International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE ANALYSIS OF

SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE CELL RC BOX
STRUCTURES
Ch. Sai Amarendra1 Dr. B. D. V. Chandra Mohan Rao2
1
PG Student, VNRVJIET, Hyderabad, Telangana State, India.
2
Professor of Civil Engineering, VNRVJIET, Hyderabad, Telangana State, India
1
amarendra.sai02@gmail.com

2
chandramohanrao_bdv@vnrvjiet.in

Abstract: and bending moments in top slab, bottom slab and side
wall have been evaluated and a comparative study has
R C Box structures consists of two horizontal and
been for different cells (Single / Double / Triple). It has
two vertical slabs cast monolithically to carry various types of
found that a significant reduction in the bending moments in
loads such as Live load, Embankment load, Lateral earth
the top and bottom slabs has been observed in triple cell box
pressure, Water pressure etc. in an efficient way. Box type
structure as compared to single cell box structures.
structure with single cell or multiple cells can be used
effectively as Underpasses / Minor Bridges / Flyovers. Box Key Words : Single, Double, Triple cell box structures, Class
culvert is an ideal option when the safe bearing capacity of the AA Tracked, 70R Tracked and 40 Ton Bogie loads, Bending
soil is low. They are economical due to their rigidity and moment and Shear force in Top and Bottom slabs.
monolithic action and no separate foundation are required
I. INTRODUCTION
since the bottom slab resting directly on the soil serves as the
raft slab.
R C Box structures consists of two horizontal and

In this paper, a R C Box structure of 9 m span is
analyzed for Single, Double and Triple cells for various
heights 3m, 3.5m, 4m and 4.5m. Box structures are analyzed
for IRC Class AA Tracked, 70R Tracked and 40 Ton Bogie
loads. The analysis has been carried out for 15 different load
cases (Crash barrier, Wearing coat, Earth pressure,
Surcharge, Temperature load etc.) and 195 different load
combinations. A comparative study has been carried out
among the various types of box structures (Number of cells
wise and Height wise). The various response parameters
such as shear force at top slab, bottom slab, side wall
1
two vertical slabs cast monolithically to carry various types
of loads such as Live load, Embankment load, Lateral earth
pressure, Water pressure etc. in an efficient way. Box
structures can have single, double or multiple cells. The
height of cushion at the location of the culvert is governed
by the road profile. The required number of boxes depends
mainly on hydraulic requirements at the site. Haunches are
provided at corners to decrease the water pressure effect.
Single cell box culvert is used when discharge is low and
multiple cell box culverts are used when the discharge is
high. Top slab is designed to withstand all the moving
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)
loads (live loads) and dead loads. Side walls are designed railway loading. Finite element method gives the less value
to withstand earth pressure, water pressure. Bottom slab is of bending moment when compared to grillage and
designed to withstand water pressure, earth pressure and conventional method. Shear force is almost same both in
self weight of structure. conventional method and finite element method.
Neha Kolate, Molly Mathew & Snehal Mali[6]
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
have analyzed RCC box culvert to get design parameters of
Sujata Sreedhar & R Sreedhar [7] have analyzed on box. By increasing the base slab projection, box structure
design coefficients of box culvert using Moment can be easily placed over soft foundation to retain base
distribution method and Slope deflection method. They pressure within safe bearing capacity of soil.
derived the coefficients various heights. Their study shows
that the maximum positive moment is developed when the III. NUMERICAL STUDY
sides of the culvert are not carrying the live load & culvert
Thickness of wearing coat = 0.075 m
is running full of water and maximum negative moment is
developed when culvert is empty. Density of concrete = 25 kN/m3
M.G.kalyanshetti & S.A.Gosavi[5] carried out cost
Coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.5
optimization for different aspect ratios of cell by Stiffness
Safe bearing capacity = 150 kN/m2
matrix method. They considered 12 m channel length for
various heights and optimum thickness for different cells The following loads are considered in the design of RCC
has been evaluated. They also evaluated average Box culvert. All the loads are considered as per IRC- 6:
percentage cost reduction per meter width for 12m channel 2014
length. Based on the optimum thicknesses, cost reduction
1. Self weight
for single cell is 1.7%, for double cell it is 4.1% and for
2. Wearing coat
triple cell it is 2.8%.
3. Crash barrier
B.N Sinha & R.P Sharma[1] have analyzed RCC
4. Earth pressure on one side
box culverts with and without cushion. The size and no. of
5. Earth pressure on both sides
cells of box culvert are decided by the hydraulic
6. Surcharge on one side
considerations and site conditions. Box culvert has many
7. Surcharge on both sides
advantages over slab culvert for cross drainage works
8. 40 Ton bogie on midspan & edge
across high embankments. By varying the cushion height,
9. 70 R Tracked on midspan & edge
Box structure can be placed anywhere in the embankment.
10. Class AA Tracked on midspan & edge
Y. Vinod Kumar & Dr. Chava Srinivas[8] have
11. Temperature rise & fall
analyzed box culvert by computational methods such as
Grillage analysis and Finite element method. They found
the bending moment and shear force of the structure under

2
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)
TABLE 1

Maximum Sagging B.M (kN.m)

400
Types of Box Culverts 329 334 336 335
350
Single Double Triple 300
Cell (m) Cell (m) Cell (m) 250
Top slab 0.6 0.4 0.35
200 SCBC
150 127 129 130 131
Bottom slab 0.7 0.5 0.40 91 92 92 91 DCBC
100
Side wall 0.6 0.4 0.35 50 TCBC
Internal side wall --- 0.3 0.275 0
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m
Clear span 9.0 4.45 2.9
Height of Box Culvert
Overall span 9.6 9.6 9.6

Figure 2: Variation of Maximum Sagging BM in Top slab

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Maximum Shear Force (kN)

The variation of maximum hogging bending 250 228 228 227 226
201 201 200 198
moment, sagging bending moment and shear force in top 200 177 177 176 174
slab for different box culverts are shown in Fig. 1, 2, 3. The 150
variation of maximum hogging bending moment, sagging SCBC
100
bending moment and shear force in bottom slab for DCBC
50 TCBC
different box culverts are shown in Fig. 4, 5, 6. The
0
variation of maximum hogging bending moment in side 3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m
wall for different box culverts is shown in Fig. 7. Height of Box Culvert

Figure 3: Variation of Maximum Shear Force in Top slab

Maximum Hogging B.M (kN.m)

400 349
329 337
350 324
300
Maximum Hogging B.M (kN.m)

250 350
200 165 168 169 171 296
SCBC 300
150 114 237
85 84 93 DCBC 250 214
100 196 203
50 TCBC 200 176 176 175
152
150 122 SCBC
0 102 107
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m 100 DCBC
Height of Box Culvert 50 TCBC
0
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m
Figure 1: Variation of Maximum Hogging BM in Top slab Height of Box Culvert

Figure 4: Variation of Maximum Hogging BM in Bottom slab

3
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)
Maximum hogging bending moment in top slab
Maximum Sagging B.M (kN.m)

407 414
382 396
400 for double cell box culvert and triple cell box culvert of
300 height 3m is reduced by 48.7% and 73.7% when compared

200 SCBC to single cell box culvert. Same trend has been observed
147 145 141 137
DCBC for box culverts of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.
100 71 65 60 65
TCBC
0 Maximum sagging bending moment in top slab for
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m
double cell box culvert and triple cell box culvert of height
Height of Box Culvert
3m is reduced by 61% and 72.4% when compared to single
cell box culvert. Same trend has been observed for box
Figure 5: Variation of Maximum Sagging BM in Bottom slab
culverts of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.

Maximum Shear force in top slab for double cell

Maximum Shear Force (kN)

350 321 329

304 313 box culvert and triple cell box culvert of height 3m is
300
236 247 reduced by 12.2% and 22.7% when compared to single cell
250 219 227
201
200 171 179 189 box culvert. Same trend has been observed for box culverts
150 SCBC of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.
100 DCBC
50 TCBC Maximum hogging bending moment in bottom
0 slab for double cell box culvert and triple cell box culvert
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m
of height 3m is reduced by 10% and 47.5% when compared
Height of Box Culvert
to single cell box culvert. Same trend has been observed for
box culverts of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.
Figure 6: Variation of Maximum Shear Force in Bottom slab

Maximum sagging bending moment in bottom

slab for double cell box culvert and triple cell box culvert
Maximum Hogging B.M (kN.m)

350
296 of height 3m is reduced by 63% and 81.5% when compared
300 262 266 278
250 to single cell box culvert. Same trend has been observed for
204
200 177 box culverts of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.
155 153
137 SCBC
150 106
127
89 DCBC
100 Maximum Shear force in bottom slab for double
50 TCBC
cell box culvert and triple cell box culvert of height 3m is
0
3m 3.5m 4m 4.5m reduced by 28.2% and 43.6% when compared to single cell
Height of Box Culvert box culvert. Same trend has been observed for box culverts
of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m.

Figure 7: Variation of Maximum Hogging BM in Side wall

4
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)
Maximum hogging bending moment at bottom of [5]. M G Kalyanshetti & S Gosavi “Analysis of Box culvert – Cost
optimization for different aspect ratio of cells” IJRET, Vol-3, Issue-4,
side wall for double cell box culvert and triple cell box
April-2014, pp 508-514.
culvert of height 3m is reduced by 47.7% and 66% when [6]. Neha Melkote, Molly Mathew, Snehal Mali “Analysis & Design of RCC
compared to single cell box culvert. Same trend has been Box Culvert”, IJESR, Vol- 5, Issue-12, December 2014, pp 36-41.
observed for box culverts of height 3.5m, 4m, and 4.5m. [7]. Sujata Sreedhar & R sreedhar “Design coefficients for single and two cell
box culvert” International Journal of Civil & Structural engineering, Vol-
V. CONCLUSIONS 3, No 3, 2015, pp 475-494.
[8]. Y. Vinod kumar & Dr. Chava Srinivas “Analysis & Design of Box culvert
The following conclusions have been drawn from
using Computational methods” IJESR, Vol-5, Issue-7, July 2015, pp 850-
present study. 861.

 It is found that the bending moments in a double ABOUT THE AUTHORS

cell box culvert are reduced by nearly 45% when

Ch. Sai Amarendra is
compared to a single cell box culvert. Hence currently pursuing Post-
double cell box culvert is more economical than graduation (M.Tech.) in
Structural Engineering at
single cell box culvert.
VNRVJIET, Hyderabad. He
 It is found that the bending moments in a Triple is currently working as
cell box culvert are reduced by nearly 70% when Structural Engineer (Part
compared to a single cell box culvert and by time) at VR2 Infra Solutions
Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
nearly 49% when compared to a double cell box
culvert. Hence triple cell box culvert is more Dr. B D V Chandra Mohan
Rao is currently working as
economical than single and double cell box
Professor of Civil Engineering
culvert. at VNRVJIET, Hyderabad.
 As the BM’s are nearly same for a box culvert of He has published 20 Journal
papers and 10 conference
different heights, it has been concluded that the
papers. He has received Sir
influence of height of the box culvert on the Arthur Cotton Memorial Prize
design parameters is nominal. (Gold Medal) for the best
paper published in the
REFERENCES Institution of Engineers
Journal. He has 20 years of
[1]. B.N. Sinha & R.P. Sharma “RCC Box culvert- Methodology and Design teaching experience and his
including computer method” Journal of Indian Road Congress, October research areas include
2009, pp 189-219. Earthquake Engineering,
[2]. IRC 5:2015 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Finite Element Analysis and
Bridges. Section-1: General features of Design. Structural Optimization.
[3]. IRC 6: 2016 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road
Bridges. Section-II: Loads & Stresses.
[4]. IRC 112:2011 Code of Practice for Concrete Road Bridges.