Vertical Loads on Concrete Box Culverts

under High Embankments

Richard M. Bennett, M.ASCE1; Scott M. Wood2; Eric C. Drumm, M.ASCE3; and
N. Randy Rainwater, M.ASCE4

Abstract: Vertical loads on concrete box culverts under high embankments are examined, where a high embankment is defined herein as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

one where the height of the fill above the culvert is greater than the width of the culvert. Results from an instrumented culvert are
described, with results from pressure cells, strain gages in the wall, and strain gages in the roof showing reasonable agreement. There was
strong correlation between the height of fill and the pressure and internal forces in the culvert, suggesting that the soil–structure interaction
factor is independent of the H / B ratio. The results of the instrumented culvert were compared to those of other instrumented culverts
under high embankments. The measured roof pressures were significantly greater than the pressure due to the soil overburden, with the
measured pressures averaging 1.5 times the soil overburden pressure. Although the soil–structure interaction factor recommended by the
American Society of Highway and Transportation Officials specification tends to under-predict the loads acting on concrete culverts,
a simplified reliability analysis suggests that the Specification provides a sufficient level of safety.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2005兲10:6共643兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, viaduct; Culverts; Soil–structure interaction; Vertical loads; Embankments.

Introduction
Cast-in-place concrete box culverts are often used as conduits to
carry water from one side of a highway to the other. Although this
is a simple role, the loadings applied to these structures are rather
complex. These structures must resist large vertical and lateral
earth pressures, and are often subjected to significant loadings
during construction of the embankment. Due to soil–structure in-
teraction effects, the state of stress on the culvert depends on the
stiffness of both the structure and the backfill material. Despite
the complexity of the loadings, a simple approach must be used
for analysis and design due to the large number of culverts that
are being built.
Culverts can be divided into positive and negative projecting
culverts, with a positive projecting culvert having its top project-
ing above the natural ground surface and covered with an em-
bankment. A negative projecting culvert is installed in a relatively
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Univ.
of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2010 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
rmbennett@utk.edu
2 sured the load on a 1.02 m culvert under 6.10 m of fill and found
Consulting Engineer, Engineering Design and Testing Corporation,
Orlando, FL 32714; formerly, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
37996-2010
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Univ.
of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2010; E-mail: edrumm@utk.edu
4
Faculty Associate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2010. E-mail:
nrainwat@utk.edu
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on July 1, 2004; approved on September 23, 2004. This paper
is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 6, November
1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2005/6-643–649/$25.00.
narrow or shallow ditch such that its top is below the natural
ground surface and then is covered with an embankment. Culverts
can further be classified as rigid or flexible, based on their stiff-
ness. Concrete box culverts are typically considered to be rigid
culverts, and are generally positive projecting culverts. Those are
the conditions that are considered herein.
This paper examines the vertical loads from the overburden
soil for culverts under high embankments. A high embankment is
defined in this paper as one where the height of soil fill above the
top of the culvert H is greater than or equal to the culvert width B.
Results from an instrumented culvert are presented and results
from other instrumented culverts are summarized. General con-
clusions are drawn about the vertical pressure on cast-in-place
reinforced concrete box culverts under high embankments.
Previously Instrumented Culverts
The first research into loads on culverts is usually credited to
Marston and Spangler at Iowa State Univ. In 1919, Marston mea-
that the load on the culvert was nearly 1.92 times the weight of
the soil column directly above the culvert 共Spangler 1968兲. This
was the start of a long research program into both rigid and flex-
ible culverts at Iowa State. With respect to rigid culverts, Span-
gler 共1947兲 gives the results of two circular test culverts that were
supported on weighing devices. One had “top soil” 共unit weight
of 15 kN/ m3兲 fill and an H / B ratio of 6.0. The measured pressure
was approximately 1.9 times the overburden pressure. The other
culvert had sand and gravel fill 共unit weight of 20 kN/ m3兲 and an
H / B ratio of 4.6. The measured pressure was approximately 1.5
times the overburden pressure. Spangler 共1950兲 reported the load
measurements on seven positive projecting box culverts ranging
from a nominal size of 0.61 m ⫻ 0.61 m to 2.44 m ⫻ 2.44 m, with
most being 1.22 m ⫻ 1.22 m. The measurements were made using

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 643

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.

 friction ribbons and represent an average pressure on the culvert.
Ratios of the measured pressure to the overburden pressure were
共ratios of H / B given in parentheses兲 1.5 共2.6兲, 1.6 共2.8兲, 1.3 共1.8兲,
1.2 共2.4兲, 1.4 共1.9兲, 1.5 共5.5兲, and 1.5 共4.4兲.
By looking at soil deflections compared to culvert deflections,
a method was developed for predicting the load on a culvert,
which was presented in the form of a chart in Spangler 共1947兲.
The design pressure was a function of the projection condition,
various soil properties, and the H / B ratio. Based on typical values
for design and formulas developed for the chart by Clarke
共1967兲, the value of the soil–structure interaction factor, Fe, is
determined as
e0.38共H/B兲 − 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fe = H/B 艋 2.42
0.38共H/B兲
共1兲
0.12
Fe = 1.69 − H/B ⬎ 2.42
H/B
in which the vertical pressure on the culvert is determined as the
pressure due to the weight of the soil column above the culvert
times the soil–structure interaction factor Fe. The factor Fe
is often referred to as the soil modification factor, because it is
numerically equal to the factor by which the soil unit weight can
be multiplied to obtain the equivalent soil unit weight used to
calculate the vertical pressure acting on the culvert.
In Eq. 共1兲, the H / B ratio of 2.42 corresponds to the plane of
equal settlement being at ground surface. The plane of equal
settlement is defined by Spangler 共1947兲 as the horizontal plane in
the embankment at which the settlements of the interior soil prism
above the culvert and the exterior soil prism outside the culvert
are equal. For embankment heights greater than the plane of equal
settlement, the soil–structure interaction factor is essentially con-
stant. In Eq. 共1兲, Fe varies from 1.64 at H / B = 2.42 to 1.69 at
H / B = ⬁. This suggests a theoretical basis for the soil–structure
interaction factor being a constant for very high embankments.
Woodbury et al. 共1926兲 report on tests performed by the
American Railway Engineering Association on eight different
culverts in an embankment on the Illinois Central Railroad. Two
of the culverts were rigid culverts, one being 1.07 m extra heavy
cast iron, and one being a 0.61 m ⫻ 0.68 m concrete culvert. The
cast iron culvert had 10.4 m of fill 共H / B = 9.7兲 and the concrete
culvert had 9.8 m of fill 共H / B = 14.4兲. Pressure readings on both
culverts indicated a crown pressure of 1.58 times the overburden
pressure.
Other early culvert tests were performed at the Univ. of North
Carolina. Braune et al. 共1929兲 reported on tests performed on
culvert pipe placed on weighing devices. The ratio of the pressure
to overburden pressure was 1.27 for a cast iron pipe with a
H / B = 4.5 and an inside diameter to thickness 共d / t兲 ratio of 30,
1.31 for a concrete pipe with H / B = 4.24 and d / t = 11.6, 1.68 for a
solid plug with H / B = 4.5, and 1.40 for a solid plug with
H / B = 7.2.
Binger 共1947兲 reports on pressure measurements at the center
of a 2.74 m wide by 3.30 m high box culvert built as part of
the Panama Canal construction under approximately 15.2 m of
sandstone fill 共H / B = 5.6兲. The measured vertical pressure at the
center of the culvert was approximately 1.8 times the overburden
pressure.
Trollope et al. 共1963兲 report on pressure measurements on the
crown of a horseshoe shaped culvert under the embankment of a
dam. Eight different locations were instrumented, and the
pressures were 1.6, 2.6, 1.5, 1.7, 1.7, 2.9, 1.9, and 3.2 times the
644 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.
overburden pressure. The culvert was in a section that was only
about half the maximum height of the dam. The writers attribute
some of the pressure to “transverse arching” or arching in the
direction of the dam or transverse to the culvert. They suggest the
culvert is acting like an abutment to the arching of the soil over
the higher portion of the dam. Because of these conditions, the
results will not be considered any further. Trollope et al. 共1963兲
suggest culverts be designed for twice the overburden pressure
with a factor of safety of 3.
Höeg 共1968兲 studied the behavior of model steel cylinders
in a test box filled with Ottawa sand. There were one to two
cylinder diameters of sand above the cylinder, and then pressure
was applied to the top of the sand with an air bag. Pressures
correspond to H / B ratios in excess of 400. For a rigid cylinder,
the crown pressure was 1.42 times the applied pressure. For a
cylinder with a diameter/thickness ratio of 40 the crown pressure
was 0.85 times the applied pressure, and for a cylinder with a
diameter/thickness ratio of 80 the crown pressure was 0.69 times
the applied pressure. These results clearly show the effect of the
stiffness of the culvert, and that stiff culverts will carry more
pressure than that due to the soil overburden alone.
Girdler 共1974兲 reported on a 1.73 m wide single cell box
culvert under 23.5 m of fill 共H / B = 13.6兲. Roof pressure cells were
attached 0.25 m 共0.14 B兲 in from the edge of the culvert. One
pressure cell failed, while the other read 1.48 times the overbur-
den pressure. A 2.03 m wide single cell box culvert under 11.4 m
of fill 共H / B = 5.6兲 had roof pressure cells attached at 0.46 m
共0.23 B兲 in from the edge. The pressure was very asymmetric,
with one side having 0.90 times the overburden pressure and the
other 1.74 times the overburden pressure, for an average of 1.32
times the overburden pressure.
Penman et al. 共1975兲 report pressure measurements made on a
culvert passing under a 53 m high rockfill dam. The inside of the
culvert was elliptical in shape with the outside following the in-
side shape but being a series of straight surfaces. An earth pres-
sure cell was placed directly over the crown of the culvert. For fill
heights up to an H / B ratio of approximately 9, the measured
pressure on the crown of the culvert was approximately 2.1 times
the overburden pressure. At increasing fill heights above
H / B = 9, the ratio of measured pressure to overburden pressure
decreased. At the final fill height corresponding to an H / B ratio of
12.9, the crown pressure was 1.76 times the overburden pressure.
Dasgupta and Sengupta 共1991兲 studied a 1.35 m ⫻ 1.35 m
model box culvert backfilled with dry sand to a height of 2.4 m
above the culvert 共H / B = 1.8兲. Pressures were measured at three
locations on the roof of the culvert, 0.09, 0.3, and 0.5 B from the
outside. The pressure distribution showed a parabolic distribution,
with the ratio of the measured pressure to the overburden pressure
being 1.90, 1.06, and 0.66 at each of the three respective loca-
tions. If a parabola is fitted to the measured pressures, an average
pressure can be calculated as the area under the pressure diagram
divided by the culvert width. This results in an average pressure
of 1.32 times the overburden pressure.
Vaslestad et al. 共1993兲 report on the pressure measurements
in the center of a 2.0 m wide by 2.55 m high box culvert under
9.8 m of silty clay fill 共H / B = 4.9兲. The measured pressure was
1.24 times the overburden pressure. Finite element analyses
共Katona et al. 1981兲 as well as other instrumented culverts
共Dasgupta and Sengupta 1991兲 have shown that the pressure is
generally lowest in the center of the culvert. Thus, the 1.24 is
probably a lower bound to the average pressure on the culvert.
Yang 共2000兲 reported the results of pressure measurements on
a 9.9 m wide by 3.7 m high double box culvert with an H / B ratio

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Soil–structure interaction factor versus H / B for instrumented
culverts: 共1兲 Spangler 1947; 共2兲 Spangler 1950; 共3兲 Woodbury
et al. 1926; 共4兲 Braune et al. 1929; 共5兲 Binger 1947; 共6兲 Girdler
1974; 共7兲 Penman et al. 1975; 共8兲 Dasgupta and Sengupta 1991;
共9兲 Vaslestad et al. 1993; and 共10兲 this study
of 1.18. This culvert was a replacement for a failed culvert. The
original culvert was installed on level ground. The replacement
was installed in the bottom of an excavated slope on the original
bottom slab. In order to minimize vertical and lateral pressures on
the culvert, backfill within 2 m of the culvert was not compacted.
The recorded pressure was 1.26 times the soil overburden. Be-
cause of the compaction conditions, this culvert is not considered
any further, but it is interesting to note that even with the large
layer of uncompacted fill, the soil–structure interaction factor was
still greater than 1.
A summary of the results reported in the literature of instru-
mented culverts is given in Fig. 1. The soil–structure interaction
factor is given as a function of the H / B ratio of the culvert. In all
cases, the soil–structure interaction factor is greater than 1.2.
Description of Instrumented Culvert
The instrumented culvert results reported in this paper are from a
culvert located in Greene County, Tenn. It is a 99 m long cast-in-
place double-cell reinforced concrete box culvert. Typical inside
cell dimensions are 2.4 m high and 3.0 m wide. The thickness of
the center wall is 0.28 m. The thickness of the side walls and the
top and bottom slabs vary according to changes in the overburden
height. Typical thicknesses are 0.78 m for the top and bottom
slab, and 0.41 m for the side walls. Thus, the outside dimensions
of the culvert are 4.0 m high and 7.0 m wide at the sections that
were instrumented.
The culvert overlays silty clay with shallow outcrops of lime-
stone rock. A 300 mm layer of well-graded crushed gravel was
used immediately below the culvert to level the ground and adjust
for the changes in thickness of the bottom slab. Gravel backfill
was placed to a height of 0.6 m above the top of the culvert roof.
Silty clay from a nearby cut was used for the rest of the embank-
ment. The embankment has a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Two sections along the length of the culvert were instrumented
共Fig. 2兲. Section A is located approximately in the center of the
culvert length under full embankment height, with the final eleva-
tion of the pavement 18.9 m above the culvert roof, for an H / B
ratio of 2.7. Section B is located under a sloping side of the
embankment. The embankment has a height of 11.7 m at Section
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 645
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.
Fig. 2. Cross section of embankment and culvert
B for an H / B ratio of 1.7. Only one cell of the culvert was
instrumented, as the culvert is perpendicular to the embankment
and the response was assumed to be symmetrical about the cul-
vert centerline.
Vibrating wire strain gages and pressure cells were used to
determine the internal forces and pressures on the culvert due to
the backfill 共Fig. 2兲. Six pairs of vibrating wire strain gages were
used at each location, three pairs in the wall and three in the roof.
At each location one strain gage was mounted towards the inside
of the culvert and one towards the outside so that axial and bend-
ing strains could be separated. Six pressure cells were used at
each location, three on the roof and three on the wall correspond-
ing to the locations of the strain gages.
A gage length of 150 mm was chosen for measuring the strain.
This gage length is long enough to cross several interfaces be-
tween the aggregate and the cement paste, and thus measure an
average strain at the macro level. The gage length is small enough
to have a nearly constant strain over the gage length; the change
in bending moment or axial force over 150 mm would be small. If
the concrete were to crack in flexure this gage length would prob-
ably not be sufficient to span several cracks, as is usually desired
when measuring strain in reinforced concrete. Nonetheless, it was
felt that the 150 mm gage length was best suited for the culvert.
The strain gages were held in place by tying them to the rebar
with plastic ties.
The vibrating wire pressure cells were 230 mm in diameter
and 6 mm thick. The pressure cells were fixed to the culvert roof
with concrete anchors through four mounting lugs around the
edge of the plate. A quick setting high strength grout pad was
used to assure uniform contact between the plate and concrete.
Medium sand was used to cover the cell and transducer housing
to protect the cell from possible point loads or other stress distor-
tions induced by large size particles in the crushed gravel. A
geosynthetic cover was attached to the concrete with adhesive to
separate the gravel and the sand.
Determination of Forces and Moments
Strain gage readings were converted to axial force and bending
moments at each cross section. It was assumed that plane sections
remain plane and the strains are small enough so that the materi-
als are linear elastic. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete
was estimated from the equations 共Mirza et al. 1979兲
Ec = 5020冑 f cr
共2兲
f cr = 0.89f ⬘c 共1.17 + 0.08 log10 R兲
in which Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete 共MPa兲;
f cr⫽corrected strength of the concrete corrected for speed of load-
ing 共MPa兲; f ⬘c ⫽28 day compressive strength of the concrete
in MPa loaded at the nominal testing speed for cylinder tests
 Table 1. Results of Linear Regression for Measured Roof Pressure
versus Fill Height
Soil–structure
Slope interaction
Pressure 共kPa per meter Intercept factor,
cell fill height兲 共kPa兲 r2 Fe
A4 39.3 −41 0.99 2.09
A5 29.5 −8 0.99 1.57
A6 27.9 −11 0.98 1.48
B4 26.7 −3 0.98 1.42
B5 17.8 13 0.96 0.95
B6 19.4 −4 0.97 1.03
Fig. 3. Roof pressure versus fill height above culvert for Section A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the soil modification factor or soil–structure interaction factor, Fe

did not change with embankment height, or remained a constant.
which is approximately 0.24 MPa/ s, and R⫽loading rate The unit weight of the backfill was obtained from numerous
共0.00069艋 R MPa/ s 艋 69兲. measurements from nuclear density gage readings obtained as
The average concrete cylinder strength from five cylinders was part of the onsite inspection 共average 18.7 kN/ m3兲, and from tube
33 MPa. The rate of loading of the culvert was quite slow, with R samples 共average 18.8 kN/ m3兲. In Table 1, this measured soil unit
assumed to be 0.00069 MPa/ s. This results in a corrected strength weight of 18.8 kN/ m3 is used to obtain the soil–structure interac-
of the concrete, f cr, of 27 MPa. The modulus of elasticity, Ec, was tion factor, Fe for each of the sets of pressure cell readings. At
taken to be 25,200 MPa. The extreme fiber tensile strain was both Sections A and B, the pressure 共and Fe兲 was significantly
compared to the cracking strain of the concrete to determine higher over the stiff outside walls than over either the middle wall
if the concrete had cracked. The cracking strain of 153␮␧ was or the middle of the box.
calculated by dividing the modulus of rupture by the modulus of An equivalent uniform design pressure can be obtained for a
elasticity. None of the recorded strains exceeded this value, so all particular structural action 共e.g., end moment, midspan moment,
sections were treated as uncracked. end shear, etc.兲 by determining the uniform pressure that would
A strain distribution was obtained for a particular cross section give the same value of the structural action as that obtained
using the strain from the strain gages and the dimensions from under the actual load. The variation of the equivalent uniform
the cross section. The strain was converted to stress, which was design pressure with respect to different structural actions is small
converted to compressive and tensile forces in the concrete and 共Wood 2000兲 and can be approximated as the integral of the pres-
reinforcement. The axial force and bending moment were sure diagram divided by the region over which the integration is
obtained by summing forces and moments about the mid-point of performed. By fitting a parabola to the recorded pressure data,
the cross section. Compressive forces were taken as positive. performing the integration, and converting to an equivalent unit
Bending moments were considered positive when the tensile weight by dividing the pressure by the height of the fill, an
stresses were on the inside of the culvert. equivalent uniform weight of 30.8 kN/ m3 was obtained at Sec-
tion A and 19.6 kN/ m3 at Section B. These results correspond to
a soil–structure interaction factor of 1.64 and 1.04, respectively.
Measured Results
Results from Strain Gages in Wall
Three methods were used to determine the vertical pressures
acting on the culvert, and to compute the soil–structure interac- The strain gages readings from the wall of the culvert were used
tion factor, Fe. The pressure cell readings give a direct indication to determine the axial force in the wall. Results of the linear
of the pressure on the roof. Strain gages in the wall were used to regression for the axial forces per meter length of the wall from
determine axial forces in the wall, and a pressure was back each culvert section are shown in Table 2. The results for Section
calculated based on an assumed tributary width. Finally, strain B were quite erratic and thus less reliable than those from Section
gages in the roof were used to obtain bending moments in the A. An equivalent soil unit weight can be obtained by dividing
roof, and a pressure was obtained based on the load being the
second derivative of the bending moment.
Table 2. Results of Linear Regression for Wall Axial Forces versus Fill
Height
Results from Pressure Cells in Roof
Equivalent Soil–structure
Pressure cell readings versus fill height above the top of the Slope unit interaction
culvert are shown in Fig. 3 for Section A. A linear regression 共kN/ m per meter Intercept weight factor,
was performed between the pressure and the fill height for each Section fill height兲 共kN/ m兲 r2 共kN/ m3兲 Fe
location, with the slope giving the change in pressure per unit A1 67.4 344 0.90 33.7 1.79
increase in backfill height, or an equivalent backfill unit weight. A2 67.9 547 0.92 33.9 1.80
The intercept was ignored as it was considered to be from lack of A3 83.1 710 0.98 41.5 2.21
initial balance of the instruments. With this method, the effect of
B1 45.0 687 0.96 22.5 1.20
random errors in the readings was reduced. Results of the linear
B2 22.1 867 0.65 11.0 0.58
regression are given in Table 1. The high coefficients of determi-
B3 9.6 976 0.50 4.8 0.25
nation, r2, indicate a strong linear relationship. This implies that

646 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.

 Table 3. Equivalent Unit Weights from Roof Bending Moments Table 4. Summary of Equivalent Unit Weights from Various
Measurements
Equivalent Soil–structure
Assumed unit interaction Section A Section B
pressure weight factor,
Section distribution 共kN/ m3兲 Fe Soil–
Equivalent structure Equivalent Soil–
A Uniform 34.5 1.84 unit interaction unit structure
Parabolic 36.1 1.92 Measurement weight factor, weight interaction
B Uniform 11.8 0.63 method 共kN/ m3兲 Fe 共kN/ m3兲 factor, Fe
Parabolic 13.1 0.70 Pressure cells 30.9 1.64 19.6 1.04
共parabolic
pressure distribution兲
the axial force by a tributary width and the height of the fill. Wall axial loads
A tributary width of 7 / 16 the width of one cell was chosen for Location 1 33.7 1.79 22.5 1.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

this research, which is the average of 1 / 2 共the tributary width Location 2 33.9 1.80 11.0 0.58
for a fixed-fixed roof兲 and 3 / 8 共the tributary width for a fixed- Location 3 41.5 2.21 4.8 0.25
pinned roof兲 the width of one cell. Soil–structure interaction Roof moments
factors obtained from the axial load measurements, Table 2, are in Uniform 34.5 1.84 11.8 0.63
reasonable agreement with those obtained from the pressure cells. distribution
Parabolic 36.1 1.92 13.1 0.70
distribution
Results from Bending Moments Calculated in Roof
A linear regression was performed on bending moments in the
Table 4, although each set of measurements has its own potential
roof versus fill height, with r2 being greater than 0.9 for all bend-
sources of errors, they yield relatively consistent results. Vertical
ing moments at Section A and r2 being greater than 0.7 for all
pressures on the roof of the culvert were close to two times the
bending moments at Section B. The moments were used to back
soil unit weight at Section A, but were approximately the soil unit
calculate pressures. If a parabolic pressure distribution is as-
weight at Section B 共under the sloping embankment兲. The soil–
sumed, an equivalent uniform pressure can be obtained as the
structure interaction factor Fe = 1.64 for this culvert 共H / B = 2.7兲 is
pressure integrated over the length of the beam divided by the
plotted in Fig. 1 based on an equivalent uniform pressure obtained
length. The equivalent uniform pressure is calculated as
from the measured parabolic pressure distribution.

w=
96
L 共21 − 4.5k1 − 4.5k2兲
2 冉
M cl −
M1 + M2
2
冊 共3兲
where w⫽equivalent uniform pressure; L⫽length of the beam;
M 1⫽moment at one end; M 2⫽moment at the other end;
M cl⫽moment at the centerline; k1⫽ratio of the pressure at end 1
to the centerline pressure; and k2⫽ratio of the pressure at end 2 to
the centerline pressure. Since the force on the beam segment is
the second derivative of the bending moment with respect to
length and the bending moment was only obtained at three loca-
tions, the values of kA and kB have to be assumed. For a uniform
pressure, k1 = k2 = 1. If a parabolic pressure distribution is assumed
based on the pressure cell readings at completion of construction,
k1 = 1.32 and k2 = 0.94 at Section A and k1 = 1.50 and k2 = 1.09 at
Section B.
If the moments in Eq. 共3兲 are taken as the moments per unit fill
height, as obtained from the slope of the linear regression of
moment versus fill height, then w will be the equivalent pressure
per unit fill height, or the equivalent soil unit weight. Table 3
gives a summary of the back-calculated equivalent soil unit
weights from the roof bending moments, and the resulting soil–
structure interaction factors, Fe. There is little difference in the
results between the assumption of a uniform pressure distribution
and a parabolic pressure distribution. The implication is that the
use of an equivalent uniform pressure distribution for design is
sufficient.
Summary of Measurements
and Effect of Backfill Slope
Table 4 is a summary of the measured equivalent soil unit weights
and the values of the soil–structure interaction factor, Fe, obtained
from the three independent sets of measurements. As seen from
The results shown in Table 4 for Section B are based on the
height of the embankment directly above B. The measured
vertical pressure continued to increase at Section B as the fill
continued to be placed over the center portion of the culvert with
no change in the fill height at B. From axial force measurements
in the wall at the completion of the fill at Section A, the soil–
structure interaction factor Fe was 1.53, 0.94, and 0.70 for B1,
B2, and B3, respectively. Based on the pressure cell readings,
the factor Fe at the time of completion of the embankment at
Section A was 1.59, 1.11, and 1.77 for pressure Cells B4, B5, and
B6, respectively. An equivalent uniform pressure distribution
would result in a soil–structure interaction factor 1.30. Problems
with the strain gages in the roof at the completion of the embank-
ment prevented a similar examination of the bending moments.
Regardless, the results from Section B suggest that portions of
the culvert under the backfill side slope may experience vertical
pressures greater than those determined from the height of the soil
column at the point in question.
Comparison to American Society of Highway
and Transportation Officials Specification
The American Society of Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲 Standard Specification for Bridges 共AASHTO 1996兲
uses a soil–structure interaction factor based on the installation
conditions and the compaction of the sides. For embankment
conditions, the soil–structure interaction factor is determined as
H
Fe = 1 + 0.20 共4兲
B
where Fe need not be taken greater than 1.15 for installations with
compacted fill at the sides, and need not be taken greater than 1.4

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 647

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.

 for uncompacted fill at the sides. The soil–structure interaction
factor recommended by AASHTO 关Eq. 共4兲兴 is shown in Fig. 1.
The compaction conditions at the sides for many of the instru-
mented culverts from the literature were impossible to determine.
For the Tennessee culvert described in this paper, the backfill
was compacted at the sides. All of the measured soil-structure
interaction factors in Fig. 1 are greater than 1.15, with the small-
est being 1.21. This suggests that the factor Fe in the AASHTO
specification underestimates the vertical earth pressures on cul-
verts. Subsequent analyses will only consider the case of uncom-
pacted fill at the sides, since this yields the greater value of Fe,
even though this may not represent actual conditions.
An analysis of the Fe obtained from Spangler’s theory and the
AASHTO specification was conducted for all the culverts shown
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in Fig. 1. Both Spangler’s theory, Eq. 共1兲, and the AASHTO
code are evaluated on the basis of the ratio of the experimentally
measured soil–structure interaction factor to the value calculated
by either Spangler’s theory or the AASHTO specification. For
Spangler’s theory, the mean of the ratio is 0.92, with a coefficient
of variation of 14%. For the AASHTO formula for uncompacted
sides, the mean of the ratio is 1.08, with a coefficient of variation
of 15%. Both methods have some bias, with Spangler often
overestimating the measured pressure and AASHTO consistently
underestimating the pressure. The random error, as measured by
the coefficient of variation is reasonable, being on the same order
as coefficients of variation for the strength of bridge beams which
are 12–16% 共Nowak 1995兲.
The safety level in box culverts is evaluated based on a
simplified analysis to determine the reliability index
ln R − ln S
␤= 共5兲
冑V2R + V2S
in which ␤⫽reliability index; R⫽resistance; S⫽applied load;
V⫽coefficient of variation; and an overbar indicates a mean
value. The resistance is assumed to follow the same statistics as
the moment of a reinforced concrete T-beam, or a bias 共ratio of
actual strength to calculated strength兲 of 1.14 and a coefficient
of variation of 13% 共Nowak 1995兲. The coefficient of variation of
the load is a function of the variability of the soil unit weight and
the variability of the soil-structure interaction factor. The soil unit
weight is assumed to have a bias of 1.00 and a coefficient of
variation of 7% 共Duncan 2000兲. The statistics used for the soil–
structure interaction factor are those for AASHTO with uncom-
pacted sides, or a mean ratio of experimental to calculated of 1.08
and a coefficient of variation of 15%. The coefficient of variation
of the load is determined as the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-
squares of the coefficient of variation of the soil unit weight and
the soil-structure interaction factor, or 17%.
For load factor design, a load factor of 1.3 is used for the dead
load, and a strength-reduction factor of 0.9 is used for flexure.
This results in a reliability index of 1.96. This reliability index is
significantly below a target reliability index of 3.5 chosen for the
development of the AASHTO LRFD code 共Nowak 1995兲.
There are several reasons to justify a lower reliability index
for culverts, particularly under high fill. Nowak 共1995兲 reported
reliability indices as low as 2.0 for certain bridge beams. Thus,
this safety level may be adequate. A failure of a culvert would
generally not be a life-safety issue, although replacement costs
could be significant. Culverts under high fill essentially experi-
ence their maximum load upon completion, or are proof loaded.
Monitoring of the instrumented culvert described herein over an
approximate 4 year period after completion showed no increase in
648 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.
average pressure. Finally, inspections have in general not revealed
problems with culverts due to excessive overburden pressure.
Therefore, although AASHTO underestimates the overburden
pressure on a culvert, the safety level may be adequate.
The AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification 共AASHTO
1998兲 requires buried structures to be considered as nonredundant
under earth fill. This requires a 5% increase in the load factor,
resulting in an increase in the reliability index to 2.22. Culverts
could also be considered to fall under the Strength-IV load com-
bination, which is the load combination relating to very high dead
load to live load force effects, which would further increase the
load factor and the reliability index. The writers feel that the
intent of the Strength-IV load combination was for long span
bridges, and not culverts, and the Strength-IV load combination
should not be used for culverts under high fill.
Conclusions
Vertical pressures on concrete box culverts under high embank-
ments are examined, where a high embankment is one where the
height of the fill above the culvert is greater than the width of the
culvert. Results from an instrumented culvert are described, with
results from pressure cells, strain gages in the wall, and strain
gages in the roof showing reasonable agreement. There was
strong correlation between the height of fill and the pressure and
internal forces in the culvert, suggesting that the soil-structure
interaction factor is independent of the H / B ratio.
The results of the instrumented culvert were compared to in-
strumented culverts under high embankments from the literature.
In all cases, the soil-structure interaction factor Fe was greater
than 1, with a mean of 1.51. The roof pressure on box culverts is
significantly greater than the pressure due to the soil overburden.
Although the measured pressures are greater than those obtained
using the Fe given in the AASHTO specification, a simplified
reliability analysis suggests that there may be a sufficient safety
level in the AASHTO specifications.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the Tennessee Department of
Transportation. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 1996兲. Standard specifications for highway bridges,
16th Ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications,
2nd Ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Binger, W. V. 共1947兲. “Discussion to ‘Underground conduits—
An appraisal of modern research’ .” Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 73,
1543–1545.
Braune, G. M., Cain, W., and Janda, H. F. 共1929兲. “Earth pressure
experiments on culvert pipe.” Public Roads, 10共9兲, 153–176.
Clarke, N. W. B. 共1967兲. “The loads imposed on conduits laid under
embankments or valley fills.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 36,
63–98.
Dasgupta, A., and Sengupta, B. 共1991兲. “Large-scale model test on square
box culvert backfilled with sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng., 117共1兲, 156–161.
 Duncan, J. M. 共2000兲. “Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共4兲, 307–316.
Girdler, H. F. 共1974兲. “Loads on culverts under high embankments.”
Research Rep. No. 386, Interim Rep. No. KYHPR-72-68; HPR-1(9),
Part II, Department of Transportation, Lexington, Ky.
Höeg, K. 共1968兲. “Stresses against underground structural cylinders.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 94共4兲, 833–858.
Katona, M. G., Vittes, P. D., Lee, C. H., and Ho, H. T. 共1981兲.
“CANDE-1980: Box culverts and soil models.” Rep. No. FHWA/RD-
80/172, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Mirza, S. A., Hatzinikolas, M., and MacGregor, J. G. 共1979兲. “Statistical
descriptions of strength of concrete.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 105共6兲,
1021–1037.
Nowak, A. S. 共1995兲. “Calibration of LRFD bridge code.” J. Struct. Eng.,
121共8兲, 1245–1251.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Penman, A. D. M., Charles, J. A., Nash, J. K. T. L., and Humphreys, J. D.
共1975兲. “Performance of culvert under Winscar dam.” Geotechnique,
25共4兲, 713–730.
Spangler, M. G. 共1947兲. “Underground conduits—An appraisal of
modern research.” Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 73, 855–884.
Spangler, M. G. 共1950兲. “Field measurements of the settlement ratios
of various highway culverts.” Iowa Engineering Experiment Station
Bulletin 170, Ames, Iowa.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 649
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:643-649.
Spangler, M. G. 共1968兲. “Discussion to ‘The modification of the
pressures on rigid culverts with fill procedures’ .” Highway Research
Record, 249, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 41–43.
Trollope, D. H., Speedie, M. G., and Lee, I. K. 共1963兲. “Pressure
measurements on Tullaroop dam culvert.” Proc., 4th Australia–
New Zealand Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
81–92.
Vaslestad, J., Johansen, T. H., and Holm, W. 共1993兲. “Load reduction on
rigid culverts beneath high fills: Long-term behavior.” Transportation
Research Record. 1415, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 58–68.
Wood, S. M. 共2000兲. “Internal forces in a reinforced concrete box
culvert.” Master’s thesis, The Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.
Woodbury, W. H., Bayer, E. J., Botts, A. E., Daley, C. A., Pettus, J. K.,
and Wilks, J. R. 共1926兲. “Corrugated metal culverts for railroad
purposes. Preparing specifications, with assistance of committee on
iron and steel structures.” Bull. Am. Railway Eng. Assoc., 27共284兲,
794–828.
Yang, M. Z. 共2000兲. “Evaluation of factors affecting earth pressures on
buried box culverts.” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tenn.