Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This paper summarizes the experimental program conducted by result in increased design loads and reinforcement areas for
the authors to evaluate the fatigue effects on reinforced concrete box culverts.3 Therefore, the requested increase in steel
(RC) box culverts, and the resulting recommendations that were reinforcement should be reevaluated for the case of box
made to the American Association of State Highway Officials culverts. Specifically, box culverts buried at a shallow
(AASHTO). The study presented herein includes testing of two full-
depth (≤2 ft [609.6 mm]) should be studied because they
scale RC box culvert sections designed and manufactured according
to ASTM C1577. The first specimen was 12 ft x 4 ft x 12 in. (3657.6 x receive more direct impact from fatigue in contrast to those
1219.2 x 304.8 mm), and the second was 7 ft x 4 ft x 8 in. (2133.6 x under thick layers of soil cover.
1219.2 x 203.2 mm). This paper summarizes the experimental program
Test results show a good distribution of the load resistance between conducted by the authors to evaluate the fatigue effects on
the two reinforcement directions in box culvert sections. Fatigue box culverts, the recommendations made to AASHTO, and
effect on the flexural capacity of the RC box culvert sections was found the final decision made by AASHTO Committee T13.
to be minimal. As a result of the study, the authors proposed that the
fatigue check for RC box culverts designed according to ASTM C1577 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
be eliminated; this recommendation is accepted by AASHTO. Prior research conducted by the UNL on WWR alone, and
on the fatigue resistance of bridge superstructures reinforced
Keywords: box culverts; buried structures; fatigue; load; reinforced concrete. with WWR, has resulted in changes in AASHTO that are
potentially overly conservative for reinforced concrete (RC)
INTRODUCTION box culverts. Therefore, there was an immediate need for
Recent research on welded wire reinforcement (WWR) research to understand whether the changes recommended
and fatigue resistance resulted in two proposed changes to for fatigue resistance were valid for box culverts. This study
AASHTO’s design of bridge superstructures for fatigue provided such research. Based on the results of this study,
resistance. First, research by Amorn and Tadros1 on WWR recommendations were made to AASHTO Committee T13
has indicated that when checking for fatigue, there may be a concerning the fatigue resistance guidelines for concrete box
need for a lower stress range limit if WWR is used instead of culverts reinforced with WWR. These recommendations
reinforcing bars, and the crosswelds are in a high-stress zone, were approved by AASHTO Committee T13 and the
as is often the case with standard WWR mesh configurations. changes will appear in the AASHTO LRFD revisions.
Second, a proposal was introduced to the AASHTO Technical
Committee for Concrete Structures (Committee T10) to BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
increase the load factor for fatigue from 0.75 to 1.5 in the For the design of box culverts, two standard specifications
AASHTO LRFD Standard Specifications.2 According to are available: ASTM C15774 and ASTM C14335 for LRFD
this proposal, the 1.5 load factor should be applied along and load factor design (LFD), respectively. In other words, if
with the special fatigue truck, the dynamic allowance factor, the designer chooses to use LRFD for the box culverts, then
and the distribution factor for the design of concrete stringers the boxes must be produced in accordance with ASTM
of a bridge superstructure. While this change allows for C1577 for an earth cover of 0 to 2 ft (0 to 609.6 mm). Design
consistency between provisions for fatigue design of according to LFD and ASTM C1433 is not relevant to the
concrete and steel members, neither the study nor the study, and therefore will not be discussed any further.
proposal made to the AASHTO committee included any In ASTM C1577, the design of the steel reinforcement
considerations on the impact of these revisions on box follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
culverts. In fact, although the proposed changes are appropriate up to the 2005 Interim version.2 In this version, the load
for bridge superstructures, they may be overly conservative factor for fatigue is 0.75 and the stress range for fatigue is
for box culverts. In response to this situation, a committee, 21,000 psi (144.8 MPa). With these limits, the required steel
comprising representatives from the American Concrete areas for box culverts are typically governed by flexure, and
Pipe Association (ACPA) and AASHTO Committee T13, not by fatigue.
along with University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) As mentioned in the introduction, two independent
researchers, was formed to discuss the need for additional changes were proposed to the AASHTO LRFD 2005 Interim
research in this area. Specifications: 1) based on WWR studies, fatigue stress
range should be changed to 16,000 ± fmin; and 2) load factor
It is evident that a combination of a higher load factor and
a lower allowable fatigue range would result in substantially
larger steel areas, especially for shallow-depth box culverts.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
Current precast box culvert designs, however, have MS No. S-2008-098.R1 received October 11, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
performed well in the past and have not shown any indication of publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
fatigue problems. Furthermore, other scholarly work shows Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
that AASHTO load factor resistance design (LRFD) provisions December 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.
27.6 kips (122.77 kN). An intermediate step corresponding strain gauge readings for As2 with a static load of 18.4 kips
to a load factor of 1.0 was also tested with a fatigue load of (81.85 kN). There were no visible cracks during the first
18.4 kips (81.85 kN). The experimental results of different 5 million cycles of fatigue testing using a load of 18.4 kips
test phases for both specimens are discussed in this section. (81.85 kN). Figure 4 shows the strain gauge readings for As2
after the fatigue loading. Comparing Fig. 4 to Fig. 3 shows
Experimental results and discussion for Specimen A that the distribution of stresses among the reinforcement
Specimen A endured 5 million cycles at 18.4 kips after fatigue testing for 5 million cycles remains constant,
(81.85 kN) with no signs of degradation. Figure 3 shows the while magnitudes of the stresses increase as anticipated.
Fig. 3—Strain gauge readings for positive reinforcement of Fig. 4—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive moment
top slab (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load of reinforcement (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load
18.4 kips (81.85 kN). (Note: Strain Gauge-2 was damaged of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) after first 5 million cycles. (Note:
during casting of this box. As shown in Fig. 2, the location Strain Gauge-2 was damaged during casting of this box. As
of this strain gauge was, counting from the spigot end of the shown in Fig. 2, the location of this strain gauge was, counting
top slab, on the fourth wire of As2.) from the spigot end of the top slab, on the fourth wire of As2.)
The stress range in different reinforcement wires of As2 a shutdown due to reaching the preprogrammed excessive
was calculated using a modulus of elasticity E of 29,000 ksi deflection limit.
(200.1 MPa). Figure 5 shows the stress range in different Figure 7 shows strain gauge readings for As2 at the conclusion
reinforcement wires of As2 before and after the fatigue of the test. Figure 8 shows the stress range under the point
testing in comparison to different fatigue ranges suggested load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) in different wires for As2. The
by AASHTO LRFD 20052 and AASHTO LRFD 2007.6 As figure also shows the comparison with the fatigue range
can be seen, all of the strain gauge results are considerably suggested by different AASHTO versions.
lower than the stress ranges recommended in either of the The specimen was then loaded monotonically to failure. A
AASHTO standards. special testing frame was prepared for this purpose. A point
Figure 6 shows the strain gauge readings for As2 under the load was applied using a footprint similar to the one used for
static load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) before commencing the fatigue testing acting at the midspan and midlength section
second 5 million cycles. During the second 5 million cycles, of the top slab. The ultimate load recorded was 43.43 kips
which were carried out at a load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN), a (193.19 kN). This load level was greater than the Strength
crack became visible after 1 million cycles. After the box I load in AASHTO LRFD.2,6 The Strength I load was
endured 2 million cycles, the deflection measured at the calculated as per Section 3, using a load factor of 1.75 and
midspan section of the top slab at the same time was found a dynamic allowance of 33%: 16 × 1.33 × 1.75 = 37.2 kips
to be 0.5 in. (13 mm), causing the actuator program to trigger (165.47 kN).
Figure 9 shows the failure of the midspan section and Experimental results and discussion for Specimen B
negative moment section of the top slab. The actual load Figure 10 shows the strain gauge readings for the top slab
factor (that is, the ratio between the ultimate load achieved positive moment reinforcement (As2) under a point load of
by the specimen and the design ultimate load) was 2.04 18.4 kips (81.85 kN). The specimen endured 5 million cycles
instead of 1.75. This result clearly demonstrates a high level at a load level of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) without any visible
of conservatism in the design. cracks. It was then loaded monotonically to 18.4 kips (81.85 kN)