Failure of RC Concrete Box Culverts under High Embankments: A

Numerical Investigation; or

Behaviour of Deeply Buried Concrete Box Culverts: A Numerical

Investigation

Arman U. Ahmed
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2W2
Phone: (780) 492-3718, E-mail: auahmed@ualberta.ca

Khan Mahmud Amanat

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Phone: (8802) 966-5639, Fax: (8802) 861-3046, Email: amanat@ce.buet.ac.bd

J. J. Roger Cheng
Professor and Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2W2
Phone: (780) 492-2992, Fax: (780) 492-0249, E-mail: roger.cheng@ualberta.ca

Abstract:

Vertical loads on reinforced concrete box culverts under high embankments can be significant to
produce ‘beam bending like’ effect in the longitudinal direction of the structure. This bending
effect can be considerable to cause excessive deformations and eventually, to generate large
cracks in the culvert slabs and/or walls. Such cracks did occur and tearing of the longitudinal
reinforcements at the bottom slabs was observed in the field. Provisions for these longitudinal
reinforcements in the present design standards and specifications (AASHTO 2002) are limited to
the minimum or distribution reinforcement. It appears that there are no clear provisions available
to counteract the consequences of these large deformations resulting significant stresses in the
direction of stream. The current design procedures of these culverts: precast or cast-in-place, are
based on the research by Marston and Spangler idealizing the problem as two-dimensional (2D)
plane-strain condition. Although this approach can be applied conservatively for most ordinary
culverts, it is incapable of recognizing these longitudinal stresses. It creates an opportunity to
evaluate more realistic soil-structure interaction behaviour of these culverts using full-scale finite
element (FE) modeling and analyses. In this study, a three-dimensional (3D) FE model was
developed using three dimensional solid and shell elements. The soil-culvert interface was
modeled using a node-to-node contact analysis procedure and an incremental loading procedure
was implemented. The numerical results of the developed FE model were found to be reasonably
consistent with previous field test data and analytical results obtained from literature. Using the
validated numerical model, a parametric study was conducted to identify the influence of key
parameters on the longitudinal stresses and hence, on the bending moment capacity of the deeply

1 of 22
buried soil-culvert system. Finally, a numerical database was established for formulating
guidelines in order to prevent these stresses under consideration.

Keywords: Culverts; Embankments; Finite element model; Soil-structure interaction;

longitudinal Stresses; Cracks.

Introduction

Reinforced Concrete (RC) box culverts, either precast or cast-in-place, are popularly used
throughout the world, as these structures are proven to be safe and relatively economical for
conveying water, vehicles, utilities, and pedestrians, etc. Box culverts consisting of two
horizontal and two vertical slabs built monolithically are economical due to their rigidity and
monolithic action. Separate foundations are not required, as the bottom slab resting directly on
the soil serves as raft slab. Since box culverts are increasingly being employed as replacements
for short-span bridges, there is a great demand for establishing a rational design procedure.
Although these culverts play simple roles, the applied loading to these structures during
construction phase and subsequent service life can be complex (Kim and Yoo 2005). These
loading can be significant for culverts under high embankments (Bennett et al. 2005). Factors
such as the characteristics of the soil, and the geometry and the stiffness of the culvert itself can
contribute critically in response to the applied loading. These structures, either flexible or rigid,
obtain a large part of their load-carrying capacity from the surrounding soil. Therefore,
opportunities exist to evaluate more realistic and comprehensive soil-structure interaction
behaviour of these culverts utilizing the advancements of modern computer resources and finite
element (FE) simulators.

This paper describes the numerical investigation carried out to examine the behaviour of RC box
culvert under high embankments emphasizing the development of stresses in the direction of
stream. In this study, a high embankment is defined as one where the soil-fill height (H) above
the top of the culvert is greater than or equal to the width of the culvert (Bc). The effect of
B

different parameters such as the properties of the soil beneath the culvert, the height of the
backfill, the size of the culverts, on the stresses generated in the longitudinal direction of the
culvert is also presented in this paper.

Background

A typical representation of the concrete box culvert system located under high embankments is
shown in Figure 1. These culverts can often experience heavy overburden soil pressure from the
overlying earth fill. The presence of these vertical loads in conjunction with the soil-movement
underneath the culvert can produce ‘beam bending like’ effect in the long direction. The effect of
this bending action can be considerable to cause large deformation. The earth pressure
distribution around these culverts considering the soil-structure interaction is the subject of a
number of studies in recent years. Several design aspects were investigated by numerous
researchers. Marston, a pioneer researcher on the behaviour of buried conduits, developed the
mathematical theory of loads on closed conduits due to fill materials and superimposed load and
identified the effect of installation on loads of buried structures in addition to fill height (Marston
1930). Later on, Spangler’s study identified that the major factors influencing the load on

2 of 22
underground structures are related to the installation conditions which control the magnitude and
direction of the soil prism settlement over the structure (Spangler 1950).

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of RC box culvert under embankments

Research conducted by Tadros et al. (Tadros et al. 1989) dealt specifically with two topics: soil
pressures and design methods of RC box culverts. In their investigation, two-dimensional (2D)
FE model ‘CANDE (1980)’ (Katona et al. 1981) was used to carry out the soil pressure analysis.
The influence of soil-structure interaction was considered in that model (Katona et al. 1981). The
analytical results (Tadros et al. 1989) had confirmed that the provisions specified by AASHTO
(AASHTO 1977) had considerably underestimated soil loading. They proposed formulas for
prediction of more realistic soil pressures on all four sides of box culvert. According to
AASHTO (AASHTO 1977), the stipulated vertical loading on box culvert was about 0.7 times of
the weight of the soil above top slab of that culvert. Later on, AASHTO has incorporated a soil-
structure interaction factor based on the well-known Marston-Spangler theory of earth loads for
both embankment and trench types of installations. The more recent addition of AASHTO
(AASHTO 2002) has specified the following relations to calculate the soil-structure interaction
factors.
H
Fe1 = 1 + 0.20 (1)
Bc
C d Bd2
Fe 2 = (2)
HBc

Results of the study by Jao et al. (Jao et al. 2003), using 2D finite element analysis (FEA), has
shown that box culverts located under engineering structures such as roadways can undergo
considerable deformation due to the overlying foundation loading. According to their analytical
investigation, soil pressure distribution around box culverts induced by the overlying foundations
is strongly dependent on soil-culvert interactions and an optimal structural design of box culverts
may require iteration procedures. The methodology adopted for the researches on effective
density or soil-structure interaction factor for deeply buried box culverts: a numerical simulation

3 of 22
(Kim and Yoo 2005) and the examination of vertical load on concrete culverts under high
embankments: an experimental study (Bennett et al. 2005), were based on 2D plane strain
condition.

Based on the review of earlier researches, it seemed that the computational research in this area
was limited in 2D plane-strain idealization of the problem considering the box pressures only.
Stresses developed in the direction of stream have not given much attention. Although the
research conducted by Garg et al. (Garg and Abolmaali 2009) dealt with 3D FE modeling of RC
Box culverts, only the effect of traffic loading on the top slab of the culvert was considered and
the effect of overburden soil loading was ignored. Since the bottom of the culvert was placed on
a stiff reaction floor during their analysis (Garg and Abolmaali 2009), the possibility of beam
bending action of the culvert was eliminated and thus, only the effect of box pressure was
brought into attention. However, experience of Ahmed et al. (Ahmed et al. 2002) with failure of
two box culverts recognized the inadequacy of design reinforcement to counteract the stresses in
the direction of stream. The present study is initiated upon the failure of two box culverts W10
and W17 (Ahmed 2005) located approximately 3.5 kilometres away from the west end of
Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge, Bangladesh. Large circumferential cracks were developed and
complete tearing of several longitudinal reinforcements located in the bottom slab of the culvert
was also observed shortly after constructions (Ahmed et al. 2002), as shown in

Figure 2. W17, a single cell RC box culvert is 5.02 metres (m) high, 5.72 m wide and 73 m long
in the direction of stream. W10, a twin cell RC box culvert, is 4.4 m high, 10.59 m wide and 57.5
m long in the direction of stream. Settlement of the underlying soil was found to be the most
prominent contributing factor in producing those large cracks (Ahmed et al. 2002).

The failure incidents of these two culverts underscore the need for a detailed investigation which
seeks to answer fundamental questions regarding this unique mode of failure. A review of
current code provisions, and design specifications and standards (AASHTO 2002; AASHTO
1998; ASTM C1433 2003) was covered in the full report of this study (Ahmed 2005). This
review revealed that the present codes had provided a number of provisions and
recommendations to consider the effect of soil-structure interaction in order to amplify the
normal soil pressure on all four sides of the culverts. But, there were no clear provisions
available in the current codes to consider the influence of soil-structure interaction on the stress
developed in the direction of stream or traffic of the culvert. The only recommendation was to
follow the provisions for the minimum reinforcement or distribution reinforcement. Therefore, it
is necessary to develop 3D FE model considering the soil-structure interaction and hence, to
perform a parametric study using the validated model indentifying the effect of several
parameters on the development of stress in longitudinal directions of the soil-culvert system.

4 of 22
 Vertical cracks along the walls

Figure 2. Cracked and separated reinforcements of W17 (Ahmed et al. 2002)

Description of Finite Element Model

Although 2D analysis appeared to be adequate for design and analysis of ordinary/simple RC

culverts, the development of 3D FE model in the context of this study was found to be more
realistic. ANSYS (ANSYS 1996) was used for modeling and analyzing the deeply buried soil-
culvert system. Taking advantage of the symmetry about the centerline of the roadway (see
Figure 1), only half of the culvert structure and the surrounding soil were modeled with
appropriate boundary conditions. Figure 3 shows the isometric view of the 3D finite element
model of box culvert. The detail of the FE model development and mesh sensitivity analysis was
presented in the initial part of this work (Ahmed 2005, Ahmed and Amanat 2008). Only a brief
discussion of the development of this model will be presented in this paper. FE modeling of the
present problem consisted of three components – the soil, the culvert and the interface between
the soil and the culvert.

Soil-Culvert System

There are three different soil layers in the buried culvert system typically in embankment type
installation, as shown in Figure 4. The top most layer (Layer 1) i.e. embankment consists of very

5 of 22
stiff fill soil. The underlying layer (Layer 2) i.e. the soil just below the culvert is prepared and
levelled to facilitate the culvert construction. Generally, this layer consists of dredge filled sand.
Layer 3 is representing the original soil at the site. 8-noded solid element has been used to
generate the three dimensional soil profiles with proper attention to the input of separate soil
layer properties using different set of real constants for different layers. Soil properties such as
modulus of elasticity (Es), possion’s ratio (υs), unit weight (γs) were used as primary input in the
model. The type, compacted density, and strength properties of the soil envelope adjacent to
buried structure could be critical. Because, the behaviour of the foundation soil (i.e. the stability
of the bedding) and the settlement of the culvert under load are closely correlated to these
parameters. Subsurface exploration should be carried out to determine these parameters.
However, in this study, the modulus of elasticity of the soil was estimated using the standard
penetration test (SPT) values of the previous report (RPT-Nedeco-BCL 1991) and the equations
suggested by Bowles (Bowels 1988). Standard values of Poisson’s ratio (υs) (Bowels 1988) were
used for performing the analytical study. The concrete box culvert, consisting of two slabs and
two walls, were modeled using 4-noded general purpose shell elements. Material properties such
as ultimate compressive strength of concrete (f′c), modulus of elasticity (E), and Poisson’s ratio
(υs) were used as primary input for shell elements in the model.

Soil-Culvert Interface Modeling

The soil-culvert interface was modeled using 3D contact element between each node of the
culvert and a corresponding node in the soil. Contact problems are highly nonlinear and require
significant computer resources to solve. Therefore, special consideration was given for choosing
the contact element to optimize the solution cost. The contact element used in this study
represents two surfaces which may maintain or break physical contact and may slide relative to
each other. The contact elements used in the developed model were capable of supporting only
compression in the direction normal to the surfaces and shear (Coulomb friction) in the
tangential direction. Detail ‘A’ (see Figure 4) shows the close up view of the interface element.
The only material property used for the contact element was the interface coefficient of friction
(µ), where, µ is equal to zero for frictionless surfaces. Standard values for µ (Bowels 1988),
considering friction between concrete and various types of soil often used in engineering
practice, were incorporated as interface property.

Boundary and Loading Conditions

For the developed model, the following boundary conditions were imposed. First, for the vertical
planes ABCD, located at the centerline of the roadway, and GEFH i.e. planes parallel to XY
plane, (see Figure 3), the movement in the Z direction was restrained. Then, for vertical planes
AGHD and BEFC parallel to the direction of stream or traffic of the culvert i.e. planes parallel to
YZ plane, X movement was restrained. Finally, for the bottom most surface DCFH i.e. XZ plane,
Y movement was restrained. The gravity load from the soil on top of the top slab was considered
during this numerical analysis. Since, the effect of the wheel load can decrease substantially with
the increase of the soil-fill height, the effect of the truck load was not considered for the present
case. During the analysis, a load step i.e. an incremental loading history was applied to capture
the problem of nonlinearity.

6 of 22
 G (H)

F
B
D

Z X
C

Figure 3. Isometric view of the 3D FE model of the soil-culvert system

Mesh Sensitivity

The objective of the mesh sensitivity analysis was to optimize the mesh configuration of the
developed model and thus, to yield acceptable results in the shortest possible computational time.
In a buried box culvert system, the effect of the extent of the surrounding soil can expected to be
critical. Direction of this soil extension is in global X-direction of Figure 3. In reality, the soil
extension is almost infinite. Therefore, it was necessary to optimize the length of that soil
extension after which the effect of soil would become insignificant. A series analyses were
performed for different ratios of the width of the soil layer (Bs) on left or right side of the culvert
B

and the width of the box culvert (Bc), varying from 1.0 to 4.0. Bc was set as 5.7m for the
B B

reference model. It was observed that there was not very significant change in the values of the
maximum normal stress (σx) around the culvert and the maximum stress (σz) developed at culvert
slabs in the direction of stream, when Bs/Bc ratio exceeded 2.0 (Ahmed 2005). On the other
B B

hande, when Bs/Bc was 3.0 or more, the run time for the analysis became several times higher.
B

So, Bs was fixed as twice of Bc in the developed model to get reasonably accurate results.
B B

7 of 22
Figure 4. Soil-culvert system with close up view of interface element

During mesh generation of any structural model, the aspect ratio of the elements should be kept
into consideration. Abnormally high aspect ratio of any element or elements can result in non-
convergence to the desired solution. So, the elements size should be kept small enough to yield
good results and yet large enough to reduce computational time. Keeping the aforementioned
discussion in mind, the element size was chosen in this study as such the aspect ratio never
exceeded a value of 3.0. In this study, the optimization of mesh density was aimed to determine
the exact number of elements for the box culvert. For this, the refinement of mesh was continued
until the variation in the result becomes insignificant. NX and NY were denoted as the number of
divisions in culvert slabs in global X direction and in culvert walls in global Y direction
respectively (see Figure 4). Since the shape of culvert under present study was limited to square
shape only, the number of divisions were considered equal both in X and Y directions (i.e.
NX=NY=N). A number of analyses were performed for different values of N, varying from 3 to 6.

8 of 22
From the analyses results, a relationship was obtained between N and normal stresses (σx)
developed around the culvert. It was observed that σx increased as the value of N increased
(Ahmed 2005). But, the variation in results was not remarkable in comparison to the
computational time, when N was more than 4.0. Therefore, N for both in X and Y directions
were assigned as 4.0 in the developed model to optimize the computational time.

Comparison of FE Modeling

As mentioned earlier, the computational research for studying the behaviour of buried RC box
culverts was confined to 2D plane strain idealization of the problem. A very few experimental
and analytical (with 3D FE model) investigations similar to the present one were conducted.
Therefore, the performance of the FE modeling technique adopted in the present study was
verified with limited field test data and numerical (2D analysis) results obtained from the studies
of Katona (Katona 1981) and Tadros et al (Tadros et al. 1989). Examples obtained from these
two studies (Tadros et al. 1989; Katona 1981) were reanalyzed to assess the validity of the
present FE model,.

In the study conducted by Katona et al. (Katona 1981), the analytically predicted results attained
from program ‘CANDE (1980)’ (Katona et al. 1981) were compared with previously obtained
field test data (Russ 1975; Allen and Russ 1978). These field data are referred as ‘Kentucky test
(1978)’ in Figure 5. In Kentucky test (1978), soil pressure meters were placed at two points on
each of the four sides of a ‘4ft x 4 ft’ (1.2 m x 1.2 m) RC box culvert under 77 ft (23.5 m) of fill.
The same culvert was reanalysed using the present 3D FE model. Figure 5 shows the soil
pressure around the culvert obtained from the analytical results of the present study, and CANDE
(1980); the suggested values by AASHTO (AASHTO 1977); and the experimental results of
Kentucky test (1978). As can be seen from Figure 5, there were fairly good agreement between
the analytically predicted values from the present FEA and from CANDE (1980). Soil pressures
predicted from the analytical results were also reasonably close to the field data (Russ 1975;
Allen and Russ 1978). However, analytical results obtained from CANDE (1980) and the present
model, and the limited field test data had shown that soil pressures were far in excess of the
specified values by AASHTO (AASHTO 1977). This significant variation in results justified the
incorporation of the soil-structure interaction factors and also the elimination of the 0.7 vertical
soil pressure reduction factor in the recent edition of AASHTO (AASHTO 2002; AASHTO
1998). Although, soil pressure around the culvert obtained from the present study had shown
reasonable agreement with that of CANDE (1980), there were some variations in results at some
locations around the culvert. One of the reasons for such variations may be the use of different
soil model in two studies. In CANDE (1980) model, the soils were represented by Duncan
hyperbolic model which included both hyperbolic Young’s modulus and bulk modulus, whereas
only elastic properties of soil were considered in the present model. However, it can be said that
the methodology adopted in the present FEA can predict the soil pressure around the culvert with
reasonable accuracy.

The performance of the present was also verified by reanalyzing the example obtained from the
study conducted by Tadros et al. (Tadros et al. 1989). In their investigation, the soil pressure
analysis was performed using 2D FE model and soil-structure interaction was taken into
consideration. Their analytical results also confirmed that the provisions in AASHTO (AASHTO

9 of 22
1977) considerably underestimated soil loading. Two sizes of culvert were chosen for their
analysis. One of them, an average-sized ‘9 ft x 9 ft’ (2.7 m x 2.7 m) RC box culvert with 15 ft
(4.6 m) of backfill above the top slab, was reanalyzed in this study. Figure 6 shows the soil
pressure around the culvert obtained from the analytical results of the present study, and CANDE
(1980); the values obtained from AASHTO (AASHTO 1977), and from the proposed formulas
by Tadros et al. (Tadros et al. 1989). As can be seen from Figure 6, the numerical results
obtained from the present study and the analytical predicted values (Tadros et al. 1989) had
shown reasonable agreement. Therefore, it seems rational to use the developed model for the
purpose of a detailed parametric study.

Top Slab
Soil Pressure (psi)

Present Study
200

CANDE(1980)
100
AASHTO(1978)

0 Kentucky Test(1978)
0 1 2 3 4
4
Culvert Height (ft)

4 x 4 ft (1.2 x 1.2 m)
Box Culvert
1

0
Culvert Span or Width (ft) 0 40 80

0 1 2 3 4
Soil Pressure (psi)
Soil Pressure (psi)

Side Wall
-50
SI Conversion:
1 in = 25.4 mm
-150 1ft = 0.3048 m
1 psi = 6.9 kPa
Bottom Slab
-250

Figure 5. Comparison of soil pressure around ‘4ft x 4ft’ RC box culvert

10 of 22
 40 Top Slab
Soil Pressure (psi)

Present Study

CANDE(1980)
20
AASHTO(1978)

0 Tadros et al. (1989)

0 3 6 9
9

Culvert Height (ft)

6

9 x 9 ft (2.7 x 2.7 m)
3
Box Culvert

0
Culvert Span or Width (ft) 0 15 30
0 3 6 9
0
Soil Pressure (psi)
Soil Pressure (psi)

Side Wall

-20 SI Conversion:
1 in = 25.4 mm
1ft = 0.3048 m
Bottom Slab 1 psi = 6.9 kPa
-40

Figure 6. Comparison of soil pressure around ‘9ft x 9ft’ RC box culvert

Simulation of One of the Failure Incidents

In accordance to previous discussion, the present study was initiated at the incidents where large
cracks were developed and observed shortly after constructions of two RC box culverts (W10
and W17). Dimensions of W10 and W17 were quoted earlier. The numerical model developed in
this study was utilized to simulate the field condition of W17, a single-cell box culvert and its

11 of 22
behaviour was studied rigorously. The modulus of elasticity of concrete (Ec) and Poisson’s ratio
(ν) were assumed as 21000 MPa and 0.15, respectively. The geometry and material properties of
the soil-culvert system is presented in Table 1. Previous results (Ahmed et al. 2002) indicated
that the structures were highly stressed in the direction of stream due to elastic settlement. It was
also found that the reinforcement in that direction was totally inadequate. Results obtained from
the present FEA had shown that the vertical deflection of the soil at the centerline of the culvert
section was 75.08 mm and at the edge of the culvert was 63.75 mm, giving a differential
settlement of 11.33 mm (see Figure 7 ). Results obtained from the current FEA also illustrated
that the culvert was highly stressed at the bottom. The maximum principle stress (σz) at the
bottom of the culvert was about 8.526 MPa (see Figure 8). The demand for the longitudinal
reinforcements to overcome this stress could be several times higher than the distribution
reinforcement (Ahmed 2005). Significant differential settlement and considerably high tensile
stress at the bottom of the culvert predicted from this study validated the inadequacy of 2D
plane-strain idealization and justified the use of 3D analysis for such complex soil-structure
interaction system. The failure of these two box culverts (Ahmed et al. 2002) hence, motivated
the authors to commence more detailed parametric investigation.

Table 1. Soil Properties used for W17 (Ahmed et al. 2002)

Unit weight Modulus of Elasticity Poisson’s ratio Depth of soil

Soil Layer
γ (kN/m )
3
Es (MPa) ν (m)

Layer1 17.3 41.0 0.35 7.35

Layer2 10.0 15.0 0.35 1.00
Layer3 5.0 5.0 0.35 5.00

L (m )
0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm)

-2 5

-5 0

-7 5

-1 0 0

Figure 7. Settlement of culvert W17 along the direction of the stream

12 of 22
Figure 8. Contour of principal stress (σz) for culvert W17

Influencing Parameters

The reasonable agreement of the results predicted from the present FEA and the results available
from the previous analytical and experimental studies prompted the authors to utilize the
developed model for conducting a parametric study. The objective of this parametric study was
to identify the parameters imposing significant impact on the longitudinal stresses (σz) of the
deeply buried culverts. With a view of achieving this goal, a reference model was established
using centerline culvert dimensions of 6 m (Bc) by 6 m (Hc), and slab and wall thicknesses of 450
B

mm. Parameters, anticipated to be considerable, were coefficient of friction (μ), fill height (H),
side slope (1:s), road way width (BR) in terms of no of lanes (n), size of culvert (Bc or Hc), and
B B

soil modulus (Es) of original soil at the site i.e. Layer 3 (see Figure 4). Figure 9 represents the
longitudinal section and cross section of the soil-culvert system with some important dimensions.
Dashed lines cc' and ee', indicated in Figure 9, were used to locate the mid-span and the edge of
the culvert. The term ‘d’ (see Figure 9) was used to denote the distance measured from the edge
of the culvert. In this study, the roadway width (BR) and the longitudinal span length (L) of the
B

culvert were defined using the following expressions:

B R = n × B L + 2 × BS (3)
L = BR + 2 × s × H (4)

In the reference model, the lane width (BL) and shoulder width (BS) were assigned as 4 m. For
B B

embankment soil (Layer 1) and underlying soil (Layer 2) as shown in Figure 9, soil parameters,
such as unit weight (γ) and soil modulus (ES), were kept unchanged during this parametric study.
Since the ‘beam bending like’ effect was responsible for causing excessive deformation of the
culverts, the moment about global X-axis (Mx) could be critical for the stresses under
consideration (σz). In this investigation, the moment, Mx was calculated using the elastic bending
formula ( M x = S x × σ z ). Hence, effect of different parameters on Mx was analyzed with an
objective of establishing a numerical database to formulate guidelines and thus, to propose
design equations for the maximum or mid-span moment (Mm), at the location of dashed line cc'.

13 of 22
In order to reduce the complexity of dimensions, a ‘Standard Analysis’ was performed by setting
the parameters, such as μ, H, 1: s, Bc, n, and Es of Layer3 at 0.3, 6 m, 1: 2, 6 m, 4, and, 5 MPa,
B

respectively. Based on the results of the ‘Standard Analysis’, the resultant axial force or the
frictional drag along the culvert in Z direction (Pz) was found to be 5.24 x 103 kN. The mid-span
bending moment (Mm) at line cc', and the end moment (Me) at line ee', were found to be 160.9 x
103 kN-m, and 66.8 x 103 kN-m, respectively. The differential moment (Mm - Me), termed as
(Mo), was 94.1 x 103 kN-m. Efforts were made to compare the value of Mo obtained from FEA
with the result obtained from the simplified theoretical equations (Bennett et al. 2005). Equation
5 and 6 were used to calculate the equivalent uniform soil pressure (ws) and the effective moment
at the center line of the culvert (Mo), using the parameters used for the standard analysis. The
equivalent uniform soil pressure (ws) was derived using 2D plane-stress condition. The unit
weight of back fill (γs) was taken as 17.3 kN/m3. Since a uniform pressure distribution was
assumed, the co-efficient k1 and k2 were taken as 1.0 (Bennett et al. 2005). Using the equations,
the computed values of ws, and Mo, were about 78 kPa, and 134.5 x 103 kN-m, respectively. The
value of Mo obtained from FEA was about 70% to that of Mo obtained from equation 6. Since the
simplified equations incorporated the total weight of the soil, the value of Mo was quite high.
However, in reality, a portion of this soil loading would be supported by the surrounding soil and
the percentage is dependent to the stability of the soil bedding beneath the culvert. Hence, the use
of FEA result should be more rational. Therefore, the values of Pz and Mm obtained from the
‘Standard Analysis’, referred as Ps and Ms, respectively, were used to normalize all the results
obtained from this parametric study.

(B R + L ) × H × γ s
ws = (5)
2L

Mo = Mm − Me =
(24 − 4.5k1 − 4.5k 2 ) × L2
×w × Bc
s (6)
96

14 of 22
 BR
1 1:s
e c e
Y
Underlying Soil
Z d Box Culvert (Layer 2)

e' c' e'

1
L
Longitudinal Section

Embankment Soil
(Layer 1) H

Y
Culvert
Hc Cross-Section
X h1 (Sec 1-1)

Underlying Soil (Layer 3) h2

BS Bc BS

Figure 9. Sectional view of soil-culvert system

Effect of μ

The bottom and top slabs of the culvert can be considered to be sensitive to the coefficient of
interface friction (μ). To observe the effect of μ, a typical range was selected varying from 0.1 to
0.5 (Bowels 1988). Parameters, H, 1: s, Bc or Hc, n, and Es of Layer3 were kept constant at 6m,
B

1:2, 6 m, 4, and 5 MPa, respectively. Figure 10 shows the effect of μ on Pz and Mm. As
discussed earlier, these results were normalized by dividing them with the values of Ps, and Ms
obtained from the ‘Standard Analysis’ with μ was equal to 0.3. As can be seen from Figure 10a,
Pz increased with the increase of μ in a parabolic trend with the change of μ, which seemed
rational. However, there was no significant effect on Mm with the change of μ (Figure 10b).
Since, this study was focused on identifying the effect of parameters influencing Mx or Mm; μ
was taken as 0.3 for simplifying the rest of the parametric analyses.

15 of 22
 2

1.25
1.5

M m /M s
Pz /Ps

1
0.75
0.5

0 0.25
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
μ μ
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Effect of μ on frictional drag force (PZ), and maximum bending moment (Mm)

Effect of H and Bc

To observe the effect of soil fill height (H), a series of analyses were done by varying values of
H from 2 m to 10 m. For different values of H, the culvert size (6 m), side slope (1:2) and the
number of lanes (4) of the roadway of the standard model were kept unchanged. Figure 11a
shows the effect of H on the bending moment (Mx) distribution along the span length of the
culvert. The values of Mx were normalized by using the value of Ms. As can be seen from Figure
11a, for each values of H, the moment increased with the increase of d and it became maximum
at the mid span of the culvert, as predicted. The general idea was that, if the value of H was
increased, MX would increase, as reflected in Figure 11a. Figure 11b shows the effect of fill
height, in terms of H/Bc ratio, on the mid span moment (Mm). With the increase of H/Bc ratio, the
mid-span moment increased significantly. The relation between H/Bc and Mm was shown in terms
a regression equation in Figure 11b, where, CH was used to define as the factor considering the
effect of H.

Six different culvert sizes (Bc) were selected, representative to existing sizes of box culverts in
B

the field, ranging from a 3 m x 3 m to an 8 m x 8 m culvert. Each culvert was analysed with a fill
height of 6 m. During these analyses, all the other parameters used in the ‘Standard Analysis’
were kept unchanged. In this study, the culvert shape was constricted to square shape only (i.e.
Bc = Hc, see Figure 9 ). All the results were normalized by using the value of Ms obtained from
B

the ‘Standard Analysis’. Figure 11c portrays the significant effect of culvert size on the moment
capacity of the soil-culvert system. From Figure 11c, it can be revealed that MX increased with
the increase of Bc. On the other hand, the mid-span moment (Mm) decreased with the increase of
B

H/Bc ratio (see Figure 11d). The effect of Bc on Mm was shown using a regression equation in
B

Figure 11d, where, CBc was used to define as the co-efficient considering the influence of Bc. In B

both cases of CH and CBc, the high coefficients of determination of regression, R2 , indicated a
very strong relationship (very close to 1.0).

16 of 22
 1.5 Fill Heights:
10 m 2
8m C H = 0.98 (H/B c ) 0.542
1.0 6m 1.5 R2 = 0.99

M m/M s
M x /M s

4m
1
2m
0.5
0.5

0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0 10 20 30 40
d (m) H/B c
(a) (b)
2.0 Culvert Size: 2.0
8x 8m C Bc = 0.982 (H/B c ) -2.403
1.5 7x 7m 1.5 R2 = 0.99
6x 6m
Mx / Ms

5x 5m
M m/M s

1.0 4x 4m 1.0
3x 3m
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.4 1.0 1.6 2.2
0 10 20 30 40
d (m) H/B c

(c) (d)
Figure 11. Effect of H and Bc on the moment distribution (Mx) and mid-span moment (Mm)
B

Effect of BR and L

Since both roadway width (BR) and side slope (s) were interrelated to the span length (L) of the
B

culvert (see equation 3 and 4), the effect of number of lanes of the roadway (n) and s were drawn
in terms of BR and L. To study the effect of BR, a series of analyses were conducted using the
B B

selected standard model for different values of n varying from 2 to 8. The side slope (1: s) and
the soil fill height (H) was kept constant at 1:2, and 6m, respectively. The values of Mx were
normalized by using the value of Ms. The influence of n on the plot of bending moment (Mx)
versus the distance from the culvert edge (d) is illustrated in Figure 12a. It can be observed that
the predicted Mx at different section of the culvert decreased with the increase of n or BR. The B

effect of roadway width in terms of L/BR ratio on the mid-span moment (Mm) is shown in Figure
12b. Mm increased initially with the increase of L/BR ratio, but for higher values of L/BR ratio, the
influence became insignificant. The relation between L/BR and Mm was shown in terms a
regression relation in Figure 11b, where, C BR was used to define as the factor considering the
effect of BR. B

17 of 22
There could be a considerable effect of the side slope (1:s) on the behaviour of soil-culvert
system, as span length (L) changes with the change of slope. The arrangement of the side slope is
shown in Figure 9. To study the influence of 1: s, a number of analyses was performed, using the
standard model, by varying the horizontal component of the side slope (s) from 1.0 to 3.0. The
values of Mx were normalized by using the value of Ms. Effect of s on bending moment (Mx)
distribution along the culvert span is shown in Figure 12c. As can be seen, the moment increased
with the span length and it reached the peak at the centre-line of the culvert. But, it is also
apparent from Figure 12c, that the bending moment (Mx) diagram became flatter with the
decrease in the steepness of the side of the embankment. The effect of L/BR on mid-span moment
(Mm) for different slope input is shown in Figure 12d. The effect of s on Mm was shown using a
regression equation in Figure 11d, where, Cs was used to define as the co-efficient considering
the influence of s. In both cases of C BR and Cs, the high coefficients of determination of
regression, R2 , indicated a very strong relationship (very close to 1.0) with L/BR ratio.

1.50 Num ber of Lanes:

C BR = −0.58(L / BR ) + 2.56 (L / BR ) − 1.78
2 2
8 Lanes
6 Lanes R2 = 0.97
1.00 1.2
4 Lanes
M x/M s

2 Lanes
M m/M s

0.50 0.8

0.00 0.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 10 20 30 40
d (m) L /B R
(a) (b)
1.0

C s = −0.74 (L / BR ) + 3.09 (L / BR ) − 2.23

2

1.2 R2 = 0.98
Side Slope
M x/ M s

0.5 1.0 : 2.5

1.0 : 2.0
M m/M s

0.8
1.0 : 1.5
1.0 : 1.0
1.0 : 3.0
0.4
0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 20 40 60
d (m) L/ BR
(c) (d)

Figure 12. Effect of BR and L on moment distribution (Mx) and mid-span moment (Mm)
B

18 of 22
Effect of Soil Modulus (Es)

The modulus of elasticity (Es) of the original soil at the site i.e. ‘Underlying soil (Layer 3)’
indicated in Figure 9 could have significant influence on the behaviour of culverts under high
embankments. To observe the effect of Es, a typical range was selected for Es varying from 5
MPa to 25 MPa (Bowels 1988). Although the range of Es selected herein seemed higher than
usual, even then the effect of Es was found considerable. Higher values of Es represented stiffer
soil, whereas lower values for softer soil. For different values of Es, a series of analyses were
performed using the ‘Standard Analysis’ model. All the results were normalized by Ms obtained
from the ‘Standard Analysis’. The effect of Es on the behaviour of deeply buried box culvert is
shown in Figure 13. As can be observed Figure 13a, Mx increased with the increase of d and it
became maximum at the mid span of the culvert. From Figure 13b, it can be observed that the
moment, Mm, at the mid span became higher as Es of the original soil decreased. As anticipated
(Ahmed et al. 2002), the settlement of the soil below the culvert could be more for lower values
of Es. As a result, the deflection of culvert at the centreline of the roadway could be significantly
high for lower values of Es. The relation between of Es on Mm was drawn in terms a regression
equation in Figure 11b, where, CEs was used to define as the co-efficient considering the
influence of soil modulus of the original soil at the site.

1.2 1.2
Soil Modulus:
25 MPa
20 MPa 0.8
0.8
15 MPa
M m/M s
M x/M s

10 MPa
0.4 5 MPa 0.4 C Es = 1.86 (E s ) -0.39
R2 = 0.99
0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30
d (m) E s (MPa)

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Effect of soil modulus on the bending moment (Mx) distribution along the culvert span

Summary and Concluding Remarks

A detailed three dimensional FE model of the deeply buried RC box culvert was developed and
analyzed considering the soil-structure interaction in a discrete manner. The methodology
adopted in this study was verified with the previous field test data and the previous analytical
results. The developed model successfully simulated those analytical and field data with
reasonable accuracy. The conservative classical methods, based on 2D plane strain idealization,
can be acceptable for most of the buried conduits/culverts, whose span length in the direction of
stream is not very large compared to the other dimensions of those structures and where there is
little or no overburden soil load on the top slab. However, the failure incidents presented in this

19 of 22
work had shown that the presence of large span in longitudinal direction of culvert, the heavy
soil over-burden pressure in addition to traffic load, and the inferior surrounding soil caused
large deformation resulting in beam bending like effect on the whole structure. All these
conditions invalidated the simple assumption of plane strain condition. Hence, it necessitated an
analysis and design procedure considering the stresses developed in the direction of stream. The
development of these stresses, ignored in the previous studies as well as in code provisions and
standard design specifications, was the main focus of this study.

The developed numerical model was used to identify the influence of different parameters on the
longitudinal stresses, in turn the moment capacity of the buried soil-culvert system. The effect of
coefficient of friction of soil with the concrete was found negligible on the maximum bending
moment originated at the mid span of the culvert. However, the effect was considerable on the
frictional drag along the culvert. Parameters such as soil fill height, culvert size, span length of
culvert as a function of side slope and roadway width, and properties of the original soil at site
had significant influence on the bending moment distributions and the mid-span moment values.
Consistent with the objectives of the present study, the overall behaviour of the box culvert under
high embankments was analyzed and a numerical database was established by obtaining
regression relations to consider the effect of controlling parameters on the longitudinal stresses
and/or the moment capacity of the deeply buried soil-culvert system. Finally, this database can
be use as a handful tool for formulating guidelines and thus, proposing design equations to
prevent these stresses, identified critical in this paper.

Notation
Ac = cross-section area of the culvert structure;
Bc = width of culvert or structure;
B

Bd = horizontal width of trench;

B

BL = lane width;
B

BS = shoulder width;
B

BR = roadway width;
B

Cd = load coefficient for trench installation;

d = distance from the edge of the culvert;
ES = modulus of elasticity of soil layer;
E = modulus of elasticity;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete;
Fe1 = soil–structure interaction factor for embankment installation;
Fe2 = soil–structure interaction factor for trench installation;
f′c = ultimate concrete strength;
H = height of soil fill above the top slab of the culvert;
Hc = height of box culvert;
h1 = height of underlying soil (Layer2);
h2 = height of underlying soil (Layer3);
k1 or k2 = ratio of the pressure at the end and the centre line of the culvert;
L = span length of the culvert in longitudinal direction;
Mx= bending moment about global X-axis;
Me= bending moment at the edge of the culvert or end moment ;

20 of 22
Mm= mid-span or maximum bending moment about global X-axis;
Mo = effective bending moment at the center line of the culvert;
Ms = maximum bending moment obtained from the ‘Standard Analysis’;
n = Number of lanes required to determine the roadway width;
Pz = Frictional drag along the culvert in global Z-axis direction;
Ps = Frictional drag force obtained from the ‘Standard Analysis’;
s = horizontal component of side slope;
Sx = section modulus of the box culvert about X-axis;
ws = the equivalent uniform soil pressure on the top slab of the culvert;
γc = unit weight of normal weight concrete;
γs = unit weight of soil layer;
υs = Poisson’s ratio;
μ = Interface coefficient of friction;
σx = Normal Stress around the culvert;
σz = Maximum normal stress or principal stress in the culvert.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, and
University of Alberta for research funding for supporting the research work on which this paper
is based.

References
AASHTO. (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. (1998). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. (1977). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
Ahmed, A. U. (2005). "Behavior of Buried Box Culvert in Fill Soil." M.Sc. thesis, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ahmed, A. U., and Amanat, K. M. (2008). "Need of 3D Finite Element Analysis for Buried Rc
Box Culvert in Fill Soil." 37th CSCE Annual Conference 2008, June 10 - June 13, Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Quebec, QC, Canada, ST-148-1-ST-148-10.
Ahmed, B., Amanat, K. M., Safiullah, A. M. M., and Choudhury, J. R. (2002). "Causes of
Cracking of Culverts on Filled Soil and their Performance after Repair." Journal of Civil
Engineering, CE 30(1),.
Allen, D. L., and Russ, R. L. (1978). "Loads on Box Culvert Under High Embankments:
Analysis and Design Considerations." Rep. No. 491, Kentucky Department of Transportation,
Lexington, United States.
ANSYS. (1996). ANSYS release 5.6 documentations. 201 Johnson Road, Houston, PA, 15342-
1300.
ASTM C1433. (2003). "Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for
Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers." .

21 of 22
Bennett, R. M., Wood, S. M., Drumm, E. C., and Rainwater, N. R. (2005). "Vertical loads on
concrete box culverts under high embankments." J.Bridge Eng., 10(6), 643-649.
Bowels, J. E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design , 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, .
Garg, A. K., and Abolmaali, A. (2009). "Finite-element modeling and analysis of reinforced
concrete box culverts." J.Transp.Eng., 135(3), 121-128.
Jao, M., Ahmed, F., Nuwala, H. M., and Wang, M. C. (2003). "Footing-induced soil pressure
around box culverts." EJGE, Http://www.Ejge.com/2003/Ppr0341/Abs0341.Htm, .
Katona, M. G., Vittes, P. D., Lee, C. H., and Ho, H. T. (1981). "CANDE-1980: Box Culverts and
Soil Models." Rep. No. FHWA/RD-80/172, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., United States.
Katona, M. G. (1981). "SOIL-STRUCTURE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF BURIED
BOX CULVERT DESIGNS." CRREL Report (US Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory), 911-930.
Kim, K., and Yoo, C. H. (2005). "Design loading on deeply buried box culverts."
J.Geotech.Geoenviron.Eng., 131(1), 20-27.
Marston, A. (1930). "The theory of external loads on closed conduits in the light of the latest
experiments." Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, (Bulletin 96), 36.
RPT-Nedeco-BCL. (1991). "Repairing of Crack Structures." Ref.: PM/B10078/ 519/ 356/ 456/
FCM, Dated 7/5/87. Drawing Nos. 4316A, 4301, 4336,4324A, 4326A, 4337A, 4323, 4325, .
Russ, R. L. (1975). "Loads on Box Culverts Under High Embankments: Positive Projection,
without Imperfect Trench." Rep. No. 431, Kentucky Department of Transportation,
Lexington, United States.
Spangler, M. G. (1950). "Field measurements of settlement ratios of various highway culverts."
Iowa State College, .
Tadros, M. K., Benak, J. V., and Gilliland, M. K. (1989). "Soil pressure on box culverts." ACI
Structural Journal, 86(4), 439-450.
-

22 of 22