UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA

Fatigue Evaluation for Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts

by Hany Maximos, Ph.D. Student, Ece Erdogmus, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering, and Maher Tadros, Ph.D., P.E., Leslie D. Martin Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Final Report

September 2007

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Historical Background ............................................................................................ 1 Notes:.................................................................................................................. 3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 4 Experimental Program ................................................................................................. 4 Description of Specimens ....................................................................................... 4 Testing Procedure ................................................................................................... 8 Test Results ................................................................................................................. 9 Specimen A: 12ft x 4ftx 12in. box culvert section ................................................. 9 1) Static Point Load of 18.4 kips ........................................................................ 9 2) Static Strip Load of 4.6 kips/ft ..................................................................... 10 3) Cyclic Point Loading (fatigue testing) first five million Cycles .................. 12 4) Static point Load of 27.6kips ....................................................................... 13 5) Cyclic Point Loading of 27.6kips (fatigue testing) Second Five Million Cycles ........................................................................................................................ 13 6) Loading Monotonically until Failure ........................................................... 15 Specimen B: 7ft x 4ft x 8in. box culvert section................................................... 17 1) Static Point Load of 18.4 kips ...................................................................... 17 2) Static Strip Load of 4.6 kips/ft ..................................................................... 18 3) Cyclic Point Loading of 18.4kips (fatigue testing) First Five Million Cycles ................................................................................................................................... 19 4) Static point Load of 27.6kips ....................................................................... 20

5) Cyclic Point Loading of 27.6kips (fatigue testing) Second Five Million Cycles ........................................................................................................................ 20 6) Loading Monotonically until Failure ........................................................... 23 Analysis and discussion............................................................................................. 25 For Box 12ft x 4ft x 12in. ..................................................................................... 25 For Box 7ft x 4ft x 8in. ......................................................................................... 26 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 27 References ................................................................................................................. 29

Introduction
Recent research has indicated that when checking for fatigue, there may be a need for a lower stress range limit if welded wire reinforcement (WWR) is used instead of rebars, and the cross welds are in a high stress zone as is often the case with standard WWR mesh configurations (1). In addition, a proposal was introduced to the AASHTO Technical Committee for Concrete Structures (Committee T10) to increase the load factor for fatigue checking from the current 0.75 in the AASHTO LRFD Standard to 1.5. The proposed 1.5 load factor along with the special fatigue truck, dynamic allowance factor, and distribution factor were focused on design of concrete stringers of a bridge superstructure to bring the provisions into consistency with fatigue design of steel girders. Neither the study nor the proposal made to the AASHTO committee included any considerations for the impact of these revisions on box culverts. The combination of the higher load factor and lower allowable fatigue range would result in substantially higher steel areas, especially for shallow depth box culverts. To date, the current designs of precast box culverts have performed well and have not shown any indication of having a fatigue problem. Therefore, the requested increase in steel reinforcement, currently, is not justified. The objective of this study is to provide experimental and analytical evidence for studying the effects of the change in fatigue provisions in AASHTO LRFD on box culverts, and to offer recommendations on whether these provisions should include or exclude box culverts.

Historical Background For design and specifications of standard precast reinforced concrete box culverts, either ASTM 1433 (2) or ASTM 1577 (3) is currently used. ASTM 1433 is based on AASHTO Standard Specifications (LFD), while ASTM 1577 is based on AASHTO LRFD up to Interim 2005.Table-1 shows a summary comparison between the two standards used to produce precast RC Box culverts. 1

Table-1: Summary comparison between standards used for producing precast RC Box culverts

ASTM C1433 Based on AASHTO Standard Specifications (LFD) (4). Load factor for flexural strength = 1.3(DL + 1.7LL) Load factor for fatigue = 1.0. Impact is 30%, all loading cases, zero fill height. Wheel load is applied as a point load.

ASTM C1577 Based on AASHTO LRFD, up to Interim 2005 (5). Load factor for flexural strength = (1.25DL + 1.75LL) Load factor for fatigue = 0.75 Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact) for fatigue is 15%, for all other loads is 33%. Wheel load is applied on a tire contact area of 10 by 20. ASTM C1577 was developed before the AASHTO LRFD2007, where there are specific WWR fatigue limits. Fatigue limit for WWR in ASTM C1577 is still 21 ksi.

AASHTO LFD fatigue limit is [21 0.33fmin + 8(r/h)] for rebar. Fatigue limit used in ASTM1433 for WWR is 21 ksi (not directly from AASHTO LFD).

Table-2, gives a summary of the changes affecting fatigue checking which were proposed to AASHTO for application staring 2007 interim. Comments about these changes are mentioned next to each one in the same table.

Table-2: AASHTO LRFD 2007 interim fatigue checking changes and authors comments AASHTO LRFD2007 interim fatigue checking changes The 2007 changes were primarily intended for, and calibrated for, longitudinal analysis of bridge girders. Load factor for fatigue based on an infinite life design = 2*0.75 = 1.5. Fatigue bending moment is smaller than 5 million cycle fatigue limit for WWR: Service I bending moment, even with the new 2.0 load factor. (24 - 0.33 fmin), no welds in the high tension zone. (16 - 0.33 fmin), welds in the high tension zone.

Comments

Deck slabs continue to be exempted from fatigue analysis.

The load is doubled.

The stress limit is decreased by almost 25%

Notes: 1. For girders, distribution factor for only one lane is used. Only one truck with a 30 ft distance between rear axles, and 1.15 Dynamic Allowance Factor. 2. Unlike girders, there is no reduction in the moment due to fatigue. 3. Unlike deck slabs, box culverts are not exempted

Objectives
1. To investigate fatigue for box culvert design in accordance to ASTM C1577. 2. To study the effect of increasing the load factor applied for checking fatigue from the current 0.75 to 1.5.

Experimental Program
Description of Specimens Two precast box culverts were tested. Specimen A: 12ft x 4ft x 12in., and specimen B: 7ft x 4ft x8in. These two span lengths cover the range of sizes currently found in ASTM and AASHTO Material Standards. All tested boxes were 4ft piece long. Material properties for the specimens are shown in Table 3. The areas of reinforcement required by ASTM C1577 are listed in Table 4 along with the actual values used in the boxes.

The box culverts were produced in accordance with ASTM C 1577, Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers Designed According to AASHTO LRFD for earth cover 0 < 2 ft. According to ASTM C1577 standard:

1. The steel areas required are not controlled by fatigue. The designs used for developing the steel reinforcement in the standard follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications up to 2005 Interim version.

2.

Fatigue was checked in all designs using the 0.75 load factor and a 21,000 psi fatigue stress range. Fatigue was found not to govern in these applications.

Table3, concrete used for producing the specimens

Specimen Box 12ft x 4ft x 12in. Specified Actual 5,000 psi 7,800 psi Box 7ft x 4ft x 8in. Actual 7,600 psi

Specified 5,000 psi

Table 4, Reinforcement areas required by ASTM C1577 versus actual areas provided
8 or 12

8 or 12

7ft or 12ft

8 or 12

8 or 12

Reinforcement Box 12ft x 4ft x 12in.

ASTM C1577 2 (req.) (in /ft)

As1 0.380 D10.0/D4.0 0.420 0.210 D7.0 0.210

As2 0.310 D5.5 0.330 0.340 D6.5/D5.0 0.345

As3 0.290 D5.5 0.330 0.250 D8.5 0.255

As4 0.290 D5.5 0.330 0.190 D6.5 0.195

As5 0.290 D10.0 0.300 0.190 D6.5 0.195

As6 0.290 D10.0 0.300 0.190 D6.5 0.195

As7 0.290 D10.0 0.300 0.190 D7.0 0.210

As8 0.290 D10.0 0.300 0.190 D7.0 0.210

Wire Size Act. Area (in2/ft)

ASTM C1577 2 (req.) (in /ft)

Box 7ft x 4ft x 8in.

Wire Size Act. Area (in2/ft)

Each of the specimens was equipped with 24 strain gages, as shown in Figure 1. Strain gages were mounted on the wire reinforcement at the locations of expected maximum positive and negative moments. Figure 2, shows the strain gages distribution for the 7ft x 4ft x 8in. box.

Figure 1, Strain gages distribution for box culvert 12ftx4ftx12in.

Figure 2, Strain gages distribution for box culvert 7ftx4ftx8in.

Testing Procedure A wheel load of 16 kips was used in calculating the load level different phases along with 15% dynamic allowance factor. Each specimen was tested in six different phases: 1) Static point load of 18.4kips: 18.4 kips was applied as a point load at mid span of the box on its spigot end through a 10in. x 20in. footprint. This load level corresponds to a load factor of 1.0. 2) Static strip load of 18.4kips: 18.4kips total load was applied in the form of a 4 feet static strip load (18.4 kips/4 ft = 4.6 k/ft). The stress/strain in the reinforcement was compared to what was seen in the previous step to evaluate the effective stress distribution in the slab. 3) Cyclic point load of 18.4kips (fatigue testing): The 18.4 kip load was applied through a 10in. x 20in. footprint on the spigot end of the box repetitively by an actuator for five million cycles. The condition of the box culverts was visually inspected during the testing, while the strain gage readings were monitored through a data acquisition system. 4) Static point load of 27.6kips: 27.6 kips was applied as a point load at mid span of the box on its spigot end through a 10in. x 20in. footprint. This load level corresponds to the proposed load factor of 1.5. 5) Cyclic point load of 27.6kips (fatigue testing): The 27.6 kip load was applied through a 10in. x 20in. footprint on the spigot end of the box repetitively by an actuator for five million cycles. This testing phase comes after the specimen is already fatigued with the five million cycles of loading using 18.4kips. 6) Loading monotonically until failure: This phase takes place after the box endures the second round of fatigue testing mentioned in phase 5, or when it is decided to terminate the fatigue testing. The specimen is then loaded monotonically until failure at the mid-span using point load through a 10in. x 20in. footprint. was then applied to the box as. 8

Test Results
Specimen A: 12ft x 4ftx 12in. box culvert section This section summarizes the results of test phases performed on Specimen A. it must be noted here there are data from all strain gages except for Strain gage-2 as it was damaged during casting of this box. As shown in Figure1 the location of this strain gage was on the fourth wire from the spigot end of the top slab positive moment reinforcement (As2).

1) Static Point Load of 18.4 kips Figure 5 shows the strain gage readings for top slab positive moment reinforcement under the effect of a static load of 18.4. The load was applied with 1kips/second loading rate up to 18.4kips, held for 15 seconds, and then was unloaded. This loading /holding /unloading cycle was repeated twice. Figure 6 shows the strain gage readings under the same load conditions for the negative moment reinforcement in both top slab and wall of the box.

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 Micro Strain 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.5 5.0 9.5 14.0 18.5 23.0 27.5 32.0 36.5 41.0 45.5 50.0 54.5 59.0 63.5 68.0 72.5 77.0 81.5 86.0 90.5
Time (second)
Strain gauge 1 Strain Gauge 3 Strain Gauge 4 Strain Gauge 5 Strain Gauge 6

Loading

Load holding

Unloading

Figure 5, strain gage readings for the positive reinforcement of the top slab under a static point load of 18.4 kips 9

35 30 25 Micro Strain

Load holding

Loading

Unloading
Strain Gauge 13

20 15 10 5 0 0.5 4.0 7.5 11.0 14.5 18.0 21.5 25.0 28.5 32.0 35.5 39.0 42.5 46.0 49.5 53.0 56.5 60.0 63.5 67.0 70.5 74.0 77.5 81.0 84.5 88.0 91.5

Strain Gauge 14 Strain Gauge 15 Strain Gauge 22 Strain Gauge 23 Strain Gauge 24

Time (second)

Figure 6, strain gage readings for negative reinforcement of the box under the static point load of 18.4kips

2) Static Strip Load of 4.6 kips/ft Similar loading style of loading was used such that the is increased at a rate of 1kips/second, then held for 15 seconds, and unloaded. This loading pattern was repeated twice. Figure 7 shows the strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement. Figure 8 shows the strain gage readings for the top slab negative reinforcement and negative reinforcement in the side wall.

10

0.0001000 0.0000900 0.0000800 0.0000700 0.0000600 Strain 0.0000500 0.0000400 0.0000300 0.0000200 0.0000100 0.0000000

Load holding Loading Unloading

Strain Gauge 1 Strain Gauge 3 Strain Gauge 4 Strain Gauge 5 Strain Gauge 6

Figure 7, strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement under a static strip load of 4.6 kips/ft

0.0000350 0.0000300

0.0000250 0.0000200 0.0000150 0.0000100 0.0000050 0.0000000 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 Time (second)
Strain gage-13 Series1 Strain gage-14 Series2 Strain gage-15 Series3 Strain gage-22 Series4 Strain gage-23 Series5

Strain

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148

Time (second)

Load holding Loading Unloading

Series6 Strain gage-24

Figure 8, strain gage readings for top slab and side wall negative reinforcement under a static strip load of 4.6 kips/ft

11

3) Cyclic Point Loading (fatigue testing) first five million Cycles There were no visible cracks during the first five million cycles of fatigue testing. Strain gages monitoring did not show any evidences for cut in any of the reinforcement wires. After the box endured five million cycles of loafing at a load level of 18.4kips, the load was monotonically increased to 18.4 kips at the rate of 1kip/sec., held for 15 seconds and unloaded. This static loading pattern was repeated twice. Each time, strain gages rebalancing was performed. Figure 9 shows the strain gage readings for positive moment reinforcement (As2) under the described loading process. Comparing Figure 9 to Figure 5 shows that the distribution of stresses among the reinforcement after fatigue testing still the same as the distribution before the specimen was subject to fatigue.

Loading

Load holding Unloading

Figure 9, strain gage readings for top slab positive moment reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 18.4 kips 12

4) Static point Load of 27.6kips A second round of static loading was performed using a load level of 27.6kips. Strain gages readings were obtained to compare them to the readings after concluding the next 5million cycles of loading. Figure 10 shows the strain gage readings of the positive moment reinforcement in the top slab under the described load level.

Load holding

Loading

Unloading

Figure 10, strain gage readings for top slab positive moment reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 27.6 kips

5) Cyclic Point Loading of 27.6kips (fatigue testing) Second Five Million Cycles During the second 5million cycles at 27.6kips load level, first crack became visible after one million cycles. After the box endured 2million cycles at a load level of 27.6kips, wide cracks were observed and started to increase in width.

13

The actuator program was set to automatically shut-off the machine when the deflection goes higher than in. This happened at 2million cycles at load level of 27.6kips. Figure 11 shows the crack width at the mid-span section of the top slab without loading, while Figure12 shows the crack width at the same section under 27.6 kips loading.

Figure 11, crack width (64 in.) at mid-span section of the top slab at the time of stopping the fatigue test, without any loading.

Figure 12, crack width (64 in.) at mid-span section of the top slab at the time of stopping the fatigue test, under a load of 27.6kips.

10

14

Figure 13 shows strain gage readings for the positive moment reinforcement in the top slab (As2) at the time when the test was stopped. It was then decided to load the box monotonically to failure.

Load holding

Loading

Unloading

Figure 13, strain gage reading for top slab positive moment reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 27.6 kips at the time of stopping the fatigue test.

6) Loading Monotonically until Failure After the fatigue test was stopped (due to excessive deflection in the top slab), the box was loaded monotonically until failure. A special testing frame was set for this purpose, as shown in Figure 14. A point load was applied using a foot print similar to the one used for fatigue test. The ultimate load recorded was 43.43 kips. Figure15A and B shows mid-span section and negative moment section of the top slab respectively.

15

Figure 14, test frame setting for ultimate loading of the box.

Figure 15A, mid-span section of the top slab at failure.

Figure 15B, negative moment section of the top slab at failure. 16

Specimen B: 7ft x 4ft x 8in. box culvert section 1) Static Point Load of 18.4 kips Figure 16 shows the strain gage readings for top slab positive moment reinforcement (As2) under the effect of a static load of 18.4. The load was applied at the spigot end of the box with 1kips/second loading rate. Then it was held for 15 seconds and then was unloaded. This Loading /Holding /Unloading cycle was repeated twice.

Loading

Load holding

Unloading

Figure 16, strain gage readings for the positive reinforcement (As2) of the top slab under a static point load of 18.4 kips

17

2) Static Strip Load of 4.6 kips/ft A strip load was applied using a steel beam to distribute the load over the entire length of the box segment (4ft). The same load value of 18.4 kips was used which results in a uniformly distributed load of 4.6 kips/ft along the segment length. Load was also applied in a rate of 1kips/second and then held for 15 seconds. Then it was unloaded. This cycle was repeated twice as per the static point load. Figure 17 shows the strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under the aforementioned strip load.

Load holding Loading Unloading

Figure 17, strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under a static strip load of 4.6 kips/ft

18

3) Cyclic Point Loading of 18.4kips (fatigue testing) First Five Million Cycles The box endured the first five million cycles of loading without any visible cracks. The specimen was then monotonically increased to 18.4 kips at the rate of 1kip/sec., held for 15 seconds, and unloaded. This process was repeated twice. Each time, strain gages rebalancing was performed. Figure 18 shows the strain gage readings for positive moment reinforcement (As2) under the described loading process. Comparing Figure 18 to Figure 16 shows that the stress distribution among the reinforcement still following the same pattern as before fatigue testing. The comparison also shows no evidence for strain accumulation.

Loading

Load holding

Unloading

Figure 18, strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 18.4 kips

19

4) Static point Load of 27.6kips A second round of static loading was performed using a load level of 27.6kips. Strain gages readings were obtained to compare them to the readings after concluding the next 5million cycles of loading. Figure 19 shows the strain gage readings of the positive moment reinforcement (As2) in the top slab under the described load level.

Load holding Loading Unloading

Figure 19, strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 27.6 kips

5) Cyclic Point Loading of 27.6kips (fatigue testing) Second Five Million Cycles During the second 5million cycles at 27.6kips load level, first crack became visible after 40,000 cycles. The same crack was almost constant in width but started to propagate from the spigot end towards the mid-length of the box segment with increase of number of cycles. 20

The crack stopped extending further after 680,000 cycles, and did not extend further through out concluding of the test. Figure 20 shows the initiation of the crack and its farther extend.

Figure 20, crack extension through out the second 5million cycles at load level of 27.6kips

After the box endured the second five million cycles, static loading was performed using a point load of 18.4 kips following the same procedure used for the initial static loading with a holding period up to 60 seconds. The reason was to expose any negative effect the fatigue test might have on the reinforcement behavior. The load was monotonically increased to 18.4 kips at the rate of 1kip/sec., held for 60 seconds, and unloaded. This process was repeated twice. Each time, strain gages rebalancing was performed. Figure 21 shows the strain gage readings for positive moment reinforcement (As2) under the described loading process. Data from Strain gage-5 could not be obtained after the second 5million cycles of loading, however it is unlikely that the damage is due to fatigue loading because this strain gage was mounted on a reinforcement wire which was away from the loading point (Figure 2). Most likely, the loss was due to internal wire cut in the cable connecting the strain gage to the data acquisition system.

21

Load holding Loading Unloading

Figure 21 strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 18.4 kips after the second 5 million cycles at load level of 27.6 kips

A second round of static loading was performed using a load level of 27.6kips. Strain gages readings were obtained to compare them to the initial readings recorded before starting the second 5million cycles of loading. The load was held for 60 seconds during this round also. Figure 22 shows the strain gage readings of the positive moment reinforcement (As2) in the top slab under the described load level.

22

Load holding Loading Unloading

Figure 22, strain gage readings for top slab positive reinforcement (As2) under a static point load of 27.6 kips after the second 5 million cycles at load level of 27.6 kips

6) Loading Monotonically until Failure After the fatigue test was concluded, the box was loaded monotonically until failure by applying a point load using the foot print plate. The failure mechanism was initiated by cracks at the negative moment sections of the side walls at a load level of 55kips. Following, there was a crack at bottom of the mid-span section of the top slab, which increased in width until failure. This crack was a new one along the side of the foot print, and about 5in. away from the crack initiated during fatigue testing. The ultimate load recorded was 115.86 kips. Figures 23, and 24 show cracks at negative moment section of the side wall, and mid-span section of the top slab respectively.

23

Figure 23, a crack at the negative moment section of the side wall at failure

Figure 24, cracks at the positive moment section of the top slab at failure

24

Analysis and discussion

The boxes were designed in accordance to ASTM C1577 for designing precast concrete box culverts. Reinforcement areas in ASTM C1577 are based on AASHTO LRFD 2005 (5). The load factor used for checking fatigue limit state was 0.75. This means that during design these boxes were checked for fatigue under a load level of 0.75x16x1.15 = 13.8 kips. Fatigue testing was performed at a load level of 18.4kips. This means that a load factor of 1.0 was used while testing these boxes for fatigue. Both boxes endured the first 5million cycles of loading at this load level. The second 5million cycles of fatigue loading were conducted at a load level of 27.6kips which corresponds to a load factor of 1.5

For Box 12ft x 4ft x 12in. 1) Box endured five million cycles at 18.4 kips with no signs of degradation. 2) At a load level of 27.6 kips, cracks opened after one million cycles and three wire locations broke at two million cycles (6 out of 24 wires). 3) The box was then loaded to failure. It achieved a load of 43.4 kips. This load level is greater than the Strength I load in AASHTO LRFD which is 16x1.33x1.75 = 37.2 kips. 4) Ultimate capacity would have been higher with no broken wires. Although at least six wires out of the twenty four wires used as positive moment reinforcement in the top slab (As2), the box was able to achieve an ultimate load higher than the design ultimate load. If the effect of the six broken wires is to be considered, the ultimate load based on the capacity achieved by the remaining eighteen wires would be 58kips.

25

The actual load factor calculated as the ratio between the estimated ultimate load achieved by the full amount of reinforcement and the design ultimate load would be 2.72 instead of 1.75. For Box 7ft x 4ft x 8in. 1) Box endured five million cycles at a load level of 18.4 kips with no signs of degradation. 2) At a load level of 27.6 kips, one crack opened (with a narrow width) after 40,000 cycles and it propagate back into the box segment length until mid-length of the segment. This crack stopped propagating after 680,000 cycles. No more cracks were visible up to the end of fatigue testing. 3) The box was then loaded to failure. It achieved a load of 115.86 kips. This load level is greater with a huge margin than the Strength I load in AASHTO LRFD which is 16x1.33x1.75 = 37.2 kips. The crack initiated by fatigue testing did not propagate across the whole section. It is clear from Figure 20 that it stopped at mid-length of the segment. Although the effect of fatigue was recorded as an increase in the strain in reinforcement under the same load level, the achieved ultimate load after 10million cycles states that the section capacity was not affected dramatically. Further more, Figure 24 shows that the cracks led to failure of the mid-span section of the top slab were different than the crack initiated during the fatigue testing. The failure mechanism observed (Figures 23, and 24) showed a structural behavior corresponding to the formation of a plastic hinge at the negative moment section. Followed, there was an increase of the moment at the mid-span section of the top slab. This is due to the fact that the slab started to act as a simple beam. Based on this information, the load factor is calculated to be 5.45, a value which is greater than triple the load factor used for design as per Strength I limit state in AASHTO LRFD.

26

Prior to our study, many other studies were done on the behavior of the buried RC box culverts (6) (7). It is reasonable to consider the behavior is not just a beam behavior, because of the arching action resulted from the restrain provided by the side walls and the earth fill behind them. Also, the presence of the distribution reinforcement (the reinforcement that is perpendicular to the main reinforcement in the section) helps in redistributing the load between the total reinforcement in the section. This leads to less stress in each reinforcement wire, due to the acting wheel load, than the stresses calculated by beam theory flexural analysis. This is proven by the differences between the achieved ultimate capacity, even after fatigue testing, and the design ultimate load for both boxes. comparing Figures 7, and 5 (for specimen A and Figures 17, and 16 for specimen B) shows that: the stress distribution among the reinforcement in the top slab of box culverts is similar in the case of a point load acting at the spigot end to the distribution in case of a strip load acting across the total length of the specimen. This proves the existence of arching action in top slabs of box culverts due to the restrain provided by the side walls even in absence of the additional restrain results from lateral earth pressure behind the wall which would improve the arching action in actual installation conditions.

Conclusions
Two box culvert specimens were produced according to ASTM C1577 and tested in this study. Specimens' dimensions were 12ft x 4ft x 12in. and 7ft x 4ft x 8in. specimens were tested first using a static load of 18.4 kips corresponds to a load factor of 1. A strip load of the same magnitude was then applied and a cyclic load using the same load level was then commenced for five million cycles. Both specimens endured the first five million cycles. Five more million cycles were applied using a load level of 27.6kips corresponds to a load factor of 1.5. Specimen 12ft x 4ft x 12in. endured two million 27

cycles under this load level, while specimen 7ft x 4ft x 8in. endured five million cycles. When loaded monotonically until failure both specimens showed a higher load capacity than the Strength I designing load in AASHTO LRFD which corresponds to a load factor of 1.75. Based on the results of this study, the authors suggest that one of the following options is adopted for box culvert design: A. Waive of fatigue requirements in box culvert design, or B. Design according to AASHTO 2007 with a fatigue load factor of 0.75; These two options do not present identical results, Option B is more conservative than Option A and is consistent with AASHTO LFD (25% reduction in load and 25% reduction in stress limit.)

28

References
1. Fatigue of Deformed Welded-Wire Reinforcement. Amorn, W., et al. 2007, PCI Journal, Vols. 52, No.1, pp. 106-120. 2. (ASTM), American Association for Testing and Materials. Standard Specifications for Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers. ASTM C1433. West Conshohocken, PA : ASTM International, 2004. 3. (ASTM), American Association for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers Designed According to AASHTO LRFD. ASTM C1577. West Conshohocken, PA : ASTM International, 2005. 4. (AASHTO), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Sixteenth. Washington : AASHTO, 1996. 5. (AASHTO), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AAHSTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington : AASHTO, 2005 2006 interim. LRFDUS-3-I2. 6. Soil Pressure on Box Culvets. Tadros, M. K., Benak, J. V. and Gillilan, M. K. JulyAugust 1989, ACI Structural Journal, pp. 439-450. 7. Investigating the Shear Strength of Concrete Box Culverts. Yee, R., Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P. Washington, D.C. : Tranportation Research Board, 2007. TRB Annual Meeting CD-ROM.

29