8 60 14367.86 0.0003488
Maximum Load 131 31369.82
Stress/Strain Curve for Cylinder 1
14000
12000
4000
2000
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 5 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004
Stmln (mm/mm)
173
GREENE CO. CULVERT CONCRETE TEST CYUNDERS

Dia.1 (in.) 5.904
Cylinder rT Date Cast 1 1 0/21/9&1 Test Date 1 6126/971 Dia.2(in.) 6.1 1
Defonnalion(ln."0.00005) Ave.Dia. 6.007 I
first run second run ave. load(lbs"10 Stressli<Pa Strain(mmlmm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5.5 5.5 5.5 5 1216.533 0.0000275
10 10 10 8.6 1 8.4 8.5 2068.105 0.0000500
18.5 19 18.8 15 3649.598 0.0000938
25 25.5 25.3 20 4866.1 3 0.0001 263
32 32.5 32.3 25 6082.663 0.0001613
38 39 38.5 30 7299.196 0.0001 925
45 45.5 45.3 35 851 5.728 0.0002263
52 52 52 40 9732.261 0.0002600
58.5 59 58.8 45 1 0948.79 0.0002938
66 85.5 85.8 50 1 2165.33 0.0003288
73 72.5 72.8 55 1 3381 .86 0.0003638
80.5 79 79.8 80 14598.39 0.0003988
Maximum Load 151.5 36860.94
14000
12000
4000
2000
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 5 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045
Strain (mm/mm)
1 74
Cylinder 13 Date Cast I 101319&1 Test Date 1 61261971

Dia.1 (in.) 6.051
6.014 J
Dia.2(in.) 5.977
Deformation(in. "0.00005) wall section B Ave.Dia.
first run second run ave. Load(lbs"10"' Stress(KPa Strain(mmlmm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 5.5 5.75 5 1213.702 0.0000288
10 10 10 B.B/8.9 8.85 2148.253 0.0000500
11.5 12 1 1 .8 10 2427.405 0.0000588
18 18 18 15 3641 . 1 07 0.0000900
24.5 25 24.8 20 4854.809 0.0001238
31 31.5 31.3 25 6068.51 1 0.0001563
38 38 38 30 7282.214 0.0001900
44.5 45 44.8 35 8495.916 0.0002238
51.5 52 51.8 40 9709.618 0.0002588
58.5 58.5 56.5 45 1 0923.32 0.0002925
66 65.5 65.8 50 1 21 37.02 0.0003288
73.5 73 73.3 55 13350.73 0.0003663
81.5 80 80.8 80 1 4564.43 0.0004038
Maximum Load 128 31070.78

16000 ' .
14000 . .
12000 . .
. '
'
- 10000
:.
8000
11.1 6000
4000
2000
. .
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 5 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045
Strain (mmtmm)
175
Cvlinder l4 Date Cast I 1013/961 Test Date 1 61261971 Dia.2(in.)

Dia.1 (in.) 5.99
I
6.051
Deformaticn(in. 0 00005)
" . wall section B Ave.Dia. 6.0205
first run second run ave. load(lbs"101 Stress(KPa Strain{mmlmm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 5.5 5.25 5 121 1 .083 0.0000263
10 10 10 8.7/ 8.7 8.7 2107.284 0.0000500
12 1 1 .5 11.8 10 2422.1 66 0.0000588
18 18.5 18.3 15 3633.249 0.0000913
25 25 25 20 4844.332 0.0001250
31 31.5 31.3 25 6055.415 0.0001563
38 38.5 38.3 30 7266.498 0.0001913
45 45.5 45.3 35 8477.581 0.0002263
52 52.5 52.3 40 9688.664 0.000261 3
58.5 80 59.3 45 1 0899.75 0.0002963
66.5 87 66.8 50 1 2 1 1 0.83 0.0003338
74 75 74.5 55 1 3321.91 0.0003725
81 81.5 81.3 80 1 4533 0.0004063
Maximum Load 127 30761 .51

16000
14000
12000
- 10000
..
a
8000
fl)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Slr.lln (lnJin.)
1 76
Cvllnder ['i"" Date Cast I 912519&1 Test Date 1 61261971

Dia.1(in.) 6.007
J
Dia.2(in.) 5.95
Deformation(in.o.OOOOS) Ave.Dia. 5.9785
first run second run ave. Load(lbs1 0., Stress(KPa Strain(mmtmm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 5 5 5 1 228.1 59 0.0000250
10 10 10 9.8 / 9.6 9.7 2382.628 0.0000500
18 16 18 15 3684.4n 0.0000800
22 22 22 20 4912.636 0.0001 100
28 28.5 26.3 25 6140.794 0.0001413
34.5 35 34.8 30 7368.953 0.0001738
40.5 41 40.8 35 8597.1 1 2 0.0002038
47.5 46 47.8 40 9825.271 0.0002388
54 54 54 45 1 1053.43 0.0002700
60 60.5 60.3 50 12281 .59 0.0003013
68.5 87 68.8 55 1 3509.75 0.0003338
73 73 73 80 14737.91 0.0003650
Maximum Load 144.5 35493.79
14000
12000
4000
2000
. .
. .
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 5 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004
Strain (mmlmm)
1 77
VITA
Scott Mitchell Wood was born and raised in Memphis, TN on February 22, 1 975. He
attended public schools in Memphis and graduated from Wooddale High in June 1 993.
He began his college career at the University of Tennessee at Martin for two years
then transferred to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where he obtained his
bachelors degree in civil engineering in summer 1 998, and his master of science
degree in spring 2000. Currently he is working as a structural engineer in Knoxville,
TN.

Internal Forces in A Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Internal Forces in A Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative

Internal Forces in a Reinforced Concrete Box

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Scott Mitchell Wood entitled

Dr. Richard M. Bennett, Major Professor

We have read this thesis

Dr. Eric C. Drumm

Accepted for the Council:

Associate Vice Chancellor and

Scott Mitchell Wood

I would like to thank the Department of Civil and Environmental

In 1996, a reinforced concrete box culvert with approximately 19 meters of

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. A

bottom, a significant increase in shear forces is seen.

Cha pte r2 Lite ratu re Review

Cha pte r3 Inst rumentat ion

Cha pte r4 Inte rnal Fo rces

Cha pte r5 Com pute rModelin g of Bu ried Bo x Culve rt

Cha pte r6 Com pa rison of Fo rces to Culve rt Ca paci ty

6.3.1 - Comparison of Shear Forces and

Cha pter 7 Conclu sion

Reference s.................................................................... 106

A ppendi x A - Greene County Dimen sion sand Detail s......... 109

A ppendi x B-Section A Strain Gage Re sult s..................... 112

A ppendi x C-Section BStrain Gage Re sul ts....................... 13 7

A ppendi x D -Pre ssure and Shear Force Mea surement s...... 16 2

A ppendi x E -Greene County Culvert Concrete Te st Data ..... 17 1

Vita ................................................................................ 177

2-2 S umm ary of Design Earth Pressures

4-2 Section B Axial Forces vs.Fill Height

4-3 Roof Axial Forces vs. Fill Height.................................... 41

4-4 Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height............................ 42

4- 6 Soil ModificationFactors for Different Average

4-7 Different Load Distribution Cases ............................ ............ 5 6

4-8 Wall Pressure per Meter Height of Fill

4-9 Wall S hear Forces with Various Load Distributions.......... .... 58

4-10 Roof Shear Forces with Different Load Distributions .............. .. 5 9 .

1-2 Schematic of Embankment and Culvert

2-3 Pressure Distribution with 2.4 m sand Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3-2 Creep Coefficient Versus Time after

3-3 Schematic of Strain Gage Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3-4 Reference Gage Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3-5 Reference Gage Reading vs Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

3-6 Corrected Reference Gage Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

3-7 Corrected Reference Gage Reading

3-8 Pressure Cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4-2 Beam with Distributed Load.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4-3 Axial Force vs. Fill Height at Section A3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4-4 Section B l Axial Force vs. Fill Height

4-5 Deflected Shape of Culvert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42

4-6 Section A Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4-7 Section B Wall Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . . . . . . . . 44 .

4-8 Section A Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . . ........ 4 6

4-9 Section B Roof Bending Moments vs. Fill Height. . . .. . . . . . . 47 .

4-1 0 Location of Pressure Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-11 Section A Roof Pressure Cell Readings

4-12 Section B Roof Pressure Cell Readings

4-13 Section A Wall Pressure Cell Readings

4-14 Section B Wall Pressure Cell Readings

4-15 Example Pressure Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56

5-2 Bending Moments in Top Slab with Different

5-3 Shear Forces in Top Slab with Different

5- 4 Approximated Linear Pressure Distribution ............... .. ... 65