1 - Shear Behaviour of Concrete Box Culverts

Shear Behaviour of Concrete Box Culverts
by
R ichard A. Yee
A thesis submitted in conform ity w ith the requirem ents

for the degree o f M aster o f A pplied Science
Graduate D epartm ent o f Civil Engineering
U niversity o f Toronto
© Copyright by R ichard Yee 2003
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Library Bibliotheque nationale
of C anada du C anada
Acquisitions and Acquisisitons et

Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada Canada
Y our file Votre referen ce

ISBN: 0 -6 1 2 -8 4 1 8 3 -9
O ur file N otre referen ce
ISBN: 0 -6 1 2 -8 4 1 8 3 -9
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la
National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these.
thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes
reproduced without the author's ou aturement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
Canada
Abstract
Shear Behaviour o f Concrete B ox Culverts
By
R ichard Yee
M .A.Sc. 2003
Graduate D epartm ent o f Civil Engineering

U niversity o f Toronto
A research program was developed to investigate the shear behaviour of precast reinforced
concrete box culverts. Experiments were conducted on twelve box culvert specimens with six different
designs. Three specimen types were designed with reinforcement ratios in conformity with Ontario
Provincial Standards Specifications (OPSS) 1821, while the remaining three had larger reinforcement
ratios for applications with large depths of soil cover over the culverts.
Sections designed in accordance with OPSS 1821 specifications exhibited predominantly flexural
behaviour. Shear failures were observed in several o f the deep earth cover designs. All specimen designs
were found to be conservative. Calculations were performed using Canadian Highway and Bridge Design
Code (CHBDC) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
specifications. CHBDC code shear provisions were found to yield conservative shear strength
predictions. Discussion is presented identifying areas of weakness and lack of clarity in the current codes
governing box culvert design.
ii
Acknowledgments
The author would like to extend gratitude to the many people who helped to bring this project to
fruition. Thanks to Professor M.P. Collins and Professor Evan Bentz for their guidance and support.
Financial support from Materials and Manufacturing Ontario (MMO), the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the University of Toronto was greatly appreciated. Thanks
to the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association (OCPA) and concrete pipe manufacturers Con Cast Pipe
Limited, Hanson Pipe & Products Canada, M-Con Products Inc. and Munro Concrete Products Ltd. for
their co-oporation and assistance.
The author would also like to extend gratitude to Scott Kirby and Kent Campbell for their
hospitality at the Hanson Pipe and Products Canada Cambridge Plant. Thanks also to all the guys at
Hanson who helped in the construction.
Thanks to the laboratory staff at the University o f Toronto. Assistance provided by Renzo
Basset, Peter Heliopoulos and John MacDonald was much appreciated. Thanks to Joel Babbin, John
Buzzeo and Allen McClenaghan for their help satisfying the project’s insatiable appetite for more parts.
Thanks to the entire population of GB 116, Ted Sherwood, Adam Lubell, Junji Masukawa, Vaska
Xoxa and Almila Uzel for numerous conversations, questions and help testing even in the absence of
donuts.
Finally I would like to thank all my family and friends who helped me keep on track and those
who provide enough diversion to balance out the equation.
iii
Table of Content
Abstract ................................................................................................ ii
A cknow ledgm ents ............................................................................................ iii
Table of C o n te n ts ...................................................................................................iv
Table of Figures ................................. v»i
Table of T a b les ....................................................................... xii
Notation..................................... .................................... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 G eneral................................... 1
1.1.1 Reasons for Investigation......................................................... 2
1.1.2 Box Culvert Design.................................................................................................. 3
1.1.3 Previous Research on Shear in Box Culverts....................................................6
1.1.4 Code Specified Loading.................................................................... ...................6
1.2 D evelopm ent of Test P ro g ra m ..................................................................................... 7

1.2.1 Project Scope ................. 7
1.2.2 Loading of Specim ens................................................................ 8
1.3 Code S hear P rovisio ns .................................................................... 10
1.3.1 CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2 Method (a) (General method) .................11
1.3.2 CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2 Method (a) (Simplified M ethod).................. 11
1.3.3 CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2 Method (b) (from Clause 7 .8 .8 .2 .1 )..... 12
1.3.4 AASHTO Box Culvert Shear Provisions........................ 12
Chapter 2: Experimental Program

2.1 Test S pecim en s ..... 14
2.2 Specim en G e o m e try ............................................................ 14
iv
2.2.1 Overall Specimen Geom etry............................................................ 14
2.2.2 Reinforcement............................................................... 15
2.2.3 Concrete Cover............................................. 18
2.3 Fabrication............................. ........................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Reinforcement C ag es............................................................................................19
2.3.2 Test Specimen Cage D etails...............................................................................20
2.3.3 Casting..................................................................... 21
2.4 Test A p p a ra tu s ...................................................................... 23

2.4.1 G eneral........................................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Horizontal Tie R o d ................................................................................................. 24
2.5 Instrum entation..............................................................................................................27
2.5.1 Reference Nomenclature......................................................................................27
2.5.2 Displacement M easurem ents............................................................................. 28
2.5.3 Force Measurements.............................................................................................28

2.5.4 Concrete Surface Strains......................................................................................30
2.5.5 Reinforcement Strains................................................................ 32
2.6 Material P rop erties............. ...... 33
2.6.1 Concrete Material Properties................................................................................33
2.6.2 Reinforcing Steel MaterialProperties.............................................................. 35
Chapter 3: Experimental Observations and Results

3.1 General O verview ................ ........................................................................................ 37
3.2 L o ad in g ................................. ..........................................................................................38
3.3 Reported C h a rts .................. .......................................... ..............................................38

3.3.1 Control C h a rt.......................................................................................................... 38
3.3.2 Reinforcement Strains.......................................................................................... 39
3.3.3 Tie Rod Behaviour................................................................................................. 39
3.3.4 Shear Behaviour in Zone of Failure ......... 39
3.4 RY1 and RY1P Experim ental R e s u lts ................... 41
3.5 RY2 and RY2P Experim ental R e s u lts .................... 46
3.6 RY3 and RY3P Experim ental R e s u lts ..................................................................... 52
3.7 RY4 and RY4P Experim ental R e s u lts ..................................................................... 56
3.8 RY5 and RY5P Experim ental R e s u lts ................................................................... 62
3.9 RY6 and RY6P Experim ental R e s u lts ................................................................... 68
Chapter 4: Discussion of Experimental Results

4.1 Com parison with Analytical M o d e ls ................................................... 74
4.1.1 Mid-span Displacem ent ..... 74
4.1.2 Location of Inflection Point................................................................................... 75
4.1.3 Moment at M id-span..................... 77
4.1.4 Comparison of Experimental Data withRY1 Analytical Predictions........... 78
4.1.5 Comparison of Experimental Data withRY2 Analytical Predictions........... 80
4.1.6 Comparison of Experimental Data withRY3 Analytical Predictions............82
4.1.7 Comparison of Experimental Data with RY4 Analytical Predictions............84
4.1.10 Conclusions from Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results. 90
4.2 Com parison of Experim ents with Design L o a d in g ............................................91
4.3 Code P redictions.................................................. 92
4.3.1 CHBDC 2000 General Method Equations.............................. 94
4.3.2 CHBDC 2000 Simplified Method Equations................................................. ...96
4.3.3 CHBDC 2000 Clause 7.8.8.2.1 Method Equations ............................... 97
4.3.4 CHBDCAASHTO 98 Box Culvert Equations.............................. 98

4.3.5 Summary of Code Predictions.......................................................................... 100
4.3.6 Analysis at Different Member Cross-sections................................................102
4.3.7 Influence of Axial Load on Code Predictions.................................................104
4.3.8 Brief Discussion of Areas of Uncertainty in Code Predictions....................105
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 C onclusions.................................................................................. 108
5.1.1 Culvert Performance.......................................................
vi
5.1.2 Code Shear Predictions.............................. ...............................109
5.1.3 Test Apparatus .............................................. 111
5.2 Recommendations .................................................. 112
5.2.1 Culvert Performance.................................................. ...............112
5.2.2 Code Shear Predictions................ 113
5.2.3 Test Apparatus......................................................................... 113
References and C ontacts.............................. ............................... 1 n
Appendices Commentary.............................. 116
Appendix A: RY1 & RY1P Test O bservations......................... 118
Appendix B: RY2 & RY2P Test O bservations......................... 128
Appendix C: RY3 & RY3P Test O bservations ...............137
Appendix D: RY4 & RY4P Test O bservations.........................148
Appendix E: RY5 & RY5P Test O bservations.........................160
Appendix F: RY6 & RY6P Test O bservations......................... 172
Appendix G: Test Data Summary................................................183
Appendix H: Photo Record of Reinforcement C a g e s 197
Appendix I: Sample VecTorS Input File.................... 204
Appendix J: As Measured D im en sion s.....................................212
Appendix K: Calculation Sum m aries......................................... 213
vii
Table of Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.1: Box Culverts in Precast Yard ................................... 1
Figure 1.2: Typical Culvert Installations................... 2
Figure 1.3: Specified Design Reinforcement................ 4
Figure 1.4: Shear Reinforcement Mats................ 5
Figure 1.5: Influence of Surface Loads..................................................................... 8
Figure 1.6: Surface Loading from CL-625-ONT Truck.............................................9
Figure 1.7: Sample Load Schematic................... 10

Figure 2.1: Comparison of Culvert S izes................................................................ 14
Figure 2.2: Reinforcement Layout for RY1 & RY2................................................. 17
Figure 2.3: Reinforcement Layout for RY3 and R Y 4............................................17
Figure 2.4: Reinforcement Layout for RY5 and R Y 6............................................18
Figure 2.5: Fabrication of Reinforcement Cages................................ 19
Figure 2.6: Detailing of Reinforcement Cages....................................................... 20
Figure 2.7: Dry Cast Operations .................................................................. 21
Figure 2.8: Finishing and Factory Handling. ....................................... 22
Figure 2.9: Specimen Curing........................................... 22
Figure 2.10: Experimental Set-up................................................... 23
Figure 2.11: Free-Body Diagram of Test FrameComponents............................ .24
Figure 2.12: Apparatus Diagram.............................. .............................................. 25
Figure 2.13: Stress-Strain Curve for Tie Strand................................ 26
Figure 2.14: Horizontal Tie Configurations ............................. 27
Figure 2.15: LVDT Layout................ 29
Figure 2.16: Load Cell Layout.......................................... .... ...................................30
Figure 2.17: Zurich Target Layout....................................... ...................................31
Figure 2.18: Typical Strain Gauge and Conduit PipeLocations...................... .32
viii
Figure 2.19: C oncrete S trength Gain P lo ts ...................................... 34
Figure 2.20: Concrete Stress-Strain Plots for RY1 and RY2.... ..............35
Figure 2.21: Reinforcement Stress-Strain Behaviour Plots ...... 36

Figure 3.1: RY1 and RY1P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement ..... 41
Figure 3.2: RY1 Mid-span Tension Reinforcement Strains............................ 42
Figure 3.3: RY1 Haunch Edge Tension Reinforcement Strains ............ 42
Figure 3.4: RY1 and RY1P Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement.................. 43
Figure 3.5: RY1 and RY1P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain........................43
Figure 3.6: RY1 East Face Final Load Stage P=700kN....... 44
Figure 3.7: RY1 West Face Final Load Stage P=700kN..... 44
Figure 3.8: RY1P East Face Final Load Stage P=643kN...................... 45
Figure 3.9: RY1P West Face Final Load Stage P=643kN...................... 45
Figure 3.10: RY2 and RY2P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement ........... 46
Figure 3.11: RY2 Mid-span Tension Reinforcement Strains................................47
Figure 3.12: RY2 Haunch Edge Tension Reinforcement Strains....................... 47
Figure 3.13: RY2 and RY2P Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement .................... 48
Figure 3.14: RY2 and RY2P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain.......................... 48
Figure 3.15: RY2 East Face Failure P=820kN.........................................................49
Figure 3.16: RY2 West Face Final Load Stage P=701kN...... ..... 49
Figure 3.17: RY2 East Face Shear Failure Detail................................... 50
Figure 3.18: RY2P East Face Final Load Stage P=896kN .................................. 51
Figure 3.19: RY2P West Face Final Load Stage P=896kN ............51
Figure 3.20: RY3 and RY3P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement ...............52
Figure 3.21: RY3 and RY3P Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement ......... 53
Figure 3.22: RY3 East Face Final Load Stage P=550kN .................. 54
Figure 3.23: RY3 West Face Final Load Stage P=550kN............. 54
Figure 3.24: RY3P East Face Final Load Stage P=503kN......... 55
Figure 3.25: RY3P West Face Final Load Stage P=503kN.................... 55
Figure 3.26: RY4 and RY4P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement ..............56
ix
Figure 3.29: RY4 and RY4P Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement..................... 58
Figure 3.30: RY4 and RY4P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain.......................... 58
Figure 3.31: RY4 East Face Failure P=1031kN .............................................. 59
Figure 3.32: RY4 West Face Failure P=1031kN........................ 59
Figure 3.33: RY4 East Face Shear Failure Detail ........ 60
Figure 3.34: RY4 West Face Shear Failure Detail....................... 60
Figure 3.35: RY4P East Face Failure P=905kN.....................................................61
Figure 3.36: RY4P West Face Failure P=905kN ....................................................61
Figure 3.37: RY5 and RY5P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement.................... 62
Figure 3.40: RY5 Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement........................................ 64
Figure 3.41: RY5 Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain............................................ 64
Figure 3.42: RY5 East Face Final Load Stage P=528kN............................. 65
Figure 3.43: RY5 West Face Final Load Stage P=528kN......................................65
Figure 3.44: RY5P East Face Final Load Stage P=583kN...................................66
Figure 3.45: RY5P West Face Final Load Stage P=583kN..................................66
Figure 3.46: RY5P East Face Wall Failure Detail..................................................67
Figure 3.47: RY5P West Face Wall Failure Detail................................................ 67
Figure 3.48: RY6 and RY6P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement.................... 68
Figure 3.49: RY6 Mid-span Tension Reinforcement Strains .......................... 69
Figure 3.50: RY6 Haunch Edge Tension Reinforcement Strains...................... 69
Figure 3.51: RY6 and RY6P Tie Force Versus Wall Displacement ......70
Figure 3.52: RY6 Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain............................................ 70
Figure 3.53: RY6 East Face Failure P=870kN......................................................... 71
Figure 3.54: RY6 West Face Failure P=870kN....................... .................... 71
Figure 3.55: RY6 East Face Detail of Shear Failure...................... 72
Figure 3.56: RY6 West Face Detail of Shear Failure............................................ 72
Figure 3.57: RY6P East Face Final Load Stage P=900kN .................................. 73
Figure 3.58: RY6P West Face Final Load Stage P=900kN 73
Chapter 4: Discussion of Test Results

Figure 4.1: Total Load versus Mid-spanDisplacement for RY1 and RY1P........78
Figure 4.2: Inflection Point in RY1 ..................................................................... ....78
Figure 4.3: Mid-span moment in R Y 1...................................................... ... 79
Figure 4.4: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY2 and RY2P....80
Figure 4.5: Inflection Point in RY2............................................................................80
Figure 4.6: Mid-span moment in R Y 2 ........... 81
Figure 4.7: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY3 and RY3P......82
Figure 4.8: Inflection Point in RY3............................................................................82
Figure 4.9: Mid-span moment in R Y 3 ....... 83
Figure 4.10: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY4 and RY4P ....84
Figure 4.11: Inflection Point in RY4........................................................................ 84
Figure 4.12: Mid-span moment in R Y 4 ........ 85
Figure 4.13: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY5 and RY5P ....86
Figure 4.14: Inflection Point in RY5........................................................................ 86
Figure 4.15: Mid-span moment in R Y 5...................................................................87
Figure 4.16: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY6 and RY6P.... 88
Figure 4.17: Inflection Point in RY6 .......... 88
Figure 4.18: Mid-span moment in R Y 6 ................................... 89
Figure 4.19: Specified CHBDC Maximum and Minimum Slab Axial Loads...... 92
Figure 4.20: Specimen RY4 Total Load Versus Horizontal Axial Load.......... ...94
Figure 4.21: Code Predictions Versus Factored Design Requirements..........101
Figure 4.22: Summary of Code Predictions Versus Test Results .......101
Figure 4.23: RY2 Shear Strength Predictions Along Member Length....102
Figure 4.26: Size Effect................... 105
Figure 4.27: Specimens Considering Load Path of Forces........................ 107
xi
Table of Tables

Table 2.1: S ection Geom etry....................................................... 15
Table 2.2: W elded Wire Fabric S c h e d u le .......................................... 16
Table 2.3: Actual Clear Cover Measured to Flexural Tension Reinforcement. 18
Table 2.4: Conduit Locations Measured from North End of Specimen.............21
Table 2.5: Summary of Horizontal Tie Configurations......................................... 26
Table 2.6: Concrete Mix Design............................................................... 33
Table 2.7: Average Reinforcement Tension Test Results...................................36

Table 3.1: Summary of Experimental Results.................................... 37
Table 3.2: Availability of Test Data.......................................................................... 40
Chapter 4: Discussion of Test Results

Table 4.1: Specimen Self-Weight V alu es ................................................... 76
Table 4.2: Comparison of Test Loadings with Design Loads............. 91
Table 4.3: Approximate Relationship between Horizontal and VerticalLoads 94
Table 4.4: CHBDC 2000 General Method Shear Strength Predictions...............95
Table 4.5: CHBDC 2000 Simplified Method Shear Strength Predictions.......... 96
Table 4.6: CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 Shear Strength Predictions ........ 98
Table 4.7: AASHTO Box Culvert Method Shear Strength Predictions ........ 99
Table 4.8: Summary of Code Predictions and Test Capacities................... 100
Table 4.9: Influence of Axial Load on Code Predictions.................................... 104
Table 4.10: Concrete Cracking Stress................................................ 106
xii
Notation
A Si= Inner longitudinal reinforcem ent o f the culvert cross-section; the flexural tension side o f
the slab at m id-span
Aso= Outer longitudinal reinforcem ent o f the culvert cross-section; the flexural com pression
side o f the slab at M id-span
b, bv= Design w idth
d, de— Distance from extreme com pression fibre to the centroid o f the longitudinal tension
reinforcem ent
dv= Distance m easured betw een the com pression and tension force resultants
Ec= M odulus o f elasticity o f the concrete

E s= M odulus o f elasticity o f the steel reinforcem ent
fc’= Concrete com pression strength
fcr= Concrete cracking strength
fy = Steel yield strength (0.2 percent offset for reinforcem ent w ithout yield plateau)
F c= Curvature factor
Fd= Crack depth effect factor
F n= Axial thrust factor
h= Depth o f m em ber cross-section
H= Total horizontal Force
Ig= Second m om ent o f Inertia o f the gross concrete section
L= Span o f culvert slab m easured to the center-line o f the w all slabs
L i- Distance betw een inflection points in the culvert slab
Lsiab= Length o f culvert slab from edge-of-haunch to edge-of-haunch
M cr= Cracking m om ent
Mf= Factored m om ent
M nu= M oment at a section m odified for the influence o f axial thrust
M u= Flexural m om ent at a section
N f= Factored axial load acting
xiii
N u,= M em ber axial force
P= Total vertical load
q= Applied pressure in force p er unit area
Vb= Basic shear strength o f critical concrete section
V c= Shear resistance provided by the concrete cross-section
Vf= Factored shear force
V u= Shear force at a section
w= Uniform applied load per unit width
x= Distance from the m id-span to the specified section
Xcriticai= Distance from the m id-span to the critical section in shear
y= Distance from the neutral axis to the edge o f a m em ber cross-section
P= Factor expressing shear transfer across a crack
0= Shear crack angle
ex = Average strain approxim ation at m id-depth o f m em ber
p= Reinforcem ent ratio A s/bwd

Pcompression= Reinforcem ent ratio o f slab on flexural com pression side
P ten sio n - R einforcem ent ratio o f slab on flexural tension side
ffCr = Cracking Stress
4>c= Resistance factor for concrete; 0.85 in the CHBDC 2000 Code
0s= Resistance factor for steel; 0.9 in the CH BDC 2000 Code
t= Shear Stress
7= Shear Strain
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
A General background o f box culvert design and previous research is given. The
purpose o f the investigation, project scope and a discussion o f the development o f the
experimental program are provided. Finally, relevant code shear design procedures are
outlined
1.1 General
Figure 1.1: Box Culverts in Precast Yard
Precast reinforced concrete box culverts are structural members installed underground primarily
as conduits for water flow. Frequently these structures are placed to facilitate drainage under highway or
rail embankments, or as conduits for storm sewer infrastructure. The structural design of culverts is
greatly influenced by the depth o f soil overburden to the surface and the expected live load conditions
particularly due to loads applied by truck traffic at the surface. Culvert units are typically manufactured
off site at regional precast plants and transported to the job site for installation. Procedures for placing
box culverts underground include a cut-and-cover trench installation and embankment installation as
illustrated in Figure 1.2.
Shear in Box Culverts 6047
Concrete box culverts can be classified as rigid frame or non-rigid frame sections. Rigid frame
sections, which include the precast sections analyzed in this report, are designed to allow full transfer of
moment from the heavily loaded top and bottom slabs to the side walls. Non-rigid culvert sections allow
only minimal moment transfer to the sidewalls and therefore often have thin walls containing control
joints.
Figure 1.2: Typical Culvert Installations
Trench Installation Em bankm ent Installation
Soil Overfill G roup Soil Overfill G roup

Excavation Line.
S ide Fill. B Side Fill.
C om pacted
O u ter Bedding m ~
Material Middle B edding Material Middle Bedding Material
Adapted from CSA Standard S6 CHBDC 2000
The purpose of this investigation was to develop an experimental procedure to determine the
adequacy of the shear design of a range of commercial box culvert designs. Experimental results were
compared to analytical predictions from the shear strength equations in relevant North American codes to
scrutinize the ability of these provisions to predict the shear behaviour of the test specimens. Ultimately,
the objective was to use this information to provide recommendations to industry outlining the adequacy
of commercial box culvert designs in shear, and hence to more accurately identify where shear
reinforcement is required. The analytical and experimental results from this investigation should be
useful to future box culvert studies and the precast industry, as well as generally to industry associations
and academics involved in researching the shear behaviour of concrete structures.
1.1.1 Reasons for Investigation
In 2000 the Canadian Highway and Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) was updated and became the
principal culvert design guideline for the Province of Ontario, formerly under the jurisdiction of the
Ontario Highway and Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). This change prompted concern by the concrete
pipe industry that some o f their precast members would no longer appear to be adequate in shear under
the revised code provisions, even though no deficiency in shear had been observed in the field. Thus, the
Shear hi Box Culverts 9082
concern was that unnecessary shear reinforcement was now required for designs that seem sufficient in
resisting their design loads. In addition, some questions arose expressing uncertainty over how much
influence on shear strength the inclusion of shear reinforcement was having when specified. These
questions prompted the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association (OCPA) to support an investigation of shear in
box culverts. The study documented in this report represents a contribution to this investigation.
1.1.2 Box Culvert Design
The design of concrete box culverts is primarily concerned with flexural reinforcement
requirements. Standard box section geometries are tabulated in such documents as the Ontario Provincial
Standards Specifications (OPSS) 1821 and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1433M.
Designers select the product on the basis of fixed interior dimensions and design depth of earth cover. In
order to accommodate installations at various depths, only the longitudinal reinforcement quantities are
varied. This longitudinal reinforcement in standard box culvert designs is primarily welded wire mesh.
Figure 1.3 illustrates the specified reinforcement ratio for the primary tension reinforcement as specified
in OPSS 1821 and ASTM 1433M tables for several design sizes and depths. The designs of specimens
tested in this study are also included for comparison.
The OPSS 1821 and ASTM 1433 specifying design requirements for standard commercial sizes of
precast concrete box sections are comparable; however as is evident in Figures 1.3 (b) and 1.3 (c) the
ASTM specifications tabulate designs to much greater soil covers. In both these specifications the
loading regimes specified for depth of earth covers (D.E.C.) less than 0.6 m (2 feet) vary considerably
from those greater than 0.6 m. Culverts less than 0.6 m from the surface assume live loads from trucks
act as concentrated point loads or pressure footprints. Three design sizes 1800x900x200, 2400x1800x200
and 3000x2400x250 are shown. The first number in this designation represents the nominal interior span
of the box, the second number the nominal interior height of the box and the last number the box
thickness in millimeters.
While many of the practical applications of culverts require less than 0.6 m of cover, the OPSS 1821
specification, and therefore this study, is primarily concerned with conditions where there is greater than
0.6 m of earth cover.
Shear In Box Culverts Intr ' "
5052
Figure 1.3: Specified Design Reinforcement

(a) 1800x900x200
0
1
-► -O P S S 1821
2
□ RY1
3
ASTM 1433M
S’ 4
A RY2
O 6-
□
2 7
Note: T h e ASTM S e c tio n is a

9 -
th in n e r 1800x9 0 0 x 175. No
10 Inform ation fo r 1 8 0 0x900x200 is
av ailab le in ASTM 1433M
11 A
12
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Slab R e in fo rcem en t R atio [%]
(b) 2400x1800x200
- ♦ - O P S S 1821
□ RY3
£ -V ASTM 1433M
A RY4
o
■6
•C
10 -
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Slab R einforcem ent Ratio [%]
(c) 3000x2400x250
0
1
□
- ♦ - O P S S 1821
2 -I □ RY5
3 ASTM 1433M
4 A RY6
5
6H
7
8 -
9 - A
10
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Slab Reinforcement Ratio [%]
Shear In Box Culverts Introduction
Shear reinforcement is required only at locations very close to the surface subject to high
concentrated loads or for deep installations with large soil overburden loads. When provided, typical
shear reinforcement employed by industry comes in the mat types illustrated in Figure 1.4 or S-type
configurations. Mat type shear reinforcement is locked to only one level of the longitudinal
reinforcement, with sufficient extension in theory to provide adequate anchorage to tie together the
compression and tensions zones of the member cross-section. The process of locking the slab mats to
both the tension and compression reinforcement would represent a cumbersome addition to the culvert
manufacturing process. The resulting anchorage details of “unlocked” mats however do not conform to
conventional code anchorage detailing. As a result the CHBDC commentary suggests that anchorage
performance of such reinforcement in shallow depth members be determined from full scale testing.
Figure 1.4: Shear Reinforcement Mats
klrliUM
Unlocked
Locked
Figure Adapted from CHBDC 2000
1.1.3 Previous Research on Shear in Box Culverts
Box culvert design methodology is substantially reliant on experimental results. Several test
programs for box culverts or similar box frame structures and studies of the reliability of sectional
analyses have been carried out in previous investigations.
An early study in 1960 involved conducted an extensive series of shear tests on frames under
uniformly distributed loading (Bealey, Daiz De Cossio and Seiss 1960). The frames resembled half box
culverts with uniform loading on the slab and a horizontal force applied to the walls to create a negative
moment region in the slab. Several parameters were investigated including depth to clear span ratio, ratio
o f negative to positive slab moments, reinforcement ratio and axial load to vertical load ratio. The load
arrangement used by Bealey, Daiz De Cossio and Seiss forms the basis of the test program developed for
this study described in Chapter 2. Interestingly, while these load conditions are typical in actual
structures, experimentation involving uniform loading o f any kind is rare.
Studies by Bealey, Boring and Heger as well as Heger and McGrath, and Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. Consulting Engineers investigated the adequacy of code provisions governing the design of
box culverts. Code shear provisions were found to be conservative. Heger found that shear provisions
would generate overly conservative shear designs for box culverts with large earth covers. Furthermore ,
Heger found that the critical design section did not correspond to the region o f maximum shear stress but
was associated rather with regions where both significant moment and shear stress were present (Heger
and McGrath 1982). Subsequently Heger developed his own set of semi-empirical equations that now
constitute one shear design procedure outlined in Clause 7.8.8.2.1 of the 2000 CHBDC specifications.
In light of recent uncertainties surrounding the shear performance of culvert sections an
opportunity was presented to develop a test program to investigate shear in box culverts. A set o f tests by
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited of Guelph Ontario in 2000 looked at the potential influence of shear mat
reinforcement in box culverts. Tests were conducted on OPSS 1800x900x200 standard box culvert
sections using two point loads representing conditions with less than 0.6 m o f earth cover. Tests were
conducted on specimens with and without shear mat reinforcement. Results indicated no discemable
difference in failure behaviour between those specimens with and without shear reinforcement when
subject to the given test loading arrangement.
1.1.4 Code Specified Loadings
Three design codes that are of particular significance in North America are the ASSHTO,
CHBDC and ASTM specifications. Methods used to establish design loads are similar in these codes and
yield similar loading conditions. The culvert sections are analyzed as two-dimensional frames
traditionally employing elastic analysis techniques, with due consideration for the greater stiffness of the
comer haunch regions. Design forces and moments are now commonly generated using commercial or
in-house culvert design software. Designs are checked against a series o f factored worst-case load
scenarios including dynamic and static loads associated with self-weight, earth pressure, live truck load,
water pressure and earthquakes. Various combinations of these will result in critical conditions for
different sections o f the culvert. Conventional practice is to assign the self-weight of the box structure as
a uniformly distributed load acting on the bottom o f the structure. The result is that the maximum load
conditions occur in the bottom slab as a result of upward reaction loads.
Load conditions are broken into two distinct categories with separate design guidelines. Those
sections with less than 2 feet of soil cover are subject to truck live loading simulated as point loads with
an allowance for dynamic load effects. Shallow depths are complicated by a considerable variability in
potential load scenarios, including concentrated loads and uniform loads over fractions of the slab span.
Those sections with greater than 2 feet o f cover are considered to be subject to uniformly distributed truck
live loads based on surface point loads spread over a foot print area that increases linearly with depth.
Specified design factors are high as sub-surface conditions are notoriously unpredictable.
Vertical loads are dominated by truck surface loads near the surface and soil overburden loads at
greater depths. Soil overburden loads are modified according to their level of compaction and the type of
fill. A modification described as “arching” is applied to soil loads to account for soil-structure
interaction. Horizontal loading is based on multiplying the weight o f the column of soil above a section
by a soil-structure interaction factor similar in concept to the vertical arching load factor. Where
applicable the influence of approaching truck axial live loads and hydrostatic loads are included.
1.2 Development of Test Program
1.2.1 Project Scope
This study focuses particularly on the shear behaviour of the horizontal slab portion of the box
culvert. Specimens were to be constructed using industry methods and tolerances. The investigation
specifically looks at designs in conformity with the OPSS 1821 specification. As the focus of this
investigation is shear behaviour, those sections with the greatest flexural reinforcement ratio conforming
to the specifications for the deepest depth of cover in OPSS 1821 were chosen for study. Shear behaviour
will not be critical in the event that the reinforcement ratio is too small, as the section will simply fail due
to flexural hinging instead. Three section sizes were chosen, the design for the deepest depth of cover in
OPSS 1821 for sections 1800x900x200, 2400x1500x200 and 3000x2400x250. These sections were
Shear In Box Culverts ^
selected as they provide a representative sample of the range of standard sizes of precast box culverts
available. In addition, three sections were built representing designs for specimens with a depth of cover
far in excess of those present in standard OPSS tables. This would yield altogether a test program of six
unique specimen designs.
1.2.2 Loading of Specimens
Typical in-situ loading conditions would include vertical loading based on the depth of soil
overburden as well as vehicular traffic loads. A typical example illustrating the relative contribution of
surface live loads and soil overburden loads with depth o f cover is shown in Figure 1.5. It can be seen
that for more than 3 m o f earth cover the loading is influenced primarily by earth pressure. Surface loads
becoming negligible at earth covers greater than 5 m.
Lateral loads due to soil and hydrostatic pressures on the sides of the culvert would also be
expected. These lateral loads would tend to provide confinement and hence reduce the deformation of the
box frame caused by the vertical loads. A conservative assumption would be to neglect lateral loads
when considering the shear critical load conditions in the culvert slab.
Figure 1.5: Influence of Surface Loads
CHBDC 2400x1500x200
100 %
80%
a. 60%
a. H Truck Load
40% □ Soil Overburden Load
20 %
0%
0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Depth of Earth Cover [m]
The depth of earth cover associated with the design of the test specimens is shown in Figure 1.6.
It is evident that at these depths the overlap o f loads coming from adjacent truck axle is sufficiently
Shear to Box Culverts 754403
blended to warrant the assumption o f a distributed loading regime. The truck illustrated in Figure 1.6
represents the axial spacing of the CL-W and CL-625-ONT trucks in conformity to CHBDC load
specification.
For comparison a 46% scaled subway box tested at the University of Toronto for the Toronto
Transit Commission (TTC) is included. The TTC box failed in shear at loads 55% less than those that
would cause flexural failure. The results of the experiment concluded that shear reinforcement would be
required even though several code predictions anticipated that the shear strength of the structure would be
adequate without shear reinforcement. One of the principal inadequacies of some code provisions was
identified as failure to account for a reduced shear stress at failure with increasing member depth; a
phenomenon documented by some researchers as size effect (Kuzmanovic 1998).
Figure 1.6: Surface Loading from CL-625-ONT Truck
D.E.C.
2m
RY5 J3 m
A_m
RY3
RY1
*=l_m
A m
j^m
10 m
46% Scaled TTC RY6
Subway Box RY4
RY2 12 m
13 m
The objective of the experimental set-up in this study was to determine the response of a number
of culvert specimens of differing geometries under simple load conditions. It was decided that a half-box
rather than a full box specimen configuration would be appropriate for these initial experiments. A
summary of the load conditions in the test loading scheme relative to full box loading is provided in
Figure 1.7.
Shear in Box Culverts introduction
Figure 1.7: Sample Load Schematic
Test Loading Full Box Loading
P /1 4 @ 2 5 0 m m
Shear Shear
Moment Moment
The test loading approximates the internal moment to shear ratios of the full box slab subject to
uniform load conditions. A uniformly distributed vertical load is applied to the bottom of the slab. In
addition, a horizontal force is applied to the culvert wall to modify the moment distribution in the slab to
match those in the full box case. This horizontal force is provided passively by tying the two culvert
walls together using a tie of appropriate axial stiffness. The set-up is meant to simulate appropriate
moment to shear ratios in the slab portion, however it must be noted that the wall conditions are not
comparable between the full box and test loading conditions. As a result of the half box load
configuration an axial load is introduced into the slab of the test specimen not present in the full box case.
These tests assume, as does conventional design methodology that the member behaviour is independent
of specimen width. A more detailed description of the apparatus is presented in Chapter 2.
1.3 Code Shear Provisions

The following is an introduction to relevant sectional shear design equations applicable to box
culvert design in North America. The shear code provisions evaluated in this study come from the
CHBDC 2000 and AASHTO LRFD 98 Codes. A total o f four shear design methods are described.
Unlike its predecessor the OBHDC, the CHBDC has a specific reference to culvert design
methodology in section 7 on buried structures. Shear design methodology for box culvert slabs without
shear reinforcement is described in Clause 7.8.8.2. The designer is presented with two options described
10
Shear in Box Culverts Introduction
as option (a) or option (b). AASHTO has one specially formulated equation expressly for the design of
box culverts that supersede its general shear design procedures. All parameters described in sections
1.3.1 to 1.3.4 are in SI units with concrete strengths in MPa.
1.3.1 CHBDC Clause 7.8.S.2 Method (a) (General method)
Option (a) uses the design procedures of the CSA general method to calculate shear capacities
described in Clause 8.9.3. According to CHBDC Clause 8.9.3, shear resistance Vc of a concrete section
without shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:
M f
0.5(N f +V f cot&) + — L
Vc - 2.5[3<j)cf crbvd v Where longitudinal strain e = ------------------------------
E AS S
Values of (3 and 0 are determined from Table 8.9.3.4.1 b) and f cr = 0.4^ f c
Some conflict arises, as Clause 7.8.8.2 (a) also states that the shear capacity for sections within 2d
of the face of the support should be calculated using strut-and-tie methods described in 8.10 to evaluate
shear capacity. Since the general method states that the critical section may be taken dv from the face of
the support, here defined as the edge of the haunch, the clause is somewhat confusing as section 8.10
would tend to preclude the general method in 8.9.3 from application in areas of the highest shear stress.
While the area directly adjacent to the haunch edge is certainly a disturbed region where strut-and-tie
methods would apply, designers are generally more comfortable with sectional design procedures, rarely
resorting to strut-and-tie methodology.
1.3.2 CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2 Method (a) (Simplified Method)
In addition, Clause 8.9.3 allows the designer to use a simplified version of the general method for
which 9 is 45°. This simplified version is modified by a factor (600/1000+d) to account for size effect, a
phenomenon in which the shear stress causing failure reduces as the depth of the section increases.
According to Clause 8.9.3.4.2 b) for sections with no transverse reinforcement Vc can be calculated as:
600
<PcfcAdv ^ 0-23( p J c A A m
1000 + 4 V
\\
Shear in Box Culverts Intr ' "
0002
1.3.3 CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2 Method (b) (from Clause 7.8.8.2.1)
Option (b) in the CHBDC design code allows designers to use shear design procedures developed
for circular, elliptical and arch pipe developed by Heger (Heger and McGrath 1982). This box culvert
shear design procedure is commonly used in the industry. The semi-empirical formulation defines a
critical transition point occurred at approximately M /Vd-3.0. Two equations are presented, one when
M/Vd is less than 3.0 the other when M/Vd is greater than 3.0. Conditions near the end of a span are
typically associated with low moment and high shear forces making M/Vd less than 3.0. As M/Vd
approaches zero the equations would suggest that the shear strength is 4 times Vb.
According to Clause 7.8.8.2.2 b):
M nu
> 3 .0 Vc = Vb = O M 3 b 0 cd J f rc( l . l + 63 p)
For V J cd V Fc j [kN]
4K
V, =
< 3 .0 -+ 1
Vud
For W [kN]
M
* M nu = M u - N u 0
Where ° [kN.m]
41
Fd = 0 .8 + — <1.3
And F factors are defined as follows: d d Crack depth effect
N
F n =1 + — ^ - > 1 .0
14 bh Influence of compression thrust
F> 1.0 Curvature factor (1.0 for Boxes)
The upper bound of 0.25(j>cbd-^J\. is curiously low as it conforms to the lower bound in the
AASHTO Shear equations described in the next section.
1.3.4 AASHTO Box Culvert Shear Provisions
Provisions governing shear strength of reinforced concrete structures in the AASHTO

specifications conform to the general method equations similar to those described in Clause 8.9.3 of the
CHBDC code. However, special equations formulated for the design of box culverts replace the general
12
Shear In Box Culverts__ _ _ _ _ Introduction
method specifically for designing box culverts with earth covers greater than 600 mm. According to
Clause 5.14.5.3 for slabs o f culverts with 600 mm or more of fill:
/ A. V .d '
Vc = 0 .1 7 8 ^ /7 ^ + 3 2 - -j a e b j e < Q 3 3 2 ^ f rc b J e [kN]
v bd, M u ,
V Je
M
In addition the term " is limited to less than or equal to 1.0
For single-cell box culverts with slabs cast monolithically with the walls the equation for Vc has both
a lower and upper bound. The lower bound for shear strength is: ~ c^ e . This lower
bound equation was derived from comparing results obtained from culvert tests. It is interesting then that
the lower and upper bound for the AASHTO equation are very close, effectively rendering the box
equation o f Clause 5.14.5.3 of little practical design significance for monolithically cast boxes.
13
Chapter 2
Experimental Program
Specimen geometry, fabrication and instrumentation is described. Test apparatus design

and specimen material properties are presented
2.1 Test Specimens

A total of twelve half box concrete culvert sections were loaded to failure in this study. The
experimental program consisted of six gauged specimens labeled RY1 through RY6 and six duplicate un
gauged “prototype” specimens labeled with the suffix “P”. These prototype specimens were available as
a by-product of cutting the full box in half and thus were tested to provide supplementary information to
complement the study and ensure the test apparatus was performing consistently.
2.2 Specimen Geometry

2.2.1 Overall Specimen Geometry
Sectional specimen geometry conforms to full-scale OPSS 1821 standard precast box culvert
specifications. Three sizes were chosen for study: OPSS 1821 1800x900x200, 2400x1800x200 and
3000x2400x250. These dimensions were chosen in order to provide a representative range of sizes.
Figure 2.1: Comparison of Culvert Sizes
3000x2400x250
2400x1800x200
1800x900x200
Standard manufactured culverts are typically cast in eight-foot widths. Slices of these sections,
approximately two feet in width were constructed for the study. A summary of section geometry is
provided in Table 2.1.
14
Shear in Box Culverts Experimental Program
Table 2.1: Section Geometry
Exterior S p an Width
S p a n to H aunch E dge
Interior S p an
Full Box Specimen Half-Box Specimen
Measured
Half-Box
Specified Full Box Geometry
Specimen
Measurements
Specimen OPSS 1821 Interior Interior Slab Exterior Span to Width Actual Rise
Section Name span Rise depth Span Haunch [mm] Width [mm]
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] Edge [mm]
[mm]
RY1 1800x900x200 1829 914 203 2235 1423 2032 580 650
RY1P 1800x900x200 1829 914 203 2235 1423 2032 585 650
RY2 1800x900x200 1829 914 203 2235 1423 2032 560 650
RY2P 1800x900x200 1829 914 203 2235 1423 2032 555 650
RY3 2400x1500x200 2438 1524 203 2844 2032 2032 575 955
RY3P 2400x1500x200 2438 1524 203 2844 2032 2032 580 945
RY4 2400x1500x200 2438 1524 203 2844 2032 2032 575 950
RY4P 2400x1500x200 2438 1524 203 2844 2032 2032 570 945
RY5 3000x2400x250 3048 2438 254 3556 2540 2032 575 1470
RY5P 3000x2400x250 3048 2438 254 3556 2540 2032 560 1470
RY6 3000x2400x250 3048 2438 254 3556 2540 2032 590 1470
RY6P 3000x2400x250 3048 2438 254 3556 2540 2032 590 1470
Actual width measurements were based on average values taken from three locations (See
Appendix J). The largest average measured width was 590 mm, a 6 percent difference from the smallest
width of 555 mm. This difference should be kept in mind when comparing observed sectional
behaviours. Measured slab depth and span values are not included in the above table as they were found
to conform very well to the specified numbers. The reason for these differences in controlling geometric
dimensions is made more clear in section 2.3 pertaining to fabrication methods.
2.2.2 Reinforcement
Reinforcement used in the box culvert sections consists of an inner and outer grid o f welded wire
mesh. Reinforcement geometry for specimens RY1, RY3, RY5 and their prototypes were as detailed by
the manufacturer Hanson Pipe and Products Canada Inc. in conformity with OPSS 1821. Specimens
RY2, RY4, RY6 and their prototypes were designed for conditions of large earth cover where
15
approximately twice as much longitudinal tension reinforcement is needed compared to the companion
OPSS 1821 designs. Reinforcement is specified as interior or exterior. Interior reinforcement is on the
tension side at mid-span of the top and bottom slabs. Exterior reinforcement is on the compression side at
mid-span of the top and bottom slabs. The reinforcement meshes consist o f varying sizes of longitudinal
deformed bars (see Table 2.2) spaced at 51 mm center-to-center. The bars in the mesh oriented
perpendicular to the longitudinal bars are 6.4 mm in diameter and placed at a 203 mm spacing.
Table 2.2: Welded Wire Fabric Schedule
Specified Box Culvert Design Reinforcement Actual Reinforcement
Specimen Area of
Inner Outer Steel Inner as
Inner Outer P Inner
(Reference) Cross-Section Cage Cage [m m 2/m] [m m 2] [mm2] [%] % of
(D.E.C.) [mm2] [mm2] Specified
Inner O uter
RY1
Inner C age
5 1 x 2 03 51 x 203
(O P4.31-1821) MD 32.3 x MD 32.3 x 635 635 355 355 0.40 96
Outer Cage
(5.50S S 1821) MW 32.3 MW 32.3
RY2
Inner Cage
2 L ayers -
51 x 203 MD
(CENT-238) 51 x 203
Outer Cage 64.5 x MW 1270 1524 710 851 0.82 100
(11.0m) MD 38.7 x
32.3
MW 32.3
RY3
Inner Cage
51 x 203 MD 51 x 203
(O P S S 1821) 45.2 x MW MD 38.7 x 889 762 497 426 0.55 97
Outer Cage
(3.01m -3.60m ) 32.3 MW 32.3
RY4
Inner Cage 2 Layers 2 L ayers -
(CENT-98) 51 x 203 MD 51 x 203
Outer C age
2540 2540 1419 1419 1.68 97
(10.0m) 64.5 x MW MD 64.5 x
32.3 MW 32.3
RY5
Inner Cage
51 x 203 MD 51 x 203
(O P S S 1821)
(0.6m -0.89m )
64.5 x MW MD 4 5.2 x 1270 889 710 497 0.6 97
Outer Cage 32.3 MW 32.3
RY6
Inner Cage
2 Layers - 2 L ayers -
(CENT-97) 51 x 203 MD 51 x 203
2540 2540 1419 1419 1.21 95
(9.0m) Outer Cage
64.5 x MW MD 64.5 x
32.3 MW 32.3
The outer cage reinforcement is lapped on the outer compression side of the top and bottom slabs.
The inner reinforcement cage is lapped on the interior side of the culvert walls. General reinforcement
layouts are shown in Figures 2.2 to 2.4.
16
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Program
Figure 2.2: Reinforcement Layout for RY1 & RY2
Plan
Detail A
nl /
MD XX.X
W elded Wire Fabric Area of Steel (mm2/ m) Detail A

Inner C age 51 x 203 MO 32.3 x MW 32.3 635
RY1
O uter Cage 51 x 203 MD 32.3 x MW 32.3 635
Inner C age 51 x 203 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 1270
RY2
O uter Cage 2 Layers - 51 x 203 MD 38.7 x MW 32.3 1524
TjT
AJ i 1 i i t 1
■Wryt-
40m m ±5 C over 1ill
Inner C a g e j j j j ITT]
n il
jii! IT
420m m Lap (Typ)
O uter C ag e
East Elevation North Elevation
Plan Detail A
Welded Wire Fabric Area of Steel (mm2/ m) MD XX.X

Lap (Typ)
Inner C age 51 x 203 MD 45.2 x MW 32.3 889 Detail A

RY3
Outer Cage 51 x 203 MD 38.7 x MW 32.3 762
Inner C age 2 Layers - 51 x 203 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 2540
150mm
RY4
Outer C age 2 Layers - 51 x 203 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 2540
Inner C ag e 40m m ±5 C over
4-h
440m m Lap (Typ)

O u ter C age
17
Plan Detail A
1 p.—> r — ^
r" _ 4 r tzzz MW32.2
xr* r '~"t
—^t
'r™ ~t r~ i 2 “X .
^^^cgffninnuay'"^ MDXX.X
D e ta il A
Welded Wire Fabric Area of Steel (mm2/ m)

Inner C age 51 x 2 0 3 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 1270
RY5
Outer Cage 51 x 203 MD 45.2 x MW 32.3 889
Inner C age 2 Layers - 51 x 203 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 2540
RY6
Outer C age 2 Layers - 51 x 203 MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 2540
Inner Cage 40mm ±5 Cover
360mm Lap (Typ)

O u ter C age
2.2.3 Concrete Cover
Concrete cover is another geometric quantity that is not strictly controlled during manufacturing.
Cover is obtained by placing spacers in the cage. These spacers ensure adequate minimum cover
requirements are met but still result in some variation of cover. A clear concrete cover of 40+5 mm is
specified however it was observed that the actual cover was towards the upper end of this tolerance. As
such, specimen covers were determined on the flexural tension side of specimens by physically chipping
into the specimens. Actual clear cover measurements are displayed in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Actual Clear Cover Measurements to Flexural Tension Reinforcement
Location RY1 RY2 RY3 RY4 RY5 RY6
Mid-Span Cover [mm] 48 44 44 43 44 43

d [mm] 152 155 156 147 206 198
d from Haunch Cover [mm] 48 44 44 43 44 43
Edge d [mm] 152 155 156 147 206 198
Cover [mm] 48 37 49 41 48 48
Top of Wall
d [mm] 152 161 150 149 202 193
When determining d values note that the centroid of MW 64.5 (D-10) reinforcement where two
layers of cages existed, extended an additional 12.7 mm into the section beyond the clear cover value.
18
Thus, the average center-to-center distance between two layers of MW 64.5 (D-10) reinforcement was
approximately 16.4 mm.
2.3 Fabrication
The test specimens were fabricated at Hanson Pipe & Products Canada Inc. located in Cambridge
Ontario. A dry cast manufacturing operation was employed to cast the specimens in conformity to
industry practice. The dry casting procedure is one in which a zero slump concrete is poured into metal
forms and consolidated by means of heavy vibration. Dry cast sections are able to stand under their own
weight within minutes o f pouring. In this way they can be worked on while the concrete is still fresh.
Typically such sections are steam cured for a period of six to eight hours and thus have the potential to be
shipped to the construction site the day after casting. Manufacturing design philosophy emphasizes
exceeding guaranteed minimum geometric and material strength performances. However, it is often not
economical to carefully control by how much a minimum specified parameter is exceeded. Thus,
parameters like concrete strength, minimum reinforcement and cover requirement typically exceed
specified quantities by a fair margin.
Figure 2.5: Fabrication of Reinforcement Cages
(Left: W elded w ire fa b ric on bending table; Right: Tying on strain gauged bars)
2.3.1 Reinforcement Cages
Conventional practice is to employ a simple reinforcement layout consisting of a certain

reinforcement area for the inside and one for the outside of the box. Designs specified in OPSS 1821 and
ASTM 1430 standards describe more complex reinforcement arrangements; however, from a practical
perspective such added complexity increases unit costs and the potential of improper placement of the
culvert section in the field.
19
The cage is lapped and tack welded in the compression zone of the top, bottom and side slabs.
Steel spacers are used to separate the inner and outer cage during vibration and to maintain the 40±5 mm
concrete cover in the final unit. These spacers are 4.5 mm in diameter and spaced in approximately a two
foot rectangular matix on the cage. Large lifting rods called Swiff-Lifts are also placed on the
compression face of the top and bottom slabs for handling purposes. This involves, depending on the lift
rating, the severing of one or two rows of reinforcement in the flexural compression zone.
2.3.2 Test Specimen Cage Details
Due to geometry, lifting concerns and the need to house the strain gauge wires during casting,
additional modifications to conventional cages were required for the specimens in this study. Swiff-Lifts
were placed on the walls of the sections for lifting purposes. However, in hindsight it would have been
possible to omit lifting devices from the test specimens. The inclusion of these lifting devices resulted in
the severing of some tension reinforcement in the side-wall. This was not an issue in the test program as
failure of the slab was the governing failure mechanism for all specimens when subjected to the
appropriate load conditions.
Figure 2.6: Detailing of Reinforcement Cages
(Left: Welding brackets f o r the through-holes; Right: Close-up o f reinforcing cage details)
Strain gauged MW32.3 (D-5) rods were tied at critical flexural reinforcement locations. These
rods were inserted in lieu of strain gauging the actual cage bars, a procedure that would have proven more
difficult. The wires were housed in 1.5” interior diameter steel conduit tubing embedded in the concrete
slab. PVC pipe was originally specified and would have made the casting process easier. In addition the
center conduit was offset from the centerline to facilitate its passage through the lap area without the need
to sever longitudinal bars. However the inclusion of embedded conduit tube results in the formation of a
20
weak concrete section. Conduit locations are tabulated in Table 2.4. Steel conduit tubes were also
placed in the cage to form the through holes for the horizontal tie rods to pass through.
Table 2.4: Conduit Locations Measured from North End of Specimen
Specimen RY1 RY2 RY3 RY4 RY5 RY6

Distamce[mm] 860 740 1040 990 1090 1130
2.3.3 Casting
Specimens were cast in pairs with each cast on a different day. Specimens RY5 and RY6 were cast
on August 9 2002, RY1 and RY2 were cast on August 13 2002 and RY3 and RY4 were cast on August
14 2002.
Changing cast size required a turn around of the metal forms taking several man-hours of work.
The cage is aligned on a palette. Typically these palettes are steel contoured forms shaped for a male or
female connection. In order to provide a flat side surface for testing, flat palettes were constructed out of
wood. Surface bleeding was observed during construction as a result o f inexact measuring during
construction of these wood palettes. The specimens were cast on their sides in an eight-foot vertical form.
The outer steel form is stationary in the casting pit while the inner form is used to pick up the cage on its
palette and place it in the outer form (see Figure 2.7). This casting arrangement ensures careful control of
the culvert thickness and section dimensions.
Figure 2.7: Dry Cast Operations
(Left: D ry Casting Apparatus; Right: P lacing cage into outer form )
Since the test specimens were only one quarter the width of a standard culvert product, it was
difficult to insure proper alignment of the cage prior to casting. Once a sufficient amount o f concrete was
poured into the form to cover the reinforcement and the section was properly vibrated, the inner form was
lifted to the level of the top of the outer form. The specimen was inspected for consistency of width and
21
Shear in Box Rdverts Experimental Program
the surface was hand finished. Due to potential wobble in the bottom palette and inconsistency in the
surface finish, a comer-to-comer width variation of three-quarters of an inch or 3 percent was the closest
that could be reasonably expected using this technique and a turn-around o f only six specimens.
Figure 2.8: Finishing and Factory Handling
(Left: H and fin ish in g top o f section; Right: L ifting cast section before inner core is removed)
The specimens were cured under a steam cure hood overnight then shipped outside to the yard.
Specimens were sawed in half by an independent contractor using a concrete saw mounted on the side
wall of the sections.
Figure 2.9: Specimen Curing
(Left: Test specim en aw aiting steam curing; Right: F ull 8 ’ sections with curing hood in
background)
22
2.4 Test Apparatus
Figure 2.10: Experimental Set-up
2.4.1 General
Tests were performed on half sections of the precast box culverts. The test apparatus as seen in
Figure 2.10 and detailed in Figure 2.12 is a self-reacting system composed of a spreader beam, vertical
tie-down systems and a horizontal tie rod system. Figure 2.11 illustrates the force reactions induced in
the test frame during loading o f the specimen. Vertical uniformly distributed loading was provided by a
set of Enerpac™ RC-102 10 ton capacity hydraulic jacks pushing against the spreader beam. These jacks
were spaced evenly at 250 mm or double density 125 mm centers on a 4 m spreader beam.
The choice of testing configuration was based on the need to simulate the desired loads in the box
culvert slabs while keeping the set-up from becoming overly cumbersome. The system was designed to
simulate the moment and shear behaviour o f the prototype slabs, however the wall segment moment and
shear behaviour o f the test apparatus do not match those present in the full box. In addition an axial load
is induced in the bottom slab of the half box test specimens. While an axial load would be present under
in-situ conditions due to passive and active lateral earth loading, the inclusion of axial load does not quite
represent the ideal worst-case scenario for shear in the slab.
23
Figure 2.11: Free-Body Diagram of Test Frame Components
I
L — T r m T fT ir
U j i i
w w ~wwww~
2.4.2 Horizontal Tie Rod
The horizontal tie rod provided lateral restraint, inducing a negative moment in the slab. This
negative moment simulated the negative moment restraint provided by the upper-half of the box in a full
box specimen. The option taken in this test program was to rely on the passive resistance provided by
the stiffness of a tie rod connecting the two upstanding walls o f the half culvert, rather than a more
complex active system using hydraulic pressure. This tie rod must have a desirable stiffness and adequate
strength to perform within the range of tensile forces induced prior to failure of the slab. It was difficult
to find such a material that could both take substantial deformations and resist high tensile forces.
Stiffness requirements for the tie rod vary according to the geometry and reinforcing of a given specimen.
High strength prestressing strand was chosen as the tie rod material except for the first specimen tested
RY5P, which used high strength threaded steel rod. Single or paired strands of 13 or 11 mm 7-wire
strand were used to more closely match stiffness requirements. The tie rod area used for each test is
tabulated in Table 2.5. Even with the use of prestressing strand several tests required loading to levels
near the proportional limit of the strand.
24
Shear in Box (Adverts Experimental Program
Figure 2.12: Apparatus Diagram
2 5 .4 0 Dywidag Bars
Detail D
HSS 102x1(12x6.4
Spreader
H S S 15(x102x9.5
Tie Rod
pal
S p ec men
9000 PSI Hydraulic Jacks
Detail C
S p r e a d e r B e am
H S S 152x102x9.5
Strong Floor
1,092
4,000

All D im ensions in mm
RY1 & RY2 Jack Plan View
0 0 o o e " o '" o'" ■..o' " 0 " 0 o o O 0
..........................."T O O O O O 0 |o 0 j - END PLATE - - TYPICAL PLATE -
i O 0 O O O 0 ! O o| O o o O o <
0 0 O 0 o o o b O 0 O O o O 0
- - V -- r37.5
4M 75
- -
}■ > '
Detail B
O v o o O o c
RY3 & RY4 Jack Plan View
\ 250 250
RESTRAINING ANGLES (L75x90x8)
DETAIL A (Regular Spacing)

- END PLATE - - TYPICAL PLATE -
"V"
©
O
0
0
O
Detail A
r37-5- ^ >
p .4.
RY5 & RY6 Jack Plan View 0 -
r 1 ” =n O . . O o o O o , o
©
o c
0
\ 125 1 2 5 1
RESTRAINING ANGLES (L75x90x8)
" V DETAIL B (Double Density Spacing)

Detail A
1" Dywidag Post-T ensioning Bar
Post-T ensioning Nut
Test Specimen
Bearing Plate
Spherical B earing
300 kN Load Cell
9000 PSI Hydraulic Jacks
R ec e ss e d Bearing P late Top Bearing Plate
Restraint Angles
Bottom Bearing Plate Bolted to Spreader Beam
H SS 152x102x9.5
Dim ensions mm Detail No. Layer of 1/8" Teflon Sheets
Specim en T H L B W Ref. Jacks
R Y 1& RY2 1428 660 584 3200 2032 B 16
RY3 1123 965 889 3200 2641 A 11 Spreader Beam
Detail D RY4 1123 965 889 3200 2641 B 22 DETAIL C
RY5 & RY6 615 1473 1397 3825 3302 A 14
25
Table 2.5: Summary of Horizontal Tie Configurations
Strand Max. Max.

Required
Area Fu 0.85FU Test Test
Specimen Area* Tie-Rods Used
Used [MPa] [MPa] Force Stress
[m m 2]
[m m 2] [kN] [MPa]
RY1 238 2 x 13mm 7-wire Strand 198 1860 1580 258 1303
RY1P 238 2 x 13mm 7-wire Strand 198 1860 1580 251 1268
RY3 70 13mm 7-wire Strand 99 1860 1580 140 1414
RY3P 70 13mm 7-wire Strand 99 1860 1580 131 1323
RY5 44 11 mm 7-wire Strand 55 1860 1580 86 1564
RY5P 44 2 x 5/8 Threaded Rod 294 770 660+ 115 391
RY6 70 13mm 7-wire Strand 99 1860 1580 141 1424
RY6P 70 13mm 7-wire Strand 99 1860 1580 161 1626
'Required Area Derived from Non-linear Flexural Analysis of Box Section
"‘Yield based on 0.2 percent offset
The single and double strand horizontal tie system configurations are shown in Figure 2.14. A
single load cell was not employed for the single strand tie configuration as the 300 kN load cell was not
available until later in the test program.
The prestressing strands were anchored via draw in chucks. These chucks have teeth that engage
the strand as a force is applied. The exterior of the chuck was threaded so that a tightening nut could be
fitted to the exterior. This nut could be turned to tighten the strand to eliminate initial slack in the tie
system.
Figure 2.13: Stress-Stain Curve for Tie Strand

No. 13 Prestressing Strand Stress-Strain Curve
2000
1800
1600
1400
CL 1200
E
m 1000
800
600
400
200
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Strain
26
Displacements in the tie rods were composed of the those caused by deformation of the tie and those
caused by slip of the strand in the chuck anchor. Linearity of displacements in the tie rod indicate that the
anchor slip behaviour was incremental rather than abrupt. Thus, where possible strand areas exceeding
stiffness requirements were chosen with the knowledge that tie deformations would be augmented by
anchor slip.
Figure 2.14: Horizontal Tie Configurations

300 kN Load Cell
H SS 102x102x6.4
S p ecim en S outh Wall S p ecim en North Wall S p re a d e r B eam Draw-in Chuck
Section A-A
40 mm Formed Hole Threaded Chuck Housing
Prestressing Strand
Prestressing Strand
-Detail B e
Tightening Nut Beanng Plate
Detail A Detail A
Double Strand Tie Configuration
100 kN Load Ceil
Sp ecim en South Wall Sp ecim en North Wall H SS 102x102x6.4

S p re a d e r B eam
Load Celt
Prestressing Strand Recessed Bearing Plate Spherical Bearing
~ * >
_ |
, \r y A ■
-D etail B
Detail A 50 mm Core Hole /
-Detail B Adaptor Plate 7 I Recessed Bearing Plate
Single Strand Tie Configuration Detail B
2.5 Instrumentation
In order to monitor the specimen behaviour and test system performance a number of
instruments and gauges were mounted on the specimen itself. These instruments measured the strains,
displacements and loads applied to the specimen during testing. In addition, photographs were taken at
load stage intervals and digital video records were taken o f several shear critical specimens. A
description of these instruments, their locations and nomenclature is provided.
2.5.1 Reference Nomenclature
The test specimens were physically oriented in the laboratory with the cross-section face aligned to
the East-West directions and the box ends oriented to the North- South Axis. Generally, instrument
27
nomenclature derives from orientation relative to these directions. The “front” of the specimens
presented in this report is the East, making the left wall South and the right wall North.
2.5.2 Displacement Measurements
Reaction displacement was monitored continuously via pairs of Linear Variable Differential
Transformer (LVDT) gauges placed symmetrically on each side of the specimen. Five pairs of these
gauges were placed under the specimen slab, with pairs of LVDT’s at end, quarter and mid-span
locations. 50 mm stroke LVDTs were placed at the quarter and center points, with 25 mm stroke LVDTs
at the ends. Horizontal displacement of the two side-walls was measured by a horizontal LVDT mounted
below the tie rod. This horizontal LVDT system consisted of a weighted string running between the two
walls and connected to the plunger of the LVDT. 10 mm stroke LVDTs in an X configuration were also
mounted on the South side o f the specimen at 1.5d from both haunch edges in order to monitor shear
strains in the potential shear failure zones. LVDT locations are summarized in Figure 2.15. Note that
Figure 2.15 shows horizontal LVDT locations relative to the top o f the wall and vertical LVDT locations
based on the distance from the outside of the specimen cross-section. For actual measured sidewall and
specimen widths see values tabulated in Table 2.1.
Dial gauges were also placed at the ends of the slab to measure axial movement of the slab, and
between the laboratory floor and the reaction beam to monitor deflection of the beam. These values were
only recorded at the discrete load stage intervals and are summarized in Appendix G.
2.5.3 Force Measurements
Reaction forces in the vertical tie-down bars and horizontal tie rod(s) were measured continuously
during tested using center hole compression load cells. These cells are steel or aluminum cylinders with
two full bridge strain gauges on either side that record deformation of the cylinder and are calibrated to
convert this measured strain directly to a load reading. Four vertical load cells designated VLCNE,
VLVNW, VLCSE and VLCSW rated for 300 kN were employed. One or two horizontal load cells
designated LCH or LCHE and LCHW were used to measure the force in the horizontal tie. LCH was
identical to the vertical load cells rated for 300 kN. LCHE and LCHW were aluminum load cells rated
for lOOkN each. Load was applied to the load cells via a spherical bearing to aid in providing a uniform
load reading. The location o f load cells are illustrated in Figure 2.16.
28
Figure 2.15: LVDT Layout
LVDTH
239,
,jM-ThPBS*^ ‘N-TS-BN S-TN-BS

f41.4mm Grid'”
VNW .VQNW VWC VQSW vsw
101.5 457.5 558.5 558.5 457.5

............__2.235_
West Elevation South Elevation

All Dimensions in mm
LVDTH
.239. 239
'S-BN !S-TNj-BS
tv ;v
VNW £ VQNW ,VWC 'QSW V$W
64
101.5 609.5 711 711 609.5.
i 2,844

LVDTH
Sam ple Nomendlature: VQNW

1 Specimen
*------►NorthofCenter I
N-TN-f
314 314
N-TN-BS S-fS-BN «
200mm Grid
VNW A vw c i VQSW ,VS'
127 762 889 762

3.556

All D imensions in mm
29
Shear in Box Culverts Experunental Program
Figure 2.16: Load Cell Layout
LCVSE LCVNE LCVNE LCVNW

Sample Nomenclature: LCVNW
_ North W est Location
-V ertical Orientation
" Load Cell
2.5.4 Concrete Surface Strains
Average concrete surface strains were recorded by manually measuring the distances between a grid
of targets called Zurich targets fixed to the East face of the gauged specimens. Zurich target spacing was
dictated by specimen geometry and roughly arranged to coincide with crack spacing. A 141.4 mm square
Zurich Target grid was employed for specimens RY1 to RY4 with a slab depth of 203 mm. For
specimens RY5 and RY6 with a slab depth of 254 mm, a 200 mm square Zurich Target grid was used.
Surface gauge readings were to be taken at each load stage during testing of the members. Zurich target
layout is illustrated in Figure 2.17.
30
Figure 2.17: Zurich Target Layout
1 2 — A-----6 S 7- -4 0 ---- 44------43----- 43— ' 14 15 16
1,117.5 919.6 141.4

2.235
East Elevation
1 2 3 N— 4------ 5-------§------ 7------- s------ 9— ■-10 ■{ 11----- +2-----43----- H ------46------ 46----— i 8 19 20
i
1,422 1, 201.9 141,4
2,844
East Elevation
1,473
,778 1,500 200

3,556
East Elevation
31
Shear h Box Culverts Experimental Program
2.5.5 Reinforcement Strains
In the gauged specimens, three pairs o f strain gauged bars were tied to the mesh cages on the
tension face of the slab at center span and haunch edge locations. The bars used were 500 mm long D5
6.4 mm diameter deformed bars. The bar length was chosen to provide adequate anchorage to avoid slip
of the gauged bar during loading. Strain gauge locations are summarized below in Figure 2.18. The area
of flexural tension reinforcement at mid-span was increased by as high as 18.1 percent for specimen RY1
to a low of 4.5 percent for specimens RY4 and RY6.
Figure 2.18: Typical Strain Gauge and Conduit Pipe Locations
S a m p le N o m e n clatu re : SG -N W
-Location (Note: Specimen orientation was rotated one quarter turn
thus North W est is actually in the South West Location)
- Strain Gauge
s q -n w SG -N C SG -N E
SG -sw S G -SC SG -SE
r~
585 (Typ)
Plan 457.6
S G jS C /|\S G -N C
S G -S C S G jS E !>' SG -N E
. SG -S W S G -S E
406 1,016
2,844

Note: L©SQ wire and housing pipe locations approximate
32
2.6 Material Properties
Material properties have considerable influence on code shear design equations. However
specified material properties are commonly lower bound nominal values rather than those that exist in the
member itself. Here both the nominal material values are given as well as those as determined by testing
at the University o f Toronto.
2.6.1 Concrete Material Properties
Since the precast concrete manufacturer’s intention is to get the product to the site as soon as
possible, high early strength zero slump concrete is typically used in conjunction with an accelerated
curing process. The strength requirement is commonly specified in OPSS and ASTM standards as 35
MPa 28-day strength. 4 inch diameter compression test cylinders were produced according to plant
specifications. Three compression test cylinders were tested at each of seven, fourteen, twenty-eight and
test days for each specimen type.
The concrete mix design contains slag and a commercial plasticizing agent called Rheo Mix™ 700
FC. The mix design is summarized in Table 2.6. Noticeably, there is no defined quantity of mix water.
Instructions detail that operators should “monitor each batch, adjusting moisture content as required to
ensure proper mix consistency is achieved”.
The aggregate used during casting was a 10 mm (3/8”) crushed limestone. This is consistent with
typical aggregate sizes used in the precast industry in the Greater Toronto Area.
Table 2.6: Concrete Mix Design
Material Full Batch Quantities

Cement [kgl 408
Slag [kg] 136
Stone [kg] 1200
Sand [kg] 1657
Total Weight 3401
Water See comment
Rheo Mix 700 FC [ml] 1020
Test results plotted in Figure 2.19 indicate that the average test strengths for specimens
representing approximately 200-day strength are 69.0 MPa for specimens RY1 and RY2, 71.7 MPa for
RY3 and RY4, and 74.6 MPa for RY5 and RY6. Compression cylinders were tested in accordance with
ASTM loading rates. Hanson Pipe and Products Ltd. performed all cylinder tests at their Cambridge
33
plant with the exception of test day cylinders that were tested at the University o f Toronto. Results
indicated an average concrete density o f 2460 kg/m2.
Cylinders for RY1 and RY2 were capped rather than ground to achieve a uniform end surface.
Average strains from two concrete strain gauges placed on opposite sides of the cylinders were monitored
continuously during testing in order to determine a representative peak strain value ec’. The average peak
strain value illustrated in Figure 2.20 was found to be 0.0026.
Figure 2.19: Concrete Strength Gain Plots

8 0 -r
* 40 -
I 30 -
20 -
10 -
10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Time [Days] Time [Days]
RY1 and RY2 RY3 and RY4
80
J
£L
70
O 60
li
%
ra 50
c
1
J! 40
to
c
o
2
w 30
(A
oU>i
L
a 20
E
o
o 10
0 “i i i i i rTf
10 100 1000
Time [Days]
RY5 and RY6
34
Figure 2.20: Concrete Stress Strain Plots for RY1 and RY2
80.0
70.0
60.0
cl 50.0
2
<A 40.0
</)
0)
co 30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Strain [ue]
2.6.2 Reinforcing Steel Material Properties
OPSS 1821 specifies minimum reinforcement yield strengths o f 450 MPa with an ultimate strength
of 550 MPa. Since these nominal material strengths are lower bound targets, samples were taken from
the manufacturing plant and tested at the University of Toronto laboratory. Tension tests were conducted
on 400 mm reinforcement samples to verify the stress-strain characteristics of the steel. These samples
are representative and could not be guaranteed to come from the same stock or heats as those used in the
fabrication of the culvert cages. Three sizes were chosen, with three tests conducted for each size.
Samples were cut with one weld line in the test length. Subsequently, three MD 64.5 (D-10) bars were
cut from specimen RY6 and tested to confirm the results o f the sample reinforcement.
Results tabulated in Table 2.7 and shown in Figure 2.21 indicate that the steel is cold drawn with
variable strengths depending on the diameter of the bar. The reinforcement in all cases did not exhibit a
consistent modulus of elasticity, this is particularly evident in the MD 64.5 (D-10) reinforcement
specimens where a noticeable curve can be seen even at lower loads. None of the specimens failed at the
weld point. As there is no distinct yield plateau yield values are reported here based on a 0.2 percent
offset. The magnitude o f strain achieved prior to ultimate rupture was found to vary considerably from
specimen to specimen with some bars rupturing at strains of less than 2 percent.
35
The bars cut from RY6 exhibited similar behaviour as the sample bars, but with a 5 percent higher
yield stress. The yield stress values obtained from the actual specimen will be used in subsequent
discussion; however, this 5 percent difference is small given the number of samples tested and difficulty
in accurately describing the yield stress in a cold rolled welded wire mesh.
Table 2.7: Average Reinforcement Tension Test Results
Name Nominal Nominal Quantity f/

Diameter Area [mm2] Tested [MPa] [MPa]
fmml
MD 32.3 x MW 32.3 (D5) 6.4 32.3 3 590 641
MD 45.2 x MW 32.3 (D7) 7.6 45.2 3 585 634
MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 (D10)
9.1 64.5 3 530 577
(From Sample Tests)
MD 64.5 x MW 32.3 (DIO)
9.1 64.5 3 555 600
(Cut From RY6)
*fy based on 0.2 percent offset
Figure 2.21: Reinforcement Stress-Strain Behaviour Plots
MD 32.2 (05) Reinforcement S tress Strain Plot MD 38.7 (D6) Reinforcement S tre ss Strain Plot
700 700
600 600
500 500
ro g 400
^ 400 -
(0
<2 300 - 300
CO
200 -
200
100 100
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain Strain
MD 64.5 (D10) Reinforcement S tress Strain Plot MD 64.5 RY6 Reinforcement S tress Strain Plot
700 700
600 600
500
400- 400
(1A
0
£ 300 2 300
200 200
100
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Strain Strain
36
Chapter 3
Experimental Observations and Results
Experimental observations and results are summarized. Plots o f data obtained from
instrumentation are provided along with photographs depicting failed specimens and
conditions at maximum load stages
3.1 General Overview

Experimental results and observations are presented for the six gauged and six prototype
specimens tested. A load stage by load stage summary of observations o f both the specimen and loading
apparatus is provided in Appendices A to F. Results for a given gauged and prototype specimen are
provided together for clarity and to illustrate variability in specimen behaviour. Photographs are included
showing the specimens at their final load stage or post failure. The photographic record includes images
o f the west and east faces since cracking patterns varied significantly in some specimens from one side to
the other. It should be noted that the signs in the photographs do not necessarily correspond precisely
with the measured load or displacement at that load stage increment. A comprehensive record of crack
patterns for each load stage is also included in Appendices A to F. A summary o f the experimental results
is provided in Table 3.1 below. P^x refers to the maximum vertical load recorded by the sum of all load
cell readings. Hmax refers to the horizontal load recorded in the tie rod by the horizontal load cell(s) at
Pmax. The “Yield” column states if yield of the flexure tension reinforcement at mid-span of the slab was
observed based on strain gauge data and visual inspection.
Table 3.1 Summary of Experimental Results
Geometry Materials Specimen Behaviour

Specimen
b d A*, Aso Pi fc fy Pmax Hmax Yield
Description @ Pmax
[mm] [mm] [mm2] [mm2] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [kN] [kN] [Y/N]
RY1 I 580 152 355 355 0.40 69 590 700 258 Y Excessive Slab Deflections
RY1P 585 152 355 355 0.40 69 590 643 251 Y Slab Flexural Steel Rupture
RY2 560 155 710 851 0.82 69 555 820 241 Y Slab Shear Failure
RY2P 555 155 710 851 0.83 69 555 896 284 Y Excessive Tie Force
RY3 575 156 497 426 0.55 71.7 585 550 140 Y Excessive Slab Deflection
RY3P 580 156 497 426 0.55 71.7 585 503 131 Y Excessive Slab Deflection
RY4 575 147 1419 1419 1.68 71.7 555 1031 243 Y Slab Shear Failure
RY4P 570 147 1419 1419 1.69 71.7 555 905 209 Y Slab Shear Failure
RY5 575 206 710 497 0.60 74.6 555 528 86 Y Excessive Tie Force
RY5P 560 206 710 497 0.62 74.6 555 628 115 Y Wall Shear Compression Failure
RY6 590 198 1419 1419 1.21 74.6 555 870 141 Y Slab Shear Failure
RY6P | 590 198 1419 1419 1.21 74.6 555 900 161 Y Excessive Tie Force
37
Shear in Box Culverts Experimental Observations and Results
3.2 Loading
Specimens were loaded monotonically using a hydraulic system consisting o f 10 ton jacks with
the pressure regulated by a manually controlled load maintainer. The loading proceeded in load stages,
typically 100 kN total load intervals starting with the load at which cracking was first observed. Each
loading interval lasted about 2 minutes, giving an approximate loading rate of 0.8 kN/sec of measured
total load. At each load stage the load was dropped typically some 50 kN back to levels deemed safe for
examination of the specimen. Total test time was in the order of 2 hours for a prototype specimen and 3
hours for a gauged specimen.
The maximum jack stroke was 2 1/8”. For several specimens with large slab deflections it was
necessary to block-up the specimen after several load stages, relieve the jack pressure and stack additional
plates onto the jacks to increase the available displacement. A comparison of system pressure with the
forces recorded in the vertical load cells indicated a system friction loss ranging from 7 to 11 percent.
This system loss represents frictional losses in the hydraulic jacking system and is consistent with similar
losses found in previous studies.
The tests were terminated for one of three primary reasons: failure of the specimen, excessive
force in the tie rod and excessive slab deflections. Failure o f the specimen is defined here as the point of
ultimate load characterized by actual shear failure or rupture o f the primary tension reinforcement.
However all specimens were taken to loads that constitute a serviceability failure due to yielding of the
primary tension reinforcement and large slab deflections. In instances where forces in the horizontal tie
strand became large the test was also stopped. Tie force was plotted against the displacement between the
two culvert walls and monitored for any non-linearity signifying yielding of the strand. For specimens
where flexural behaviour dominated very large deflections of the slab were observed. In several instances
testing was stopped because bending of the vertical tie-down bars was deemed excessive and potentially
dangerous.
3.3 Reported Charts

Outlined in Table 3.2 is a summary o f the availability of data from the tests conducted in this
study. A full set o f data readings are not available for every specimen as the test apparatus evolved
slightly over the course of the experimental program. A summary of raw test data values is included in
Appendix G.
3.3.1 Control Chart
Total load versus mid-span displacement is used as a control chart to illustrate member
behaviour. Vertical specimen displacement is calculated by taking the total average mid-span
38
Shear hi Box Culverts Experimental Observations and Results
displacement measurement from the vertical LVDT’s and subtracting from this the average measured
displacements at the location of the vertical tie-down rods and the measured reaction beam deflection.
The vertical axis scale is kept consistent in order to facilitate comparison between specimens. The full
loading history is provided including incidents o f intermediate unloading and post-peak behaviour.
Intermediate unloading that occurred in several specimens represents a point where it was deemed
necessary to increase effective jack stroke by adding additional plates.
3.3.2 Reinforcement Strains
Both mid-span and haunch end reinforcement strains are plotted against total applied load. Strain
values are show for both sides of the beams. Strain values show reasonable conformity between the west
and east sides with the notable exception of RY1 strain gauge NC. Dead gauges and gauges that show
noisy values inconsistent with plausible strain values are omitted for clarity. It should be noted that the
strain values reflect the inclusion of the strained bars, increasing the area of reinforcement by 65 mm2 at
the mid-span location.
3.3.3 Tie Rod Behaviour
The horizontal displacements of the walls measured using the LVDT designated LVDTH, are
plotted against both the total measured horizontal force in the tie rod and the total vertical applied load.
The relationship between these values is linear with the exception o f an initial slack, representing
adjustments in the tie-system as seating of plaster bearings and initial slack in the tie rod occur. The
vertical applied load scale is adjusted downwards to compensate for this initial slack; therefore values
read on the right hand total load scale below about 150 kN should not be used. It should be noted that the
wall displacements measured by the LVDTH gauge do not represent the actual displacements in the tie
rod as it was not possible to locate this instrument at the exact level of the rod.
3.3.4 Shear Behaviour in Zone of Failure
Shear stress versus shear strain is plotted for both ends o f the specimens where available. The
graphs show the shear strains present at a location of 1.5d from the edge o f the haunch, a distance of 240
mm for the 203 mm thick specimens and 315 mm for the 254 mm thick specimens. The location 1.5d
from the edge of the haunch was observed to be the typical location where shear failure occurred. The
shear strain values were determined from the diagonal LVDT readings obtained on the west face of the
specimens oriented at 45 degrees from the axis of principal loading. Shear stresses were calculated
according to the formula V/bdv, where shear force at the location is divided by the member width and the
39
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Observations and Results
distance between the tension and compression force resultants approximated as 0.9 times the depth to the
centroid of the tension reinforcement.
Table 3.2: Availability of Test Data
Displacement Data
Dial Force measurements Surface Strains
LVDT Reinf.
Specimen Gauges Strain
System
V. H. D CL End VLC HLC. Zurichs # Readings
Pressure
RY1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10
RY1P 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6
RY2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7
RY2P 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7
RY3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10
RY3P 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6
RY4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10
RY4P 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7
RY5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
RY5P 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
RY6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
RY6P 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
V=Vertical H=Horizontal D=Diagonal LC=Load Cell
40
3.4 RY1 and RY1P Experimental Results
flc’= 69.0 MPa
m
Ptension 0 .4 0 %
590 MPa Pcornp™ 0 .4 0 %
'
f»= .640 MPa
H H -f 4-
E ©
RY1 Arm= 500 mm b= 580 mm 16 Jacks <
CO
O'
Rise= 650 mm d= 152 mm

tt
RY1P Arm= 500 mm b= 585 mm 2 ,2 3 5 b
Rise= 650 mm d= 152 mm S id e Elevation Wall Elevation
All D im ensions in m m
Specimen RY1P failed due to flexural rupture of the tension reinforcement at mid-span. RY1 was
taken to a higher load but no flexural rupture of the tension reinforcement was observed at the point when
testing was halted due to excessive deformations of the specimen. Specimen behaviour was
predominately flexural in nature with development of only a few cracks spaced at approximately d. A
very large crack at mid-span was observed in RY1P, growth o f this central crack may have been
suppressed in specimen RY1 by the approximately 18 percent increase in flexural reinforcement provided
by inclusion of the strain gauged bars. The SG-NC strain gauge values do not indicate significant
yielding at mid-span in specimen RY1 which is a questionable result. Haunch edge reinforcement strains
show compressive values throughout the test, suggesting that the slab span remained in single curvature.
Figure 3.1: RY1 and RY1P Load Versus Mid-span Displacement

1100
1000 RY1
RY1P
900
800
g« 700
&
to 600
m
o
d 500
400
300
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
D isplacem ent [mm]
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Observations and Rasults
Figure 3.2: RY1 Mid-span Tension Reinforcement Strains
1100
1000 -
Strain Gauge NC
Strain Gauge SC
900 -
800 -
700 -
Total Load [kN]
600
500 -
400
300 -
sc
200 -
East Face Elevation

100 -
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Strain [qe]
Figure 3.3: RY1 Haunch Edge Tension Reinforcement Strains
Strain Gauge NW 1000

- Strain Gauge SW
- Strain Gauge NE 900
- Strain Gauge SE
800
700
600
500
400
SE SW
East Face Elevation
-1000 -800 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Strain [iff]
42
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Observations aid Results
Figure 3.4: RY1 and RY1P Measured Tie Force or Total Load Versus Horizontal
Wall Displacement
300 800
-RY1 - 700
250 -
RY1P
Total Vertical Load [kN]

- 600
!200 -
- 500
- 400
u. 100 - LVDTH
- 300
West Face Elevation - 200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Horizontal Displacement [mm]
Figure 3.5: RY1 and RY1P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain From Diagonal LVDT
Data 1.5d From Edge of Haunch
2.75 : RY1 North End

2.5 : RY1 South End
RY1P North End
2.25 :
RY1P South End
RY1 P NE
(B 2;1
0.
2 1.75 RY1 NE
RY1 SE
s
+■*
1.5
RY1 P SE
V)
(B 1.25 '
®
JC
OT
N-TS-BN
^TS-BN
S-TN-BS
0.21
West Face Elevation
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000

Shear Strain [qe]
43
Figure 3.6: RY1 East Face Final Load Stage P=700kN
Figure 3.7: RY1 West Face Final Load Stage P=700kN
Sptamsm. «Y1 S
LoadStags, 10 j
Total laid. OTOOMIj
Disp 80,0 flW:
Figure 3.8: RY1P East Face Final Load Stage P=643kN
I ? 1
rm tarn-, oooowa
OBJ mm]
Figure 3.9: RY1P West Face Final Load Stage P=643kN
R V If I
l,«lS tas*: f **► ‘ f
* tBl . /
Kis#: 98-6
45
fc’= 69.0 MPa Ptension= 0.82 % Jp JP
fy= 555 MPa n— = OQR% 2 2
fu= 600 MPa
H H
Rise
16 Jacks
RY2 Arm= 500 mm b= 560 mm L
IT
RY2P Arm= 500 mm b= 555 mm 2 ,2 3 5
Rise= 650 mm d= 155 mm S id e Elevation Wall Elevation
This set of specimens showed both significant flexural and shear cracking behaviour. Specimen
RY2 failed in shear, while specimen RY2P was taken to a higher load but could not be failed in shear
prior to halting the test based on concerns over the force in the tie rod. Flexural crack spacing was about
half of that observed in RY1 and RY1P. The failure shear plane in RY2 was at about 45 degrees adjacent
to the haunch end, a much steeper angle and closer in relation to the haunch then observed in RY4, RY4P
and RY6 shear failures. Compressive strains in the tension reinforcement at the edge of the haunch
showed that, like specimens RY1 and RY1P, the slab stayed in single curvature throughout loading. A
wide scatter of shear strain measurements was recorded at 1.5d from the edge of the haunch.

1100
1000 -RY2
RY2P
900
800
z 700
I
s
■a 600
«B 500
o
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Displacement [mm]
46
1100
1000 -
Strain Gauge NC
900 - Strain Gauge SC
800 -
r - 700 ~
z
600 -
<S 500 -
400 -
300 -
sc
200 -
East Face Elevation

100 -
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Strain [lie]
1000 -
Strain Gauge NW
900
Strain Gauge SW
z
um
o
44
o
H
SE SW
East Face Elevation

100 ’
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Strain [ije]
47
Wall Displacement
300
- 900
-RY2 850
250 -
RY2P - 800

- 750
200 -
- 700
- 650
® 150 - - 600
- 550
- 500
IJL 100 -
LVDTH - 450
- 400
50 -
- 350
West Face Elevation
- 300
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.14: RY2 and RY2P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain From Diagonal
LVDT Data 1.5d From Edge of Haunch
RY2PSE RY2P NE
2.75
RY2 SE
S h e a r Failure
2.5
RY2 NE
2.25
RY2 North End
RY2 South End
1.75 RY2P North End
RY2P South End
1.25 v
0 75 N-TS-BN
N-TN-BS^
S-TN-BS
West Face Elevation

0 25
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Shear Strain [qe]
48
Figure 3.15: RY2 East Face Failure P=820kN
i" r -------------„ ------------i . - s " ■-
*fyi'.'-.AW'S', W i'i B
f ^ I
nw > 0 0 O fiiH 'i
i. \,.4 .
■ SpeejMsn: RV2 *
' |ys»i$l8gs' ? |
SjS Total Load: oroowtj
* IC fe p t O O O tim l
49
Figure 3.17: RY2 East Face Shear Failure Detail
50
mm
f i
Bis
r
rmtia&fi, mmm
Figure 3.19; JRY2P West Face Final Load Stage P=896kN
$m*cmm miP |
LeadSfagi* 6 ***
?*«««: wixm'y
am- 33Smiti*$
51
R eprod u ced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fc’= 71.7 MPa Ptension 0 .5 5 /o
fy = 585 MPa Pcom p= 0 .4 6 %

fu= 635 MPa H H
Rise
RY3 Arm= 780 mm b= 575 mm 11 Jacks@250mm
RY3P Arm= 770 mm b= 580 mm ttttttttnt 2.844

RY3 and RY3P exhibited primarily flexural behaviour in the slab characterized by large slab
deflections and flexural cracking. Crack spacing was observed to be about d or 160mm. Significant wall
cracking including diagonal shearing was evident in the specimens. Negative moment cracking was
observed in the slab at approximately the level of the haunch edge indicating that there was some reverse
curvature present in the loaded slab.

1100
1000 -
RY3
RY3P
900 -
800 -
700 -
2
H 600 -
o
3 500 -
O
*" 400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Displacement [mm]
52
Wall Displacement
160
- 600
140 - -RY3 - 550

- RY3P
- 500

120
- 450
,100 - 400
- 350
- 300
- 250
LVDTH
- 200
- 150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
53
Figure 3.22: RY3 East Face Final Load S tage P=550kN
-3•; R|| IPCi

0 f
U<'4', ift 41 ... * * 1
nin■*’11'?* f7!C««
^ i&m _ *:
■■■**3®p oo o wm J, \
| « let, «s4 (,« H a »-«!
54
:in*i',nmn HYW' I
I,f!5^ ijt? I
;Out?. m Hum1
fSpmmmi KtSP
l o g S ta g e S ,
tern y m i mmMi
Step * s mil
55
E
f ’= 71.7 MPa 2
m
Ptension 1 . 6 8 /o
fv = 555 MPa Pcomp- 1 . 6 8 /o
600 MPa
+ +
Rise
RY4 Arm= 775 mm b= 575 mm 11 Jacks@250mm
TT
RY4P Arm= 770 mm b= 570 mm
Rise= 945 mm d= 147 mm 2,844
Specimens RY4 and RY4P both failed in shear after substantial diagonal shear cracking was
observed in the slab. The shear failure planes that developed were at very shallow angles. The magnitude
of load applied to cause shear failure differed by greater than 100 kN or 10 percent of the total applied
load, illustrating the potential variability in experimental results. Measured reinforcement strains indicate
that at the time of shear failure the primary longitudinal tension reinforcement was just yielding. The
flexural crack development was significant at the time of failure with a very dense crack spacing.
Cracking in the negative moment region was observed and the presence of negative moment was
confirmed in the measured strain gauge readings.

1100
1000 -
RY4
— RY4P
900 -
800 *
700 -
z. x
■a 600 -
^m 500 -
o
i- 400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Displacement [mm]
56
1100
1000 Strain Gauge NC

900 — Strain Gauge SC
800
700
600
1
500
ao
H
400
300
200
100 East Face Elevation
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Strain [qe]
11G0-
1000 Strain Gauge NW

Strain Gauge SW
90D Strain Gauge NE
Strain Gauge SE
z
£
■o
re
o
SW
a
o East Face Elevation
1— 40
-100 400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900

Strain [ijt]
57
Wall Displacement
300
- 1250
- 1150
-RY4
250 RY4P - 1050

- 950
•200 - 850
- 750
.®150 - 650
- 550
£100 - 450
LVDTH
- 350
- 250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 3.30: RY4 and RY4P Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain From Diagonal
LVDT Data 1.5d From Edge of Haunch
R Y 4S E RY4N E
RY4P SE ... S h e a r Failure RY4
3.5
S h e a r Failure RY4P
RY4P NE
- RY4 North End

m
a. 2.5 - RY4 South End
S - RY4P North End
(A
W RY4P South End
O
Sm.
C0
w
SB
0)
JZ
m
n-tn-bsV X i-ts-bn s -tn-b s v ' sYs -bn

'0.5
West Face Elevation
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Shear Strain [qe]
58
Figure 3.31: RY4 East Face Failure P=1031kN
SK| I B 7 m
jSh
■■I
,i> m i
*S'' '*'%
fe. #P
I
1 txt' t<soiwWSSwWf"
’< % t r i 5 ^ « ^ " i s n » C 7 }*i|' :» ]? <
} ’'• f >S. f < >. >i6 j/jtttk
a! ! "* ‘ B ' II I liaiiM^P
Figure 3.32: RY4 West Face Failure P=1031kN
59
Figure 3.33: RY4 East Face Shear Failure Detail
Figure
"
3.34: RY4 West Face
~ " ■-"■■m’*
Shear Failure Detail
wtmmmi'wimiiiiiiiiiiniiiinnniai'innffim♦
60
Shear in Box Cidvorts Experimental Observations and Results
Figure 3.35: RY4P East Face Failure P=905kN
Figure 3.36: RY4P West Face Failure P=905kN
fc’=
fy=
74.6 MPa
555 MPa
600 MPa
Ptension
P com p^
0 * 6 /o
0 .4 2 %
m
fu=
RY5 Arm= 1270 mm b= 575 mm 14 Jacks@ 250m m
Rise= 1470 mm d= 206 mm
TT
RY5P Arm= 1270 mm b= 560 mm 3,556
Rise= 1470 mm d= 206 mm Side Elevation Wail Elevation
Specimens RY5 and RY5P show different responses since the horizontal tie stiffness was found
to be inappropriate when testing RY5P and therefore was adjusted significantly for RY5. RY5P failed
due to a combination of shear and flexural failure of the north wall just above the haunch. This failure
was a result of the tie strand being too stiff. RY5 exhibited primarily flexural behaviour up to the point
where the test was stopped due to concerns over the force in the tie-rod. Mid-span tension reinforcement
strains show that the slab was loaded substantially beyond yielding. Haunch end tension reinforcement
gauges read compressive values throughout the test, indicating that the entire haunch-to-haunch slab span
was in single curvature during testing. The slight post-peak response exhibited by specimen RY5 was
due to the rupture of a single wire of the 7-wire horizontal tie strand, likely as a result of a local
imperfection.
1100
1000 RY5
RY5P
900
800
700
z
&
600
3o
_l
- 500
I
H 400
300
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]
62
1000 - — Strain Gauge NC

Strain Gauge SC
900 -
800 ~
sc
700 -
Total Load £kN3
East Face Elevation

600 -
500 -
400 ^
300 -
200 -
100
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Strain [qe]
Strain Gauge NW 1000 -
Strain Gauge SW
Strain Gauge NE 900 -
Strain Gauge SE
800 -
700 -
Total Load [kN]
600 -
500-
400 -
300 -
SE sw
100 -
East Face Elevation
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000

Strain [qe]
63
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Observations ami Results
Figure 3.40: RY5 Measured Tie Force or Total Load Versus Horizontal Wall
Displacement
100 - 600
90 - - 550
RY5
80 - - 500

70 - - 450
- 400
- 350
- 300
40 -
- 250
LVDTH
30 -
- 200
20 -
- 150
10 - - 100
West Face Elevation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 3.41: RY5 Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain From Diagonal LVDT Data
1.5d From Edge of Haunch
RY5 North End

1.25 RY5 South End
RY5 NE
R Y 5S E
m
0.75
0.25; N-TN-BSXN-TS-BN S-TN-BSX S-TS-BN
West Face Elevation
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
Shear Strain [qe]
Shear in Box Culverts Experimental Observations and Rnsults
Figure 3.42: RY5 East Face Final Load Stage P=528kN
65
juvaf &
am n ?**
66
Shear in Box Cidverts Experimental Observations aid Results
Figure 3.46: RY5P East Face Wail Failure Detail
S s d L ilK ii, ■ i ■{.:■■ ■■
Figure 3.47: RY5P West Face Final Load Stage
67
f c’=
-L 74.6 MPa Ptension 1 .2 1 /o
555 MPa Pcom p= 1 .2 1 %
fu= 600 MPa
RY6 Arm= 1270 mm b= 590 mm 14 Jacks@ 250m m

Rise= 1470 mm d= 198 mm
RY6P Arm= 1270 mm b= 590 mm TTTTTTTTTTTTTT 3,556

TT
Rise= 1470 mm d= 198 mm Side Elevation Wall Elevation

RY6 failed in shear adjacent to the north haunch. RY6P showed substantial shear crack formation
but did not fail before the test was stopped due to concerns over the force in the tie rod. Both specimens
showed significant flexural crack development with a dense crack spacing. Measured reinforcement
strains indicate that the slab in RY6 was beyond yield at mid-span prior to failure. Strains on the tension
reinforcement adjacent to the haunch-edge indicate that there was very little movement in strains during
testing. Likely the inflection point between positive and negative moment was somewhere in the vicinity
of the haunch edge. The failure of RY6 was more sudden and rapid relative those observed in RY4 and
RY4P.

1100
1000 RY6
RY6P
900
800
700
600
*o
500
H 400
300
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Displacement [mm]
68
4400-
1000
■Strain Gauge NC
900 Strain Gauge SC
800
700
Total Load fkNl
600 4
500
400
300
200 -{
sc
100 East Face Elevation
t-t-Q
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Strain [qe]
Strain Gauge NW 1000 -
Strain Gauge SW
Strain Gauge NE 900 -
Strain Gauge SE
Total Load [kN]
00 -
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Strain [ijr]
69
Wall Displacement
180 * - 1050
160 - RY6 - 950

RY6P

- 850
140
- 750
5 120
- 650
100
- 550
80 -
- 450
LVDTH
- 350
40 - - 250
- 150
West Face Elevation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.52: RY6 Shear Stress Versus Shear Strain From Diagonal LVDT Data
1.5d From Edge of Haunch
2.75
RY 6SE
RY6 North End
2.5 RY6 NE RY6 South End
2.25 S h e a r Failure
1.25
0.75
N-TN-BSX N-TS-BN S-TN-BSX S-TS-BN
West Face Elevation

0.25 :
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Shear Strain [qe]
70
Shear In Box Culverts Experimental Mservations and Results
Figure 3.53: RY6 East Face Final Load P=870kN
Figure 3.54: RY6 West Face Final Load P=870kN
71
72
Shear in Box Culverts Experimental Observatinns and Results
f t f Khm
73
Chapter 4
Discussion of Experimental Results
Experimental observations are compared to expected values obtained from analytical

results. Peak loads are compared to factored design loads. Finally, test results are
compared to code predictions
4.1 Comparison with Analytical Results

Analytical tools were used to find an appropriate tie stiffness to simulate the restraint provided by
the upper half of the box specimen. A passive horizontal tie system was chosen with restraint provided
by a single or pair o f tie rods made o f a material that would provide an appropriate stiffness so as to
provide moment to shear conditions in the slab that approximate those of the equivalent uniformly loaded
full box section. Since the desired behaviour was determined analytically, comparison of the analytical
modeling with the test observations is important to gain greater confidence in the validity of the results.
The following discussion compares observed specimen behaviour with analytical results. From this, a
discussion of the successes and deficiencies of the test system is provided. Three plots comparing the
displacement at mid-span, the inflection point location and the moment at mid-span are generated for each
specimen type. A discussion of each plot type is first provided.
4.1.1 Mid-span Displacement
Mid-span displacement is plotted against total load to compare the frame displacements with
analytical results. Two analytical models are included. The full box model simulates the behaviour of a
full culvert section subject to uniformly distributed loading on the top and bottom. The half box model
simulates load conditions in the test set-up. The mid-span displacement of the full box versus the half
box model need not be the same. Center displacement is a function both of the displacements caused by
deformation of the slab and the rotation of the haunch end. When choosing a tie stiffness the primary
concern was to develop a force of appropriate magnitude rather than match the amount of rotation
allowed at the slab end.
The analytical calculations were obtained using VecTor5, a non-linear frame program developed
at the University o f Toronto by Prof. F.Vecchio. Only the flexural behaviour of the culverts was modeled
in VecTorS. Sample input files and graphical representations of the models are included in Appendix I.
A 1 mm shift along the x-axis is applied to all VecTor5 calculations to account for the small adjustment in
the system post-cracking when the tie strands first took up substantial load.
74
Shear in Box Culverts Discussion of Experimental Results
In order for a box section to fail in flexure it must develop flexural hinges by yielding the slab and the
walls. The large discrepancy in the flexural failure load between the half box and full box models can he
primarily accounted for by the fact that the wall hinges in the half box model will not form until much
higher loads; Therefore, the half box model can sustain a higher applied load before a flexural collapse
mechanism occurs. This is particularly true for the smaller RY1 and RY2 specimens. However, the
applied load which causes yield of the slab reinforcement in the half box case is also somewhat higher
than that of the full box due to the presence of axial load.
Another source of discrepancy between analytical mid-span displacements and test results is
caused by the use of prestressing strands with draw-in chuck anchors in the set-up. Since the strand slips
in the chuck as it is drawn in, a deformation above that caused by the force in the tie alone occurs. The
result is that the mid-span displacements are greater, hut the desired tie force is the same. It was found
that during loading the tie slip for a given test represented a fairly constant percentage of total tie
deformation over and above those anticipated based on the force in the tie alone. The amount of tie slip
was calculated by determining how much the measured tie elongation recorded by the horizontal LVDT
exceeded the theoretical tie deformation based on the recorded force in the tie rod. The magnitude o f this
tie slip varied from about 40 percent of total recorded strand elongation for the smaller RY1 and RY2
specimens to about 15 percent for the larger RY6. Tie slip in specimen RY5 where a smaller diameter
strand and chuck were used was negligible. Load-deformation plots calculated using VecTor5 that
account for the strand slip are included in sections 4.1.4 to 4.1.9.
4.1.2 Location of Inflection Point
The location of the point of inflection indicates the distribution of moments in the slab. The
inflection point is plotted against the total applied load w in kN/m in sections 4.1.4 to 4.1.9. Code based
specifications use linear elastic analysis techniques to determine the inflection point and hence the
moments in box culvert slabs. Linear elastic analysis result in a constant inflection point location,
however in reality this inflection point migrates towards the mid-span due to softening of the culvert
stiffness post cracking. Both linear elastic and non-linear inflection point predictions are plotted in the
diagrams. It can be seen from the half box model how erroneous a linear elastic analysis model would be
as a tool to determine appropriate tie stiffness for the test set-up.
75
The total applied load w for the test specimens was obtained by finding the load intensity o f each
jack as follows:
w=
# Jacks x t
t
I ] I I
Where P=
t=
Total measured load [kN]
Tributary length o f each Jack [m]
w
B U
In order for the load cells to record data the jacks had to exert a force on the specimen to overcome
it’s self-weight. If the specimen were a beam then the load cell readings would represent the true load
influencing the deformation of the culvert slab. In this test set-up the upward pressure exerted on the half
box specimen required the lifting of both the slab and the walls, therefore a slightly larger load was
applied to the specimen than what the load cells would indicate. A summary of the forces on the
specimen is presented in Table 4.1. It can be seen that this additional applied load value is relatively
insignificant relative to the magnitude of the maximum applied load.
Table 4.1: Specimen Self-Weight Values
RY1 RY2 RY3 RY4 RY5 RY6

Specimen Self-Weight [kN] 9.5 9.1 12.8 12.8 22.0 22.6
Force per Jack [kN] 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.6 1.6
Self-Weight Slab Segment [kN] 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.9
Addition to Applied Load [kN/m2] 3.26 3.26 3.21 3.19 4.81 4.80
Percent of Maximum Applied Load 0.54 0.45 0.92 0.49 1.83 1.14
Test data is plotted on the inflection point diagrams based on two sources. The inflection point
based on external loads is calculated by determining the moment at mid-span. Since the horizontal load H
in the tie is known for each corresponding applied load w as calculated above, the mid-span moment can
be calculated as:
M - WL* U
Mid-span g SlabEnd M SlabEnd = H X A m i
And: Arm= The lever arm between the force H and the mid-height of the slab depth
L- Span of culvert slab measured to the center line of the wall slabs
76
Shear in Box Culverts Discussion of Experhnontal Results
Knowing the slab end and mid-span moments and assuming a parabolic moment distribution, the
inflection point can be calculated.
Inflection points calculated based on the concrete surface strains are also plotted at discrete points
corresponding to the load stages. Inflection points from surface strain measurements are calculated by
assuming a linear strain distribution through the depth of the section. If horizontal strains above and
below the section neutral axis and the distance between them are known, a curvature <j>[rad/m] value can
be calculated for each surface strain grid column. An inflection point can be determined by linearly
interpolating between the two surface strain grids where the curvature changes from positive to negative.
4.1.3 Moment at Mid-span
The ultimate goal of the test set-up was to achieve an appropriate ratio of moment to shear in the
culvert slab. Moment at mid-span determined analytically from linear elastic and non-linear techniques
are plotted against total applied load w in kN/m. Test loadings are plotted for comparison based on
moments calculated from external loading as well as based on the surface strain inflection points
calculated according to methods described in the above section 4.1.2.
77
4.1 .4 Comparison of Experimental Data with RY1 Analytical Predictions
Figure 4.1: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY1 and RY1P
800 i
RY1
700 -
RY1P
600 *
■m—VecTor5 Full Box Model
Total Load [kN]
500 -
---a--- VecTor5 Half Box Model
(40% Tie Slip Included)
400 -
—e— VecTorS Half Box Model
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mid-span Displacement [mm]
Figure 4.2: Inflection Point in RY1

RY1
400
—a—Half Box Non-Linear Analysis
350 -®- Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
A Test South End Zurichs
300 X Test North End Zurichs
Full Box Linear Analysis
Half Box Linear Analysis
Test RY1 From External Loads
■rea
O
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Distance from Mid-span [mm]
78
Figure 4.3: Mid-span moment in RY1
RY1
400
— Half Box Non-Linear Analysis
350 -
Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
A Test RY1 From Zurich Data
300 - Test RY1 From External Loads
-© - Full Box Linear Analysis
[kN/m]
250 -
200 -
w
L oad
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Moment at Mid-span [kN.m]
79
4.1.5 Comparison of Experimental Data with RY2 Analytical Predictions
Figure 4.4: Total Load versus Mid-span Displacement for RY2and RY2P
1100
1000 -
RY2
900 -
800 -
700 - ■m— VecTor5 Full Box Model

Total Load [kN]
600 - VecTorS Half Box Model

500 -
—e— VecTor5 Half Box Model
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

RY2
500
450 Half Box Non-Linear Analysis

400 A Test South End Zurichs
X Test North End Zurichs
350
"E 300 - Half Box Linear Analysis
f 250 -
o 200 f
150
100
50
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
80
Figure 4.6: Mid-span moments in RY2
RY2
500
450 - Half Box Non-Linear Analysis
400 - A Test RY2 From Zurich Data
350 - — Test RY2 From External Loads
-e—Full Box Linear Analysis
Load w [kN/m]
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

81
Slwar in Box Culverts Discussion of Experiments Results
Figure 4.7: Total Load Versus Mid-span Displacement for RY3and RY3P
600
RY3
500 RY3P
n— VecTor5 Full Box Model

400
Total Load [kN]
- -a -- VecTorS Half Box Model

300 —a— VecTor5 Half Box Model
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Mid-span D isplacem ent [mm]

RY3
Half Box Non-Linear Analysis

* 120 Test RY3 From External Loads
5
•o 100
re
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
82
Shear In Box Culverts Discussion of Experimental Results
Figure 4.9: M id-span m om ents in RY3
RY3
220
180 - Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
-e—Full Box Linear Analysis
Load w [kN/m]
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
83
Figure 4.10: Total Load Versus Mid-span Displacement for RY4 and RY4P
1200
1100 -
RY4
1000 -
RY4P
900 -
■m— VecTor5 Full Box Model
800 -
Total Load [kN]
- - a -- Vector5 Half Box Model

700 - (30% Tie Slip Included)
600 - —a— VecTor5 Half Box Model
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

RY4
450

400 •
350 A Test South End Zurichs
300 Full Box Linear Analysis
—o—Half Box Linear Analysis
250 -
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance fro m M id-span [mm]
84
RY4
450

-m—Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
350 - A Test RY4 From Zurich Data
— Test RY4 From External Loads
300 - -®—Full Box Linear Analysis
Load w [kN/m]
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Moment at M id -s p a n [kN.m]
85
Figure 4.13: Total Load Versus Mid-span Displacement for RY5

600 i
500 -
400 -
Load [kN]
300 - RY5
—m— VecTorS Full Box Model
T o ta l
Vector5 Half Box Model

200 -
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

RY5

r=. 100 -
600 800 1000 1200

D ista n c e from Mid-span [mm]
86
RY5
160
Half Box Non-Li near Analysis
140 - •*- Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
-®—Full Box Linear Analysis
Load w [kN/mJ
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Moment at M id-span [kN.m]
87
Figure 4.16: Total Load Versus Mid-span Displacement for RY6 and RY6P
1200
1100
1000 -
900 -
800 -
Total Load [kN]
700 -
RY6
600
RY6P
500 -
400 - -m— VecTor5 Full Box Model
300 - -&-- VecTorS Half Box Model

200 -
-o— VecTorS Half Box Model
100 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

RY6

600 800 1000 1200

88
RY6

-•—Full Box Non-Linear Analysis
— Test RY6 From External Loads
Load w [kN/mJ
89
4.1.10 Conclusions from Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results
The plotted comparison between analytical models and test results indicated that the analysis tools
generated reasonably reliable predictions of moment distributions. These moment distributions in the half
box test specimens match closely with the desired full box distribution indicating that appropriate tie rods
were chosen. Results varied more for the smaller sections RY1 and RY2. The reason for this is that a
larger strand area than necessary was used to achieve the required stiffness. Practical issues such as the
range of available strand sections made it difficult to achieve an appropriate tie sectional area for these
specimens.
Comparing the results of the elastic model to the non-linear model and test values indicate that
the elastic analysis gives a reasonable prediction o f slab moments over the range of loading up to yield.
The inflection points were found to occur just inboard of the haunch edge. This confirms the low
reinforcement strains recorded and the absence o f substantial negative moment cracking. A clear drift of
the inflection point inward as the culvert stiffness softens due to cracking was observed. This would
suggest that the moment at the critical shear section in actual conditions would be lower than that
predicted by an elastic analysis. Elastic results would also predict larger moments at mid-span then those
given by a non-linear analysis. Thus, elastic methods are conservative for both determining shear
strength and designing flexural reinforcement. However, it can be seen that the use of elastic techniques
would not be appropriate for determining an appropriate tie rod for the test specimens in this experimental
program.
The key difference between the half box and full box behaviour is the introduction of an axial
force in the half box set-up. These axial loads are several times larger then those that would naturally be
expected in the box sections through a combination of active and passive lateral forces. In the next
sections the specimen results are compared to specified design loading and shear code provisions. The
amount by which the capacities of the sections are influenced by the addition of this axial load is explored
further.
90
4.2 Comparison of Experiments with Design Loading
Table 4.2 compares the test values with factored design loads and analytical results. Test load
values represent ultimate shear failure for specimens RY2, RY4, RY4P and RY6 that failed in shear. For
the rest of the specimens failures represent points where testing was stopped due to excessive
displacements or test system limits. All tested specimens had yielded at center span prior to obtaining the
peak test loads tabulated here. Factored design loads are provided as calculated for the appropriate depth
o f earth cover according to ASTM and CHBDC specifications. Soil weight is assumed to be 22 kN/m3
representing a heavy overburden fill. ASTM defines soil weight as 18.84 kN/m3. Test loads are
calculated by considering the load intensity provided by the jacks as outline in section 4.1.2.
Table 4.2: Comparison of Test Loadings with Design Loads
Factored D esign Loads T e st Load/

Test Factored
Specimen Loads Failure CHBDC
[kN/m2] D.E.C ASTM CHBDC Design
[m] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] Loads
RY1 606 NA 2.69

5.5 NA 225
RY1P 552 Flexure 2.45
RY2 735 Shear 1.73
11 NA 425
RY2P 810 NA 1.91
RY3 351 NA 2.19
3.6 137 160
RY3P 319 NA 1.99
RY4 655 Shear 1.68
10 304 389
RY4P 580 Shear 1.49
RY5 268 NA 2.00
0.9 100 133
RY5P 325 NA 2.44
RY6 427 Shear 1.19
9 282 358
RY6P 441 NA 1.23
It must be noted however that some material properties in the tested specimens greatly exceeded
the maximum specified material properties for use in design calculations of 45 MPa for concrete and 550
MPa for weld wire mesh in accordance with Clause 7.8.8.1 c) and d) o f the CHBDC design code.
Comparing results with the approximate yield load as measured by the strain gauges at mid-span indicate
that all specimens were taken to loads beyond yield. Peak test loads were well beyond the maximum
factored design loads. If the effective strength reduction factor <j)c of 0.8 was considered, the desired ratio
91
Shear In Box Cidverts Dismission of Experimental Results
of test load to factored design load would be 1.25. In this case specimen designs would still be
conservative, with the exception of specimen RY6 that would be considered just adequate. Although the
presence o f axial load is a contributing factor to the strength of the specimens, there is no doubt that the
culvert designs are conservative.
Considerable axial loads were introduced into the specimens during testing. CHBDC un-factored
axial loads due to active horizontal pressure for boxes at a given depth of earth cover are shown in Figure
4.19. The minimum axial load case is to be applied for all design cases including the shear critical load
case. The maximum axial load is generated when considering the culvert walls as the critical load case.
Peak axial loads experienced by specimens RY1 through RY6 during testing are included for reference.
The axial loads the specimens would be subjected to at CHBDC general method shear strength
predictions are also included. Peak applied axial loads exceed the maximum CHBDC load condition in
all sections except RY6.
Figure 4.19: Specified CHBDC Maximum and Minimum Slab Axial Loads
- x- - CHBDC Minimum Axial for RY3 and RY4 Boxes
-X— CHBDC Maximum Axial for RY3 and RY4 Boxes
0 ■A - CHBDC Minimum Axial for RY1 and RY2 Boxes
1 -A— CHBDC Maximum Axial for RY1 and RY2 Boxes
2 -a- CHBDC Minimum Axial for RY5 and RY6 Boxes
-«— CHBDC Maximum Axial for RY5 and RY6 Boxes
3
X X Peak Test Axial Loads
4 A Axial Load at CHBDC General Method Prediction
5
RY1 X
6
O
uJ 7
d 8
9 X RY6
10 RY4 X
11 RY2 x
12
13
0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0
Slab Axial Load [kN]
4.3 Code Predictions

Shear strength o f the culvert slabs for the six specimen types were calculated using AASHTO 98
and the CHBDC 2000 design codes. Calculations are provided for both the full box case where no axial
load is present in the slab and the half box test cases where axial load is present. Both codes specify the
92
use o f the general method when calculating shear strength in reinforced concrete structures, however for
culverts with more that 600 mm of earth cover AASHTO has a specially designed box culvert shear
equation. The CHBDC code is less specific allowing the designer leeway to chose from several options.
From these options arise three possible means of calculating the shear strength o f culverts: the Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) general method, the simplified method with modification for size effect,
and a semi-empirical shear design method developed for all forms o f concrete conduits developed by
Heger. For sections within 2d of the support CHBDC specifies the use of strut-and-tie methodology,
however this study is focused on comparison of sectional methods, thus no strut-and-tie calculations are
provided.
In the previous section, insight was provided to determine an appropriate inflection point and
hence the M/V ratio used for calculations. AASHTO and CHBDC codes specify the use of elastic
analysis methods when determining the inflection points and hence slab internal forces. For the full box
case the inflection point based on an elastic analysis was found to give a reasonable estimate of slab force
conditions. Thus, for consistency the inflection point for the full box model is calculated here based on
full box elastic results. In order to determine the M /V ratio in the following code prediction calculations
the following expression was used:
V X
' l ,2 X2 ' M V X2"
M - w
I 8 ” 2J
Since: V - w x And Then: 1 8 ~ 2 J
Where: w = Uniform loading per unit width [kN/m]

V and M = Internal shear and moment acting on a given section [kN and kN.m respectfully]
L{ = Distance between inflection points [m]
x = Distance from mid-span to the specified section
The axial load H in the experiments changed with the total applied load P. Results indicate that
the relationship between H and P can be approximated by a line equation of the form y=mx+b as
illustrated in a sample plot in Figure 4.20. Since the axial load in the slab N is equal to H and the
maximum shear in the specimen is P/2 an expression can be derived to determine the appropriate N in the
slab at the calculated failure load.
VL
P = [kN]
Where: Vc= Shear strength of section

L= Distance between the centre-lines of the culvert walls
93
Shear hi Box Culverts Discussion of Experimental Results
This gives a more realistic assessment of the influence of axial load when comparing the test
specimens to code predictions. Equations for each specimen type are summarized in Table 4.3.
Figure 4.20: Specimen RY4 Total Load Versus Horizontal Axial Load
300
250 -
200 -
H=0.25P-20
100 -
50 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
P [kN]
Table 4.3: Approximate Relationship between Horizontal and Vertical Loads
Specimen RY1 RY2 RY3 RY4 RY5 RY6

Equation H=0.4P-40 H=0.3P-30 H -0.28P-17 H=0.25P-20 H=0.18P-10 H=0.17P-10
Finally, it should be noted that the tabulated calculations were performed using spreadsheets that
carry numbers to many significant digits without rounding. The result is that hand calculations based on
tabulated values may not work out precisely to the same number o f significant digits shown.
4.3.1 CHBDC 2000 General Method Equations
■ According to CHBDC Clause 8.9.3.4.1 shear resistance for a section without shear reinforcement
may be calculated as:
Mj
Q.5{Nf + Vf c o t6 ) + f
Vc =2.5 M c fc r b A [kN] Where longitudinal strain e - -
EA
Values of (3 and 6 are determined from Table 8.9.3.4.1 b) or equivalent tables in the CSA or
AASHTO specification. In the following calculations values from the table are doubly linearly
94
interpolated according to sz and sx. The procedure of determining p involves assuming a value for sx,
finding the corresponding /?and 6 values from Table 8.9.3.4.1 and calculating sx using the equation above
to see if the value corresponds to the initial assumption.
■ Here sz is taken as dVt. While sz is influenced by such parameters as aggregate size, no such
modifications are present in the CHBDC code
* In section 7.8.8.1 design limits for material properties of fy=550 MPa and fc’ of 45 MPa are
specified. These material limitations are ignored here in favor of the actual observed specimen
material properties
* AASHTO General Method specifies a limit such that the moment M at a given section should be
no less than V dv. This limit does not exist in the CHBDC code and hence will not be considered;
However it should be recognized that this M limit will influence the calculations at the critical
section in the considered specimens
* Nf is taken as negative if a compressive force
9 The value f cr for calculation purposes is taken as ’ » e in conformity to clause 8.4.1.8. This
cancels out the coefficient 2.5 in the Vc equation
Table 4.4: CHBDC 2000 General Method Shear Strength Predictions

Internal Loading ^critical [mm] 575 572 876 884 1085 1092
L [mm] 1400 1400 1926 1926 2518 2518
MA/[m] 0 .1 3 9 0 .1 4 2 0.091 0 .0 8 3 0 .1 8 8 0 .1 8 0
Lee [mm] 2032 2032 2641 2641 3302 3302
N [kN] -1 1 7 -1 0 8 -94 -1 0 0 -7 5 -86
Material & As [mm2] 355 710 497 1419 710 1419
Geometric d»[mm] 137 140 140 132 185 178
Properties b[mm] 580 560 575 575 575 590
s z [mm] 137 140 140 132 185 178
f c [MPa] 69 69 7 1 .7 7 1 .7 7 4 .6 7 4 .6
S p e c im e n £*[10-3] > 2 .0 0 0 1 .4 2 8 1 .5 8 3 0 .7 4 5 1.6 9 2 1.021
Resistance 3 0 .1 5 9 0 .1 8 4 0 .1 7 6 0 .2 3 7 0 .1 6 2 0.191
(No Axial Load) 0[°] 3 8 .7 3 6 .5 3 7 .2 3 3 .3 40.1 37.1
Vc [kN] 105 120 120 153 150 173
w[kN/m] 182 209 137 173 138 159
q [kN/m2] 314 373 239 300 240 269
S p e c im e n sx [10-3] 1 .7 7 0 1 .1 8 4 1 .2 9 6 0 .6 1 7 1 .5 1 6 0 .9 5 3
Resistance 3 0 .1 6 9 0 .1 9 9 0 .1 9 2 0 .2 5 0 0 .1 6 9 0 .2 0 6
(Axial Load) 0[°] 3 7 .8 3 5 .6 3 6 .0 3 2 .8 3 9 .4 3 6 .7
Vc [kN] 111 129 131 161 156 187
w[kN/m] 193 226 150 182 144 171
q [kN/m2] 333 403 261 316 250 290
95
These calculations only take into account the sectional shear capacities. At the failure loads
calculated, the flexural yield stress of the longitudinal tension steel would be exceeded at mid-span.
Flexural yield at mid-span represents a failure criteria on the basis o f serviceability, particularly since
these sections are often installed as conduits to allow fluid flow. From a collapse failure perspective
however yield of the tension reinforcement at mid-span is not necessarily of concern as redistribution of
loads allows these structures to resist much higher load levels than those causing yield.
4.3.2 CHBDC 2000 Simplified Method Equations
* According to CHBDC Clause 8.9.3.4.2 b) for sections with no transverse reinforcement Vc can
be calculated as:
K = <PcfcAdv >023<pcf crhvd v [k N ]

1000 + d,V /
This represents the case where 0 (the crack angle) is assumed to be 45°. An additional multiplier
C 600 ^
Kl0 0 0 + d v /
is added to account for reduced shear resistance as the depth of the section
increases
0.40 I f '
■ The value f cr for calculation purposes is taken as ' ^ c in conformity to Clause 8.4.1.8
■ The effective shear depth dv is calculated here based on the limit of 0.9d
Table 4.5:CHBDC 2000 Simplified Method Shear Strength Predictions

Material & f c [MPa] 69 69 71.7 71.7 74.6 74.6
Geometric dv[mm] 137 140 140 132 185 178
Properties bv[mm] 580 560 575 575 575 590
Size Effect 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.51
Specimen VJkN] 139 137 144 137 186 185
Resistance > Limit [kN] 61 60 63 59 85 84
w [kN/m] 242 239 164 155 172 169
q [kN/m2] 417 427 286 269 299 287
The CHBDC Simplified method does not account for the presence of axial load. Results
tabulated above indicate that CHBDC simplified method generally gives similar but slightly less
conservative predictions then does the CHBDC general method.
96
4.3.3 CHBDC 2000 Clause 7.8.8.2.1 Method Equations
According to CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.2 b) an alternative method can be used to determine the
shear resistance of box culvert slabs without shear reinforcement. This semi-empirical method
breaks the member up into two sets of equations:
FdFN
> 3 .0 Vc =Vb = 0.083b 0cd . y f f \ (1.1 +63 p )
V J cd v Fc j [kN]
— ^ - < 3 .0 +1
VJ c d Vud [kN]
Where 8 and subject to material limits fc’<45 and P = toa/ - 0 0 2

41
Fd = 0 .8 + — <1.3
■ The F factors are defined as follows: d Crack depth effect
N
F n = 1 T—_i£—> 1 .0
14bh Influence of Compression thrust
FC> 1.0 Curvature factor, always 1.0 for Boxes
* The use of these equations is conditional on four points. The loading conditions must be uniform
and reinforcement have adequate anchorage. Reinforcement design must satisfy the following
criteria:
0.9 d
A., + A.„ >
<f>sfy and
■ The use of fc’ in the 7.8.8.2.1 equations is limited to 45 MPa as specified in the code. The
presence of the compression strength limit will considerably reduce predictions. However, as the
equations of this method were derived empirically the limits will be adhered to. For the purposes
of comparison the critical section will be taken as d from the edge of the haunch. The material
factors are (f>c = 0.8 and <j>s = 0.9 respectfully. Material factors are not included in the shear
strength equations here.
97
Table 4.6: CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 Shear Strength Predictions
CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1

Internal [mm]
^critical 560 557 860 869 1064 1072
Loads L [mm] 1400 1400 1926 1926 2518 2518
Lee [mm] 2032 2032 2641 2641 3302 3302
M/V [m] 0.158 0.162 0.109 0.099 0.213 0.203
Mnu[No Axial] 22 26 20 26 41 49
Mnu[Axial] 13 21 12 16 37 45
Nu[kN] 330 245 217 288 120 144
Material & Asi [mm2] 355 710 497 1419 710 1419
Geometric fc [MPa] 45 45 45 45 45 45
Properties P 0.0040 0.0082 0.0055 0.0168 0.0060 0.0121
b [mm] 580 560 575 575 575 590
h[mm] 203 203 203 203 254 254
d [mm] 152 155 156 147 206 198
Factors Fn 1.20 1.15 1.13 1.18 1.06 1.07
Fd 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.00 1.01
Specimen Mni/Vud 1.04 1.05 0.70 0.67 1.03 1.03
Resistance Vb [kN] 71 83 77 110 97 122
(No Axial Load) Vc [kN] 139 163 181 262 192 241
but < [kN] 148 146 150 142 199 196
w[kN/m] 249 262 175 163 180 183
q [kN/m2] 429 467 304 284 314 310
Specimen MnuA/ud 0.34 0.53 0.28 0.27 0.78 0.77
Resistance Vb [kN] 85 96 87 129 103 131
(Axial Load) Vc [kN] 255 251 272 405 232 294
but < [kN] 148 146 150 142 199 196
w[kN/m] 264 262 175 163 187 183
q [kN/m2] 456 467 304 284 325 310
For all specimens d away from the support the equation for M nt/V ud<3.0 applies. It was found
however that for almost all the cases the limiting equation Vc< 0.25bd^ff’c governs. As a result the
predictions using CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 are substantially lowered particularly for the cases where axial
compression loads are included.
4.3.4 AASHTO 98 Box Culvert Equations
■ According to Clause 5.14.5.3 for slabs of culverts with 600 mm or more of fill:
Vc = 0 . 1 7 8 / / V + 3 2 --^ ^ \ wd e < Q 3 3 2 4 f rcbwd e [kN] but: ^ 0 -25V 7 \ H

K Mu ,
■ For single-cell box culverts with slabs cast monolithically with the walls the equation for Vc has
both a lower and upper bound
V
f tid e
■ In addition the term ^ u is limited to less than or equal to 1.0
98
* For specimens with axial load the optional use of the multiplier (axial factor in table below)
f 1+ 0.04—-
N)
V
v “ ' is suggested but not mandatory. For comparison this multiplier will be included
for calculations pertaining to the half box model, particularly since axial loads were higher in the
test specimens than those expected based on design loading. (Nu is positive for compression)
■ The critical shear section is taken as d from the face of the support, defined as the edge of the
haunch
Table 4.7: AASHTO Box Culvert Method Shear Strength Predictions

Internal ^critical [mm] 560 557 860 869 1064 1072
Loads L [mm] 1400 1400 1926 1926 2518 2518
Lee [mm] 2032 2032 2641 2641 3302 3302
Vd/M [mm] 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97
N [kN] 175 141 117 114 103 109
Axial Factor 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02
Material & f c [MPa] 69 69 71.7 71.7 74.6 74.6
Geometric de[mm] 152 155 156 147 206 198
Properties b[mm] 580 560 575 575 575 590
As [mm2] 355 710 497 1419 497 1419
Specimen VJkN] 141 150 151 173 197 224
Resistance > Limit [kN] 183 180 190 179 256 252
(No Axial Load) < Limit [kN] 243 239 252 238 340 335
w [kN/m] 327 324 221 199 240 235
q [kN/m2] 564 578 384 346 418 399
Specimen Vc (Axial) [kN] 148 156 156 177 202 228
> Limit [kN] 183 180 190 179 256 252
< Limit [kN] 243 239 252 238 340 335
Resistance w[kN/m] 327 324 221 204 240 235
(Axial Load) q [kN/m2] 564 578 384 355 418 399
Results obtained using the AASHTO Box Culvert Method show that the empirically derived
minimum limit of 0.332^/f cbwde governs for all cases except for specimen RY4. Since the upper bound
is only 33 percent higher than the lower bound the range of values where the AASHTO box equation is
applicable is small.
99
4.3.5 Summary of Code Predictions
The results of all the code prediction excluding material factors are shown in Table 4.8 with all
values reported in kPa. Results are reported for predictions including and excluding axial load. It should
be noted that code predictions for the prototype specimens are assumed to be the same as for the gauged
specimens, ignoring minor geometric variations in their widths.
Table 4.8: Summary of Code Predictions and Test Capacities
RY1 RY1P RY2 RY2P RY3 RY3P RY4 RY4P RY5 RY6 RY6P
P eak T est Load 606 552 735 810 351 319 655 580 427 427 441
Factored CHBDC Design Load 225 225 425 425 160 160 389 389 133 358 358
Load Causing Shear Failure NA NA 735 NA NA NA 655 580 NA 427 NA
Estim ated S h ear CHBDC G eneral 314 314 375 375 238 238 300 300 239 269 269
Failure Load CHBDC Simplifed 418 418 428 428 285 285 268 268 298 287 287
(No Axial Load) CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 430 430 467 467 304 304 284 284 314 310 310
AASHTO Box 564 564 578 578 384 384 346 346 418 399 399
Ratio of Estimated CHBDC G eneral 1.40 1.40 0.88 0.88 1.49 1.49 0.77 0.77 1.80 0.75 0.75
Failure Load to CHBDC Simplifed 1.86 1.86 1.01 1.01 1.78 1.78 0.69 0.69 2.24 0.80 0.80
Design Load CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 1.91 1.91 1.10 1.10 1.90 1.90 0.73 0.73 2.36 0.87 0.87
AASHTO Box 2.51 2.51 1.36 1.36 2.40 2.40 0.89 0.89 3.14 1.11 1.11
Estim ated S hear CHBDC General 333 333 405 405 260 260 316 316 249 289 289
Failure Load CHBDC Simplifed 418 418 428 428 285 285 268 268 298 287 287
(Axial Load) CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 455 455 467 467 304 304 284 284 325 310 310
AASHTO Box 564 564 578 578 384 384 355 355 418 399 399
Ratio of Estimated CHBDC G eneral 0.55 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.74 0.82 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.68 0.66
Failure Load to Peak CHBDC Simplifed 0.69 0.76 0.58 0.53 0.81 0.89 0.41 0.46 0.70 0.67 0.65
Load CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 0.75 0.82 0.63 0.58 0.87 0.95 0.43 0.49 0.76 0.73 0.70
AASHTO Box 0.93 1.02 0.79 0.71 1.09 1.20 0.54 0.61 0.98 0.93 0.90
Figure 4.21 plots design loads against the shear capacities of sections including the material factor
0 C=O.8 and the concrete strength limit of 45 MPa but excluding axial load. It can be seen that CHBDC
code provisions would require the designer to specify shear reinforcement for the sections RY2, RY4 and
RY6 that failed in shear during tests in this study. The CHBDC general method would also suggest that
shear could be a concern in the specimens RY1, RY3 and RY5.
The shear critical sections RY2, RY4 and RY6 are plotted against test results in Figure 4.22.
Values are calculated including axial load but without concrete strength limits (except the CHBDC Clause
7.8.8.2.1 method) and excluding the material factors. Prototype tests RY2P, RY4P and RY6P are
included for reference, however only RY4P actually failed in shear. Results indicate that the CHBDC
code predictions are very conservative. The CHBDC general and simplified method generate predicted
failure capacities around 50 percent of the actual shear failure. The CHBDC 7.8.2.2.1 method generates
even more conservative failure predictions. The AASHTO box method gives the most accurate
prediction of the shear provisions considered.
100
Figure 4.21: Code Predictions Versus Factored Design Requirements
600 -i
550 - Shear
♦ CHBDC General
500 -
Strength
A CHBDC Simplified Method
Adequate
O CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1
450 -
X AASHTO Box
400 -
a, $ RY2
c
350 - g
0 300 -
RY2
o RY6 1
73 250 - & & RY2
P RY6 8
CL 200 - RY6 a RY4
AA / RY1 t a RY4
150 - RY5 ♦ , ♦ RY6
RY4
, RY3
Shear Reinforcement
O
i
o
Required
50 -
0 -
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
CHBDC Design Loading [kPa]
Figure 4.22: Summary of Code Predictions Versus Test Results

1100 1
1000 -
♦ CH BD C G e n e r a l
900 - A CHBDC Sim plified M ethod

o CH BD C C la u s e 7 .8 .8 .2 .1
800 - X A ASHTO Box

5 0 p e r c e n t o f T e s t F a ilu re
700 - / Safe Design
0l RY6 RY6P
600 - Unsafe Design
c X X
o 500 -
RY2 Rym a RY4P RY4 O O
n
CL
400 -
300 -
. A - i
200 -
100 - Overly Conservative
0-
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Test Loading [kPa]
101
4.3.6 Analysis at Different Member Cross-sections
Code predictions specify critical shear sections based on past observation and areas where shear
stresses are highest. Due to the interaction of shear and moment in members subject to uniformly
distributed loading the critical section may occur in regions where considerable moment is present along
with the shear. This was confirmed to be the case for culvert members in past studies (Heger and
McGrath 1982) and observed in this test series where shear failure occurred in section types RY4 and
RY6 at sections about 1.5 or 2d from the edge of the haunch. Calculations are performed at locations
other than the critical shear stress section for specimens RY2, RY4 and RY6 that were determined to be
critical in shear. Specimens RY1, RY3 and RY5 are clearly not shear critical and therefore omitted.
Shear values are plotted at 0.1LSiab, 0.2LSiab, 0.3LSiab and the critical section from calculation in the
previous sections.
Results are plotted in Figures 4.20 to 4.22 and tabulated in Appendix K. Values closer to the mid
span may seem erroneous due to the fact that they increase relative to the values closer to the haunch;
however, this is due to the fact that axial loads will increase significantly at loads required to fail the
sections in shear in the test apparatus used. Both the AASHTO Box and CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 methods are
plotted ignoring limiting equations. Shear forces causing failure in the associated test specimen are
plotted for comparison.
Figure 4.23: RY2 Shear Strength Predictions Along Member Length
RY2 —• — CHBDC General

-X— AASHTO Box
300 CHBDC Simplified Method
-A— CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1
250 RY2 Test Peak Load (Shear Failure)
AASHTO Minimum
200
z
S 150
£©
(0
100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 110)
102
RY4
500
-0 — CHBDC General
-X— AASHTO Box
-A— CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1
RY4P Test Peak Load (Shear Failure)
300 AASHTO Minimum
Shear [kN]
200
100
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14CC

RY6
400 - • — CHBDC General
-X— AASHTO Box
-A— CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1
300 RY6 Test Peak Load (Shear Failure)
- - AASHTO Minimum
250
Shear [kN]
200 X-
150
100
50
0 1 r
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

103
Results indicate that both the CHBDC General and AASHTO Box methods predict the critical
section will occur at dv and d away from the edge of the haunch respectively. The critical section when
using the CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 method does not however occur at d. This would indicate that assuming the
critical section is d from the support would not be an appropriate use of the 7.8.8.2.1 equations.
Considering calculations at various sections long the length, the CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 would yield values
similar to or less conservative than the CHBDC general and simplified methods.
4.3.7 Influence of Axial Load on Code Predictions
Calculations were performed both including and excluding the axial load in the slab generated by
the tie rod. Ratios of the maximum predicted shear strength at the critical section for specimens RY1
through RY6 with and without axial load for the considered code provisions are shown in Table 4.9. The
approximate ratio of total vertical applied load P to the total axial load in the slab is included to give an
idea of the relative influence of axial load on the test specimen. Limiting equations are not included in
these tabulated numbers, this is particularly relevant to the CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 and AASHTO Box methods
where the limiting equations tend to govern. It should be noted that inclusion of axial load when
calculating shear strength is optional in the AASHTO code procedures.
Table 4.9: Influence of Axial Load on Code Predictions

Approximate Ratio P/ H 2.5 3.3 3.3 4.0 5.6 5.9
V(axial) / CHBDC General 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.05 1.04 1.08
V(no axial) CHBDC Simplifed 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 1.83 1.54 1.50 1.55 1.21 1.22
AASHTO Box 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02
The CHBDC General method and AASHTO Box method predict that the presence of axial load
will enhance the shear strength of the member by no more than 10 percent over the case where no axial
load is present. The CHBDC Simplified method ignores the influence o f axial load altogether.
By contrast, the CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 method predicts a substantial enhancement of the shear
strength due to the presence of an axial load. The expression Nu (4h-d)/8 also present in ACI code
equations causes the moment term Mnu to drop substantially. Thus for cases where M nu/vd <3.0, which is
virtually always the case for sections near the critical section, the shear strength prediction is enhanced
significantly. Comparing the results to the tests that failed in shear (Figures 4.20-4.22) it can be seen that
without the simple upper bound 0.25bdy[f’c CHBDC provision 7.8.8.2.1 would yield un-conservative
predictions for specimens with considerable axial load. The potential danger of using the expression Nu
(4h-d)/8 particularly in the absence of a minimum limit on Mm has been identified in previous studies
(Collins and Gupta 2001).
104
4.3.8 Brief Discussion of Areas of Uncertainty in Code Predictions
This study has shown that sectional methods for predicting the shear capacity of commercially
available precast box culvert sections are conservative. A brief discussion of potential sources of error in
these models is provided.
Studies have shown that the shear capacity o f a reinforced concrete member is subject to a size
effect depending on the depth of the section. Shear critical sections tested in this study are plotted with a
much larger box culvert section tested at the University of Toronto Structural Laboratories for the
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) in Figure 4.26. The TTC box was not subject to any appreciable
axial load, however a clear size effect is evident. The CHBDC General method was found to give an
accurate prediction of the failure load of the TTC Box (Kuzmanovic 1998). Notice however that the
empirical AASHTO minimum limit gave a highly un-conservative prediction o f strength for the TTC
Box. It is possible that size effect plays a role in rendering conventional sectional methods overly
conservative even for methods where size effect is considered in some form.
Figure 4.26: Size Effect
0.600
RY4
0.500
RY4 A
Inner Cage
RY4P X Outer Cage
0.400 - RY2
RY2P (Stopped prior to shear)
AASHTO Upper Bound
-£___ 0.300 RY2 RY6P (Stopped prior to shear)
RY6 AASHTO Lower Bound
0.200 -
TTC Box
RY6
♦
0.100
TTC BOX CULVERT
0.000
100 200 300 400 500 600
d [mm]
105
A related issue is that of the concrete cracking strength. The concrete cracking strength is often
taken as 0 .3 3 \f’c and in the case of the CHBDC code it is set at 0.4\jf’c. From the test data an
approximate flexural cracking strength ocr can be determined from the known mid-span moment at the
point of first cracking M cr. With the assumption that the section is just concrete the second moment of
inertia of the section Ig-b h 3/12. Thus the cracking strength can be calculated as (jcr=Mcry/Ig where y is
half the member depth. Results tabulated in Table 4.10 show that the cracking strength coefficient for
these specimens was more in the order o f 0.55 to 0.6. An increase in cracking strength from 0.4\^’c to
0 .6 4 ’c would increase the CHBDC General method predictions by a factor of 1.5. Cracking strength
coefficients may vary depending on the nature of the calculation performed, however it can be seen that
concrete cracking strength has a profound influence on the potential results. The bond characteristics of
the mesh reinforcement may also play a role when considering the sectional behaviour of the culvert
cross-section.
Table 4.10: Concrete Cracking Stress

y [mm] 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 127.0 127.0
Ig[Ixl06mm4] 404.3 390.4 400.8 400.8 785.2 805.7
Mcr [kN.m] 18.0 19.0 18.5 23.1 28.5 31.7
[MPa]
<7cr 4.52 4.94 4.69 5.85 4.61 5.00
crcr /yfc 0.54 0.59 0.55 0.69 0.53 0.58
The load path o f forces also has a substantial influence on the shear capacity of the section.
CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.2 specifically states that sections within 2d of the haunch should be subject to a
strut-and-tie analysis. This would require sections to be checked both using strut-and-tie methods and the
CHBDC General method. It is somewhat unconventional to mix strut-and-tie methods with sectional
methods in one monolithic span. This is particularly the case for members where the span-to-depth aspect
ratio is such that the CHBDC general method would normally apply within 2d o f the face in other
applications. In Figure 4.27 the tested specimens are shown to scale with the dv critical section and 2d
limit. When considering the load path o f the applied load it would be reasonable to assume that all the
load on the haunch side o f the break would flow directly into the culvert wall. Thus, the actual load
acting on the critical section dv could be somewhat less than anticipated.
106
Shear in Box Culverts Discussion nf Experimental Results
Figure 4.27: Specimens Considering load Path of Forces
■ .'‘4
n 2d r 2d
i
!
-.1 dv |
i
j
r ln
2d
4
iix -j
■a ■■ a
I
’ fV
■ ■'
a
ttttttftt tttti tttttttfT tttffffrt

1800x900x200 2400x1500x200 3000x2400x250
107
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
A summary o f conclusions obtained from the study regarding the performance o f the
culverts, relevant shear code predictions and the test apparatus developed is provided.
Recommendations based on the conclusions are given
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Culvert Performance
Monolithic precast concrete box culverts are well balanced and particularly resilient structures.
Their reinforcement design is predominantly governed by flexural requirements and practical
manufacturing considerations. An experimental program was developed to determine the shear capacities
of a range o f member commercially available culvert sizes due to concerns posed by industry regarding
the design code provisions in the CHBDC design code and uncertainty if the inclusion of shear
reinforcement has appreciable influence on member shear capacity. Tests were conducted on six concrete
box culverts with duplicate specimens of each type. Specimens RY1, RY3 and RY5 were designed in
accordance with OPSS 1821 specifications for the deepest earth cover tabulated requiring reinforcement
ratios in the order of 0.5 percent. Specimens RY2, RY4 and RY6 were reinforced for non-standard large
earth cover applications requiring reinforcement ratios approximately double those required for the most
severe case in OPSS 1821 specifications. Earth loads were simulated by applying a uniformly distributed
load on a half section o f each box with the stiffness o f the missing upper-half simulated by a tie system
connecting the two culvert walls.
Test specimens were subjected to loads well in excess o f their specified design loads. The loads
subjected to the specimens ranged from 1.2 times the factored CHBDC design load for specimen RY6 to
2.7 times the factored design load for specimen RY1. Specimens were able to sustain loads in excess of
those causing flexural yield in the slab at mid-span due to plastic redistribution of forces. Specimens
RY1, RY3 and RY5 conforming to standard OPSS 1821 dimensions exhibited predominantly flexural
behaviour, with no sign o f shear failure occurring at loads well beyond flexural yield o f the slab at mid
span. Specimen slabs visually exhibited very large curvatures and cracks in excess of several mm in
width. Specimen RY1P, the only specimen tested where flexural rupture of some mesh rods was
detected, sustained a mid-span crack width in excess of 4 mm prior to rupture. Specimens RY2, RY4 and
RY6 designed for deep earth loading with higher reinforcement ratios failed in shear; however the failure
108
Shear hi Box Culverts Conclusions and Recommendations
load were again well beyond specified design loads. Failure was sudden occurring closer to the haunch
for specimen RY2 but further out at approximately 2d from the edge o f the haunch for specimens RY4
and RY6. The mid-span flexural tension reinforcement in all specimens yielded prior to shear failure in
the slab adjacent to the haunch.
The specimen behaviour agreed well with non-linear analysis results obtained from the frame
program VecTor5. Results indicate that the point of inflection between the regions of positive and
negative moment in the slab shifts inwards towards the mid-span at higher loads. As an elastic analysis
has a stationary inflection point it was found that an elastic analysis generates higher moments in the
sections of high shear stress than would be expected in the actual structure. This would suggest that the
use of elastic methods in design is slightly conservative.
Based on the results there is significant evidence that shear reinforcement would not have
significant influence on the ultimate capacity o f members designed in accordance with OPSS 1821
specifications. Inclusion of shear reinforcement may have some influence on making over-reinforced
sections for large earth cover applications more robust; however the tested sections met the requirements
of the CHBDC design load without the presence of shear reinforcement. Some uncertainty remains as to
the precise load causing shear failure under ideal worst-case conditions due to the presence of an axial
load as a result of the test set-up conditions. Axial loads in the slab were several times those anticipated
by design specifications. Most code predictions anticipate that the presence of these additional axial loads
would enhance the shear capacity of the sections by 10 percent or less, with the exception of the method
presented in CHBDC 7.8.8.2.1 which is discussed in section 5.1.2 below. The actual influence of the
axial load may however be more significant than code predictions suggest. Regardless of the presence of
axial load the margin by which test failure loads exceeded design requirements was convincing.
5.1.2 Code Shear Predictions
Several sectional code calculations were used to evaluate the shear strength of the specimens.
Three sectional design approaches from the CHBDC design code were considered including the general
and simplified methods described in section 8.9.3 of the code, as well as a semi-empirical method from
Clause 7.8.8.2.1 commonly used in practice. The CHBDC gives the designer the choice to use any of
these methods, however it limits the use of the general and simplified methods to sections 2d and beyond
from the edge of the haunch. For sections closer than 2d from the haunch strut-and-tie methods are
specified. For comparison equations from the AASHTO code specifically formulated for box culvert
design were also checked.
109
Shear in Box Culverts Conclusions and Recommendations
Results indicate that all the CHBDC sectional models as well as the AASHTO formulations gave
similar results that underestimated the shear strength of the culvert sections by a considerable margin. In
some cases the predictions were as low as 50 percent of the test failure load. The implication of this
conservatism is that all CHBDC methods would require that specimens RY2, RY4 and RY6 include shear
reinforcement in their designs. Under certain loading conditions when material factors and the concrete
design limit assumption of 45 MPa are applied, the CHBDC general method would also suggest the need
for shear reinforcement in the OPSS 1821 sections RY1 and possibly RY3. The AASHTO box culvert
equation gave the least conservative prediction of the code provisions checked. However, the AASHTO
equation as well as the CHBDC Method from 7.8.8.2.1 are governed by limits on the equations, not by
the equations themselves. The AASHTO code allows shear strength to not be taken less than 0 .2 5 \ff’cbd
for monolithic culvert constructions. This limit was derived experimentally from tests on similar sized
culverts, so it was expected that it would yield reasonable results. Care must be taken however to
recognize the limitations o f this equation. Tests on larger depth members show that the AASHTO
minimum limit can be dangerous for application to specimens with larger section depths due to the size
effect in shear. Also, given that the upper bound limiting equation has a coefficient of 0.332 versus the
lower bound 0.25, the actual AASHTO box equation is essentially robbed o f significance. Curiously the
lower limit for AASHTO is the same as the upper limit for the CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1. This would
imply that the CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 method is limited by an overly-conservative expression that
should be replaced. Concrete compression strengths in the specimens were found to be around 60 MPa
at 28-days and around 70 MPa during testing. As a result the 45 MPa limit used in the CHBDC Clause
7.8.8.2.1 method is overly conservative unless specifically imposed due to concern with loading of
specimens that have not been sufficiently cured. Additionally, the adoption of the expression
to account for axial load has a significant influence on shear strength predictions,
increasing predictions by on average 1.5 times in this experimental program, in contrast to the less than
10 percent predicted by the other methods. This can lead to un-conservative predictions of shear strength
if axial loads are significant and the equations of Clause 7.8.8.2.1 are used.
All methods with the exception o f the CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 method predict the critical shear
section to be at d or dv away from the edge of the haunch. The CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1 method predicts
the critical section to be further out where some interaction of moment and shear occurs. This is
consistent with both the conclusions developed by Heger when developing the method and with the
experimental observations obtained in this study.
The CHBDC General and Simplified methods were clearly found to be overly-conservative for
the specimens tested. Tests on a monolithically cast box tested for the TTC showed that for larger
110
Shear In Box Culverts Conclusions and Kecommendations
members the CHBDC General method gives an excellent prediction. Clearly the shear strength of
concrete sections without shear reinforcement is influenced by a size effect, however it is unclear if the
sectional methods employed adequately reflect any increases in anticipated shear strength based on the
shallow cross-section o f the culvert specimens tested. A simple calculation based on observed loading
causing cracking at mid-span o f the slab suggest that the flexural cracking strength of the concrete was
approximately 0 .5 5 ^ 'c, 1.4 times the 0.4^jj’c cracking strength given in the CHBDC code. This
discrepancy is significant as the concrete cracking strength has a profound influence on the shear strength
of sections without transverse shear reinforcement. The superior bond characteristics of the mesh relative
to conventional deformed bars may also enhance the strength of the sections. Additionally, more careful
consideration of the load paths of the forces could identify sources o f code provision conservatism.
5.1.3 Test Apparatus
The test program developed was adequate for the purposes of testing the shear capacity of a range
of standard box culvert sizes within the range of expected loads. Half culvert sections were tested with
the walls joined by a tie system to simulate the stiffness that would be provided by the top half of the box.
The result was a simple statically determinate system. The problem o f picking a suitable tie rod material
for the physical constraints o f these specimens came down to the need to find a material that could both
behave linearly under large tensile stresses and provide significant deformation in the process. The only
readily available material for use as a tie that adequately met the physical requirements was prestressing
strand. The deformation of the specimen was higher than anticipated as the draw-in chucks used to secure
the strand ends allowed considerable slippage. This did not have appreciable influence on the desired
moment distribution in the slab.
The robust nature of the specimens coupled with physical and practical limitations on the tie
system resulted in an erosion of the intended factor of safety of the test system. While the test apparatus
was adequate for the purposes of this investigation the loads were sometimes uncomfortably close to the
physical limits of the system. More often however, the limiting factor in the system was deformation of
the specimen. Large horizontal deformations of the culvert walls and curvatures in the slab were
observed particularly in those specimens critical in flexure. When shear failures occurred the results were
sudden and violent causing occasional damage to the vertical hydraulic jacks. It would be expected that
in a similar test program a number of jacks would be damaged during the test program.
Ill
Shear in Box Culverts Conclusions and Recommendations
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Culvert Performance
This study represents a preliminary investigation. There is however, substantial evidence

included here to suggest that shear reinforcement would be of negligible influence in the design of most
culvert sections conforming to OPSS 1821 specifications even under deep earth loads. Results also
indicate that shear reinforcement for deeper earth cover applications may not be required to satisfy the
CHBDC design loads, however it is recommended that further testing confirm any such conclusion.
Further analytical study is particularly recommended due to the uncertainty posed by the significant axial
load. Acting on this evidence however is also contingent on the level of comfort designers and regulatory
bodies have with specified load conditions. Caution is particularly warranted since underground in situ
load conditions are notorious difficult to predict. Additionally, sections in practice may be transported to
the site and loaded prior to achieving adequate concrete strength and therefore specified designs may need
to be considerably conservative to accommodate early loading. Failures of box culvert sections in the
field are rare to non-existing and ultimately it is the mandate of codes to keep it that way.
This study is concerned with examining the behaviour of OPSS 1821 precast concrete culverts
without shear reinforcement under large earth cover conditions. As an addition to the case of large earth
covers, the case of single point loading associated with sections with less than 2 feet of cover should be
considered. Sections with less than 2 feet o f cover constitute a large segment of practical applications of
culverts, and single concentrated loading represents a critical load condition not addressed in this study.
The natural extension of the study contained in this document is an examination of the influence
of shear reinforcement on culvert shear capacity. Evidence has been presented to suggest when shear
reinforcement is required, however it is still uncertain how effective shear reinforcement would be were it
to be included. This is particularly true for the standard industry practice where shear mats are installed
such that the mat loops are not locked to both the tension and compression zone. There are two
associated questions to be addressed. First, what contribution does conventionally employed shear
reinforcement make to the shear strength of culvert sections? Second, would conventional culvert designs
benefit from inclusion of shear reinforcement given anticipated load conditions? Since yielding o f the
flexural tension reinforcement prior to shear failure was a characteristic o f all the specimens tested in this
study it is likely that any benefit from shear reinforcement would be redundant as flexural cracking
concerns would always be the governing design criteria.
112
Shear hi Box Culverts Conclusions and Recommendations
5.2.2 Code Shear Predictions
CHBDC and AASHTO shear design methodologies are adequate in that they will produce safe
designs. However, the sectional methods used to predict the adequacy o f the culverts in shear were found
to be exceedingly conservative. The margin is such that a re-examination of how sectional design
methodology is applied to culvert design is justifiable. O f more fundamental interest to researchers is the
question of why sectional models that perform well in other scenarios are so conservative when applied to
culverts? Several issues such as the influence of size effect, concrete cracking stress and consideration of
load paths were mentioned as contributing factors, however a more in-depth investigation would be
warranted. The conclusions presented in the previous section should be considered as a basis for
clarifications or changes in the CHBDC design codes particularly for the case of CHBDC method
7.8.8.2.1 where material and equation limits hamper the effectiveness of the equations.
The data collected in this test program is also of interest to those looking at the influence of axial
load on the shear capacity o f sections. The results included here would additionally benefit from a more
comprehensive analytical study o f the influence o f axial load on the shear strength of the specimens.
5.2.3 Test Apparatus
While the test apparatus used in this experiment was adequate to achieve loadings well beyond
CHBDC design loads, the anticipated factor of safety was eroded by the robust nature of the sections as
well as material and geometry restraints imposed on the tie rod system. It is therefore recommended that
any future test apparatus design with a half box configuration employ a hydraulic solution rather than
relying on a passive horizontal restraint. The horizontal hydraulic system could be coupled to the vertical
system at a fixed ratio requiring only one operator or kept independent and manually increased by a
second operator.
Additionally, future culvert experiments must weigh the benefits o f the simple determinate set-up
employed in this study with the resulting axial compression force in the member. While mechanical
limits of the test system must be satisfied it should be recognized that the large deformations of the box
poses the most challenging limit on the capacity of the system, particularly in specimens where significant
flexural behaviour is anticipated.
It has been demonstrated that moment distributions in the culvert slabs can be quite accurately
modeled using non-linear analysis techniques and that the point of inflection in the slab is relatively close
to the edge of the haunch slab. This would lend confidence to future studies employing a full box set-up
where member internal forces are more difficult to verify.
113
References
Publications
Bealey, M., Boring, M.R. & Heger, F.J. Test Program fo r Evaluating Design
Methods and Standard Designs fo r Precast Concrete Box Culverts with Welded Wire Fabric
Reinforcement. Transportation Research Record. 1974, n. 518, pp.49-63
Collins, Michael P. and Kuchma, Daniel. How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings? ACI Structural Journal. July-August 1999, Vol. 96,
pp.482-490
Collins, Micheal P. and Gupta, Pawan R. Evaluation o f Shear Design Procedures fo r Reinforced
Concrete Members Under Axial Compression. ACI Structural Journal. July-August 2001, Vol.
98, pp.537-547
Diaz De Cossio, R. and Siess, C.P. 1960. Behaviour and Strength in Shear o f Beams and
Frames Without Web Reinforcement. Journal of the American Concrete Institute. 1960, Vol. 31,
pp.695-735
Grahlman, D. H. Testing o f Box Culverts Faxed Memorandum. Report o f GAMSBY and

MANNEROW Limited Consulting Professional Engineers. February 2001, 8pp.
Frederick, G.R. and Tarhini, K.M. Model Analysis o f Box Culverts Subjected to
Highway Loading. Experimental Mechanics. 1989, Vol. 29, pp.183-187
Heger, F.J. and McGrath, T.J. Shear Strength o f Pipe, Box Sections, and Other
One-Way Flexural Memebers. ACI Journal. November 1982, Vol. 79, pp.470-483
Kuzmanovic, Sasha. 1998. An Investigation o f the Shear Design o f a Reinforced Concrete Box
Structure. M.A.Sc Thesis. University of Toronto, 1998, 126pp.
Codes and Standards

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary Second ed
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, 1998,1994,
1091pp.
ASTM C1433M. 2001. Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections fo r Culverts, Storm
Drains, and Sewers [Metric], ASTM Standards. West Conshocken, 2001,pp.938-953
CSA Committee A23. Design o f Concrete Structure: Structures (design). Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Dec. 1994, 199pp.
CHBDC. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standards Association. Toronto,
2000, 724pp.
114
CHBDC. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Commentary. Canadian Standards
Association. Toronto, 2000, 567pp.
OHBDC. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, 3rd ed. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and
Communications, Toronto 1991, 370pp.
OPSS 1821. Material Specifications fo r Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts and Box
Sewers. Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications, May 1993, 14pp.
Industry Contacts
Campbell, Kent
R. R. #2 Cambridge, Ont Canada n lR 5S3
(519) 622-7574 or 1 (888) 888-3222
Fax (519) 621-8233
kcampbell@hansonpipe.ca
Clarke, Brian. Manager of Engineering. Con Cast Pipe

299 Brock Rd. S., R.R.#3 Guleph, Ont. N1H 6H9
(519) 763-8655 or 1-800-668-7473
Fax: (519) 763-1956
bclarke@concastpipe.com
Coffin, Dean. Quality Control Manager. Con Cast Pipe Ltd.

1-800-668-7473 Ext. 232
Fax (519) 763-1956
dcoffin@CONCASTPIPE.com
Kirby, Scott. Hanson Pipe & Products Canada Inc.

R. R. #2 Cambridge, Ont Canada n lR 5S3
(519) 622-7574 or 1 (888) 888-3222
Fax (519) 621-8233
skirbv@cenpipe.com
Recchia, Mario. Munro Concrete Products Ltd.

RR2, Barrie, ON L4M 4S4
(705) 734-2892 Ext 244
(800) 461-5632
Fax (705) 734-9373
mrecchia@munroconcrete.com
Smeltzer, Paul D. Executive Director. Ontario Concrete Pipe Association (OCPA).

5054 South Service Road First Floor, Burlington, Ont. L7L 5Y7.
(905)631-9696
Fax (905) 631-1905 1-800-435-0116
Paul.smeltzer@,ocpa. com
www.ocpa.com
115
Appendices Commentary
Appendices A through F:
• Crack diagrams are included for all load stages and both sides of the tested specimens. East face
diagrams are presented with the accompanying Zurich data measurements displayed in mm.
West face and prototype specimen crack diagrams are presented in a condensed graphic
• Culvert walls are truncated for the purpose of condensing graphics unless cracks are present in
the walls
• In cases where there are less width values shown then cracks, unlabeled cracks can be assumed to
have the same crack width as those adjacent to them. Crack widths were measured approximately
at the level of the top line of Zurich surface targets. This also roughly corresponds to the location
of the flexural tension reinforcement
• Shown load stage force and displacement values correspond to the peak load the member was
subjected to prior to the load stage reading. Actual values recorded both at the peak of each load
stage and at the “reading” load at which time crack measurements and Zurich readings were taken
can be found in Appendix G
• System hydraulic losses are calculated as the difference between The System Pressure Load and
the Total Measured Load where:
Total Measured Load - Sum o f the Vertical Load Cell Readings

System Pressure Load = (# Jacks) (System Pressure) (Area o f Jack Plunger)-(Specimen Self-Weight)
Area o f Jack Plunger = 2.236 square inches as specified by the manufacturer
116
RY4 System Loss Graph
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
&
600
§O
LL. 500
System Pressure Load
400
Total Measured Load
300
200
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
CL D isplacem ent [mm]
Appendix G:
• Total Load recorded in force per unit length [KN/m] is calculated based on load intensity as
described in Chapter 4 section 4.1.2
• Vertical LVDT data readings represent total measured displacements. Specimen deformations
are obtained by taking the measured Vertical LVDT reading and subtracting the end vertical data
reading and measured reaction beam deformation from this base value. Tabulated Vertical LVDT
data represents the average value obtained from the East and West LVDT values. Descriptions of
the variability in measured displacements appear in the test observation summaries of Appendices
A through F.
117
Appendix A:
RY1 & RY1P Test Observations
Specimen RY1
£ £
2 2
fc’= 69.0 MPa h= 203 mm
fy= 590 MPa b= 580 mm
fu= 640 MPa d= 152 mm H H r r +
O o
16 Jacks o
10 in
to
Ptension- 0 .4 0 %
L
Pcomp 0 .4 0 %
rr
RY1 Cast Date: August 13 2002 2,235 580
Test Date: March 12 2003 Side Elevation Wall Elevation
Test Duration: 189 minutes All D im ensions in mm
RY1 Summary of Test Observations

Load Observation Comments P H
Stage fkNl \m ]
LS 1 Specimen loaded until first flexural cracking observed 84 8
LS 2 Flexural cracks continue to form reaching past mid-depth of the slab section 200 44
LS 3 Flexural cracks continue to form; Existing cracks widening 300 83
LS 4 Formation of odd diagonal crack at location of strain-gauge wire housing; First 400 121
crack propogation along longitudinal compression reinforcement line
LS 5 First flexural crack width in excess of 1 mm 450 142
LS 6 No new flexural cracks forming; Existing cracks continue to widen 500 164
LS 7 Significant crack propagation along longitudinal compression reinforcement line 551 188
LS 8 Largest flexural crack now in excess of 2 mm 600 211
LS 9 Specimen deformation now very large; Specimen crack widths continue to widen 650 234
LS 10: No flexural rupture oberved yet; Specimen crack width growth mainly occuring in 700 258
two symmetric cracks on either side of mid-span approximately 1/6 of the haunch-
to-haunch slab span length away from mid-span
Failure Test was stopped due to excessive deformation of the specimen; Crack growth was 700 258
not as concentrated in one location as observed in RY1P, making flexural rupture
less likely at this load
RY1 Sum m ary of Apparatus Performance

Horizontal Load Cell Readings Load cell response is linear; Excellent agreement with expected force
values
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Some minor initial variation in readings; Standard deviation
eventually represents approximately 2.4 percent of average measured
load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south reading variations; Small 2 mm tilt of
specimen towards the west during loading
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Horizontal tie displacement linear; Apparent slip of the tie represents
Reading approximately 40 percent of horizontal displacement
System Pressure 10 percent apparent hydraulic system friction loss
118
Shear hi Box Culverts Appendix A: RY1C RY1P Test Observations
RY1 East Face
Scale 1:12
CM z E
>■ o E
o' O ' o CD
CM
z
LU LU
I0 CD
CO
CD
CD T 3
CO CO
•*-* o
o CO o
CO _J
LU "O LU u
CO To CO
CL CO Q. 0 .
CL
CO
CO o o o
b CO h - Q
119
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix A: RYIC RY1P Tost Observations
RY1 East Face
Scale 1:12
00
o
to
T“ 00 z c.
c
o
o E O
O' o O CO
00 d LO
o
z
LU
ii)
O) i j O) T3 *00
o
CD CD
o CO _JO o
LUT3 TOQ. Q.
CL CD O CO
O
CO _J H Q
120
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix A: KYI S RYff Test Observations
RY1 East Face
Scale 1:12
9 9
CM
«o
CD
CO
CD
O T“ CO 2 E
o O) o E
LO o: o CD
CD to CO
O ▼-
Z
LU
CD T3
03 T3 03 CO
o C+C-»
O o
/3
T3 LU T3
Ql CO "co CO
Q. Q.
o o
CO _J h- Q
121
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix A: RY1C RYB* Test Observations
CM
T”
a>
CD
O
CO
z E T - CO z E
JXZ. E .id
>■ > E
o CO
£ in O ' o
io in CO r-2
oo
t- o
Z z
LU LU
I CD
o> -a
TO os
CD
03 -a
CD CD
o
xo •
O CO o -t—
*
O CO _OJ o
LU "O LU
T3 "(5 Q .
Ql 03 ■ 40—
3* CL C L CD
O o (0 o yj
CO H b CO _OJ h - Q
122
Slwar In Box Culverts Appendix A: BY1 &BY1P Test Observations
RY1 East Face
Scale 1:12
Y"“ 05 z E T~o z E
^—
O E )> - o E
a : LO
CD 05
QC o CM
■'“ CM
z Z
LU LU
0) 05
2 05 ■b" o
£0 2 05 -b
CD CD CD CD
O O O O O
CO _J CO
LU T"t
w LU "O •B
I d Q. 15 CL
CL CD
o
C/5 CL CD
o C/5
CO O h- Q CO _OJ h- Q
9 9
9 e
9 9
123
Shear in Box Calverts 144
A: RY1C RY1P Tost Observations
RY1 West Face
a . a l e a • • a
* •
LS 1 (o.1
a * s s • ® ® • • . a
LS 2 0-3 0.2 0.2 0.3
LS 3 0.2 ( 0 .4 5 0 .2 5 0 .3 5 0 .4 5 ( 0 .2 5
T
LS 4 ,0 .2 0 .4 5 0 .2 5 0 .4 5 0 .6 0 .2 5
LS 5
a *
LS 6 .0 .2 5 ( 1 .4 0 .5 0 .5 1 .0 0 .3
® 9 e e
LS 7 0 -2 5 \ 1 .8 0 .7 0 .5 1 -2 0 .3
• . 9 a a \ ® a 9
I ( *
LS 8 \ 0 .3 [ 2 .0 0 .9 0 .9 1.8 (o .3
s ® *
9 e a 5 - " -"L e # 9
LS 9 0 -3 \ 2 .5 1 .0 1 .0 2 .0 0 .3
LS 10 0 .3 2 .5 1.0 1.0 2 .0 0 .3
Scale 1:15
124
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix A: RY1C RY1P Test Observations
Specimen RY1P
fc’= 69.0 MPa fa= 203 mm

fy = 590 MPa fa 585 mm 'f M
640 MPa d- 152 mm + +
f»=
0.40 % 16 J a c k s
P tension-
Pcomp- 0.40 %
RY1P Cast Date: August 13 2002

tm m tm ttm 2 ,2 3 5 585
Test Date: March 11 2003 S ide Elevation Wall Elevation

Test Duration: 78 minutes All Dimensions in mm
RY1P Summary of Test Observations

Stage fkNl fkNl
I.S 1 Specimen loaded until first flexural cracking observed 87 4
LS 2 Flexural cracks continue to form reaching past mid-depth of the slab section 200 42
LS 3 Flexural cracks widen; First evidence of longitudinal cracking along line of 300 77
compression reinforcement
LS 4: Crack nearest mid-span in excess of 1 mm in width 400 118
LS 5: Significant longitudinal propogation of cracks along compression reinforcement 500 162
line; Centerline crack is 2.5 mm in width
LS 6: Centerline flexural crack now 4.0 mm, most crack growth is now concentrated at 600 216
this single location
Failure Flexural rupture o f primary longitudinal reinforcement at location of large center 643 251
crack; Significant longitudinal cracking at level of compression reinforcement
observed
RY1P Summary of Apparatus Performance

values
load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south reading variations; Noticeable 4 mm tilt of
125
Shea1in Box Culverts Appendx A: RY1 £ RY1P Test Observations
RY1P East Face
. a © © e * * j a ® a « •
LS 1 0.15 (
a e a a a a a a a
0.4 0.4 0.15

0.25
LS 2
LS 3
0.4 f 0.8 • 12 *Y 0.5 ' / 0.25
LS 4
LS 5
0.5 / f) 1-0 " 4:0 1 0.5 * / 0.35

LS 6
0.6 « »
LS 7
Scale 1:15
126
Slnar In Box Culverts Appendix A: BY1C RYIP Test Observations
RY1P West Face
e e e
1 e a a
^ 0 .1 5
LS 1
e « • • a 9 a
LS 2
LS 3
e •
i .. • r ..•. i* •| 9
1 .4
0 .2 5 \0 .5
LS 4 / 0 .8 I 0 .4
e 9 e . \ • \ • 0 .1 e e 9 •
2 .5
0 .3 \ \0 .6 / 0 .8 [ 0 4
LS 5 0.1
a a
LS 6
1O.6 4 .0
0.8
LS 7 0 .3
0.1 0.1
0 .4
Scale 1:15
127
Appendix B:
P JP
Specimen RY2 2 2
fc’= 69.0 MPa h= 203 mm

fy= 555 MPa b= 560 mm + +
fu= 600 MPa d= 155 mm I ^ ______ 16 Ja c k s / J
ptcnsum 0.82 %
Pcomp= 0 .9 8 %
IT
2 ,2 3 5 560
RY2 Cast Date: August 13 2002 Side Elevation Wall Elevation
Test Date: March 21 2003 All Dimensions in mm
Test Duration: 136 minutes

Stage fkNl fkNl
LS 1: Specimen loaded until first flexural cracking observed 89 8
LS 2: Flexural cracks continue to form reaching mid-depth of the slab section 200 36
LS 3: Intermediate flexural cracks widen; No new cracks present 300 62
LS 4: Additional intermediate flexural cracks form; Some cracks forming along line of 400 90
tension reinforcement
LS 5: Flexural cracks nearest to haunch in slab starting to propogate diagonally 500 118
LS 6: Flexural cracks continue to widen particularly near center span; Diagonal crack 600 153
propogation becoming pronounced in north half of slab
LS 7: Significant diagonal shear cracking evident in north half of slab, failure appears 701 193
imminent
Failure Rapid shear failure observed on north half o f specimen; Shear failure plane at 820 241
approximately 45 degrees aligned directly with haunch

values
eventually represents approximately 4.4 percent o f average measured
load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south reading variations; Noticeable 3 mm tilt of
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Horizontal tie displacement linear; Apparent slip o f the tie represents
128
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: BY2 C BY2P Test Observations
RY2 East Face
Scale 1:12
10
©
-o -
o
Io
Ib
o
'1
o'
9
i
o \l
-s-
b
go
'gq o
s - o'
-O
9 CM
o
o
o 9
s. O'
-q-
d
§
9
05 o
d'
o
-© -
o
^r- s°
£ 9 O
£ 9-
o
o LO
CM
B ©
o
.q .
oo 00 o o' 05
o B
o
CO
•g o CM
o
9 ds o
*©----
o'
o
o
co
•o q
o
o> g O' CT> T3
Oy
-O-----
o
"O Q. T5 Q.
o
-o-
b
<D
o b
g
o
05 o ' ra>\
o
-p -
d
„
v2 d
s
o
8. o'
-o-
d
/ Ng d5
-A
d
129
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: BY2 £ RY2P Test Observations
RY2 East Face
■M
O
CM
O
O o
co
O o
m
CO
o
O O
o o o CM
CO CD CO o
M's «-St
o
O) X 3 us
in m
CM
o
T3 CL T3
130
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: RY2 C RY2P Test Observations
RY2 East Face
Scale 1:12
CM in 2 £ CM CD z £
>“ £ >- j*: E
o o cq
0' o a: o
m d CD CO
'f V—
zLU z
LU
hi
2 O) ■a S OCD) ■fcj
o GiS Co
D
O CO O
CD
O
LU "D LU -a
CL CD
"to a . CL CD
15 QCO.
O o CO o o
CO b- Q CO _ i b- Q
131
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: RYZ C RY2P Test Observations
RY2 East Face
Scale 1:12
CM h- zJ*: E
E
q: o h- u_ o
CM
h- cd 00
T-
z
LU
'6T3O
2 o> O) ~o
TO C
o
O _J
LU ~u To "O
CL COo Q.C
O Q.
o
CO h- Q
132
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: RY2 C RY2P Test Observations
RY2 W est Face
a 9 © 9 \ 9 a 9
] 0.05
LS 1
a 9 a e 8 8 9 9 9 •
LS 2 0.1 0.05
• 9
• 0.3 * r a 9 • 8
0.15 0.4 ^ \0.15
LS 3
’
0.15 0.1
9 9 9 9 a a a a
0.2 ) e a 9
•
a
• L a
■ r 0.25 | 0.05 0.45j| * °-3| ‘ | \*0.2

0.3 0.1
LS 4 0.15\ '
' i 0.25)a / a
• « a « a a a a • a
\ 0.4 / ’ 0 . 1
a a a a
't U -
’ "
0.3 ^ 0.35
LS 5 0 .1 5 \
a a a a a a • a » » a a
* *
a • a / a '
IjO
LS 6 0.15\
a a e a a 9
—
w
a
1
1 e
'
\ !• a a a a
0.4 0.25
LO
LS 7 0.25 0.35 0.35

o
CO
. y a a a a
LS 8
Scale 1:15
133
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix B: BY2 £ BY2P Test Observations
Specimen RY2P
_p JL
2 2
fc’= 69.0 MPa h= 203 mm
fy = 555 MPa b= 555 mm
f» = 600 MPa d= 155 mm +
Ptension 0.83 % 16 J a c k s
Pcomp- 0.99%
IT
RY2P Cast Date: August 13 2002 2,235 555
Test Date: March 18 2003 Side Elevation Wall Elevation
RY2P Sum m ary of Test Observations

Stage |kNJ fkNl
LS 2 Flexural cracks continue to form at a crack spacing of roughly d (155 mm); 299 64
LS 3 Intermediate flexural cracks forming; Existing flexural cracks continue to widen; 500 123
Some evidence of diagonal shear cracking in slab on east face
LS 4: Some evidence o f flexural cracks traveling horizontally along line of compression 600 159
reinforcement
LS 5: Cracks near center span now in excess of 1 mm; Some splitting along tension 700 199
reinforcement observed
LS 6: Some evidence o f concrete crushing along cracks; Diagonal shear cracking 801 242
observed but no crack path suggesting imminent failure
LS 7: Diagonal cracks continue to grow, however slab deformation is very significant 896 284
with multiple cracks in excess of 1 mm in width
Failure Test halted due to high stress in the tie-rod and large specimen deformations 896 284
RY2P Sum m ary of Apparatus Performance

values
load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south reading variations; Small tilt of specimen
towards the west during loading
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Horizontal tie displacement linear; Apparent slip o f the tie represents
134
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix B: RY2 C RY2P Test Observations
RY2P E ast Face
e * « » 9 ( » e I« e e » © ©
0.1 I 0.1 I
LS 1
* © • e e « e • ©
'0 .3 0
" 0.3 5 ) ° '25
LS 2
* « 0.15 0 .1 . 0.25
9 e 9 0 • I \ e i ® e I 8 \ • /
a j © ©
J
/ I
LS 3 0.25
/
' 0 .251
I
I
I ° ‘5
/ I 0.05 /
J
/ 0.15
■ * e • • • 0.45 • « 0.6 0.4® 0*5 • s 8
LS 4
0.30« 0 .5 " 0 5 " 0»9 0 .6 . 0.05 ,0 .4
" 1.2 • 1.0 V - M 0 .1 5 0 .4 1 0 .2 5 ’
LS 5
0-26 0.30 0.70 0.9 •
0.15 0 .4 1 0.25 ‘
LS 6 °-2v 1 r
• 0.30 • 9 ©
LS 7
Scale 1:15
135
Shear In Box Culverts 551
" B: RY2 C RY2P Test Observations
RY2P W est Face
9 a a 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 0
*
\0 .1
/ 0 .1
LS 1 I
. a 9 • 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.25 (0.25 A 0 .2 5 0 .2
0.25
LS 2 0.1
0.45 /0 .5 5 I0 3 5 / ° ’2 5 / 0.45
LS 3
(0.6 (os' 01 f 05 / 0,5 (tftT

LS 4 '0 .4 5
a » a • • • •
0.1 0.8 A05 /U6

LS 5
^0.05 yo 6 ' W .4 p r o .iV 1.0 * 1 0.7

LS 6
« e « a e
LS 7
Scale 1:15
136
Appendix C:
P P
Specimen RY3 2 2
fc’= 71.7 MPa h= 203 mm

fy= 585 MPa b= 575 mm + +
f„ = 634 MPa d= 156 mm
Ptension~ 0.55 % 11 Jacks@250mm
Pcomp= 0.47 %
RY3 Cast Date: August 14 2002 2,844 575

Test Date: February 20 2003
RY3 Sum m ary of Test Observations

Stage fkNl fkNl
LS 2: Flexural cracks continue to form at a crack spacing of roughly d (156 mm) 151 27
LS 3: Flexural cracks continue to widen; 200 40
LS 4: Flexural cracks continue to widen; 251 51
LS 5: First flexural cracking in side walls on north and south walls 300 64
LS 6: No new flexural cracks are forming in the slab but crack widths continue to 350 77
increase; Cracks nearest the haunch edge are inclined slightly
LS 7: Flexural cracking exceeds 1 mm at one crack location 400 91
LS 8: First negative moment crack at edge of south haunch; Evidence of flexural cracks 450 107
traveling horizontally along line of compression reinforcement on west face
LS 9: Significant wall cracking including diagonal shear cracking; No new flexural 501 123
cracks appearing in slab; Several cracks are in excess of 1 mm in width
LS 10: A failure path is almost fully developed in the south wall indicating failure of the 550 140
south wall will soon occur; Almost all the crack growth in the slab is accumulating
in two cracks, one being in excess of 4 mm in width
Failure Specimen clearly well beyond flexural yield and approaching flexural rupture; 550 140
however test is halted due to excessive specimen deformations

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings Load cell response is linear; East and west load cells in excellent
agreement with east load cell reading approximately 97 percent of
west load cell; Excellent agreement with expected force values
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Some minor initial variation; Standard deviation represents
approximately 3.8 percent of average measured load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south or east-west reading variations indicating
symmetrical member deformation
137
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 C RY3P Test Observations
RY3 East Face
I9
o-
O'
o
o
O'
Scale 1:13
o
o'
§o'
O'
1o
o"
o
1o ' 9
<
o
?
o
o'
o
o
04
o o
o'
o
d'
o
O'
04
o
9
o'
04
o o
'§
O'
o
CO
§
o 00
o
o
CD o
h- CO
CO
'io '
o
o
05 ■a O'
05 T 3
3o
9
-a Cl O' Q.
-J so
8o' d
o
d'
8
138
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 C RY3P Test Observations
RY3 East Face
CO
CM
d
CO
d
CO
CO
d
CO CO CO 00
o
O) ID
CD CM 00
O) T 3 O) ~U
xs Q. T3 Q.
139
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 &RY3P Test Observations
RY3 East Face
to
CM
O o
1:13
Scale
CO
to to
CO
o o
to
o to
o
m CO
co
o o
o 0> m
CO co
co CO
O) T5 O)
Q. *u CL
to
CM
o
o
140
Shear in Box Cidverts Appendix C: RY3 £ RY3P Test Observations
RY3 East Face
co
CO
o
Scale 1:13
CO
p
CO
d
o o
CO
o
n in
d d
CO CO
o
o CO O
o ID CM
16 O)
CO
o
CD U)
Q. Cl
nco o
o
141
Shear hi Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 C RY3P Test Observations
RY3 E ast Fac©
ID
CM
o o
Scale 1:13
o o
CO
CO
o o
N-
o
CM CD
C O CD CO
o o
o o in
to to
CO
O) o>
"O Q. "G Q.
ID
ID ID
CO CO CD
o o o o
142
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 S RY3P Test Observations
RY3 West Face
0.1 0.1
LS 1
0.2'
LS 2 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.15
0.3
LS 3 0.2 0.25 0.2 0.3
0.15
>0.35 ,0.35
LS 4 0.3' 0.35 0.25 0.25
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1 .0.4 0.4

0.25
LS 5 0.35 0.45 0.3 0.3
0.25
0.25
0.3
.0.45 0.45
0.25
LS 6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.35
0.25
Scale 1:18
143
RY3 West Face
0,35
0.4
0.1 0.55 0.45

LS 7 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3
0.25
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.15
0.7 0.5
0.25
LS 8 0.4 0.5 0.45
,0.3 0.15
0.3 0.45
0.5
0.5
0.35
0.3
0.1 0.7 0.5

0.3
LS 9 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.7
0.4 0.2
0.3
0.5
0.55
1.45 0.5
0.1 0.3
LS 10 0.2 0.25 0.4 4.5 0.5
0.5 0.2i 0.25
Scale 1:18
144
Specimen RY3P P
2
fc’= 71.7 MPa h= 203 mm
fy= 585 MPa b= 580 m m P+ |+
f„= 635 M P a d= 156 m m
Ptension 0 .5 5 /o
11 Jacks@ 250m m
Pcomp” 0 .4 7 %
TT
Test Date: February 18 2003 2,844 580
Test Duration: 131 minutes All Dimensions in nnm

Stage fkNj fkNl
LS 2: Flexural cracks continue to form at a crack spacing of roughly d (156 mm) 200 40
LS 3: Flexural cracks continue to widen; First cracks in side walls form 300 63
LS 4: Flexural cracks widen with crack growth concentrating in cracks near mid-span 375 84
LS 5: First negative moment cracks appear in the haunch about 100 mm from the edge of 450 107
the slab span; Flexural cracks starting to travel horizontally along compression
side reinforcement line; center crack already 1.4 mm
LS 6: Specimen unloaded and additional jack plates added to ensure sufficient jack 503 131
stroke; Significant diagonal cracking in the south wall; Several flexural cracks are
in excess o f 1 mm with one crack greater than 2 mm; Slab and wall displacements
are visually very pronounced
Failure Specimen clearly well beyond flexural yield however test is halted due to excessive 503 131
specimen deformation

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings Load cell response is linear; Slight difference in load cell readings
with the west load cell lagging slightly reading 91 percent of the east
load cell reading; Excellent agreement with expected force values
eventually represents approximately 1.8 percent o f average measured
load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south reading variations; Very small tilt of
specimen towards the east during loading
145
RY3P East Face
LS 1 0.1
0.15 0.2 0.3' 0.2

LS 2
0.2
0.25 0.3 0.2 0.4

LS 3
0.35 0.25
0.35 0.35 o.3 0.6 0.4

LS 4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.35 0.35 2.0 1.0' 0.4

LS 6 0.1 0.6
0.15
.0.15
Scale 1:18
146
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix C: RY3 C RY3P Test Observations
RY3P West Face
LS 1 0.1
LS 2 0.2! 0.2 0.1

0.15 0.2!
0.1 0.1
LS 3 0.15' 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.15
0.3 0.4
LS 4 0.8\ 0.15
0.2 0.3 V 0.6 0.45 V 0.2i
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4 0.4
LS 5 0.5 1.4 0.3/ 0.15

0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5 0.4
LS 6 0.5 0.7
0.8 0.3 0.15
0.3
Scale 1:18
147
Appendix D:
P
S p e c im e n R Y 4 2
fc’= 71.7 MPa h= 203 mm

fy= 555 MPa b= 575 mm + +
fu= 600 MPa d= 147 mm om
05
Ptension- 1 - 6 8 /o 22 Jacks@ 125mm
Pcom p= 1-68 %
IT
RY4 Cast Date: August 14 2002
Test Date: March 3 2003 2,844 575

Stage fkNf fkNI
LS 1: Specimen loaded until first flexural cracking observed; Significantly more 105 13
cracking on west face than east face
LS 2: Flexural cracks continue to form; Crack development still more advanced on west 200 35
face
LS 3: Flexural cracks continue to widen; Crack spacing approximately 50 mm 300 60
LS 4: First wall crack on north wall; Many new intermediate flexural cracks form 402 83
LS 5: More cracks on east face but cracks wider on west face; First indication of 500 106
diagonal cracking on west face
LS 6: First negative moment cracking in slab adjacent to haunch 600 130
LS 7: Diagonal shear cracks continue to develop 700 153
LS 8: Flexural crack pattern is essentially fully developed hut cracks continue to increase 800 178
in width
LS 9: Significant diagonal cracking; Pronounced diagonal crack in south wall; Failure 900 204
appears imminent
LS 10: Specimen unloaded and plates added to jacks to increase the available jack stroke; 1031 234
Failure appears imminent; Significant diagonal shear cracking in slab and walls
Failure Sudden failure in slab at north end; Angle of shear plane is very small 1031 243

Horizontal Load Cell Reading Load cell response is linear; Excellent agreement between measured
and expected force magnitudes
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Excellent agreement, Standard deviation represents approximately
1.6 percent of average measured load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Very small specimen tilt towards the north during loading; Very
small tilt of specimen towards the east during loading
148
Shear In Box Culverts \.
144 " D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
RY4 East Face
d
9 co
T“
§o T“
0)
CO
o
§o CO
d
s
Id
e
o
d
e
o
o
9 O
e
o
d
o
o
d
5lO
o
o o
o
»
LO
o O
9
O
8o d
LO o
o o
§o CM
o
d
CD TS 9 0 3 T3
89
■o Q. a Q.
§o
149
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
RY4 East Face
o
o
o>
d
o
d
o'
Scale 1:13
q
o
I
'o
9,
©
o od
'o
O'
©
03
od
o o' o e
o
9'
o
e
o 1d o
d' 9
o 8o o
o
o' m
9
o
o 3d
'8O'
O ®
/ O
o 3
£oo ' *? O
9
o o
5d‘
O*
o
o8 o
LO o" e
o o CM
o CO
o O in
CO cd o CO o
o o
s
8q
o'
CD TO CD ~ o 9
CO
—I 8
d
"O '1o' X?
CL Q.
o
od
9'
\0 O
o d
9- a
150
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix D: RY4 c RY4P Test Observations
RY4 East Face
e
o o
o
oo
o
e
o
o
Scale 1:13
o
d
d
e
o
o
o
LO
O•
O
o
o CM
s O9
J5
s9 CM
o o
9
o
§d CM
d
o
o S
9
o
LO *
CM
o 8 d
9
o 8 CM®
d
d
to
e
O
o 9 LO
ib O9
o
in o o
9 CD
a:
o s O
o LO o CD o
in o o CO csj
o o
o
o
9
D) 05 "D
8d
Cl e
~o Cl
o
s
o
LO
o
d
9
O
o
to
o 9
o o
151
Shear In Box Cidverts Appendix D: RY4tRY4P Teat Observations
RY4 East Face
LO
o r- in
o
° § o
Scale 1:13
LO
o
o CM
o
CM
O®
LO
CM CM
O o
CM
O d
CO «
d o
o
CM in
CM
d o
Csf
o o
CM
LO
o LO
O
o o CO
o
o O
o> o O) "D
Q. “O Q.
in
o o
d
LO
o
o o o
152
Shear hi Box Cidverts Appendix D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
RY4 E ast Face
LO
LO O
O o O o
d o f"
o O CM
CM
bo d
§o
to
o
Scale 1:13
o
©
8o
o
o
o
3o CM
o
o
CM 1
d 9
co
9
cm 0 o
o b o
to
CO CO
0 b d
o o
to
CM
CO
CM o
d b
CM
d 8 o
9
LO
O
O) b
o o
o o CO
o> o b CO
CM css CM
o o
bo
10
D) “O O) X3
o lO
8b
T3 o
CL CL
to
O I O
o
o b
o
o 8 CM
o 9 d
o O, CM
d
153
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix 0: RYfl &RYflP Test BPgervatmns
RY4 East Face
Scale 1:13
CO
o
Q-
154
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix It RY4 £ RY4P Test Observations
RY4 West Face
r. t ~,; p; ^
LS 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.05
LS 2 0.05( ° '1 0 .1 5 \ 0.15] 0. 15^ 0.05I 0.11 V 0 05

0.05
0.15 0 .1 5 \ 0.15
0.05 0.1 0.2 \ 0.15
LS 3 0.15 ° -1
0.1
0.1
0.1 0.151 0.15 0.151

LS 4 0.15 0.2l °-1
0.35 ° -1. 0.25
0.1 0.1
0.15 0.2 0.15[ 0.25

LS 5 0.2! 0.15
0.25 0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.15
LS 6 0.1
0.15 0.251
0.4 03 °'25 0.3
0.2 0.2! 0.3
0.1
0.25 0 -1?
0.1
0.15 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.3 f 0.25 0.35 0.3

0.2
LS 7 0.1 0.3
0.151
0.2 0.3
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.15 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.25
0.4 0 3 \ 0.35
0.1 0.15\ 0 3 °-25
0.251 I 0.1
LS 8 0.3
Scale 1:18
155
Shear in Box Calverts Appendix D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
RY4 West Face
0.3
0.15
0.15 0.25
0.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.45

0.25 \ 0 .1 5 \ °-5 0 .2 5 1 0.25} ° '4/ 0.25 0.1
LS 10
” 0.25*
Scale 1:18
156
Shear in Box Culverts ^*.. " D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
Specimen RY4P p
2
fc’= 71.7 MPa h=203 mm
fy = 555 MPa b=570 mm m
+ +
fu= 600 MPa d=147 mm
prcnsian 1-69 /o
Pcon,p= 1-69% 11 Jacks@25Qmm
RY4P Cast Date: August 14 2002 Tf

Test Date: February 26 2003
2,844 570

Stage rkNi fkN]
LS 2 Flexural cracks continue to form now reaching past mid-depth of member 300 60
LS 3 Flexural cracks continue to widen; Crack spacing approximately 50 mm 400 83
LS 4 First wall crack on south wall; Many new intermediate flexural cracks form 505 108
LS 5 First negative moment crack at edge of south haunch on east face and north 600 130
haunch on west face; First wall cracks
LS 6 Indication o f diagonal shear cracking on both sides 700 155
LS 7 Diagonal shear cracks are almost fully developed failure imminent 803 180
Failure: Sudden failure in slab at north end; Angle o f shear plane is small 905 209

Horizontal Load Cell Reading Load cell response is linear; Excellent agreement between measured
and expected force magnitudes
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Excellent agreement; Standard deviation represents approximately
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible north-south variations, Very small tilt of specimen
towards the east
157
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix D: RY4 C RY4P Test Observations
RY4P East Face
ri : n : :
LS 2 0.05 ^ \ \ n 1 0.1 °-1

u -' 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 o.1 0.1
T A
LS 3 0.15
.0.1 0.35 0.05 0.1 J 15 0.1 01„
0.1
0.15
0.2 0.1
0.2
LS 4 0.05 0.15 a1 0.15 0 .1 5 . 0.1
0.15 0.15
0.1
LS 5 0.05 0.25 \ 0 2
0.15
0.15
0.2
0!11
0.15
0.2
0.2 0.2
U1 0.2
0.3 \fl.2 5
LS 6 0.1 0.1 / 0.1
0.15’ 0.1 0.2 02 0.1S 0?1 °-25- 0-15
0.15
0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
LS 7 0.1 0.1 0.2“ 0.2 ’0.15
,0.2 ,0.25
Scale 1:18
158
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix I: RY4 £ RY4P lest Observations
RY4P W est Face
... 1.. ... :~\ '" . " " 1 ... 7 .. 1 ■ CJ.05 "
0.05 0.05
LS 1
“ 0 O 0 * « •
LS 2
TV
0.1 I 0.1 0.05
0.1 l 0.1 ,
. 0.1 5 . . . 005
0.15 0.15 0.0!

LS 3 0.1 ° '1 0.1 0.05
0.1 0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1 0.05
0.2 0.15) 0.1
LS 4 0.1 0.1
0.15 0.2 .
0.1 0.15
0.15'
I I 0,2 I0.2 , 1.15 0.1
LS 5 0.05 0.05
I i 0.2 \ r \ ' 0.05
0.15 0.25 » 0 2 0 .1 5 0-2
0.2
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1 \ 0.2 °-2 J 0 .25J T 0.1

LS 6 0.05 0.25
0.05 0.1
°-150.25o!25U 0-25 0.2 °-1? > °;1>
0.15 0.05
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.1 0.1 \ M 0.3] ( 1 { 0.05

0.2 0.3 0.2 ,
LS 7 0.2 0.1
°-15(5 250.250'20.3 . 0.2 0.3 °-2 °.2y
Scale 1:18
159
Appendix E:
p
2
Specimen RY5
m
fc’= MPa
7 4 .6 h= 254 mm
fy= 555 MPa b= 575 mm
fu= 600 MPa d= 206 mm
14 J a c k s @ 2 5 0 m m
Ptension- " 0 . 6 0 /o
Pcomp= 0.42 %
RY5 Cast Date: August 9 2002 3,556 |, 575

Side Elevation
Test Date: February 11 2002 Wall Elevation

Stage rkNl rkNi
LS 2 Flexural cracks continue to form reaching past mid-depth of member 199 24
LS 3 Flexural cracks continue to widen; Crack spacing approximately d (206mm) 250 34
LS 4 First wall crack on south wall; Many new intermediate flexural cracks form 300 42
LS 5 First negative moment crack at edge o f north haunch; Significant wall cracking 350 51
including some diagonal cracking in north wall
LS 6: Both walls now contain a flexural crack; No new slab cracks but existing cracks 399 59
continue to widen
LS 7: Horizontal cracking and some localized crushing evident on east face at depth of 450 68
tension reinforcement; Slab deflection now visibly significant
LS 8: Crack growth slowly being concentrated into a few cracks around the slab center 500 79
line
Failure One wire of the 7-wire strand broke so the test was stopped; This break occurred at 528 86
a stress well below ultimate so its cause must have been a local abnormality in that
particular wire

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings East and west load cells in excellent agreement; Observed force
magnitudes in excellent agreement with expected values
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible east-west or north-south variations indicating symmetric
member behaviour
160
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 C RY5P Test Observations
RY5 East Face
Scale 1:16
0
o°
a O.
w
o
o
m
o
o
in
o
o
in
o
o
lO LO
co co
o>
U) ~o O) -o
a
CL *o
-J
» »
161
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 &RYSP Test Observations
RY5 East Face
Scale 1:16
o
o o
o
d
o
o
o
10
o
LO Q
O
CNJ
CM
o o
o
o
00 o
o o
o CO o o
o> o>
Q. Q.
m
o
162
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 £ RY5P Test Observations
RY5 East Face
o
o
Scale 1:16
o -P
CM CM
o d‘
o
o
CM
o
10 1o
d
co CO
d
o co
o d
LO
CM
co
o
to
CM
lO ID CD
d
to
o>
o>
CO CO
O) O)
Q. Cl
LO
o o
O d
163
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5E RY5P Test Observations
Scale 1:16
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 £ RY5P Test Observations
RY5 West Face
LS 1 0.05
0.15
LS 2 0.15 0.1
LS 3 0.15
0.2 ,0.1
0.05 0.05
LS 4
0.05
LS 5 0.05 0.25
015 0.2- 0.15 0.2 Q.2S •
Scale 1:23
165
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 C RY5P Test Observations
RY5 West Face
0.15 0.2
LS 6 0.2 0.25,
0.15
0.2
0.2 0.25
LS 7 0.1
0.1
0.15
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.25
LS 8
0.35
°'1 .0-2 0.25 0.25 0 .8 ?
Scale 1:23
166
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix E RY5C RY5P Test Observations
Specimen RY5P p
2
fc’= MPa
7 4 .6 h=254 mm m
555 MPa b=560 mm
fu= 600 MPa d=206 mm
Ptension- 0 . 6 2 /o 14 Jacks®250mm
Pcomp= 0.43 %
TT
Test Date: December 10 2003 Side Elevation Wall Elevation

Stage \m fkNl
LS 2: Flexural cracks continue to form now reachs Mid-depth of member; First crack in 220 39
north wall
LS 3 Flexural cracks in both walls 282 50
LS 4 More intermediate flexural cracks form in slab 348 64
LS 5 First negative moment crack at edge of north haunch; Significant wall cracking 403 76
including some diagonal cracking in north wall
LS 6: Negative moment cracking at edge of both haunches; Wall cracks now wider than 465 87
slab cracks; First sign of diagonal cracking on east face south end of slab
LS 7: No new flexural cracks but existing cracks continue to develop; First diagonal 525 98
shear crack at south end only on east face and on north end only on west face
LS 8: All cracks continue to widen; Shear cracks on north wall are almost fully 583 108
developed indicating that some type o f shear failure is imminent
Failure Failure of north wall; Failure type is a combination of flexural, shear and 628 115
compression failure

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings West load cell initially lagged east load cell; Measured values in
west load cell are approximately 75 percent of those in the east
member behaviour
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Data not available for this test
Reading
167
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RYSC RYSP Test Observations
RYSP E ast Face
0.1
LS 1
0.1
0.1 0.15 °'15 0.1

LS 2 0.1
0.15
0.2
HO. 15
0.25 0.2
LS 3 0.2 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.2
0.2
0.15
>■0.15
0.25 0.2
LS 4 0.2 0.1 0.1
ai
0.15
0.15
0.25
0.3
0.25
HO. 15 0.1
0.25 0.2
LS 5 0.2 0.15
0.2 0.15 0.15
Scale 1:23
168
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5C RY5P Test Observations
RYSP E ast Face
0.15
0.35
0.35
0.25
0.25 0.25 0.2 0.15

LS 6 0.1 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.35
0.25
0.4 0.35
0.25
0.15
0.25 0.25 0.2 0.15
LS 7 0.1 0.15 0.2
P'15 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.5
0.35
0.5
0.45
0.45
0.25
0.25 0.25 0.3 0.25'
LS 8 0.25 0.2
0.15 0.15
P-15 0.2 0.2
LS 9
Scale 1:23
169
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5C RY5P Test Observations
RYSP W est Face
0.1 0.1
LS 1 0.15
0.15 0.15
LS 2 °-15 0.15 02
,0.15
0.15
LS 3 0.1
015 0 25 0 25 °'2 015
0.25
0.25
0.25
LS 4 0.15 0.15
0.2 0.15Q1501
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
LS 5 0.2 0.25 .0.250.25 0.15
•0.25 0.35 °-35
Scale 1:23
170
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix E RY5 &RY5P Test Observations
RYSP W est Face
0.3
0.45
0.4
0.45
-2=35
0.15
LS 6 0.2
0.2 0.25
0.25 0.1
:° ' 259 ' 2 0.2 • 0,2
0.55
0.5
0.45 SA
0.2
0.15
LS 7 3 0.350-25 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.25
0.2 0 25 0.25 0.3 I < n
0.5 0.3 •
0.3
0.5
0.65
0.5
04
0.55
0.3
0.15
LS 8 0.2 0.25 n 0.3 0.25
. 0-25. 0.25 0.-3 0.5
0.3 0.2 0.3
LS 9
Scale 1123
171
Appendix F:
p P
Specimen RY6 2 2
fc’= 74.6 MPa h= 254 mm

M
+ +
fy= 555 MPa b= 590 mm
fu= 600 MPa d= 198 mm
1470
P tension- 1 .2 1 /o
14 J a c k s @ 2 5 0 m m
Pcom p= 1-21%
IT
RY6 Cast Date: August 9 2002
Test Date: February 6 2003 3,556 590
Side Elevation Wall Elevation
RY6 Sum m ary of Test Observations

Stage fkNI fkM]
LS 2 Flexural cracks now reachs mid-depth of member 202 24
LS 3 Flexural cracking continues to spread from CL at a spacing of approximately 301 42
100mm
LS 4 First cracking in south wall 399 59
LS 5 Cracking in both walls 500 74
LS 6 All cracks continuing to open; Slab deflection visibly large 600 90
LS 7 No new flexural cracks but existing cracks continue to develop; First diagonal 701 107
shear crack at south end only on east face and on north end only on west face
LS 8: Significant cracking in side walls including diagonal shear cracks more pronounced 801 126
on east face then west face; Specimen unloaded and additional jack plates added to
ensure sufficient jack stroke at failure
Failure Sudden rapid shear failure ensues in slab at north end o f specimen 870 141

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings Balanced tie-rod force; Excellent agreement with expected values;
Test approaches safe tie rod stress limit but no strand non-linearity
observed
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Reasonable agreement; Standard deviation represents approximately
5.5 percent o f average measured load cell reading
member behaviour
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Wall-to-wall displacement linear with apparent slip accounting for
Reading approximately 16 percent of total displacement
172
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix F: RYB C RY6P Test Observations
RY6 East Face
Scale 1:16
o
in
T”
o
in
in
o
o
in
o o
d
m
o
o
in
o
o
in
o
d
CO CM Z E
>■ CM E
I X O CO
CM
z
LU
<D
S O ) T3
Q CD
O
o CO - J
L U TJ
75 Q .
Q l CD
O O
(/)
0 ) -J H b
173
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix F RY6 C RY6P Test Observations
RY6 East, Face
Scale 1:16
o o
0
o o
o o
cf T“ ®
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
CO CO CO
o o O) m
o>
co CO o>
U) o>
-j
■a ■D a
174
Shear hi Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 C RYBP Test Observations
RY6 East Face
o
o o
Scale 1:16
in
o
o
o
o
O'
o
o
o LO
o o
o
o o
o
o
m css
o o
in
o o
in
CS!
o o
co CO co
o o
o o o LO
LO CO
o
o
o> *o O)
—I
Q.
_!
o o
175
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 £ RY6P Test Observations
RY6 East Face
o 'o O o
LO
o o
o
Scale 1:16
to
o
o
LO
o
o ID
o CM *
LO
o
CO9
d
CM
LO
o
18LO
o
to* O
CM
to
d
'to
ID '
O
CO CO co
o
o N-
CM
oo o
CM
d o
a> O) ■o
a a
LO
LO
o
o o o o
o \©
176
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 C RY6P Test Observations
RY6 East Face
1:16
Scale
177
Shear In Box Culverts \ .: "
40
RY6 C RY6P Test Observations
RY6 West Face
0.05
LS 1
0.05 0.05
LS 2
0.05
0.05
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.15
0.05
LS 3 0.05
0.05 0.1 0 05
0.2
0.05
LS 4 0.05 '0.05
0.05
0.15 0.15.
0.05
0.05 ~ ~
0.05 —
0.05 —
'0.05
0 .0 5 ! 0-1 °'05 0.1 nL
,0.05 5 * 0 .1 5 0.15 0 .1 5 . 01
Scale 1:23
178
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 C RYSP Test Observations
RY6 West Face
0.15 0.05^-
0.05 —
0.15 0.05 —
LS 6
.0 .0 5 . >0.25 0.15 ° ? C
0.15
0.15 0.05
0.15 0.05
LS 7 0.151 0.2 0.1 0.15

I \ 03 N
0.3 o.a 0-05 . 0.15
0.15
0.1
0.15 0.15
0.2
0.15
0.1
LS 8 0.25 J0.2S / / \ / / 0.1
’o.350 Y52J0-15) i J J o .1 5
0.05 • -0 .3 5 0 .2 5 0 25. 0 ..1 5 0 .1 5 O .2 0 -15- 015
LS 9
Scale 1:23
179
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 C RY6P Test ObservaUons
p
Specimen RY6P 2
P
2
f-*-C’= 74.6 MPa h= 254 mm +

fy= 555 MPa b= 590 mm
fu= 600 MPa d= 198 mm
Ptension- 1 .2 1 /o
Poom p= 1-21% 14 J a c k s @ 2 5 0 m m

Test Date: January 31 2003 rfTTTTTTTTTTTT 3,556 590
Test Duration: 152 minutes Side Elevation Wall Elevation
Stage fkNl \ m
LS 1: Specimen loaded until first flexural cracking observed 115 ii
LS 2: Flexural cracks contiue to form with a crack spacing o f approximately d (198mm) 199 26
LS 3: More intermediate flexural cracks form with cracking now beyond mid-depth of 301 44
slab
LS 4: Cracks slightly wider at south end of the specimen 400 60
LS 5: Cracks continue to widen 500 77
LS 6: Cracks continue to widen; First indication of diagonal shear cracks in slab on 600 93
south side o f west face
LS 7: Cracks appear in both walls of the specimen; Diagonal shear cracks apparent on 700 110
both faces at either end of the specimen
LS 8: Diagonal shear cracks significant; Flexural cracks continue to widen 800 130
LS 9: Specimen appears to be very close to failure with highly developed shear cracks at 900 161
both ends
Failure: Test halted due to concern over the level of stress in tie-rod 900 161

2 Horizontal Load Cell Readings Higher load observed in east side load cell with west load cell
reading only 75 percent of its eastern counterpart; Excellent
agreement with expected magnitude of force; Test approaches safe
tie rod stress limit with slight non-linearity o f strand observed before
the test was halted
4 Vertical Load Cell Readings Reasonable agreement, standard deviation represents approximately
3.6 percent o f average measured load cell reading
10 Vertical LVDT Readings Negligible east-west or north-south variations indicating slab
deformation was symmetric
Horizontal LVDT (Tie-Rod) Wall-to-wall displacement linear with apparent slip accounting for
Reading approximately 11 percent of total displacement
180
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix F: RY6 C RY6P Test Observations
RYSP East Face
0 .0 5 1 ' d.05
LS 1
0.1 0.1 0.05 ° -0 5 ] 0.05 0.05
LS 2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1
LS 3 0.05
0.05 0.05
,0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1
LS 4 0.05
0.05 0.05
/
0.05 0.05
, 0.1 0.2 0.15 °-1 0.15

LS 5 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
LS 6
,0.15 0.25 0.2 0 25 0.15] t>.1

, 0.1
0.15
0.15 °-1 0.1
0.05 0.1
0.05 0.1
0.05 0.1
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.15 ,0.15 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.2
LS 8 , 0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2
0.2
0 .2 !
,0.2 0.35 0.35 0.5 0.3 0.15
LS 9 ,0.3
0.25
Scale 1:23
181
Shear in Box Culverts Appendx F: RY6 &RY6P Test Observations
RY6P W est Face
0.05 0.05 0.05
LS 1
0 05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.1
LS 2
LS 3 0.05
0.05
0.15 0.05 0.1 ° ;1 0.05 0.05
LS 4 0.05
0.05
0.15 0.1 0.15 0.1' 0.1 0.1
LS 5 0.05
0.05
0.15 0.1 0.15 0.1' 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
LS 6 0.2 0.15
0.2 O-.ISq 25 . 0.15 81 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1E
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
LS 8 0 . 1' 0.1
\ \ 0.3 I K
I
0.1 1.2 0.2 0-25 10.25 0.2 0.1
° - 1? 0.25 0-2 0-3 0.2 L0.15
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
<3.25
LS 9 0 .2 !
0.25
0-35 Q.3 I 0.35
I.3 0.2 °-25 *0.3 0.15 0 2 0,1
Scale 1:23
182
Appendix G:
Test Data Summary
183
Shear hi Box Culverts

RY1 Data Sum m ary
T o tal T o tal Total L o ad C ell D a ta V ertical LVDT D a ta S p e c im e n D eform ation D ia g o n al LVDT D ata S tra in G a u g e s
V ertical V ertical H o rto n . AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG.
Load Time DATA PT C o m m en t L o ad L o ad L oad LCNW LCNE L CSW LO SE End Q u a rte r C e n te r Q u a r le r C e n te r LVDTH N-TN-BS N-TS-BN S-T N -B S S-T S-B N SG -N W SG -SW SG -N C S G -S C SG -N E S G -S E
S ta g e {rranj SE T (psi) (kN) (kNtm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (m m) (mm) (mm) (m m) (uE ) (uE) (uE ) (uE ) (uE ) (uE )
1 0 0 8 S ta rt 2 1 2 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 -0.001 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 4 12 8 39 8 9 13
3 10 394 42 21 4 1 1 .0 9 .9 10.5 11.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.1 0 .2 0 .2 -0 .0 0 9 -0.001 -0.001 0.001 -11 -1 4 81 43 -11 -8
5 50 6 9 3 C ra ck in g 84 42 8 2 1 .5 20.1 21.1 2 1 .7 1.5 2 .0 2 .5 0 .4 0 .8 1.1 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .0 0 2 -0 .0 0 4 -0.001 -3 4 -3 3 136 91 -2 5 -2 6
18 55 4 9 4 R e a d in g 68 34 6 1 7 .3 16.2 10.8 1 7 .4 1.4 1.9 2 .3 0.4 0.8 1.2 -0 .0 1 9 -0.001 -0 .0 0 5 -Q.001 -2 5 -2 8 170 87 -1 8 -23
2 19 64 924 116 58 16 2 9 .4 2 8 .0 29,1 3 0 .0 1.9 3 .0 4 .0 0 .9 1.9 2 .5 -0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 0 2 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 -4 0 -39 1473 1579 -31 -33
19 72 1208 158 79 32 39.5 3 8 .4 4 0 .0 4 0 .1 2 .4 4 .3 6 .2 1.8 3 .5 4 .7 -0 .0 0 5 -0.001 0.001 0.001 -3 3 -3 5 2201 2266 -28 -31
20 84 1490 P e a k 200 100 44 500 4 8 .4 5 0 .5 5 0 .6 2 .9 5 .4 7 .8 2 .3 4 .6 6.1 -0 .0 0 8 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 2 -3 9 -4 8 2593 2663 -3 4 -39
33 89 1 2 1 0 R e a d in g 179 90 43 4 5 .2 4 3 .8 4 5 .0 4 5 .3 2 .8 5 .2 7.6 2.3 4 .5 6 .3 -0 .0 0 5 -0 .0 0 2 -0.031 0.001 -2 8 -3 5 2542 2441 -28 -30
3 35 97 1665 225 113 54 5 6 .6 54.6 5 6 .7 5 7 .3 3 .2 6 .0 8 .8 2 .7 5 .2 7.2 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 2 -4 4 -3 7 2686 2719 -33 -3 8
36 101 1833 249 125 61 6 2 .6 6 0 .3 62 8 6 3 .5 3.5 6 .6 9 .7 3 .0 5 .8 7.9 -0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .0 1 9 0 .0 0 7 -41 -38 2836 2919 -3 5 -43
38 124 2178 Peak 300 15 0 83 7 5 .4 72.1 75.6 7 6 .8 4.1 8 .4 1 1 .9 3.9 7 .4 10.2 -0.021 -0 .1 7 2 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .0 0 6 -4 3 -38 3031 3178 -3 2 -3 7
50 130 1 7 9 9 R e a d in g 276 13 8 77 6 9 .9 6 6 .8 6 9 .0 6 9 .8 4 .0 8.1 11.6 3 .8 7.1 10.1 -0 .0 2 5 -0 .1 7 5 -0 .0 1 2 0.001 -3 8 -33 2886 3025 -30 -36
4 52 140 2410 333 166 93 8 3 .9 7 9 .9 8 4 .0 8 5 .2 4 .5 9 .2 13.1 4 .3 8.1 11.2 -0 .0 2 5 -0 .2 0 3 -0 .0 0 6 0.001 -4 4 -40 3179 3474 -36 -43
52 144 2548 353 177 101 8 9 .0 84.6 69.1 9 0 .5 4 .7 9 .8 14.0 4 .6 8 .7 12.0 -0 .0 2 5 -Q .205 -0 .0 1 0 0 .0 0 0 -4 4 -4 3 3227 3710 -34 -43
53 159 2860 Peak 400 200 121 10 0 .9 9 5 .6 100.7 10 2 .6 5.3 1 1 .3 16.3 5 .4 1 0 .3 13.9 -0 .0 2 5 -0 .2 1 8 -0.011 0 .0 0 0 -4 2 -3 9 3303 4373 -31 -3 9
63 164 2 4 6 0 R e a d in g 377 188 117 9 6 .0 9 1 .0 9 3 .9 9 5 .6 5 .3 11.2 16.0 5 .3 10.1 13.9 -Q .024 -0 .2 1 5 -0.001 0 .0 0 3 -3 8 -3 5 3268 4258 -3 0 -3 8
5 66 173 3013 420 210 129 10 5 .9 1 0 0 .2 1 0 5 .9 1 0 7 .8 5.6 12.0 17.2 5 .7 10.9 1 4 .B -0 .0 2 2 -0 .2 2 8 0 .0 1 2 0 .0 0 0 -4 2 -3 9 3410 4709 -3 3 -3 9
66 17 7 3140 439 220 137 11 1 .0 1 0 4 .8 110.0 1 1 2 .7 5 .8 12.5 18.0 6 .0 1 1 .5 15.4 -0 .0 3 0 -0 .2 4 6 -0 .0 0 3 0.001 -4 3 -39 3428 5175 -31 -3 8
67 181 3213 Peak 450 225 142 113.6 1 0 7 .3 1 1 3 .4 1 1 5 .5 6 .0 12.8 18.6 6 .2 1 1 .9 1 5 .9 -0 .0 2 0 -0 .2 2 8 -0 .0 0 3 - 0 .0 0 2 -3 9 -38 3442 5475 -31 -38
81 185 3 0 1 0 R e a d in g 434 217 140 11 0 .0 1 0 3 .9 109.1 11 1 .2 6 .0 12.9 18.7 6 .3 12.0 16.0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .2 2 0 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .0 1 0 -3 3 -34 3453 5575 -26 -3 4
6 84 189 3258 456 228 146 11 5 .3 1 0 8 .9 114.9 1 1 7 .2 6 .2 1 3 .3 1 9 .2 6 .4 12,3 16.3 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .2 3 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 0 5 -3 5 -3 8 3518 5725 -29 -38
84 193 3338 468 234 150 11 8 .3 111.6 1 1 7 .9 120.1 6 .3 13.6 19.6 6 .5 1 2 .5 16.6 -0 .0 2 3 -0 .2 3 3 0 .0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 -36 -38 3542 5944 -26 -3 7
85 203 3550 P eak 500 250 164 12 6 .3 1 1 9 .3 1 2 5 .9 1 2 8 .3 6 .7 14.5 21.1 7.1 1 3 .6 17.9 -0 .0 1 7 -0 .2 3 6 -0 .0 1 0 0 .0 0 3 -31 -3 4 3573 6800 -26 -34
93 206 3 2 7 0 R e ad in g 485 242 162 12 3 .0 1 1 5 .8 121.8 124.1 6 .7 1 4 .5 21.1 7.1 1 3 .6 17.9 -0 .0 1 4 -0 .2 3 3 - 0 .0 0 3 0.001 -31 -34 3568 6B 13 -24 -34
7 97 211 3610 508 253 167 128.1 1 2 0 .8 127.6 1 2 9 .9 6 .9 1 4 .8 2 1 .6 7 .2 13.9 18.2 -0 .0 1 4 -0 .2 3 6 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 -31 -34 3847 7000 -26 -3 5
A.. dix G: Test Data Summary

98 219 3830 540 270 182 13 6 .5 1 2 8 .7 136.1 1 3 6 ,3 7 .3 15.8 23.1 7 .7 1 5 .0 19.5 -0 .0 1 3 -0 .2 3 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 3 -3 4 -32 3674 7750 -2 4 -3 3
98 227 3910 Peak 551 275 188 13 9 .3 1 3 1 .4 1 3 8 .9 14 1 .2 7.4 18.2 2 3 .7 7 .9 1 5 .4 2 0 .0 -0.021 -0 .2 3 8 0.001 0.001 -2 8 -3 2 3688 8050 -22 -31 95
138 234 3 4 9 0 R e a d in g 515 258 182 13 0 .9 1 2 3 .2 12 9 .6 13 1 .8 7 .5 16.1 2 3 .5 79 1 5 .2 2 0 .0 -0.011 -0 .2 3 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 -3 0 -2 6 3836 7975 -1 7 -2 9
8 139 242 3950 556 278 190 14 0 .7 1 3 2 .7 1 4 0 .2 1 4 2 .4 7 .9 16.7 2 4 .4 8.1 1 5 .7 2 0 .4 -0.011 -0 .2 4 3 -0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 3 -2 4 -3 3 3972 8250 -23 -34
139 246 4060 572 286 197 14 4 .5 1 3 6 .6 144.3 1 4 6 .6 8 .0 1 7 .2 25.1 8 .3 16.2 2 0 .9 -0 .0 1 2 -0.241 -0 .0 0 2 - 0 .0 0 7 -21 -31 3999 8513 -22 -33
141 270 4253 Peak 600 300 211 15 1 .5 1 4 3 .3 1 5 1 .5 153.6 8.4 18.1 2 6 .5 8 .8 1 7 .3 2 2 .2 -0 .0 0 9 -0 .2 3 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 4 -1 9 -27 4034 9200 -1 8 -31
152 287 3 8 6 0 R e a d in g 561 281 20 2 14 2 .9 1 3 4 .7 140.7 143.1 8 .3 1 7 .7 2 5 .9 8.6 16.9 2 2 .0 -0 .0 0 8 -0 .2 4 2 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 7 -1 2 -20 3989 9000 -14 -25
6 152 296 4360 614 307 218 15 5 .3 1 4 6 .5 1 5 5 .0 1 5 7 .4 8.7 1 8 .7 2 7 .3 9.1 1 7 .7 2 2 .7 -0 .0 0 7 -0 .2 4 2 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 1 8 -26 -2 7 4174 9450 -1 8 -2 9
153 300 4480 632 316 225 15 9 .8 1 5 0 .9 1 5 9 .5 1 6 1 .9 8 .9 1 9 .2 28.1 9 .4 1 8 .3 2 3 .4 -0 .0 0 9 -0 .2 4 4 0 .0 2 7 - 0 .0 0 8 -1 6 -2 6 4191 9725 -1 4 -2 7
153 310 4603 P eak 650 325 234 16 4 .4 155.1 164.1 1 6 6 .4 9.2 19.9 29.1 9 .8 19.1 2 4 .3 -0.001 -0 .2 4 6 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 7 -1 3 -2 3 4203 10150 -1 3 -20
168 321 4 1 3 0 R e a d in g 610 305 227 15 4 .4 1 4 4 .8 1 5 4 .2 15 6 .7 9.4 19.8 2 8 .8 9.6 18.8 24.1 -0 .0 0 6 -0 .2 3 8 0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 2 -4 -16 4131 9981 -8 -21
10 169 34 6 4720 667 333 241 16 8 .9 159.1 1 6 8 .2 1 7 0 .8 9.9 2 0 .8 3 0 .4 10.1 19.8 25.1 -0 .0 0 3 -0.251 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 1 0 -8 -2 9 4301 10450 -11 -26
170 350 4790 877 338 246 17 1 .2 161.6 1 7 0 .7 1 7 3 .2 10.0 21.1 3 0 .9 10.3 20.1 2 5 .4 0.001 -0 .2 5 4 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 6 -6 -19 4308 10569 -11 -2 4
171 378 4950 Peak 700 350 258 17 7 .0 1 6 7 .3 1 7 6 .7 1 7 8 .9 10.4 22.1 32.4 1 0 .8 2 1 .2 2 6 .7 0 .0 0 0 -0 .2 5 7 0 .0 0 5 0.011 ■A -1 4 4327 10994 -6 -23
164 402 4 0 2 0 R e a d in g 635 318 244 16 2 .4 1 5 2 .9 1 5 9 .0 1 6 0 .8 10.1 2 1 .3 3 1 .2 10.4 2 0 .5 2 6 .0 0.001 -0 .2 5 4 0 .0 1 7 0 .0 1 0 13 -2 4103 10575 1 -17
187 418 3 0 1 0 U nload 480 240 200 12 3 .2 118.1 1 1 8 .8 120.1 8 .9 18.6 2 7 .3 9.1 18.1 2 2 .9 0.001 -0 .2 0 4 0 .0 3 8 0 .0 0 2 33 21 2856 9281 16 4
189 459 36 E n d 1 0 33 0 .2 0 .3 0 .2 0.1 -9 .5 -1 0 .8 7 .8 -5 .7 5 .7 11.0 -0 .0 2 2 -0 .0 7 9 0 .0 6 3 -0 .0 2 0 72 86 10 5575 53 48

Shear in Box Culverts Appendix G: Test Data Summary
$ i $ 5 I 33333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
I I I 5 I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
33333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8o oS S 8 8
o o o
80 08 0S030S
o o o o ' o' o' o o ci © o ’ d o' d ci
« r- O U1 K) n t- N N o
8 o o S
o' o o' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 00000 0000000 8 8 8 8 8 8 5
> t mo<t in
m cato
m go
C
M 04 C
N OJ NM C
(\|M N
C
*
N
09099 09990 99099 9 9 0 9 0 9 9N9N 9N9"*
r O O Ifl
8 8 8 8
9 0 9 9 I 1 I I
8
o
8
o' o o'
8 5 8
d 00990 99990 8 8 8 5 8
9000009
9 0 0 Ifl (O N
0 0 0 0 0 000 o « n in 111
00000 10 O f-
o o in co 10 T- o o o « 0
3 u>
cri © o cm
r- f CS Cj s si s s
'd q k o
C
MCMC
MCM
§I
o n o
co cn 10 © o> ID r ct
S ic
3-
cv 0
10
1
£ 2 S
10 co 1- m
•j m ui s
C
O C
MO cq o» 0
0 0 0 0 0
O CM 09 ? ? s s
T- M n «f » O r r N r
129
137
160
190
146
162
172
195
216
201
n n c c 8 & ® S n s ? s S O 5 K r « S
c CM CM CM CM CM r-
■ ! ? J
is i 3 1
RY1P Data Summary
<- n 10 0 «
0
150
112
100
138
187
300
1 14
1 62
1 73
183
122
143
200
214
250
236
260
280
305
315
52
85
96
223
232
286
242
236
66
3 21
3 11
n n c m
3 1 ™ 1
0 0 0 1
> -3 O-
0
300
559
225
200
1 04
427
500
800
2
325
346
36 5
374
643
87
133
227
243
275
286
400
446
485
476
483
622
89
65
171
191
48
521
631
471
5 71
0 11
V ertical
T otal
L o ad
(kN)
s§
5
6
B
k
*,£ I$ % ? 15 fj I5 as
s n s 1
co 0 o o
t- (O C
D
0 0 0 0 0 o o 10 o 8S g §
& 1
■» ID N «f .. IO C
CMC MC
D C
MC
O
M 1§§I I 393?8?
« O ■«-
s $
SI 5
185
C®
RY2 Data Sum m ary
T o ta l T o tal Total L o a d C ell D ata V ertical LVDT D a ta S p e c im e n D eform ation D ia g o n a l LVDT D a ta S tra in G a u g e s
V ertical V ertical Horizon. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG.
L o ad Tim e OATA FT C o m m en t L o ad L o ad L o ad LCNW LCNE L C SW LCSE End Q u a r te r C e n te r Q u a r te r C e n te r LVDTH N-TN -BS N-TS-BN S-T N -B S S-T S-B N SG -N W S G -S W S G -N C S G -S C SG -N E S G -S E
(kN'm ) (kN) (kN) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (rrm ) (m m ) (mm) (m m ) (u E ) (uE ) (uE ) (uE ) (LIE) (uE )
S ta g e [rren] SET (psi) m m m (kN)
1 0 0 1 3 0 S tart 5 2 3 1 .0 1.3 1.3 1.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 - 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 3 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 6 7 6 21 19 NA 259
3 0 421 48 23 4 9 .5 1 2 .8 1 2 .8 1 0 .5 1 .0 0 .8 1.3 0 .0 0 .2 0 .2 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 7 -0.001 0 .0 1 8 -1 5 -1 8 54 55 NA -29
4 10 530 61 30 5 1 2 .7 1 7 .0 1 8 .8 14.1 1.2 1.1 1.6 0 .0 0 .3 0 .3 -0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 4 0.001 0 .0 0 4 -2 3 -2 4 66 68 NA -38
5 17 7 3 0 C ra ck in g 69 44 6 1 8 .0 2 4 .6 2 4.1 2 1 .0 1.7 1.5 2 .6 0.1 0 .8 1 .0 -0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 1 4 -3 8 -3 3 586 139 na -48
11 24 3 4 8 R e a d in g 41 21 3 8 .7 11.8 1 1 .3 9 .5 1.2 1.3 1 .9 0.2 0 .6 0 .9 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 4 -0 ,0 0 5 0 .0 1 7 -2 8 -1 8 430 126 NA -29
2 15 32 862 107 54 12 2 3 .0 2 9 .5 2 8 .8 2 5 .8 2 .0 1 .9 3 .4 0.3 1.4 1 .7 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .0 7 3 -0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 6 -3 8 -3 9 971 831 NA -5 8
15 36 995 128 64 18 2 7 .9 3 4 .9 3 3 .8 3 1 .0 2 .2 2 .3 4 .5 0 .5 2.1 2 .8 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .1 1 1 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 1 8 -3 6 -41 1085 91 6 NA -54
18 44 1337 177 89 30 3 9 .7 4 7 .7 4 5 .9 4 3 .8 3 .0 3.1 6 .5 0 .9 3.3 4 .5 0 .0 0 3 -0 .1 7 3 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 1 6 -5 0 •4 9 1463 1264 NA -8 6
18 86 1490 Peak 200 100 38 4 5 .2 5 3 .5 5 1 .3 4 9 .8 3 .4 4 .4 7 .4 1 .5 3 .9 5 .3 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .2 1 0 -0 .0 2 2 -0 .0 0 6 •59 -4 7 1640 1402 NA -71
27 73 1 1 7 6 R e a d in g 174 87 32 3 9 .4 4 6 .6 4 5 .0 4 3 .4 3 .2 4 .6 7.1 1.7 3 .7 5 .2 0 .0 0 0 -0 .2 0 2 -0 .0 1 9 0.011 -4 9 -4 3 1542 1313 NA -64
3 31 79 1589 212 108 39 48.1 5 6 .5 54.1 5 3 .0 3 .6 5 .2 7 .9 1.8 4.1 5 .6 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .2 1 9 -0 .0 1 9 -0 .0 0 7 -5 9 -5 2 1713 1491 NA -7 4

m
31 87 1911 260 130 51 5 9 .6 6 8 .7 6 5 .7 6 5 .5 4 .4 5 .9 9 .7 2.1 5.1 7 .0 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .2 7 1 - 0 .0 3 5 -0 .0 3 5 -6 8 -63 2030 1780 NA -8 6
32 91 2070 283 141 57 6 5 .2 7 4 .6 7 1 .3 7 1 .7 4 .9 8 .3 1 0 .7 2 .2 5 .6 7 .7 -0 .0 0 6 -0 ,2 9 4 -0 .0 4 2 - 0 .0 4 5 -71 -6 7 2179 1895 NA -91
32 107 2180 Peak 300 150 62 6 9 .3 7 8 .8 7 5 .3 7 6 .2 5 .4 7 .7 1 1 .6 2 .8 6 .0 8 .2 -0 .0 0 6 -0 .3 2 1 -0 .0 6 3 -0 .0 4 8 -7 3 -6 9 2289 1994 NA -9 6
42 116 1 6 8 5 R e a d in g 253 127 54 5 8 .8 6 6 .5 6 3 .9 6 4 .3 6.1 7 .9 1 0 .9 2 .9 5 .7 8 .0 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .3 1 5 -0 .0 5 1 - 0 .0 5 0 -6 2 -8 0 2091 1814 NA -95
4 44 124 2170 296 143 62 6 8 .7 7 7 .6 7 4 .4 7 5 .7 5 .5 8 .2 1 1 .8 3 .0 6 .0 6 .3 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .3 2 0 -0 .0 6 4 -0 .0 5 2 -6 9 -71 2269 1962 NA -1 0 2
45 132 2500 344 172 75 7 9 .5 9 0 .8 8 6 .8 8 7 .5 8 .3 8 .9 1 3 .6 3.1 7 .0 9 .6 -0 .0 0 5 -0 .3 5 1 -0 .0 6 4 - 0 .0 ® -7 9 -7B 2588 2189 NA -1 0 3
45 138 2840 366 183 80 8 4 .3 9 6 .4 92.1 9 2 .9 6 .7 9 .4 1 4 .4 3.3 7 .4 1 0 .2 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .3 6 6 -0 .0 6 8 -0 .0 6 7 -8 3 -8 3 2722 2289 NA -1 0 8
45 145 2870 Peak 400 200 90 9 2 .4 1 0 5 .2 1 0 0 .5 1 0 1 .5 7 .5 1 0 .7 16.1 3 .7 8.2 1 1 .3 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .4 0 3 -0 .0 8 2 -0 .0 7 0 -8 7 -9 3 2890 2518 NA -1 1 4
56 152 2 5 6 0 R e a d in g 367 183 84 8 4 .8 9 6 .3 9 2 .4 9 3 .4 7 ,7 1 1 .3 1 6 .0 3 .9 3.0 1 1 .2 -0 .0 0 7 -0 .4 0 4 -0 .0 8 5 -0 .0 7 5 -7 7 -8 3 2756 2427 NA -2437
5 58 160 3040 423 212 96 98.1 1 1 1 .2 1 0 5 .9 1 0 7 .9 8 .3 1 1 .0 1 7 .3 4.1 8 .7 1 1 .9 -0 .0 1 5 -0 .4 2 5 -0 .0 9 8 -0 .0 7 8 -8 9 -9 6 3029 2672 NA -1 2 0
58 164 3200 447 224 102 1 0 3 .8 1 1 7 .3 1 1 1 .9 1 1 4 .0 8 .6 12.1 18.1 4.1 9 .2 12.6 0 .0 0 8 -0 .4 5 1 -0 .1 0 7 -0 .0 9 3 -9 0 -1 0 2 3199 2833 NA -121
59 168 3340 467 234 108 1 0 8 .5 1 2 2 .7 1 1 6 .8 119.1 8 .9 1 2 .6 1 8 .9 4 .3 9.6 1 3 .2 -0 .0 0 4 - 0 .4 7 3 -0 .1 2 0 -0 .0 9 1 -9 4 -1 0 4 3404 2973 NA -125
59 180 3550 Peak 500 250 118 1 1 6 .0 1 3 1 .3 1 2 4 .8 1 2 7 .5 9 .4 1 3 .8 2 0 .3 4 .9 1 0 .4 14.2 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .5 1 9 -0 .1 4 2 -0 .0 9 9 -9 6 -1 0 9 4038 3236 NA -1 2 9
71 188 3 0 6 0 R e a d in g 460 230 111 1 0 0 .9 1 2 0 .8 1 1 4 .9 1 1 7 .0 9 .4 1 3 .9 2 0 .0 4 .9 1 0 .2 1 4 .2 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .5 2 3 - 0 .1 4 0 -0 .0 8 3 -8 7 -101 3931 3117 NA -121
6 73 194 3580 500 250 118 116.3 1 3 1 .0 1 2 4 .7 1 2 7 .8 9 .8 1 4 .4 2 0 .7 5.1 10.6 1 4 .4 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .5 3 2 -0 .1 4 6 -0 .0 9 8 -9 6 -1 0 9 4121 3268 NA -1 2 8
73 202 3870 546 273 133 1 2 7 .4 1 4 2 .9 1 3 6 .0 1 3 9 .8 1 0 .3 1 5 .4 2 2 .4 5 .6 1 1 .6 1 5 .7 0 .0 0 0 -0 .5 7 0 -0 .1 6 1 -0 .0 9 1 -9 6 -1 1 4 5900 3902 NA -1 2 9 74

74 210 4150 5% 293 147 1 3 6 .8 1 5 3 .2 1 4 5 .5 1 5 0 .2 1 0 .8 16.1 24.1 6 .0 1 2 .8 17.2 0 .0 0 5 -0 .6 0 5 -0 .1 7 6 -0 .0 9 3 -1 0 7 -1 1 8 7825 4953 NA -1 2 4
74 218 4230 Peak 600 300 153 1 4 0 .4 1 5 6 .8 1 4 9 .0 1 5 3 .9 1 1 .0 1 6 .8 2 4 .8 6 .3 1 3 .3 17.7 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .6 0 9 -0 .1 7 8 -0 .0 9 2 -9 3 -1 1 6 8650 5525 NA 173
84 226 3 6 0 0 R e a d in g 555 277 144 1 3 0 .0 1 4 5 .2 1 3 7 .7 1 4 1 .7 1 0 .9 1 6 .0 2 4 .3 6 .3 1 3 .0 1 7 .6 -0 .0 0 5 -0 .6 2 0 -0 .1 7 8 - 0 .1 0 2 -8 6 -1 0 8 8500 5419 NA -1 1 4
5T
7 84 234 4360 617 308 158 1 4 4 .6 161.1 1 5 3 .0 1 5 8 .8 1 1 .4 1 7 .4 2 5 .7 6 .7 1 3 .8 18.3 -0 .0 0 3 -0 .6 2 9 -0 .1 8 4 - 0 .0 9 3 -1 0 3 -1 1 9 9100 5975 NA -121
85 238 4518 640 320 167 1 5 0 .0 1 6 6 .8 1 5 8 .5 1 6 4 .6 11.6 1 7 .9 2 6 .6 6 .8 1 4 .4 19.2 0 .0 0 2 -0 .8 3 8 -0 .1 8 6 -0 .1 1 3 -92 -1 1 8 10531 7100 NA -1 1 6
85 242 4660 662 331 176 1 5 5 .4 1 7 2 .5 1 6 3 .7 1 7 0 .3 1 1 .9 1 8 .4 2 7 .6 7.1 15.1 2 0 .0 -0 .0 0 2 -0 .6 4 8 -0 .1 9 9 -0 .1 0 3 -9 2 -1 1 8 11700 8125 NA -112
86 256 4920 Peak 701 350 193 1 6 5 .3 1 8 1 .7 1 7 2 .5 181.1 1 2 .4 1 9 .6 2 9 .7 7 .8 1 0 .7 2 1 .8 0 .0 0 6 -0 .7 9 6 -0 .2 0 3 -0 .1 1 0 -8 5 -1 1 7 13375 9725 NA -8 9
102 275 3 8 3 0 R e a d in g 580 290 165 1 3 8 ,9 151.1 143.1 1 4 8 .5 1 1 .7 1 8 .9 2 7 .4 7 .5 15.3 2 0 .4 0 .0 0 5 -0 .8 0 6 -0 .2 1 5 -0 .0 8 1 -6 3 -8 9 12475 9150 NA -7 8
104 3 21 5080 723 361 201 1 7 0 .6 1 8 7 .5 1 7 7 .9 1 8 6 .7 1 2 .9 2 1 .2 3 1 .0 8 .5 17.5 2 2 .7 -0.021 -1 .0 8 5 -0 .2 2 3 -0 .0 8 8 -8 6 -1 1 4 13344 10050 NA -89
105 353 5455 778 380 225 184.1 2 0 1 .5 191.1 2 0 1 .1 1 3 .5 2 2 .8 3 3 ,7 0 .5 1 9 .5 2 5 .0 -0 .1 1 3 -1 .2 3 8 -0 .2 7 4 -0 .0 8 4 -7 2 -1 1 4 12200 12750 NA -8 4
106
108
381
384
5 5 6 3 Ultim ate
2 9 5 8 P o s t-p e a k
820
318
410
158
241
82
1 9 4 .4
7 2 .2
2 1 2 .4
8 1 .0
2 0 1 .3
7 9 .7
2 1 2 .0
8 3 .5
1 4 .0
8 .7
2 3 .5
2 0 .2
3 5 .7
5 1 .0
9 .9
1 5 .7
2 1 .0
4 2 .9
2 6 .6
1 7 .9
-0 .2 3 2
-9 .4 7 5
-1 .3 5 3
- 1 7 .5 5 6
-0 .2 9 7
-0 .2 2 8
-0 .0 8 7
-0.081
-7 2
-4 5
-1 1 3
-7 0
12525
9126
14775
11919
NA
NA
-7 8
-4 3
no
130 380 8 U n lo a d ed 0 0 10 01 0.2 0.1 0 .0 -2 .4 13.3 3 1 .8 1 6 .5 3 5 .7 1 1 .0 - 8 .8 9 4 - 1 7 .5 6 6 -0.151 - 0 .0 4 9 31 18 7325 9263 NA 12
m
on
5
os
RY2P Data Summary

T o ta l T o ta l T o ta l L o a d C ell D ata V ertical LVDT D a ta S p e c im e n D efo rm atio n D ia g o n a l LVDT D a ta S tra in G a u g e s
V ertical V ertical f-brizon. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG.
L o ad T im s DATA PT C o m m en t L oad L o ad L o ad LCNW LCNE LCSW LCSE E nd Q u a r te r C e n te r Q u a r te r C e n te r LVOTH N -TN -BS N -TS-B N S -T N -8 S S -T S-B N SG -N W S G -S W SG -N C S G -S C SG -N E S G -S E
S ta g e [trtn j SE T (kN) (kfVm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (uE ) (“ E> <uE> (uE ) (uE ) <uE)
(p si)
2 1 2 0 .5 0 .4 0 .5 0 .5 0 .0 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 -0 .0 0 2 - 0 .0 1 7 0 .0 0 1 - 0 .0 0 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA
1 0 0 8 S tart
45 22 4 9 .8 1 2 .2 1 2 .8 1 0 .0 1.3 1 .8 2 .6 0 .0 0 .2 0 .2 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2 8 417
3 12 619 73 37 5 1 5 .9 20.1 2 0 .6 1 6 .4 1 .7 2 .3 3 .2 0.1 0 .3 0 .5 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 19 7 6 9 C ra ck in g 94 47 9 2 0 .7 2 5 .6 2 6 .3 2 1 .2 1.9 2 .8 4 .0 0 .4 0 .9 1.3 -0 .0 0 3 - 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1 3 -0 .0 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA
13 24 5 5 8 R e a d in g 77 38 8 1 7 .0 2 1 .0 2 1 .4 1 7 .2 1.8 2 .7 3 .9 0 .4 1.0 1 .6 -0 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 3 -0 .0 0 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2 16 34 1062 136 66 19 3 0 .4 3 6 .7 3 7 .6 31.1 2 .4 4 .0 5 .8 1.1 2.1 3 .0 -0 .0 0 4 - 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 3 7 0 .0 0 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA
16 SO 1521 203 101 39 4 8 .7 5 3 .6 5 4 .9 4 7 .7 3 .2 5 .9 6 .5 2.1 3 .9 5 .5 -0 .0 4 3 - 0 .0 8 3 0 .0 2 8 -0 .0 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
17 58 1806 245 122 50 5 7 .3 63 7 6 5 .4 5 8 .2 3 .7 6 .9 9 .9 2 .6 4 .7 6 .7 -0 .0 4 3 - 0 .1 0 6 0 .0 0 8 -0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA
18 89 2180 Peak 299 149 64 71.1 7 6 .8 7 8 .9 7 2 .2 4 .4 8 .4 1 1 .8 3 .2 5 .9 8 .4 -0 .0 6 5 -0 .1 5 7 0 .0 0 3 0 ,0 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
29 98 1 6 S 4 R e a d in g 260 130 58 8 2 .4 6 7 .5 6 8 .1 6 2 .0 4 .2 7 .9 1 1 .2 3 .0 5 .6 8 .2 -0 .0 5 1 -0 .1 5 2 0 .0 0 6 - 0 .0 0 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 30 109 2463 339 189 74 8 1 .2 8 6 .6 8 8 .8 8 2 .2 4 .9 9 .3 13.1 3 .6 6 .6 9 .4 -0 .0 5 4 - 0 .1 7 9 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
31 125 3028 421 211 99 1 0 1 .9 1 0 8 .5 1 0 9 .8 1 0 3 .2 6 .0 1 1 .5 1 6 .0 4 .6 8 .4 1 1 .9 -0 .0 5 3 -0.301 - 0 .0 2 7 -0 .0 1 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
32 141 3285 480 230 110 1 1 1 .8 1 1 5 .5 1 1 9 .4 1 1 3 .0 6 .5 1 2 .6 1 7 .4 5.1 9 .2 1 3 .0 -0 .0 5 6 - 0 .3 4 5 - 0 .0 6 7 - 0 .0 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
33 173 3560 Peak 500 250 123 1 2 1 .9 1 2 5 .0 1 2 9 .3 1 2 3 .5 7.1 1 3 .7 1 9 .0 5 .6 1 0 .2 1 4 .2 -0 .0 6 0 -0 .3 9 1 - 0 .0 8 7 - 0 .0 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
40 178 3 0 9 0 R e a d in g 474 237 119 1 1 6 .6 1 1 8 .7 1 2 2 .3 1 1 6 .7 7.1 1 3 .6 1 8 .9 5 .6 10.1 14,3 -0 .0 6 1 - 0 .3 9 8 -0 .0 8 4 -0 .0 0 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA
4 44 188 3713 521 261 130 1 2 7 .0 1 2 9 .8 1 3 4 .5 1 2 9 .3 7 .5 1 4 .4 2 0 .0 5 .9 1 0 .8 1 5 .0 -0 .0 4 8 -Q .424 -0 .0 9 3 - 0 .0 0 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
44 196 3880 543 271 138 1 3 3 .2 1 3 5 .0 1 4 0 .0 1 3 4 .7 7 .8 1 5 .0 2 0 .9 6 .2 1 1 .4 1 5 .7 -0 .0 4 9 -0 .4 4 8 -0 .1 0 0 0 .0 1 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA
45 212 4113 560 290 152 1 4 2 .4 144.1 1 4 9 .5 1 4 3 .9 8 .3 18.1 2 2 .5 8 .8 1 2 .5 1 7 .0 -0 .0 6 4 -0 .4 9 1 -0 .1 2 3 -0 .0 1 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
45 236 4250 Peak 600 300 159 147 3 149.1 1 5 4 .8 1 4 8 .9 8 .8 1 6 .8 2 3 .5 7.1 13.1 1 7.8 -0 .0 8 1 - 0 .5 1 8 - 0 .1 3 7 - 0 .0 0 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
56 245 3 8 7 0 R e a d in g 581 281 153 1 3 8 .4 1 3 9 .7 1 4 4 .8 1 3 8 .7 8 .7 1 6 .7 2 3 .2 7 .0 1 3 .0 17.8 -0 .0 6 5 -0 .5 2 3 -0 .1 3 8 -0 .0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
5 57 275 4453 629 314 170 1 5 4 .8 1 5 5 .9 1 6 2 .0 1 5 8 .3 9 .3 1 7 .8 2 5 .0 7 .5 1 4 .0 1 8 .9 ■ 0.078 - 0 .5 4 9 - 0 .1 5 0 -0 .0 0 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
57 291 4683 662 331 184 1 6 3 .3 164.1 1 7 0 .4 1 6 4 .8 9 .7 1 8 .8 2 6 .5 6 .0 15.1 2 0 .2 -0 .0 8 7 -0 .5 7 6 -0 .1 5 6 -0 .0 1 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA
58 307 4840 685 342 193 169.1 1 6 9 .7 1 70.1 170.1 1 0 .0 1 9 .5 2 7 .5 8 .4 1 5 .8 21.1 -0 .0 9 3 -0 .5 9 0 - 0 .1 7 7 -0.011 NA NA NA NA NA NA
59 331 4930 Peak 700 350 199 1 7 2 .9 1 7 3 .4 1 8 0 .0 1 7 3 .7 10.3 2 0 .1 2 8 .4 8 .7 1 6 .4 2 1 .8 -0 .0 9 2 - 0 .6 0 8 - 0 .1 9 3 - 0 .0 2 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
74 341 4 2 4 0 R e a d in g 654 327 192 1 6 2 .0 1 6 2 .5 1 6 8 .4 1 6 1 .3 1 0 .2 1 9 .9 2 8 .0 8 .6 16.1 2 1 .7 -0 .0 9 3 -0 .6 1 3 -0 .1 9 7 -0 .0 1 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
6 76 373 5143 729 364 211 1 7 9 .9 1 8 0 .0 1 8 7 .6 1 8 1 .2 1 0 .9 2 1 .2 2 9 .9 9 .2 1 7 .3 2 3 .0 -0 .1 0 8 -0.851 -0 .2 1 9 -0 .0 0 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA
76 389 5318 754 377 221 1 6 6 .3 1 8 6 .0 1 9 3 .8 1 8 7 .7 11.1 2 1 .9 31.1 9 .6 182 2 4 .0 - 0 .1 0 4 -0 .6 6 1 -0 .2 3 2 -0 .0 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA
77 405 5410 766 383 227 1 8 9 .5 1 8 9 .0 1 9 7 .0 1 9 0 .7 1 1 .3 2 2 .4 3 1 .8 9 .9 1 8 .7 2 4 .7 -0 .1 1 9 -0 .6 7 6 -0 .2 4 5 -0 .0 1 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
78 435 5636 Peak 801 400 242 1 9 8 .3 1 9 7 .3 2 0 5 .7 1 9 9 .4 1 1 .7 2 3 .4 3 3 .5 1 0 .5 2 0 .0 2 6 .2 - 0 .1 3 8 -0 .7 3 0 -0 .2 7 6 0 .0 0 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
88 446 4 6 9 3 R e a d in g 745 372 230 186.1 1 8 5 .4 1 9 0 .4 1 8 2 .7 1 1 .5 2 2 .9 3 2 .7 1 0 .3 1 9 .5 2 5 .8 - 0 .1 4 4 - 0 .7 2 0 -0 .2 7 4 -0 .0 1 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
7 92 458 5700 811 405 245 2 0 0 .8 1 9 9 .7 2 0 8 .3 2 0 1 .6 12.1 2 4 .0 3 4 .3 1 0 .8 2 0 .5 2 6 .8 -0 .1 4 6 -0 .7 4 5 -0 .2 8 6 - 0 .0 1 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
92 466 5970 850 425 262 2 1 0 .9 2 0 9 .1 2 1 8 .1 2 1 1 .7 1 2 .4 2 5 .2 3 6 .2 1 1 .5 2 1 .9 2 8 .6 -0 .1 7 2 -0 .7 8 3 -0 .3 0 9 -0 ,0 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
93 470 6080 866 433 270 2 1 5 .2 2 1 3 .2 2 2 2 .3 2 1 5 .7 1 2 .7 2 5 .9 3 7 .3 1 1 .9 2 2 .8 2 9 .6 - 0 .1 7 9 -0 .8 0 5 - 0 .3 1 8 - 0 .0 1 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
94 478 6280 Peak 886 448 284 2 2 2 .9 2 2 0 .3 2 2 9 .5 2 2 3 .1 1 3 .0 2 7 .2 3 9 .6 12.8 2 4 .7 3 1 .8 -0 .2 1 0 - 0 .8 5 5 -0 .3 6 5 -0 .0 1 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
97 516 1 7 5 0 U n lo ad 273 137 118 6 8 .0 6 9 .8 70.1 6 5 .2 7.1 1 6 .0 2 4 .2 8 .2 16.1 2 0 .4 -0 .2 2 9 -0 .5 1 9 -0 .1 8 6 - 0 .0 3 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
104 532 8 End 1 1 27 0 .5 0 .2 0 .2 0.1 0.1 5.1 9 .9 5 .3 1 0 .6 1 3 .4 -0 .2 2 1 -0 .2 7 8 - 0 .0 3 0 -0 .0 3 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Shear In Box Culverts

RY3 Data Sum m ary
T o ta l T o ta l T o ta l L o a d C eil D a ta V ertical LVDT D a ta S p e c im e n D efo rm atio n D ia g o n a l LVDT D a ta S tra in G a u g e s
V ertical V ertical Horizon, AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG.
L o ad Tim e DATA PT C o m m en t L o ad L oad L o ad LCWV LCNE LCSW LCSE E nd Q u a rte r C e n te r Q u a r te r C e n te r LVDTH N -TN -BS N-TS-B N S -T N -B S S -T S-B N SG -N W S G -S W SG -N C S G -S C SG -N E S G -S E
S ta g e [rrtnj SE T (p si) (kN) (kW rn) (kN) (kN) (KN) (kN) (kN) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (m m ) (mm) (m m ) (m m ) (mm) (m m ) (m m ) (uE ) (uE ) (uE ) (UE) (UE) (UE)
1 0 0 4 S ta rt 1 1 1 0 .4 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 a 477 31 11 3 9 .0 6 .6 6 .4 9 .4 1 .2 1 .4 1.6 0.1 0 .3 0 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
5 22 9 2 9 C ra ck in g 76 28 7 2 1 .4 1 6 .4 1 6 .0 2 2 .3 2 .0 2 .8 3 .5 0 .7 1.3 1 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
15 26 6 7 5 R e a d in g 60 22 5 1 6 .9 1 2 .6 12.6 1 7 .7 1 .8 2 .6 3.2 0 .7 1.2 1.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
19 38 1230 106 39 17 2 9 .4 2 3 .8 2 2 .9 30.1 2 .5 4 .3 6 .0 1.7 3 .3 4 .3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
19 44 1526 136 SO 23 3 6 .9 3 1 .2 30.1 3 8 .2 2 .9 5 .4 7.6 2 .3 4 .4 5 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
20 49 1673 P e a k 151 55 27 4 0 .3 35.1 3 3 .9 4 1 .8 3 .2 6.1 8 .6 2 .7 5.1 6 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
30 54 1 3 3 3 R e a d in g 130 47 25 3 4 .7 2 9 .9 2 9 .5 3 6 .0 3.1 5 .9 8 .2 2 .6 4 .9 6 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 32 58 1670 149 54 27 3 9 .7 3 4 .8 3 3 .5 4 1 .2 3 .2 6 .3 e .e 2 .7 5 .2 6 .9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
32 62 1877 171 62 32 4 5 .3 4 0 .3 3 8 .7 4 6 .9 3 .5 6 .9 9.7 3.1 5 .7 7 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
33 74 2150 Peak 200 73 40 5 2 .0 4 7 .8 4 6 .0 5 4 .0 4 .0 8 .2 1 1 .4 3 .6 6 .9 9 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
39 62 1681 R e a d in g 170 62 36 4 4 .5 4 0 .2 3 9 .6 4 6 .2 3 .8 7 .7 1 0 .7 3 .5 6 .4 9.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
4 44 68 2240 208 76 41 5 4 .0 4 9 .8 4 7 .8 5 6 .1 4 .2 8 .5 1 1 .9 3 .9 7 .2 9 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
45 92 2460 230 84 48 5 9 .7 5 5 .4 5 3 .3 8 1 .8 4 .5 9 .3 1 2 .9 4 .3 7 .9 1 0 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
45 96 2650 Peak 251 91 51 6 4 .8 6 0 .5 5 8 .3 6 7 .1 4 .9 10.1 14.1 4 .8 8 .7 1 1 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
58 104 2 2 0 0 R e a d in g 223 81 48 5 7 .3 5 3 .1 5 2 .5 8 0 .0 4 .6 9 .8 13.6 4 .6 8 .3 1 1 .6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
5 62 110 2660 250 91 51 8 4 .5 6 0 .5 5 8 .3 6 8 .8 5.1 10.3 14.4 4 .9 8 .8 1 1 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
63 114 2800 265 96 55 6 8 .4 6 4 .3 6 1 .8 7 0 .8 5 .2 1 0 .8 15.1 5.1 9 .2 1 2 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
64 128 3130 Peak 300 109 64 7 7 .3 7 2 .8 7 0 .0 7 9 .8 5 .7 12.4 17.3 6 .2 1 0 .9 1 4 .2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
76 132 2 7 9 5 R e a d in g 280 102 62 7 1 .8 6 7 .3 6 8 .3 75.1 5 .7 12.3 17.1 6.1 1 0 .8 1 4 .2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
79 142 3400 325 118 70 8 3 .5 7 9 .3 7 6 .3 8 6 .3 6 .2 1 3 .5 1 3 .9 6 .7 1 1 .9 1 5 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
79 146 3536 340 124 74 8 7.1 8 3 .1 8 0 .0 9 0 .0 6 .3 14.1 1 9 .7 7.1 1 2 .6 16.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
80 154 3630 P eak 350 127 77 8 9 .8 8 5 .3 8 2 .0 9 2 .9 6 .5 1 4 .6 2 0 .6 7 .5 1 3 .2 1 0 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Appendix G: Test Data

87 158 3 2 0 0 R e a d in g 330 120 75 8 4 .6 7 9 .8 7 7 .0 8 7 .5 6 .4 1 4 .4 2 0 .2 7 .3 1 3 .0 1 6 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7 92 162 3640 350 127 77 8 9 .6 8 5 .4 8 2 .3 9 2 .8 6 .7 1 4 .6 2 0 .9 7 .5 1 3 .4 1 7 .0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
93 170 3920 379 138 85 9 6 .9 9 2 ,7 8 9 .5 1 0 0 .3 7 .0 1 5 .9 2 2 .5 8 .2 1 4 .7 1 8 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
93 180 4128 Peak 400 145 91 1 0 1 .9 9 7 .8 9 4 .5 1 0 5 .6 7 .2 1 6 .8 2 4 .0 8 .6 1 5 .8 1 9 .6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
103 184 3 7 0 0 R e a d in g 380 138 89 9 6 .9 9 2 .5 9 0 .2 9 9 .9 7 .2 1 6 .6 2 3 .8 6 .7 1 5 .7 1 9 .6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 108 191 4185 407 146 94 1 0 3 .4 9 9 .7 9 6 .4 1 0 7 .2 7 .5 1 7 .3 2 4 .8 9.1 1 6 .3 20.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
108 203 4510 439 160 103 1 1 1 .3 1 0 7 .8 1 0 4 .4 1 1 5 .3 7 .7 1 8 .7 2 7 .2 10.2 1 8 .4 2 2 .0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
109 211 4620 Peak 450 164 107 1 1 4 .0 1 1 0 .6 1 0 7 .3 1 1 8 .3 7 .9 1 9 .3 28.1 1 0 .6 1 9 .2 2 2 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
124 219 3 9 3 0 R e a d in g 417 152 100 1 0 6 .0 1 0 2 .4 9 9 .8 1 0 9 .2 7 .7 1 8 .8 2 7 .6 1 0 .4 1 8 .9 2 2 .3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
9 128 227 4850 452 164 107 1 1 4 .4 1 1 1 .3 1 0 8 .0 1 1 8 .5 8 .0 19.6 2 9 .0 1 1 .0 1 9 .9 2 3 .1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
128 235 4886 476 173 115 1 20.1 1 1 7 .3 1 1 4 .0 1 2 4 .6 8 .2 2 0 .8 3 0 .7 1 1 .6 2 1 .4 2 4 .5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
130 251 5120 Peak 501 182 123 1 2 6 .0 1 2 3 .6 1 2 0 .3 1 3 0 .8 8 .4 2 2 .4 3 3 .6 13.1 2 4 .0 2 6 .4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
143 262 4 5 5 0 R e a d in g 477 174 118 1 2 1 .3 1 1 8 .4 1 1 4 .0 1 2 3 .4 8 .2 2 2 .2 3 3 .4 13.1 2 4 .0 2 6 .0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
10 145 274 5280 512 166 127 1 2 8 .8 1 2 6 .7 1 2 3 .3 1 3 3 .7 8 .5 2 3 .4 3 5 .4 1 3 .9 2 5 .6 2 7 .3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
146 282 5430 529 192 133 1 3 2 .8 1 3 0 .9 1 2 7 .4 1 3 8 .0 8 .6 2 4 .5 3 7 .4 1 4 .9 2 7 .0 2 8 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
147 297 5450 P eak 550 200 140 1 3 8 .9 1 3 7 .6 1 3 1 .6 1 4 2 .0 8 .7 2 8 .4 4 1 .2 1 6 .7 3 1 .2 3 0 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
158 304 4 8 0 0 R e a d in g 514 187 134 130.1 1 2 7 .8 1 2 3 .8 1 3 2 .8 8 .5 2 5 .8 4 0 .3 1 0 .4 3 0 .6 3 0 .1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
173 331 1 9 5 0 U n lo ad in g 201 73 68 5 1 .8 4 8 .8 4 7 .8 5 2 .8 5 .8 1 7 .3 2 7 .5 1 1 .3 2 1 .4 1 9 .7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
303 393 3 E nd 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 -2 .3 6.1 13.4 8 .3 1 5 .7 1 6 .8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
mot
Shear hi Box Culverts Appondx G: Test Data Summary
HI UJ
NA
NA
8 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1
UJ
& 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8
UJ
8 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
a
UJ
NA
NA
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
CP
CO
o
0
1
i
UJ
3. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
c3 .
NA
NA
55 8 2 i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
S i l l l 222222 222222222222222222
a m I5I2I 22222 2 2222222222222
IISSI 2 2252222 22222222 2222222222222
222222222222222222222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
w co f -
o a> n
o o o »-
*■ N (M W
rj- in CO r- n ® eo a W ■>* CO T-
to 0> O ®
a O) s o a> o r-
O a
£d o io w o r o r o
n o n 43 <*> <£> m c
f- c
8 8 ! J a
a n co in o
d t O ID
®C
Dt—C
On
n w © t- o 8 ? a
m 10 O r- t£>
ID (O N N ! 3i - o■<- ? *- *- 8 s 8 8 SJ S
■<- O 00 o o»
89
107
43
59
58
90
48
63
96
103
T- « N ^ CO § X § 2 8
H orizon.
T o ta l
L o ad
(kN)
RY3P Data Summary
18
1 25
0
6
0
122
144
155
164
149
125
157
27
25
116
136
28
54
183
162
50
131
151
S u5 ” Io S S 8 5 8
a1*I
f 5 s !
0
«- r» o in o
157
185
149
93
200
235
283
300
260
319
343
375
337
395
77
124
136
218
414
425
410
343
432
445
450
503
*- «* f- r»
361
V ertical
T o ta l
L o ad
(kN)
I? £ E*
§ eig
O
«
ff iS? &I W CO o
S S r- to o v-
§§I
a in o o «
O r- O
3 © 3 S <8
189
Shear in Box Culverts

RY4 Data Summary
T o tal T o tal T o tal L o ad C ell D aia V ertical LVDT D a ta S p e c im e n D eform ation D ia gonal LVDT D ata S train G a u g e s
V ertical V ertical H oriaan. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG.
L o ad Time DATA PT C o m m en t L o ad L o ad L o ad LCNW LCNE L C SW LCSE E nd Q u a rte r C e n te r Q u a rte r C e n te r LVDTH N-TN-BS N-TS-BN S-T N -B S S-T S-B N SG-NW SG -SW SG -N C S G -S C SG -N E S G -S E
S ta g s (rrtn) SE T (kN) (M *m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (m m ) (mm) (mm) (mm) (m m ) (mm) (mm) (uE) (uE) (uE ) <uE) (UE) (uE )
(p si)
1 0 0 5 S ta rt 1 0 1 0 .3 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.001 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 10 12 11 10 16 NA
7 10 305 40 15 3 10.9 9.1 9.1 9 .3 1.3 1.5 1.8 0 .2 0 .4 0 .3 - 0.001 - 0.001 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 7 -3 3 54 61 5 NA
8 21 6 3 5 C ra ck in g 105 38 13 2 7 .4 2 4 .6 2 4 .6 2 4 .7 2.1 3 .3 4 .3 1.0 1.9 2 .4 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 -0 .0 1 8 0 .0 0 3 -13 -1 232 475 1 NA
25 27 461 R e ad in g 86 31 11 2 2 .8 2 0 .2 2 0 .2 19.7 2.0 3.1 4 .0 1.0 1.8 2 .4 0 .0 0 4 0 ,0 0 0 - 0.001 0 .0 0 3 -11 0 239 463 1 NA
2 25 33 723 120 44 17 3 1 .3 2 6 .3 2 8 .3 2 8 .5 2 .4 3 .8 4 .9 1.2 2 .3 2 ,9 0.Q 23 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 4 -1 4 -2 28 9 558 0 NA
26 41 954 168 81 28 4 3 .4 3 9 .9 3 9 .9 40,1 2 .9 5.1 6 .7 1.9 3 .4 4 .4 0 .0 0 2 - 0.011 -0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 2 -1 0 1 423 719 3 NA
28 54 200 73 35 5 1 .6 4 8 .0 4 8 .0 4 8 .4 3.3 5 .9 7.9 2 .3 4.1 5 .4 -0,001 -0 .0 0 4 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 9 -9 3 531 818 6 NA

1114 Peak
44 63 8 2 9 R e ad in g 173 63 31 4 5 .0 4 1 .7 4 1 .7 4 1 .0 3.1 5 .6 7.4 2 .2 3 .9 5 .4 0 .0 0 5 - 0 .0 0 2 - 0.011 0 .0 0 8 -5 7 528 783 8 NA
3 46 64 1238 212 77 41 5 1 .8 4 9 .8 4 9 .8 5 2 .0 3.9 7 .0 9.3 2 .7 4 .9 6 .4 0 .0 1 0 - 0 .0 0 3 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 2 -8 6 789 1029 11 NA
46 65 1498 279 101 54 7 1 .3 6 7 .4 6 7 .4 6 8 .0 4 .2 7 .9 10.6 3 .2 5 .7 7 .5 0 .0 0 7 -0 .0 1 3 -0 .0 2 3 0 .0 1 0 -4 7 1316 1173 13 NA
47 70 1604 Peak 300 109 60 7 6.6 7 2 .7 7 2 .7 73.5 4 .5 8.6 11.5 3 .6 6 .3 8 .2 0 .0 0 8 -0 .0 1 3 - 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 3 0 -1 8 1415 1255 17 NA
58 74 1 3 7 4 R e ad in g 284 103 58 7 2.6 6 8 .9 6 8 .9 6 9 .5 45 8 .5 11.4 3 .5 8 .3 6 .2 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 5 -0 .0 1 7 0 .0 0 9 0 10 1390 1228 17 NA
4 62 83 1780 336 122 67 8 5 .5 8 1 .7 8 1 .7 8 2 .7 4 .9 9 .5 12.7 4 .0 7.0 9 .0 0 .0 0 3 - 0 .0 2 5 -0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 9 -1 10 1555 1371 19 NA
62 87 1890 359 131 73 9 1 .4 8 7 .3 8 7 .3 8 8 .4 5 .2 10.0 13.5 4 .3 7 .5 9 .6 0.011 -0 .0 1 5 -0 .0 1 8 0 .0 1 2 0 12 1637 1441 19 NA
63 103 2100 Peak 402 146 83 1 0 2 .0 9 7 .8 9 7 .8 9 9 .0 5 .7 11.2 15.0 4 .8 8 .4 10.7 0 .0 0 9 -0 .0 1 3 - 0 .0 2 0 0.011 6 14 1799 1572 25 NA
75 110 1 8 1 3 R e ad in g 372 13 5 78 9 4 .8 9 0 .8 9 0 .8 9 1 .4 5 .8 1 0 .9 14.5 4 .7 8.1 1 0.7 - 0 .0 0 5 -0 .0 0 9 -0 .0 2 3 0 .0 1 2 6 15 1738 1516 26 NA
5 76 118 2180 417 152 87 1 0 6 .0 1 0 1 .6 101.6 1 0 3 .0 6 .0 1 1 .7 15.6 5 .0 8.7 1 1 .0 0 .0 0 3 - 0 .0 0 9 -0 .0 2 5 0 .0 1 3 7 16 1855 1614 28 NA
77 126 2410 465 169 98 1 1 7 .9 1 1 3 .4 113.4 1 1 5 .0 6 .5 12.8 17.1 5 .5 9.6 1 2 ,2 0 .0 1 2 - 0 .0 1 5 -0 .0 3 3 0 .0 1 5 8 18 2025 1762 30 NA
77 133 2580 Peak 500 182 106 1 2 6 .8 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 123 .7 6 .9 1 3 .8 18.5 6 .0 10.5 13.1 0 .0 1 3 -0 .0 1 6 -0 .0 4 0 0 .0 1 4 14 21 2146 1869 35 NA
87 141 2 2 2 0 R e a d in g 456 186 99 1 1 5 .8 1 1 1 .4 1 1 1 .4 1 12 .7 8 .7 1 3 .2 17.8 5 .8 10.1 1 2 .9 0 .0 1 5 -0 .0 1 6 -0.041 0 .0 3 3 17 25 2055 1790 35 NA
6 92 153 2680 518 186 111 1 3 1 .2 1 2 6 .2 126.2 128 .3 7 .2 1 4 .3 19.2 6 .3 1 0.9 13.5 0 .0 1 5 -0 .0 1 7 -0 .0 4 3 0 .0 2 2 20 26 2220 1 938 37 NA
S3 161 2903 565 205 121 1 4 3 .2 1 3 7 .9 137.8 1 4 0 .0 7 .7 15.5 2 0 .8 6 .8 1 1.8 14.6 0 .0 1 4 -0 .0 1 6 - 0 .0 5 3 0 .0 1 8 23 31 2391 2090 40 NA
93 177 3030 Peak 600 218 130 1 5 1 .9 1 4 6 .5 1 4 6 .5 1 4 9 .0 8 .2 16.5 2 2 .2 7 .3 12.6 15.5 0 .0 1 3 - 0 .0 1 9 -0 .0 6 6 0 .0 1 9 26 34 2515 2207 44 NA
109 185 2 6 6 0 R e a d in g 565 205 125 1 4 3 .0 138.1 138.1 140.3 8.1 16.3 2 1 .8 7 .2 12.4 1 5.4 0 .0 1 4 - 0 .0 1 8 -0.071 0 .0 1 5 25 36 2456 2156 44 NA
7 112 195 3170 619 225 135 1 5 6 .7 1 5 1 .3 1 5 1 .3 1 53 .8 6 .6 1 7 .2 23.1 7.6 13.1 15.9 0 .0 1 3 - 0 .0 2 6 -0 .0 6 0 0 .0 2 2 27 38 2591 2276 48 NA
113 203 3410 667 242 146 1 6 8 .6 163.1 163.1 165.8 9.1 1 8 .4 2 4 .7 3 .2 14.1 1 7.0 0 .0 1 5 - 0 .0 3 2 -0 .0 7 7 0 .0 1 5 29 39 2766 2440 53 NA 141
114 215 3565 Peak 700 255 153 17 6 .9 1 7 1 .3 1 7 1 .3 174 .3 9 .6 1 9 .4 2 6 .0 8 .7 14.9 17.7 0 .0 1 4 - 0 .0 8 2 -0 .0 9 2 0 .0 2 4 30 42 2899 2561 84 NA
133 221 3 2 1 0 R e ad in g 664 241 149 1 6 7 .8 1 6 3 .0 1 6 3 .0 165.1 9 .6 19.3 2 5 .8 8 .6 14.8 1 7 ,8 0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 8 4 -0 .1 0 5 0 .0 1 6 32 44 2850 2514 75 NA
6 134 233 3730 733 266 162 1 8 5 .4 1 7 9 .8 1 7 9 .8 182.4 10.2 2 0 .5 2 7 .5 9.1 15.7 1 8 .5 0 .0 1 4 -0 .0 9 8 - 0 .1 1 2 0 .0 1 6 28 48 3049 2682 79 NA
134 237 3850 756 275 167 1 9 1 .4 1 8 5 .6 1 8 5 .6 188.3 1 0 .5 21.1 2 8 .3 9.4 16.1 1 9 .0 0 .0 1 0 - 0 .0 9 8 -0 .1 0 7 0 .0 2 7 35 48 3161 2773 89 NA
136 247 4060 Peek 800 291 178 2 0 2 .8 1 9 6 .3 1 9 6 .3 198 .9 11.1 2 2 .4 3 0 .2 1 0 .0 17.3 2 0 .2 0 .0 1 7 - 0 .1 6 5 -0 .1 3 4 0 .0 2 9 75 144 3464 2975 123 NA
" G: Test Data Summary

154 258 3 4 3 5 R e ad in g 740 269 169 18 7 .8 181.8 1 8 1 .8 183.8 10.9 2 1 .8 2 9 .3 9 .7 16.8 2 0 .0 0 .0 1 6 -0 .1 7 5 -0 .1 2 2 0 .0 2 5 84 161 3354 2861 128 NA
9 156 278 4173 823 299 184 2 0 8 .8 2 0 1 .8 2 0 1 .8 2 0 4 .8 11.7 2 3 .4 3 1 .4 1 0 .4 17.9 2 0 .8 0 .0 1 4 -0 .1 3 4 -0 .1 2 4 0 .0 2 8 91 174 3657 3093 136 NA
157 28 6 4363 861 313 194 2 1 8 .6 2 1 1 .3 2 1 1 .3 214.1 12.2 2 4 .5 3 3 .0 1 0 .9 18.9 2 1 .7 0 .0 3 6 -0 .2 0 4 -0 .1 2 9 0 .0 2 9 124 206 4047 3321 1 54 NA
159 310 4550 Peak 900 327 204 2 2 8 .8 2 2 0 .6 2 2 0 .8 2 2 3 .6 1 2.6 2 5 .9 3 5 .0 11.5 20.1 2 2 .8 0 .0 1 3 - 0 .2 4 9 -0 .1 4 3 0 .0 1 7 163 250 4593 3651 184 NA
177 32 5 3 7 1 0 R e ad in g 803 292 187 204.1 197.1 197.1 1 9 9 .5 12.4 2 4 .7 3 3 .2 10.9 19.0 2 2 ,0 0 .0 1 4 -0.251 -0 ,1 4 6 0 .0 2 7 169 259 4384 3448 186 NA
10 180 351 4750 939 341 215 2 3 8 .5 2 3 0 .3 2 3 0 .3 2 3 3 .5 13.7 2 7 .4 37.1 1 2 .2 2 1 .3 2 3 .8 0 .0 1 0 - 0 .2 7 8 -0 .1 5 8 0 .0 2 8 205 294 5225 4088 214 NA
162 375 4890 966 351 223 2 4 5 .4 2 3 6 .8 2 3 6 .8 2 4 0 .5 14.2 2 8 .5 38.6 12.7 2 2 .3 2 4 .7 0 .0 1 3 - 0 .3 4 4 -0 .1 7 6 0 .0 2 8 243 334 5825 4547 238 NA
184 414 5060 Peak 1 0 00 364 234 2 5 4 .0 245 .1 245.1 249.1 14.8 2 9 .8 4 0 .6 13.3 2 3 .6 2 5 .7 0 .0 1 8 -0.461 -0 .2 2 5 0 .0 2 3 300 384 8544 5194 289 NA
187 457 3 9 8 0 R e ad in g 883 321 210 2 2 4 .3 2 1 6 .2 2 1 6 .2 2 2 0 .3 14.2 2 6 .2 3 8 .2 1 2 .5 2 2 .0 2 4 .5 0 .0 2 9 - 0 .4 6 4 -0.241 0 .0 1 6 303 385 6263 4936 301 NA
201 472 1 7 1 2 U nload 372 135 89 9 5.4 9 0 .6 9 0 .6 9 2 .3 9 .3 1 7 .8 2 4 .0 7 .9 13.8 15.4 0 .0 2 5 - 0 .3 3 5 -0 .1 5 6 -0 .0 0 3 258 327 4546 3287 222 NA
202 495 121 B teek-up 2 1 3 0 .6 0 ,5 0 .5 0.4 - 1.0 2.4 4 .9 3 .4 6.0 6 .6 0 .0 3 0 - 0 .1 8 8 -0 .0 7 3 -0 .0 0 9 223 270 3124 1 979 162 NA
214 542 3 8 8 R e -L c a d 558 203 109 1 4 7 .8 1 3 8 .7 1 3 8 .7 1 2 9 .8 11.3 2 0 .3 2 5 .8 8 .0 13.0 1 6 .4 0 .0 3 9 - 0 .2 1 6 -0.111 0 .0 0 5 111 157 4223 2943 56 NA
216 632 5 1 6 0 Ultim ate 1031 375 243 2 6 1 .4 2 5 2 .0 2 5 2 .0 2 5 8 .2 15.8 3 1 .6 4 3 .2 14.1 25.1 2 6 .9 -0 .0 4 6 -0 .9 5 9 -0 .2 9 5 0 .0 1 0 386 463 6975 5525 492 NA
218 636 2 9 2 0 U nload 546 198 113 2 5 3 .2 1 5 0 .4 150.4 6 9 .2 9.9 28.1 6 2 .8 1 7 .3 5 1 .7 1 5 .5 -1 7 .5 5 6 -1 7 .5 5 6 - 0 .1 2 2 -0.071 660 565 4100 2800 437 NA
282 647 3 E nd 281 102 78 9 8 .3 9 1 .4 9 1 .4 4 4 .7 19.4 4 1 .0 6 1 .7 21.1 4 1 .7 12.6 -1 7 .5 5 9 -1 7 .5 5 0 -0 .1 0 4 -0 .1 7 0 1187 941 3168 1955 261 NA
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix G: Test Data Summary
Si „
$ S. II I m u 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
^ —.
w 3 S S S S 3 II I H i l l 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8
$ a SI s s s I I I 2 i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
rk UJ"
® a I I S5! II I § 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
I 1 1 H U S II I s s 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
O
c i
55 8 = lllll II I S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
o> co ® « e» g « g
z o o o o o
m
ch
o o o o o
dod
o o o
o o o o o d o d o ©
4- e
a
oo8§o
v CJ © CO
8o d
S 8 go o? os
3 0 0 0 0 0 ' o o o o o d oo do oo
o
o o o o o d odd
H I
(A a
g co <o
« 2
cm g in
§b dI CM <M
d o
A
odd
t- cm
to n
co S ? S
o d d
8!
t-
o cA •©•
Q Si i
*- r - u> tp r- O O CO ID g at CO
t/) o o p o
s s
03 S o
o d
o
d
o
d
o
d o do do
o o
o
o
o'
o
d
o
d
o
d
o
o d
o
a o o o r--
b I
± I
o ©
21.71
g p CD CM04 O g ®. b CD 04
15.7
5.9
10.5
12.6
20.3
21.5
0.2
23.2
18.3
132
162
136
15.1
18.1
245
X o b b g b s 3 ■v cd b si 't «' <
0
!§ |
o £ p o <0 t- a <d p O LO O g® © g; « 0- © 04 to b ©
d d b g td d 09 CD d o o b 04 b og- © in to O
g- id cd g1 g; id b d ® 04 a o'
1
£
1 5 H
P w oo' d d b o p in b b b g gg1 5 id id id id b cgd gCD C
m
cO
d g b in
K 5 g;
m
to
04 gCD g04 p oo 0o- gd <0
d
g; r» P
gf
p g;
2 —
I 1 a I
do b b © f- p g g 04 o g o g b g b D* cd b «09 <d 5 p d o b b p cd o04 a g; O
g: dg1 b 09 o b b g <d cd b d d o' o ?i
c E
1 3 I
in © p g f- o 2 o a> p 0-
3 u o© b <0 CDo b b b h- b gg id d ©
id ©
cd b
p at
b an gd o' o a> p o b gg gj in' top> d id d ©
cd
a s s'
a 1 8 I
o p 2 gb b cm b g d oid cido id co <6 g; cd b to r~-
b b p cd cd atd CD at<d gCDaat> d 0d- d p ro-» p g; 2 b g; d id to
'■£ § "D E
$ < iS ^
O O CO
<8 8 § 3 5
r » 10 «o to w g O If) CO in pi o <o in
o> d *r b in to at e» in
ID N ID cm © g g t io e
ffl s ® id II) g t— <o

O b b CD g co g o d b b
O ffl O) CD ffl ® o ®
IA O ID g cm co o co g r- o>
u n s <N 03 t-
o n ® © co © o o o p © CO to CO t~
109
125
130
120
148
155
155
145
168
169
197
27
12
119
180
132
142
209
91
131
181
191
cm « i n to id i d r > s o o 8 8 8 0 0
! ? ! ?
f i l l
RY4P Data Summary
o « in s n
0
120
75
129
137
149
58
99
175
186
218
215
255
240
329
20
184
255
109
145
166
176
306
142
92
203
202
222
246
274
292
273
292
315
236
141
211
V ertical
(kN/m )
T o ta l
L o ad
1
160
700
905
355
387
484
580
650
660
755
865
56
40 0
40 9
60 9
842
206
254
300
273
377
557
600
557
675
590
603
602
457
505
701
751
331
611
391
481
"" N § 8 8
V ertical
T o ta l
L o ad
(KN)
. 5*
C
M T- N O
O t§ O Og Po o o o o in in
co in © .
to f- K t"-
£a o g cm o
2
in in p sT sT
191
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix G: Test Data Summary
© CMa © 8 O r-- C
Ma o o <n 8 O
o>J 8 3 8 o o CO SJ r- § C
n-» 8 3 (•-
228
214
214
209
204
O 52 5! o O O
eC> UJ
D3
UJ n © t; © 8 CMCM CM CO co m 5 52 2 £ C
oD O
o) o 8 o 8 8 S o 5 CD 12 ffl 8 CD CDC
ID CO
D 5 o0>) © £
CM§
1311
s
CMft 2 in * © *“ o> *? <D CO *- in so CO o T- v~ PI 9? T- CMT- CD a) r- in “? o> a> o CD in o ■n in CD o in CD in ©
<n - CO - rf lA CD N- o> CMo CMo S3 Si in
CMS3 cm CMCMCMCM8 3 o«*• ? si 8 aC>
O s 3 in09 8 52 CM5>
uT
8 3
CO ins © m r-
t CD < CD co CO co Cj- at o oo r«- a oo oo
£ S ft i •§ s CM 1 mi 8 s 3 I cn s S O S CO CM 8 8 sCO ©
Ss CMIn N. s •T M - CM 5 © £
8 3
2 in 52 £
Si s 8 CO 8 CM Sj S 8 s 8 8 8 S s 8 8 Os $ 8 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 s 3 D- ft r- 8 ©
n- £
aa> UJ
8 3
O a} C
o D 0CM> 52 « N-
o> £ 8 8 m >wcn s cCoO CO 3 8 8 oco 8 ft 3 © co £ £ £ S> N
£
5 a a 3 8 5 8 o 8 o o 8 8 o> D 5
C C
D
in oCD 3
O C
MCM o C
MCM C
O 2 O C
OCO
S o 8 8 S
o o o o o o o o d d d o d
o o o
o o o 8o ^o 2o
o o
o' d o d o
o o o
odd
o o o
odd
r*- cd <o in c- © ©
o o o o
o o o o o o o o o d d o o
2 o> © C
O 2 C
D O O
O
o oO T-
o Oo O O S O 5 i-
o 5g No <*
o •o-
o p o o o dodo d o o o o o o d d d
C
M© C
MO
C
O O O O
Nf C
MCM ID *- in »- s in
2 © C
M2 in © ©
aa O C
MO
m o o
f- co O) D *- c.
< <2 O © o m in © o m o <sr © © rt © r- © o r o
•cr <- © M © *- © « in
o « o«CM CM CM p>
«
m in co CD m © r- r~ O ©
© C © © © o 3 o O o 3 o
s
© CM a> © o ® o © « in in in n in o at m m <o o © © o © o o to m © o © © © © o © o in m ©
** CM CM cn ” ■*
Ct in 10 cn © © © r>- © ft © © « © © o 3 o o o j: 52 ?: 52 o
® CM o «t 00 C- ID © © CM © CM © © © © © « © o © © © © lO « © © in »_ © © ©C
M « •a
2 a
o
8 >>}• 5 m 8
to
m CO 8 8£ © © (S © 3 8
o>
£ ©
© 88 © 8 8
o
8
H
©
s Ji m ©
o
B
C
M cn o m © o co m © CD o cn © »- pi Cl if CM © ©© © fl- m ©© © ©©
n 7
in o> o in
CM
CM ^ in w CM T © © j«- [•- »- *7 d © <? n S f © in CO t- in © »
V-
© CM © © CM © c-
** ’■ ** T
“ *" T- ** •"
0 < M 0 lD © © * -© 0 © © ® ©
- t f f T i s i c - j i n i n S i n i f i
3 -S "S
e is
C
MCMC
M C
D C
O ©
O C
M 00
3 5 J 8 o co r- © 2 m cm
RY5 Data Summary
ill
8K 00 o o
■a I
6g £ S
s n s o o o
IT
388:3
a a rf
in ©©
2 2 C
D
! if
192
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix fc Test Data Summary
UJ
&3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
* -
8 3 222 2 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
V? _
in 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5? -
8 3 2222222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
§ _
1
a
6 ^
cn 3 22 22222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
i ^
2
m & s 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2222222222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
O Cl o 1 ui t co f*. «o 1- eq -cr cn t-»
iHii CM 00 CO «- co co. >3 in
d O O »- cm csi ir> a> w r*^ pi N n ri
■» to 13)
o cn o o
CO f CO
o co q o> c t ■so m cn
o o t- n ■* tn a> o o o o pi co
N PI PI
o o o CM It to N N N 05 O O o o a o o
O T- O 111 n q to
§ 3> ® pi pi n
»- <o O CO ■5)- CVj

§>3) ai ‘ 0 0 )1 0
CN CN CN
£M 05 O in co
co' a i CO O CN O) O
' t ■Cl i“ (N CN CN r~ CM CO CO I f 'f- in m co
IO v- SO O in o o> to iq in o
to N M If) r- CO
m m in U) ® N IO CO 0)> g
o o n o in a> r - m- © cm o in
co co co CO " f in 0 )0 1 0 0 0 0
£ £
gg
Data S u m m a r y
r - a> co o
CM CM CO CM f*» K CO
CM 3 10 o t- cm cn S CM CN O
CM CM CM w m m o- $ 55 2 m co co co
I 18
18 S 18 ■# 13 I Av
£ £ g £ £ & 5 5 i5
o o q in o o in o co o
io o in
o o o do co C
MOB IO
00 C
D O)
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
RY5P
cm co m
a o o O O O i- .- O’ f »T
C
MCMCMC M (N
193
Shear In Box Culverts 564 I: Test Data Summary
|
© S3 r- © © © O CM © CD o to
109
103
O a CM CM CM CM 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 o 2 © o s § s O 5 2 £ £ CM
§
[SG-SE
UJ
3
© © CO © CD ©
119
114
113
1 38
1 39
1 39
1 34
1 30
1 30
1 29
1 25
1 27
1 27
1 24
1 24
1 24
1 22
1 52
133
129
136
123
136
143
111
141
« CM W £
2 £ 1
s
£ 3
to CD
4 175
3 800
3 719
1139
1580
1844
2139
2558
3014
3314
3214
3616
1377
5125
3142
4615
1302
1766
1704
2032
2193
2273
2453
2746
768
5100
-1 1 4
223
978
I3 7 6
5031
513
t2 2 6
£ s 3
? ■E
CM
£ *3
CM © ©
1169
>735
1280
1679
3140
3033
1913
1463
>568
1102
1212
1732
i3 5 4
5011
-40
104
763
730
254
>011
>271
3371
$© r-. S r-.
s
UJ
3
1 s
©
S 1 1
*T
'S’ 3 s
1
©
1 o CO
1
s
© © CO
fT 3
-5 5
-4 4
570
429
120
125
118
104
113
129
1 32
1 33
1 26
1 13
1 03
1 03
113
136
126
2 s © % © s © s CO 5 f-p 9 § s
1 §
0 C
© o 3
3
© CO ID ©
s5 ©
•125
465
318
1 02
129
130
129
123
113
102
104
128
123
o
121
CM s £ % s & q s s r- r- % CO CO £
c £ % $ s 9
1
J3 6
CO CO 3
oo o oo os § 8O § 8o 8O o© o8 oo oo so so 8o o 8o 8o oo 8o § o 8o o i oo s i (0 ©
z 8o o o o 8 5 o o 8© oq o
3t- '
f
ID
O o o < 0 CMCMCM% s cB 8 s ® 8 S to r- © 8 o & s o ©
o o j: ID <
© CMco & CM '©
S- S3 o o
tr ©
3 s s fi
i d d d o d o d o 9 O9 o o o o o o o Oo d o o 9 9 o o 9 9 o o o 9 o O9 o o 9 q
cA I
o oQ o
O § oo oo s so 3o oo so 8o oo § 5o
© © o 1o ID © C
D
s o© 8 i oo oo 3o oo i o o o 8 o
-
© ID ID to
C
M 5 © 3 s
Q cH/j "e *7 V
§ 2 E ' ■
© S3 o to ct ta M
r CM CM o © s o to to § © ©© 8 s Ro - C
M
s
8 Oo o Ro o
ID ID
8 X CM C
M
8 ft % 8o o
© Z o' o o o o o o o © o o o O O ©©o o O © o o o o o o © o o o o o 9 o o O r~
S i £
o io in
K Si Si C
M »- (N
o o o eo © o ©
o t- n in in <f (D IO
n in n
C
MCMC
MCM CM CM CM CM CM f CM CM CM CM
§I
O CN Q
cr u to to O f-~ © t- C
M© ©
S0
o o
»
in cd
> CM’
in ?
© N- O
SSS
e o in
»r © o © in in o co co
4 4 s n «'
<
r rM W
*> <C C
ni r« T
^- oCM
8 f
£38
N. O C
OI «
SS SI CO O O
O O IO N f
Sj CM
IH
II
RY6 Data Summary
ID ® C
MO
1I -3 S.-
I ’■« * *8 *H o IS 3S I.5 IS£

w 4)
O tE S. 3 S. &
«
o. a:
V
& a:
0 0
£& £ S.
•m- in co
s $
O 10 UJ N-
M- "T 'tr ID $ 18 8
194
Shear hi Box Culverts Appendix G: Test Data Summary
g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g s g
g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
JISH g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
55525I g g g g g g g s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
5 g S S 5 g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
g $ g g g g s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
(h
ch s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g I g
s
CD
±
NA
NA
NA
NA
<h i g g g g g g g s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
z
«3 CD
Q cA
<? i g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
- s
(0
c 03 .
o ±
s ± I g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
13.61
Q.ol
18.6)
26.9I
33.5
cn
18.7
h- q
1.0
11.0
12.2
14.9
16.5
17.9
30.6
36.3
25.7
28.7
29.7
25.8
co to to o CT
>
2.0
2.8
4.2
6.1
224
242
264
21.1
Cd to to cd o b 2 •f in C
M to ai to
T
E
§ E
q t-; <N P-. to u> o q to to to to to h- to •- o to o o in to C
MCMo o to to q •f b o to o C
M
[Center
1 M C
M
|(mm)
o
"
* 1
13.9
I0.0
4.0
I0.2
I2.6
3.5
7.9
9.3
10.6
10.7
0.4
0.9
2.3
2.8
3.6
3.7
4.0
5.0
6.5
6.4
6.5
7.3
7.8
8.3
9.3
o q to
3.2
to to
0.6
5.2
5.6
6.2
60
w 6 C
d -f in to ai s oj
f
Iavg.
R>
3 If
I a £
q C
MC
2.8
4.8
6.4
o
8.4
o o o> in o in o to to M r- o
4.0
n w to
06
■» N-* to d tf b
b •» o IN b to - t •S
* b b to cci b b Ci b b to to
Center
Iavg.
>6.0
11.5
12.7
13,4
17.0
23.0
23.4
25.3
25.4
27.7
E6.3
to fw
14.2
17.8
3.6
I0.8
I6.9
I8.9
3.9
3.8
5.0
6.4
9.5
o co q
’2.4
2.4
10.4
13.8
3.3
7.6
I6.7
10.1
29.1
to CM
00
L ’Zl
<
0 to to to in o to •f b
AVG.
O S'
E
B
-0.4
14.0
9.0
10.9
12.7
12.9
13.6
14.6
11.3
10.0
10.4
10.4
11.2
11.8
13.2
0.0
2.4
2.7
2.6
3.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
5.5
6.0
5.9
6.2
6.5
7.0
7.6
7.4
7.8
8.3
9.2
9.5
4.6
11.6
12,1
2 b to to
‘■e to T
D
£ Sc U J i.
tj- o to o CM to co to to to OJ O o q Ml o o Mf ai to N- to q C
M O to
o cd d ai to 2 to b to ait id to C
MC N Pd b •f b b b •f cd b CM b ai o
i *- T- *" t- T
_ *- i- T- T" C
M C
MC MCM »-
8
r- <o q to d; to O
■ ) C
M o to o o to q to to M
- to Mto m-
C
b iri b a> •f b 2 O) b b co to b b to b o ai ai to b 2 ai to 2 b ai CMb CMb O b to b
i s
£ z *" T
_ *" CMCMCM *■
o
to to to CO in to o Tf CMro n q CM as to to •f C
Mto to to to N-
b to b «o s to b b b b b S <d to to ai to b b •f b s o
¥ % t
(3 I ** r“ T* *
“ *" *■ *■ *“ r- T- C
MC M
5
to CM to CM to o <n o o •f to in to 0> q to to <T> to to
t§ b b d 5 5 ai to to 2 b in S ® b b •T S to b o to o b CM to V b
f
C
d CM CM CM CM
o O z *" *" T_ T" T" T" *“ r"
O to cn o to m t- w
f - > - N N N N n n ^ ' t 3 § 3 ic in io is O) O O T- O
RY6P Data Summary
N O N N N O
r-~ to o
co o tM
* IS *£ 1£8 I &
££ £S m o o
<£ 5
r S Si *- so —
o *-
in in w n
i n ^
CN CM CO n
5 t)
O CO
to to 40 to
in in in
a sp
195
Shear hi Box Culverts

Dial Gauge Data Summary (South = S o u th E nd Axial M easurem ent, North = North End Axial M eaurement, CL >=Mid-span Dial G auge M easurement)
RY1 RY1P RY2 RY2 RY3 RY3P

Load Load So u th North CL Load Load S o u th North CL Load Load South North CL Load Load So u th North CL Load Load South North CL Load Load South North CL
Stage [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] S ta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] Stag e [KN] [mm] [mm] [mm] S ta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] S ta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] Stage [KN] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 68 -0.05 0.03 0.12 1 65 -0.20 0.10 0.14 1 41 -0.08 0.00 0.11 1 77 -0.08 0.00 0.11 1 60 -0.15 0.20 0.15 1 70 0.05 0.10 0.13
2 179 0.00 0.20 0.29 2 191 -0.25 0.10 0.35 2 174 NA NA NA 2 260 0.00 -0.19 0.39 2 130 -0.15 0.30 0.30 2 185 0.13 0.33 0.35
3 276 0.15 0.08 0.44 3 286 -0.28 0.15 0.50 3 253 0.00 -0.19 0.39 3 474 -0.13 -0.25 0.72 3 170 -0,15 0.30 0.38 3 260 0.20 0.43 0.52
4 377 0.25 0.00 0.59 4 374 -0.33 0.08 0.62 4 367 NA NA NA 4 561 -0.20 -0.30 0.87 4 223 -0.15 0.03 0.50 4 337 0.30 0.58 0.68
5 434 0.28 -0.03 0.69 5 476 -0.43 -0.05 0.73 5 460 -0.13 -0.25 0.72 5 654 -0.25 -0.38 1.02 5 280 -0.15 0.30 0.63 5 410 0.51 0.76 0.86
6 485 0.28 -0.03 0.77 6 483 -0.43 0.08 0.74 6 555 -0.20 -0.30 0.87 6 745 -0.41 -0.46 1.16 6 330 -0.15 0.30 0.74 6 445 0.91 0.79 0.95
7 515 0.30 -0.03 0.84 7 580 -0.25 -0.38 1.02 7 380 0.00 0.30 0.85
8 561 0.30 -0.05 0.98 8 417 0.05 0.33 0.99
9 610 0.30 -0.05 0.98 9 477 0.15 0.36 1.05
10 514 0.15 0.30 1.30
RY4 RY4P RY5 RY5P RY6 RY6P
Load Load So u th North CL Load Load South North CL Load Load So u th North CL Load Load S o u th North CL Load Load South North CL Load Load South North CL
Stage [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] Stag e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] S ta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] S ta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] Stage [kN] [mm] [mm] [iron] Sta g e [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 86 0.15 0.06 0.20 1 90 0.10 0.30 0.21 1 84 0.13 0.10 0.4Q 1 143 0.03 0.10 0.60 1 106 0.28 0.05 0.48 1 99 0.23 0.41 0.48
2 173 NA NA NA 2 273 0.10 0.48 0.61 2 181 0.25 0.18 0.78 2 201 0.08 0.13 0.85 2 170 0,36 0.10 0.72 2 185 0.30 0.66 0.81
3 284 0.05 0.30 0.62 3 387 0.13 0.51 0.84 3 231 0.36 0.25 0.97 3 237 0.10 0.15 1.00 3 270 0.46 0.13 1.10 3 269 0.48 0.99 1.14
4 372 0.00 0.36 0.84 4 484 0.10 0.51 1.06 4 277 0.43 0.28 1.15 4 317 0.13 0,20 1.31 4 374 0.53 0.23 1.48 4 369 0.53 1,30 1.52
5 456 0.00 0.41 1.00 5 557 0.13 0.51 1.22 5 324 0.51 0.30 1.33 5 367 0.15 0.30 1.51 5 475 0.66 0.30 1.89 5 476 0.64 1.57 1.91
6 565 -0.08 0.39 1.26 6 590 0.15 0.48 1.48 6 370 0.58 0.36 1.52 6 434 0.25 0.43 1.78 6 570 0.81 0.48 2.23 6 574 0.76 1.91 2.29
7 664 -0.13 0.37 1.48 7 751 0.23 0.41 1.63 7 421 0.69 0.41 1.72 7 492 0.28 0.51 1.96 7 663 1.22 0.58 2.55 7 663 0.94 2,13 2.59
ON 8 740 -0.15 -0.23 1.84 8 463 0.81 0.51 1.88 8 543 0.25 0.56 2.21 8 764 1.40 0,66 2.97 8 727 1.19 2.26 2.84
9 803 -0.30 -0.15 1.77
10 883 0.15 0.30 1,30
Appendix G: Test Data Summary

R eaction B eam M id-span D eflection (1800x1500x200 R eaction Beam M id-span D eflection (2400x1800x200 R eaction B eam M id-span D eflection (3000x2400x250
S p ecim en s) S p ecim en s) S pecim ens)
1000 900 -t
900 800 ■]
800 700 H
700 600 -I
600 X 500 -
500 *RY3
□ RY1P 400 ORY3P 400-
300 o* ARY4 300 -
200 XRY4P 200-
100 100-
0
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.25 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
D eflection [mm] D eflection [mm] D eflection [mm]
Appendix H:
Photo Record of Reinforcement Cages
197
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix H: Rrinforcement Cages
Specimen RY1 and RY1P
198
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix H: Reinforcement Gages
-v * 'inr T '*''*[iT“i—' ~ * 1 1
, _
« ? ■
; •- inyimi ib tt'*
ffwiwaw - j
,#i;J *► *•** *-*• ■»»»p'J— «- ■
» l«?'*U» I ir* ** ./ * . i i * i * *♦*v i
%• 1AJ t ^ •* J» >in«|H»Ri»i i .tm

:iM.»....»
t .n
fiii.i»
e -*t ■- **r*** . - , *, \! • •J/ 7f *- ‘^
- fnll
*£?'- ,*• * 2 *
f/ W
'L B ‘TV • f.
UTr ft *
:H " yv
M W " * * ™ ’*1
BrirKfcrf !+•<*•.* (
ii
.•ww>M*^wm«3A^rer o
, A—*■.*-'•*
•.rsxm rnas Va
fcswanranr c jw a a ^ n i
y a m r r ' ■" r ” J | rsnfSSSi-'iV
wsstnrar-.-' - —T
«W?t rlv ^ V t'ft
py :t s" i r i
r 51
199
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix H: Reinforcement Cages
200
Shear In Box Ciriverts Appendix H: Reinforcement Gages
201
Shear In Box Culverts 154 I: Reinforcement Cages
Specimen RYSand RY5P
202
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix H: Reinforcement Cages
203
Appendix I: Sample VecTor5 Input Files
Specimen RY4 Full Box Model Vectors Structural Data File
V e c T o r ~ 5 *
*
STRUCTURE DATA *
*
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Structure Title (30 char, max.) FRAME RY4

Structure File Name (8 char. m a x .) RY4
N o . of Members (50 max.) 30
No. of Member Types (10 max.) 6
No. of Joints (45 max.) 31
No. of Support Joints 3
No. of Support Restraints 5
AUXILIARY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
Section Analysis Mode (1-5) : 1

Shear Analysis Mode (0-4) : 0
Avg Acceleration Factor (>1.0) : 5.0
STRUCTURE PARAMETERS
(A) Joint Coordinates
<NOTE.-> Coordinate units in mm

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
NODE X Y [ #NODES d(NODE) d(X) d(Y) ] <-- up to 2 directions /
1 1320.5 1727
2 1193.5 1727
3 1066.5 1727
4 939.5 1727
5 812.S 1727
6 685 .5 1727
7 558.5 1727
8 431.5 1727
9 304 .5 1727
10 152.25 1727
11 0 1727
12 0 1574.7 /
13 0 1422.5 /
14 0 1236.2 /
15 0 1049.8 /
16 0 863 .5 /
17 0 677.2 /
18 0 490.8 /
19 0 304.5
20 0 152.25 /
21 0 0 /
22 152.25 0 /
23 304 .5 0 /
24 431.5 0 /
25 558 .5 0 /
204
Shear hi Box Culverts 141 " I: Sample UecTorS Input Hies
26 685.5 0 /
27 812.5 0 /
28 939.5 0 /
29 1066.5 0 /
30 1193.0 0 /
31 1320.5 0 /
(B) Member Incidences
<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>

MEM INC1 INC2 M E M .TYPE [ #MEMS d(MEM) d(INC) <-- up to 2 directions /
1 2 1 1 /
2 3 2 1 /
3 4 3 1 /
4 5 4 1 /
5 6 5 1 /
6 7 6 1 /
7 8 7 1 /
8 9 8 1 /
9 10 9 2 /
10 11 10 3 /
11 12 11 3 /
12 13 12 2 /
13 14 13 1 /
14 15 14 1 /
15 16 15 1 /
16 17 16 1 /
17 18 17 1 /
18 19 18 1 /
19 20 19 2 /
20 21 20 3 /
21 21 22 4 /
22 22 23 5 /
23 23 24 6 /
24 24 25 6 /
25 25 26 6 /
26 26 27 6 /
27 27 28 6 /
28 28 29 6 /
29 29 30 6 /
30 30 31 6 /
/
(C) Support Restraint List
<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>

NODE X-RST Y-RST Z-RST [ #NODES d(NODE) ] <-- up to 2 directions /
1 10 1 /
16 0 1 0 /
31 1 0 1 /
/
(D) Member Specifications
MT f 'c f't EC CC Kc Agg Scrx Scry Nc

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (/deg.C) (mm2/hr) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 71.7 2.80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 10
2 71.7 2.80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 13
3 71.7 2.80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 15
4 71.7 2.80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 15
5 71.7 2 .80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 13
6 71.7 2 .80 42300.0 0.000010 4320.0 10 100 100 10
MT Fyt Est Cs Ns
(MPa) (MPa) (/de g .i
C)
1 555.0 200000. 0.000010 2
2 555.0 200000. 0.000010 2
3 555.0 200000. 0.000010 2
205
Shear in Box Culverts \ .
58 Sample VecTorS Input Hies
4 545.0 200000. 0.000010 2
5 545 .0 200000. 0.000010 2
6 545.0 200000. 0.000010 2
i
(E) Concrete Layers
MT DC Wc rhot NX
(mm) (mm) (%)
1 20 .30 575.0 0.000 10
2 20.30 575.0 0.000 13
3 20.30 575.0 0.000 15
4 20 .30 575.0 0.000 15
5 20.30 575.0 0.000 13
S 20 .30 575.0 0.000 10
(F) Rebar Layers
MT N Ys As Fy Fu Es Esh esh Dep

(mm) (mm2) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (me) (me)
1 1 56.00 1419.0 555 .0 600 .0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
1 2 147.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
2 1 56.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
2 2 147.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
3 1 56.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
3 2 147.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
4 1 158.00 1419.0 555 .0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
4 2 249.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0. 000
5 1 117.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
5 2 208.00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0.00 0.000
6 1 56 .00 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0 .00 0.000
6 2 147 .0 1419.0 555.0 600.0 200000 5000 . 0 .00 0.000
MEMBER OUTPUT LIST
No. of Members for Detailed Output : 10

Members: /
1 8 9 12 13 18 19 22 23 30 /
/
NOTES :
3. IN REFERENCE TO THE INPUT OF THE SUPPORT RESTRAINT LIST :
0 = Not Restrained
1 = Restrained
Section Analysis Mode:

1. Nonlinear Section Analysis
Shear Analysis Mode:

0. Shear Not Considered
Specimen RY4 Full Box Vectors Load File

TEMPEST III
* * * * * * * * * * *
GENERAL LOAD CONDITIONS

***********************
Load Case ID (15 char, max.) :RY4
Load Case Data File (8 char, max.) : RY4
Load Factored (0-1) :1
206
Shear in Box Culverts Appendx I: Sample VecTorS Input Files
Time Factored (0-1) : 0
No. of Loaded Joints : 0

No. of Members w/ End Action Loads :0
No. of Members w/ Concentrated Loads :0
No. of Members w/ Distributed Loads :20
No. of Members w/ Temperature Loads :0
No. of Members w/ Displaced Supports :0
Reference Temperature (deg. C) : 25.0
LOAD PARAMETERS
Joint Loads
<NOTE:> UNITS: kN,kN-m

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
NODE Fx Fy Mz [ #nodes d(node) d(Fx) d(Fy) d(Mz) ]<-- (2)/
/
Member End Actions
<NOTE:> UNITS: kN,kN-m

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
M AF1 SF1 BM1 AF2 SF2 BM2 [ #M d(M) ]<-- (2)/
/
Concentrated Loads
<NOTE:> UNITS: kN,kN-m,m

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
M Fx Fy Mz x/L [ #M d(M) d(Fx) d(Fy) d(Mz) ]<-- (2)/
/
Uniformly Distributed Loads
<NOTE:> UNITS: kN/m,m

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
M W a/L b/L [ #M d (M) d(W) ]<-- (2)/
1 -5 0 1 10 1 0 /
21 5 0 1 10 1 0 /
/
Temperature Loads
cNOTE:> UNITS: Deg.C,hrs

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
M T l 1 T 2 1 T1 T2 TIME [ #M d(M) ]<-- (2)/
/
Support Displacements
<NOTE:> UNITS: mm,deg

<<<<< FORMAT >>>>>
Jnt DOF Disp [ #Jnt d(Jnt) ] /
/
NOTES:
6. INFORMATION ABOUT LOAD/TIME FACTORED OPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS
Load Factored = 0 -- > Do not multiply loads by load factors.

Load Factored = 1 -- > Multiply loads by load factors.
Time Factored = 0 - -> Do not multiply loads by time factors.
Time Factored = 1 -> Multiply loads by load factors.
207
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix t Sample VecTor5 Input Fles
Specimen RY4 Full Box VecTor5 Job File
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* V e C T o r *
* JO B D A T A *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Job Title (3 0 char max) RY4

Job File Name ( 8 char max) RY4
Date (3 0 char max) Jan 2003
STRUCTURE DATA
Structure Type 5
File Name (8 char max) RY4
LOADING DATA
No. of Load Stages 60

Starting Load Stage No. 1
Load Series ID (5 char max) : RY4
Load File Name Factors

Case (8 char max) Initial Final LS-Inc Type Reps C-Inc
1 RY4 1.000 60.000 1.000 1 1 0.000
2 NULL 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 1 0.000
3 NULL 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 1 1 0.000
ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
Seed File Name (8 char max) NULL

Convergence Limit (>1.0) 1.000001
Averaging Factor (<1.0) 0.800000
Maximum Iterations 500
Convergence Criteria 1
Results Files 1
Output Format 1
MATERIAL/STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR MODELS
Concrete Compression Base Curve (0-3) 2

Concrete Compression Post-Peak (0-3) 1
Concrete Compression Softening (0-4) 1
Concrete Tension Stiffening (0-5) 1
Concrete Tension Softening (0-4) 1
Concrete Tension Splitting (1-2) 1
Concrete Confined Strength (0-2) 1
Concrete Lateral Expansion (0-1) 1
Concrete Cracking Criterion (0-4) 1
Concrete Crack Slip Check (0-2) 1
Concrete Crack Width Check (0-2) 1
Concrete Hysteretic Response (0-2) 1
Reinforcement Hysteretic Response (0-3) 1
Element Strain Histories (0-1) 1
Element Slip Distortions (0-9) 1
Geometric Nonlinearity (0-1) 1
<«NOTES»> [As of May 02, 2000]
Structure Type:
5. Plane Frame (2-D)
Convergence Criteria:
1. Secant Moduli - Weighted Average
Results File Storage:
1. ASCII and binary files
Output Format:
1. Results at all integration points
208
Shear in Box Culverts ‘
88
Sample VecTor5 Input Hies
Concrete Compression Pre-Peak Response:
2. Nonlinear - Popovics (High Strength)
Concrete Compression Post-Peak Response:
1. Modified Park-Kent
Concrete Compression Softening Model:
1. Vecchio 1992-A (el/e2-Form)
Concrete Tension Stiffening Model:
1. Modified Bentz
Concrete Tension Softening:
1. Linear - No Residual
Concrete Tension Splitting:
1. Not Considered
Concrete Confinement Strength:
1. Kupfer / Richart Model
Concrete Lateral Expansion:
1. Variable Poisson's ratio
Concrete Cracking Criterion:
1. Mohr-Coulomb (Stress)
Concrete Crack Slip Check:
1. Vecchio-Collins 1986
Concrete Crack Width Check:
1. Check based on 5 mm max crack width
Concrete Hysteretic Response:
1. Plastic offsets; linear loading/unloading
Reinforcement Hysteretic Response:
1. Elastic-Plastic
Element Strain Histories:
1. Previous loading considered
Element Slip Distortion:
1. Stress Model (Walraven)
Geometric Nonlinearity
1. Considered (where available)
209
Shear In Box Culverts Appendix I: Sample VecTorS Input Fdes
VecTorS Analytical Model For RY1 and RY2
(Not to Scale)
Actual cross-sectional dimensions of test specimens and those used in the analyses vary
from those shown. The values shown here approximately illustrate the case assuming a 40
mm concrete cover
The length of the tie member (member 19) in the half box model is based on the approximate
free length of the tie in the horizontal tie system.
585-
LI
Element
CB CD©
0
O in co
CO Si C ro s s S e c tio n io
- 1 3 1 0 --------------
CO®
© 3
i?>® -©
0
CT>
in
C r o s s S e c tio n
in "'0
O£
305 305
_e@laa
1017 - 1017-
Full Box Model Half Box Set-up Model
VecTorS Analytical Model For RY3 and RY4

(Not to Scale)
iiol r s i l r s i m p s i p l m 131 [21 m Node
\ i i
Element
1610
C ro s s S e c tio n
0- 585
£o
C ro s s S e c tio n
<l BSECD
& '© 0 ® 305 -1 0 1 7
305 -1 0 1 7 - 2@ 152.25
2@152.2S
-1 3 2 1 - 1321
Full Box Model Half Box Set-up Model
210
Shear In Box M a rts Appendix I: Sample VecTor5 Input Files
VecTor5 Analytical Model For RY5 and RY6
(Not to Scale)
® (§>
| 5 I E lem ent
------ 585
-1 9 5 0 -
C ross Section m
1 •»------5 8 5 ------ --
Ii
[co] Ti
araasi
— 381 —
2@190.5
-1 6 5 1 — -1651-
8@158.75 8@158.75
Full Box Model Half-Box Set-up Model
211
Appendix J: As Measured Dimensions
Location on Specimen
Avg.
Member Units 1 2 Avg. 1&2 3 4 Avg. 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 5,6,7
RY1 inches 25.5 26.0 25.8 25.0 25.6 25.3 22.8 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.5 23.1
mm 648 660 654 635 651 643 578 584 584 584 597 585
RY2 inches 26.0 25.5 25.8 25.5 25.1 25.3 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.8 21.8 21.9
mm 660 648 654 648 638 643 559 559 559 552 552 556
RY3 inches 37.6 37.9 37.7 37.4 37.3 37.3 22.8 22.6 22.6 22.8 22.8 22.7
mm 954 962 958 951 946 949 578 575 575 578 578 577
RY4 inches 37.5 37.6 37.5 37.0 37.4 37.2 22.8 22.4 22.7 22.4 22.3 22.5
mm 953 954 953 940 949 945 578 568 576 568 567 572
RY5 inches 57.9 58.1 58.0 57.6 58.1 57.8 23.0 22.8 22.4 22.8 22.1 22.6
mm 1470 1475 1472 1462 1475 1468 584 578 570 578 562 574
RY6 inches 58.0 57.9 57.9 57.8 58.3 58.0 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.1 23.5 23.3
mm 1473 1470 1472 1467 1480 1473 591 591 591 586 597 591
RY1P inches 26.2 25.6 25.9 25.5 25.3 25.4 23.5 23.1 22.4 23.5 23.0 23.1
mm 665 651 658 648 643 645 597 587 570 597 584 587
RY2P inches 26.0 26.1 26.1 25.0 25.5 25.2 21.9 21.9 22.0 21.6 21.9 21.9
mm 660 664 662 635 648 641 556 556 559 549 556 555
RY3P inches 37.2 37.4 37.3 37.0 37.0 37.0 22.9 22.8 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.9
mm 945 949 947 940 940 940 581 578 584 584 584 582
RY4P inches 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.2 22.4 22.5 22.5 22.3 23.0 22.5
mm 940 946 943 945 946 945 568 572 572 565 584 572
RY5P inches 58.0 57.8 57.9 57.5 57.8 57.7 21.8 21.9 22.3 22.1 22.5 22.1
mm 1473 1467 1470 1461 1468 1464 552 557 567 562 572 562
RY6P inches 57.4 57.9 57.7 58.0 57.8 57.9 23.5 23.3 22.8 23.5 23.0 23.2
mm 1459 1472 1465 1473 1467 1470 597 591 578 597 584 589
Notes: Locations 8 and 9

@ Top of Wall
East Elevation
Locations 5,6 and 7
are in the slab
In the Plan view

West Elevation
East is at the bottom
@ ® a
Plan
212
Appendix K: Calculation Summaries
213
Shear In Box Culverts 98^1 ; Calculation Summaries
I
I
I
j
|
I
CO CM CO o
o o
f >2.000
CO CO O in N- o in
9H
CD O 0)
0.151
0.151
9AL)
069
IU
1419
2518
•0* V o
41-0
in 0) CO CM r- co O' V
CM CM CO in 05 CM in 05
A
I
i
I|
I|
|
1
I
I
1
I
I
OO O O o
CO C 10 CM m CM N- oo CO o CO CO h- CM
fr‘0£
IP9Z
h'8£
o CM CO
^09
388
0.160
1419
CO h- CO V“ o o o o CO
1 CM CD CM C1O T" in f- CM T* CM o in 09
A A
I
I
]
]
I|
|
|
I
I1
I
I
1
|
O CM o O
o o 05 oo 00 CO
IjO.ILslab
2.83)
1.651
0.158
Zn
£01
0.158
o CO
I-3Z
1287
-409
721
140
103
710
o CO CO CO 00
1 CM in CM CO CM CO
A A
I
|I
|
i
\
[
|
I|
||
||
|
|
|
|
j
|
!
I
|
I
CM O
90S' I
O o K
8)9z
| >2.000
CO 00 o co P-*
ZH-
9-W
RY6
0.151
|| 0.151
OLZ
457
458
O
1419
41.0
1 2 70
o CO h- 05 N- CO CO
in CO m T~ CM O' *r~ r-
A
I
Ii
I
|
|I
|
|
I
|
|
1
I
O 00 O o
(O CM
09) 0
CM o *<fr CO CO o o Tf CO
2)Z
PAH
CO
9Z9
0.160
on
O C
1419
-147
o o
103
132
O) O) O CO 00 o m 00 in
r- o CCM CM
A
CO V CM CM
A
CO CM
1
I
I|
|
|
|
|
1
|
in O 05 CM o 00 CO 'r~ CO 00 CO
>2.000
>2.000
o o o 05
ZAH
in
0.158
co o■O' r- CO 05
71°
I|0.2Lslab
644
o •0- CO CO 00 © co 5 00 © 5
CM T—o ■r- in CO CO
CM CO o CO V* CO
|I
|
|
|
|
|
I
CM co CM
6990
o 3 h-
>2.000
o CO o CO o
9>Z
1.941
0.151
i£ l
S0£
178
O
£6-
1419
05 r-. 00 co T"
140
> CO in CO **— T“ o
a: CM CO in ^3* o CO
I
I
J|
1|
I|
J|
I|
|
1f
I
1
CO CM in CM N- 05
1926
o CO
1r’9£
00
EH
98)
1.508
£££
1.637
0.176
117
0.456
1419
•O' o
RY4
CD CO r-. CO CO CM 05
5 CM tn h- CO CO o
I
1I
II
II
I
I
I
|
I
|
1
1
|
o CM
N- oo C 00 CO o CO CO
|0.3Lslab
>2.000
CM o o 05 CO
CM CO
OH
1.940
PPZ
0.158
OCO
-119
00 o -'t
710
CO
104
429
o CO •O' CO oo
£ o CM in CO CM o CO
I
I
I
I[
I
I
I
I
1
o M
CO C O 05 co h- N N-
RY6
0.206
o CO CO
Z60I-
0.191
2518
o C 05
1.021
c /l
693
063
0.953
CO CO N. 05 s- -st in CO 00
d CO V- in K
CO CO T*
1
I1
II
|
|I
|
I
I
1
L ...... “ L
£800
0.237
0.250
o CO 00 4E“
1926
1419
CM CM CO o
2641
fcAH
9Z9
9l£
ESI
0.617
0.745
o
71.7
CO CO CO CO N. o CM C O
CO 1 CO CO CO T”
.......
II
I
1
I
|
|
1 031- |
| ZLZ
CO o O 05 CO 9t
0.142
CO in
1400
2032
CM 05 05 CO
1.428
403
1.184
140
T“ inCO
560
> h- o cd o
69
CM CM
01 in 1 N. d CO CM o CM
13
>
I
I
j
cCT’ ¥¥
¥ z EE ¥ ¥
M/V [m]
¥
Vc [kN]
Li [mml
fl? t r < r-
¥
£ & £
CL io
zi ¥ o
Z z
£X _i z 5 xT£
£ 2 CO. co.
O <x>
S3 w 0^ > T CO a
C7 cr
CHBDC General Method
Internal Loading
(No Axial Load)

Specimen
Specimen
(Axial Load)
R esistan ce
R esistan ce
Geom etric
Properties
&
Material
Shear hi Box Culverts Appendix K: Calculation Summaries
I
I
j
|
1 9 8 ...
0.0121
CM
2518
2.993
M* r*
1419
CD CO CM CD O©
14.01
N. C
069
6CV
15.12
297
O CO 00 in
815
> sCM in o CM 05 s CO © M* CO
30
o: CO CO CO CM r~ «“ © ©
CO
1
1
I
I
00
O CM
O o 05 in 00 ©
in CD nh- C O N- C D 00 CO
CM o CO © 0 0 C'SM 05 00 00
q 00 CM © CO
? CoCM C CO CO
CO CM fr CO CO CO CO ©
CO ’3* ©
©
a: © CD
CM CM CM CM •M-
'"Sf O in oCM t*- 'Gr T" CM in 05 ©
o
CM CO CO ©
O CM in r*- CD O o
in o00 oCO oCO in CO CD in CO 05 CO ©
||0.1Lslab
© 00
in CM q ©
CM o co CD co CO CM
M* M M* 3 o in o mt CO
i - o
CM •'tf* o LO CM o <80 CM in - 00 h— rCO1
o
0O0 0X—
0 COM COD o CD
CD in
o>
CO ■M in CM o05 s 0 0 CD
05 o q CD CM CO 05 'M* 0
o CM •M* CD 0 © ©
e © CO ,o*
©
© © CO
1 in CO CO
lO C * "if o in CM CO tr CM CD r h- CM
M CO x— o
CD r* CO co o © 00 oo 00 ©
CO CM M* CO 0r-0 in CD in CO h- r*
O •M* x**- o CO T* 05
CM O 05 in CM CM © ©
M* h- CD in CM r- Mf © CM
1 o 05
M* CO 0> o o M* Ml* o h-
in CM CD x— in T— CM in r T“ CM ©
CM © o
CM
CO O CM 05
o co T ** o CM N- O
x~ tn
0o0 o CO in O CoO ©
M* CO 05 CO CM h- © CO ©
O) CM q CM © ■M
||0.2Lslab
> oo D O in * CM
o: CM ''fr o h- CO n C O
v~ N- M* o Cin CM x— M* 00
in ^*
T~ CM in CO © CO ©
CM o d
00 COM O) h-
CO CM in CM CD 0000 05
in o M* CO M * o O
in o o o CM CM
00 ■oxfr CO CD
CD h-
N. © co •0* ©
CO CM CO O N- ©
CO
& r- in CO CD 00 N- •M* o 05
in CM CM T“ T” CO CM CM CM V CM CM
CM CO d o
CD CO
o CO
CM M* in o o CO
05 CO in CO h- OO CO oT” © h- CM o CO h- oo CM CM © ©
CO O) CO M* to © CM M* in
M* o N. o M* o o r 1 o ’0* 00 q CO M* h-
i T“ CM o T- m CM r* CO f“ CO CM •t*- CM CO
o
CM o CM
r- o CD o in 00
o oD C O in O co CO CO © CD M* 09 q 00 CM f - CM
$ M* oMf- CoCMO CCdOO CCOO CO CD
© O
0.3Lslab
CM CO M*o C o in T“ q CO OO o M* CO © CO CM
in CM Y“ CM T* CM CO ©
o
CM CO 05 00 CO CM CO © N-
in CM o05 M N.
CM CO * ■*©
M CO ©
r-» r * O o © in Tf
05 q q o CM M CO05 oo ■r h- CO © © V”
1 o in CO CM M* M
*M * O in inCM r* CM xr- CO © CM T“
CO
CO
CM CO d o
0.0168
G> CD 05
CM M" o> CD CO 00 0)
in 00 CoD rC»D- O CM CM CO h-
in co r*- •r* © in CM CO
?
§ 05 CO O CM CO N- o M* CD CD 00 CM CM © CD ©
cc T- CM o CM in CM t~ o CM V CM © •o* CM
o CM CM CM
o CO CO CO in O in 0 0 o CO m in CoO m CO CO CM N> CO <r © CM
I CO
CO o
CM o
CM CM CM r-
h- ^r
O CO o in
o in CM
d
T~
o CO
00 CD CD © q
CM "3> ©
©
© in
CM
©
CM
©
-o
|
es»
CO
ro
q [ k N /m 2]
but < [kN]
’5? r5""' ro’ z

w [ k N /m l
*o *D
¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ < z E CL ¥ ¥ ¥ z Z ¥ z z ¥
¥
O I St S Q. S
2
L i. u?
-X
Z <
-X
V z
CHBDC Clause 7.8.8.2.1
¥ ¥ £ St 3 It ¥ ¥ n n
X □ _i 5 3
5
Z
<Z
n JZ *D 2 > 1 s > £ 3n CF
5
I
I
(No Axial L o a d )
&
(Axial L o a d )
R e s ista n c e
R e s ista n c e
G e o m e tric
P r o p e rtie s
S p e c im e n
S p e c im e n
n
I n te r n a l
L oads
o
M a te ria l
<0
o
LL
Shear in Box Culverts Appendix K: Calculation Summaries
1
I
I
|
I
Is- 00
2518
3302
CO O
9>Z
1683
CO
O CO in
1.09
254
252
252
1419
1683
o C M 05 05 C O) CO
335
993
198
1 o ■M - T“ in 05 CO
JI
I
||
|I
|
!
I
00 CM
1926
N.
i 'll
h- 05
1117
ioo
05 c o CM
2641
szs
203
8E3
1419
1256
Is-
722
in b- C O
130
£ ■M- T" CM CO
II
I
I
I|
|
|
|
I
I
0) CO 05 in O
1400
2032
1267
0)
2262
CM
180
68Z
||0.1Lslab
1267
CM CM
2262
o CM CD in C CO in
130
180
D
710
£ o CD in CM
|I
I
II
II
I
||
|
1
I
in q 00
2518
00 in
1.04
06S
voz
46F
252
842
1419
3302
> o r* M-’ 05
CO
OO
194
252
335
842
497
CO
EC LO o N- CO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
|I
1
1
I
" CO C
■M D CD N. 05
i 'll
00 05 00
91'0
szs
0t9
576
■M
" CM CO
ISE
o
I 33
o CM TT in
179
r-
O' 05 CO CM
CO
CM
CO
CM CO
CM
I
I
|
|
I
II
|
1
O CM O 00
CM C in O 0) T}-
1131
S82
I®9
O
||0.2Lslab
2032
1131
o CO CD CO
Is- o
69
>
133
in CD CO r}-
710
co CO CO CO
cc O CM in CM CD CM CD
]I
|I
|I
I
I
|
i
I 9 >2
|
|
I OE'O
00 CO o in
86
CD CM Is - T»
1419
3302
C5
>- CD ID o 05
193
661
252
335
331
CO
252
CO CO CD O)
EC N- CM in CO CO m
L
1
|I
I
I
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
1
■M- Is- Is- Is*

szs
CM
893
05
405
883
1926
1419
CO
Up
q
142
242
179
179
610
CO CO CO
I CD
CM o N- CM
1
I
II
|I
I
I
|
I|
|
I
II
|
I
|
1
N- oo CO in
sst
09S
|0.3Lslab
CM
754
o
2032
CO 05 O)
o 05
00
710
145
422
422
18°
CM CO CO CO in
£ r* o CD CM CM N
I
I
|
|
!I
|
N* T “ O N* 0 5 CM q
0 0 CM 05
CM
O in in
861
988
SS3
399
oo 05
O in CO 0o5 O o Is -
RY6
05 T“
s
252
CM CO CM CO 05
Tf
CM CO
in T*
CM CO CM CM CM CO
II
I
I
I
|i
|
|
I
00 Is- Is-
IVBZ
CD
o o
szs
CO
390
CM
1419
oo
195
179
o
RY4
869
179
224
CM
238
400
05
CO o CO CO
T“ T~ Is - r* CM CM CM
I{
I
I
II
I
I
I
|
I|
|
|
I
I
|
I
O ■*3- O
3AH
CD o
sst
/ss
CO O
949
o
2032
05
578
324
324
q in in 00
710
180
239
05
69
"3- o T-“ T*
CD
in r-
CO
CM
•o
I
|I
I
I
I
I
|
I
]
|
]
|
I
|
|
> Limit [kN]

> Limit [kN]
< Limit [kN]

I Axial Factor
Box Culvert Method
z f'j' z
[m m ]
<7" XL.
[iu u j ] n
CO
B j: E £ E
b[mm]
E z 0_ E z
£ JE xl. z z z Z
£ £ E =£ XL 1 &
Vd/M
z T3
[m m ]
(A
□ < > _l 5 cr 5 cr
V >
jx
I
j
|
(No Axial Load)
(Axial Load)
R e sista n c e
R e sista n c e
Material &
G eom etric
P roperties
S p e c im e n
S p e c im e n
Internal
L oads
AASHTO
216

1 - Shear Behaviour of Concrete Box Culverts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Shear Behaviour of Concrete Box Culverts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Behaviour of Concrete Box Culverts

A thesis submitted in conform ity w ith the requirem ents

© Copyright by R ichard Yee 2003

Acquisitions and Acquisisitons et

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Y our file Votre referen ce

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

Shear Behaviour o f Concrete B ox Culverts

Graduate D epartm ent o f Civil Engineering

governing box culvert design.

A cknow ledgm ents ............................................................................................ iii

Table of Figures ................................. v»i

Table of T a b les ....................................................................... xii

Notation..................................... .................................... xiii

1.2 D evelopm ent of Test P ro g ra m ..................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Experimental Program

2.4 Test A p p a ra tu s ...................................................................... 23

2.5.3 Force Measurements.............................................................................................28

Chapter 3: Experimental Observations and Results

3.3 Reported C h a rts .................. .......................................... ..............................................38

Chapter 4: Discussion of Experimental Results

4.3.4 CHBDCAASHTO 98 Box Culvert Equations.............................. 98

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

References and C ontacts.............................. ............................... 1 n

Appendices Commentary.............................. 116

Appendix A: RY1 & RY1P Test O bservations......................... 118

Appendix B: RY2 & RY2P Test O bservations......................... 128

Appendix C: RY3 & RY3P Test O bservations ...............137

Appendix D: RY4 & RY4P Test O bservations.........................148

Appendix E: RY5 & RY5P Test O bservations.........................160

Appendix F: RY6 & RY6P Test O bservations......................... 172

Appendix G: Test Data Summary................................................183

Appendix H: Photo Record of Reinforcement C a g e s 197

Appendix I: Sample VecTorS Input File.................... 204

Appendix J: As Measured D im en sion s.....................................212

Appendix K: Calculation Sum m aries......................................... 213

Chapter 2: Experimental Program

Chapter 3: Experimental Observations and Results

Chapter 4: Discussion of Test Results

Chapter 2: Experimental Program

Chapter 3: Experimental Observations and Results

Chapter 4: Discussion of Test Results

Ec= M odulus o f elasticity o f the concrete

P= Factor expressing shear transfer across a crack

0= Shear crack angle

ex = Average strain approxim ation at m id-depth o f m em ber

p= Reinforcem ent ratio A s/bwd

Figure 1.1: Box Culverts in Precast Yard

Trench Installation Em bankm ent Installation

Soil Overfill G roup Soil Overfill G roup

S ide Fill. B Side Fill.

Material Middle B edding Material Middle Bedding Material

Adapted from CSA Standard S6 CHBDC 2000

1.1.1 Reasons for Investigation

1.1.2 Box Culvert Design

Figure 1.3: Specified Design Reinforcement

Note: T h e ASTM S e c tio n is a

Figure 1.4: Shear Reinforcement Mats

Figure Adapted from CHBDC 2000

1.1.3 Previous Research on Shear in Box Culverts

1.1.4 Code Specified Loadings

1.2 Development of Test Program

1.2.1 Project Scope