ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S02
Fatigue Evaluation for Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts
by Hany Maximos, Ece Erdogmus, and Maher K. Tadros
This paper summarizes the experimental program conducted by
the authors to evaluate the fatigue effects on reinforced concrete
(RC) box culverts, and the resulting recommendations that were
made to the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTO). The study presented herein includes testing of two full-
scale RC box culvert sections designed and manufactured according
to ASTM C1577. The first specimen was 12 ft x 4 ft x 12 in. (3657.6 x
1219.2 x 304.8 mm), and the second was 7 ft x 4 ft x 8 in. (2133.6 x
1219.2 x 203.2 mm).
Test results show a good distribution of the load resistance between
the two reinforcement directions in box culvert sections. Fatigue
effect on the flexural capacity of the RC box culvert sections was found
to be minimal. As a result of the study, the authors proposed that the
fatigue check for RC box culverts designed according to ASTM C1577
be eliminated; this recommendation is accepted by AASHTO.
Keywords: box culverts; buried structures; fatigue; load; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Recent research on welded wire reinforcement (WWR)
and fatigue resistance resulted in two proposed changes to
AASHTO’s design of bridge superstructures for fatigue
resistance. First, research by Amorn and Tadros1 on WWR
has indicated that when checking for fatigue, there may be a
need for a lower stress range limit if WWR is used instead of
reinforcing bars, and the crosswelds are in a high-stress zone,
as is often the case with standard WWR mesh configurations.
Second, a proposal was introduced to the AASHTO Technical
Committee for Concrete Structures (Committee T10) to
increase the load factor for fatigue from 0.75 to 1.5 in the
AASHTO LRFD Standard Specifications.2 According to
this proposal, the 1.5 load factor should be applied along
with the special fatigue truck, the dynamic allowance factor,
and the distribution factor for the design of concrete stringers
of a bridge superstructure. While this change allows for
consistency between provisions for fatigue design of
concrete and steel members, neither the study nor the
proposal made to the AASHTO committee included any
considerations on the impact of these revisions on box
culverts. In fact, although the proposed changes are appropriate
for bridge superstructures, they may be overly conservative
for box culverts. In response to this situation, a committee,
comprising representatives from the American Concrete
Pipe Association (ACPA) and AASHTO Committee T13,
along with University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)
researchers, was formed to discuss the need for additional
research in this area.
It is evident that a combination of a higher load factor and
a lower allowable fatigue range would result in substantially
larger steel areas, especially for shallow-depth box culverts.
Current precast box culvert designs, however, have
performed well in the past and have not shown any indication of
fatigue problems. Furthermore, other scholarly work shows
that AASHTO load factor resistance design (LRFD) provisions
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
TECHNICAL PAPER
result in increased design loads and reinforcement areas for
box culverts.3 Therefore, the requested increase in steel
reinforcement should be reevaluated for the case of box
culverts. Specifically, box culverts buried at a shallow
depth (≤2 ft [609.6 mm]) should be studied because they
receive more direct impact from fatigue in contrast to those
under thick layers of soil cover.
This paper summarizes the experimental program
conducted by the authors to evaluate the fatigue effects on
box culverts, the recommendations made to AASHTO, and
the final decision made by AASHTO Committee T13.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Prior research conducted by the UNL on WWR alone, and
on the fatigue resistance of bridge superstructures reinforced
with WWR, has resulted in changes in AASHTO that are
potentially overly conservative for reinforced concrete (RC)
box culverts. Therefore, there was an immediate need for
research to understand whether the changes recommended
for fatigue resistance were valid for box culverts. This study
provided such research. Based on the results of this study,
recommendations were made to AASHTO Committee T13
concerning the fatigue resistance guidelines for concrete box
culverts reinforced with WWR. These recommendations
were approved by AASHTO Committee T13 and the
changes will appear in the AASHTO LRFD revisions.
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
For the design of box culverts, two standard specifications
are available: ASTM C15774 and ASTM C14335 for LRFD
and load factor design (LFD), respectively. In other words, if
the designer chooses to use LRFD for the box culverts, then
the boxes must be produced in accordance with ASTM
C1577 for an earth cover of 0 to 2 ft (0 to 609.6 mm). Design
according to LFD and ASTM C1433 is not relevant to the
study, and therefore will not be discussed any further.
In ASTM C1577, the design of the steel reinforcement
follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
up to the 2005 Interim version.2 In this version, the load
factor for fatigue is 0.75 and the stress range for fatigue is
21,000 psi (144.8 MPa). With these limits, the required steel
areas for box culverts are typically governed by flexure, and
not by fatigue.
As mentioned in the introduction, two independent
changes were proposed to the AASHTO LRFD 2005 Interim
Specifications: 1) based on WWR studies, fatigue stress
range should be changed to 16,000 ± fmin; and 2) load factor
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
MS No. S-2008-098.R1 received October 11, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.
13

Hany Maximos is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha, NE. He received his BSc and MSc from
Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt, in 1994 and 2000, respectively.
Ece Erdogmus is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architectural
Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her research interests
include the assessment and rehabilitation of existing concrete and masonry
structures, assessment and design of buried pipes and culverts, and concrete
mixture design and optimization.
Maher K. Tadros, FACI, is the Leslie D. Martin Professor of Civil Engineering in the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is a Past
President of the ACI Nebraska Chapter and is a member of ACI Committee 546,
Repair of Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 343, Concrete Bridge Design,
and 423, Prestressed Concrete.
Fig. 1—Test setup for Specimen A before testing.
should be increased to 1.5. As a result of these proposed
changes in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications,6 box
culverts would be inadvertently affected, as they fall under
the same umbrella. Because WWR reinforced box culverts
have been performing satisfactorily for decades, the
proposed changes created a need for research to determine
whether the proposed AASHTO LRFD specification
changes should be waived or altered for box culverts.
A committee of experts was formed and an experimental
research plan using full-scale specimens was developed. To
represent commonly used short and long spans, two
representative sizes of box culverts were selected: 7 ft and
12 ft. The specimens were designed using the old load factor
(0.75) and the stress range; however, they were tested in six
stages of static and cyclic loading going beyond these limits
(loads corresponding to load factors of 1.0 and the proposed
1.5). After enduring these phases of static and cyclic loading,
both specimens were loaded to failure. The results were
studied and recommendations were made to AASHTO
Committee T13.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Test specimens
In previous research at UNL, hundreds of specimens were
tested to determine the stress range at fatigue life of WWR.1 In
the current study, two full-scale precast box culverts were
carefully chosen to be tested for fatigue evaluation: Specimen A,
12 ft x 4 ft x 12 in. (3657.6 x 1219.2 x 304.8 mm); and Specimen
B, 7 ft x 4 ft x 8 in. (2133.6 x 1219.2 x 203.2 mm).
These two span lengths represent short and long spans
commonly used and currently found in ASTM4,5 and
AASHTO Material Standards. All tested segments were 4 ft
(1219.2 mm) long. The areas of reinforcement required by
14
ASTM C1577 (old requirements) are listed in Table 1 along
with the actual wire sizes used.
Material properties
Specimens were constructed using normalweight concrete
with a specified characteristic compressive strength of
5000 psi (34.47 MPa). Four x 8 in. (102 x 204 mm) concrete
cylinders cast for each specimen and cured under the
same conditions as the box culvert section were tested to
determine the average compressive strength for the concrete
at the time of testing. The average concrete compressive
strengths for Specimens A and B were found to be 7800 and
7600 psi (53.78 and 52.40 MPa), respectively. The reinforcement
used in the specimens was deformed WWR of Grade 65.
Fatigue life determination
Fatigue limit state is defined as the ability of the structure
to withstand the load for a certain number of load cycles. In
literature, infinite life is considered after 1 million cycles.7
Previous work done at UNL concludes that 1 to 5 million
cycles (the long-life region) is more important for design
purposes based on the results of an extensive experimental
program.1 Other studies also adopt a range of 5 million
cycles for a testing procedure.8 Therefore, specimens were
tested for 5 million cycles in this study.
Test setup and instrumentation
A hydraulic actuator with an axial capacity of 110 kips
(489.3 kN) was used to apply a concentrated load at the
midspan of the spigot end. A 10 x 20 in. (254 x 508 mm)
footprint steel plate of 1 in. (25.4 mm) thickness was used to
transfer the load from the actuator and to comply with
AASHTO Specifications2 for the tire contact area. A 0.5 in.
(13 mm) thick neoprene pad was placed underneath the steel
plate to account for any surface roughness under the contact
area of the footprint. The specimen was rested on a plywood-
rubber panel with 0.75 in. (19 mm) thick plywood and 0.5 in.
(13 mm) thick rubber to simulate the elastic support under
the box culvert sections in a field installation. Figure 1
illustrates the test setup for Specimen A.
A total of 25 channels of instrumentation were used on each
box culvert; a load cell along with 24 electrical resistance
strain gauges 0.25 in. (6 mm) in gauge length were attached to
selected reinforcement wires. Each of the specimens was
instrumented with 24 strain gauges (Fig. 2). Strain gauges
were mounted on the wire reinforcement at the locations of
expected maximum positive and negative moments. Data
were electronically recorded by a data acquisition system.
Each specimen was tested in six different phases and a
final ultimate load test stage. A wheel load of 16 kips
(71.2 kN) was used in calculating the load level at different
phases along with a 15% dynamic allowance factor. The load
level changed depending on the load factor. Before testing
with a load factor of 1.5, an intermediate load factor of 1.0
was used. Table 2 summarizes the six different phases of
testing and the final ultimate load test stage.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The specimens were designed in accordance with ASTM
C1577. Reinforcement areas in ASTM C1577 are based on
AASHTO LRFD 2005.4 The load factor used for checking
fatigue limit state was 0.75. This means that the test specimens
were designed for a fatigue load of 0.75 × 16 × 1.15 = 13.8 kips
(61.39 kN) and tested under higher loads of 1.5 × 16 × 1.15 =
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Table 1—Reinforcement areas required by ASTM C1577 versus actual areas provided

Reinforcement As1 As2 As3 As4 As5 As6 As7 As8

ASTM C1577(req.), 0.380 0.310 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.290
in.2/ft (mm2/mm) (0.806) (0.657) (0.615) (0.615) (0.615) (0.615) (0.615) (0.615)
Specimen A* Actual area, 0.420 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
As built in.2/ft (mm2/mm) (0.890) (0.699) (0.700) (0.700) (0.636) (0.636) (0.636) (0.636)
Wire size D10.0/D4.0 D5.5 D5.5 D5.5 D10.0 D10.0 D10.0 D10.0
ASTM C1577(req.) 0.210 0.340 0.250 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190
in.2/ft (mm2/mm) (0.445) (0.721) (0.530) (0.403) (0.403) (0.403) (0.403) (0.403)
Specimen A† Actual area, 0.210 0.345 0.255 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.210 0.210
As built in.2/ft (mm2/mm) (0.445) (0.731) (0.541) (0.413) (0.413) (0.413) (0.445) (0.445)
Wire size D7.0 D6.5/D5.0 D8.5 D6.5 D6.5 D6.5 D7.0 D7.0
*Specimen A: Box 12 ft x 4 ft x 12 in. (3657.6 x 1219.2 x 304.8 mm).
†
Specimen B: Box 7 ft x 4 ft x 8 in. (2133.6 x 1219.2 x 203.2 mm).

Table 2—Summary of different phases of testing program

Location of
Description load
Test phase (load × load factor × dynamic allowance) Load type application Cycles Notes
16 × 1.0 × 1.15 = 18.4 kips (81.85 kN). To measure strain in different
Static point Spigot end of
1 Load was applied at rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kM/s) starting from zero wires before fatigue load is
and held at 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) for 15 seconds, and then load using box, at NA
applied. A LF of 1.0 is used to
unloaded at rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kM/s) footprint plate midspan
simulate service state conditions.
16 × 1.0 × 1.15 = 18.4 kips (81.85 kN). Cyclic Spigot end of To simulate fatigue from wheel
2 Load was ranging from zero to 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) load using box, at 5 million cycles load of 16 kips (71.17 kN) with
at frequency of 2 Hz. footprint plate midspan dynamic allowance of 15%.
16 × 1.0 × 1.15 = 18.4 kips (81.85 kN). Static point load Spigot end of To compare strains in
3 Load was applied and unloaded at rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kN/s). using footprint box, at Not applicable reinforcement to recorded
Load was held at mentioned level for 15 seconds. plate midspan measurements in Phase 3.
16 × 1.5 × 1.15 = 27.6 kips (122.77 kN). Static point load Spigot end of To measure strain in different
4 Load was applied and unloaded at rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kN/s). using footprint box, at NA wires before applying next 5
Load was held at mentioned level for 15 seconds. plate midspan million cycles of fatigue loading.
5 million cycles Test stopped for Specimen A
16 × 1.5 × 1.15 = 27.6 kips (122.77 kN). Cyclic load Spigot end of
5 Load ranged from zero to 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) using footprint box, at or until test is after 2 million cycles because
at frequency of 2 Hz. plate midspan stopped if before deflection exceeded trigger value
that number. of 1/2 in. (12 mm).
16 × 1.5 × 1.15 = 27.6 kips (122.77 kN). Static point load Spigot end of To compare strains in
6 Load was applied and unloaded at rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kN/s). using footprint box, at NA reinforcement to recorded
Load was held at mentioned level for 15 seconds. plate midspan measurements in Phase 4.
Final Static point load
Center of
To evaluate section capacity in
ultimate load Loading monotonically until failure using footprint NA flexure after being fatigued
top slab
test stage plate throughout different stages.
Note: NA = not available.

27.6 kips (122.77 kN). An intermediate step corresponding
to a load factor of 1.0 was also tested with a fatigue load of
18.4 kips (81.85 kN). The experimental results of different
test phases for both specimens are discussed in this section.
Experimental results and discussion for Specimen A
Specimen A endured 5 million cycles at 18.4 kips
(81.85 kN) with no signs of degradation. Figure 3 shows the
strain gauge readings for As2 with a static load of 18.4 kips
(81.85 kN). There were no visible cracks during the first
5 million cycles of fatigue testing using a load of 18.4 kips
(81.85 kN). Figure 4 shows the strain gauge readings for As2
after the fatigue loading. Comparing Fig. 4 to Fig. 3 shows
that the distribution of stresses among the reinforcement
after fatigue testing for 5 million cycles remains constant,
while magnitudes of the stresses increase as anticipated.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 15

 Fig. 2—Strain gauge distribution for Specimen A; box culvert 12 ft x 4 ft x 12 in.
(3657.6 x 1219.2 x 304.8 mm).
Fig. 3—Strain gauge readings for positive reinforcement of
top slab (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load of
18.4 kips (81.85 kN). (Note: Strain Gauge-2 was damaged
during casting of this box. As shown in Fig. 2, the location
of this strain gauge was, counting from the spigot end of the
top slab, on the fourth wire of As2.)
The stress range in different reinforcement wires of As2
was calculated using a modulus of elasticity E of 29,000 ksi
(200.1 MPa). Figure 5 shows the stress range in different
reinforcement wires of As2 before and after the fatigue
testing in comparison to different fatigue ranges suggested
by AASHTO LRFD 20052 and AASHTO LRFD 2007.6 As
can be seen, all of the strain gauge results are considerably
lower than the stress ranges recommended in either of the
AASHTO standards.
Figure 6 shows the strain gauge readings for As2 under the
static load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) before commencing the
second 5 million cycles. During the second 5 million cycles,
which were carried out at a load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN), a
crack became visible after 1 million cycles. After the box
endured 2 million cycles, the deflection measured at the
midspan section of the top slab at the same time was found
to be 0.5 in. (13 mm), causing the actuator program to trigger
16
Fig. 4—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive moment
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load
of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) after first 5 million cycles. (Note:
Strain Gauge-2 was damaged during casting of this box. As
shown in Fig. 2, the location of this strain gauge was, counting
from the spigot end of the top slab, on the fourth wire of As2.)
a shutdown due to reaching the preprogrammed excessive
deflection limit.
Figure 7 shows strain gauge readings for As2 at the conclusion
of the test. Figure 8 shows the stress range under the point
load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) in different wires for As2. The
figure also shows the comparison with the fatigue range
suggested by different AASHTO versions.
The specimen was then loaded monotonically to failure. A
special testing frame was prepared for this purpose. A point
load was applied using a footprint similar to the one used for
fatigue testing acting at the midspan and midlength section
of the top slab. The ultimate load recorded was 43.43 kips
(193.19 kN). This load level was greater than the Strength
I load in AASHTO LRFD.2,6 The Strength I load was
calculated as per Section 3, using a load factor of 1.75 and
a dynamic allowance of 33%: 16 × 1.33 × 1.75 = 37.2 kips
(165.47 kN).
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

Fig. 5—Stress range in different wires of As2 under point
load of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN).
Fig. 6—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive moment
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load
of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) after first 5 million cycles. (Note:
Strain Gauge-2 was damaged during casting of this box. As
shown in Fig. 2, the location of this strain gauge was, counting
from the spigot end of the top slab, on the fourth wire of As2.)
Figure 9 shows the failure of the midspan section and
negative moment section of the top slab. The actual load
factor (that is, the ratio between the ultimate load achieved
by the specimen and the design ultimate load) was 2.04
instead of 1.75. This result clearly demonstrates a high level
of conservatism in the design.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Fig. 7—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive moment
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen A, under static point load
of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) at time of stopping fatigue test.
(Note: Strain Gauge-2 was damaged during casting of this
box. As shown in Fig. 2, the location of this strain gauge
was, counting from the spigot end of the top slab, on the
fourth wire of As2.)
Fig. 8—Stress range in different wires of As2 under point
load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN).
Experimental results and discussion for Specimen B
Figure 10 shows the strain gauge readings for the top slab
positive moment reinforcement (As2) under a point load of
18.4 kips (81.85 kN). The specimen endured 5 million cycles
at a load level of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) without any visible
cracks. It was then loaded monotonically to 18.4 kips (81.85 kN)
17
Fig. 9—Positive and negative moment sections at failure for
Specimen A: (a) midspan section of top slab; and (b) negative
moment section of top slab.
Fig. 10—Strain gauge readings for positive reinforcement (As2)
of top slab for Specimen B, under static point load of
18.4 kips (81.85 kN).
Fig. 11—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen B, under static point load
of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) after first 5 million cycles.
18
Fig. 12—Stress range in different wires of As2 under point
load of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN).
at a rate of 1 kip/s (4.45 kN/s), held for 15 seconds, and
unloaded. Figure 11 shows the strain gauge readings for
positive moment reinforcement (As2) under the described
loading process. Figure 12 shows the stress range for
different wires for As2 under the load level of 18.4 kips
(81.85 kN) before and after the first 5 million cycles. The
figure also shows a comparison with the suggested values
in different versions of AASHTO. It is clear that the
stress range in the wires is much less than the suggested
stress range.
Figure 13 shows the strain gauge readings for As2 in the
top slab under the static point load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN)
acting at the spigot end, after concluding the first 5 million
cycles at a load level of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN).
During the second 5 million cycles at 27.6 kips (122.77 kN)
load level, a crack became visible after 40,000 cycles. The
crack was narrow and almost constant in width, but started to
propagate from the spigot end toward the midlength of the
box segment as the number of cycles increased. The crack
stopped extending further after 760,000 cycles and remained
constant throughout the duration of the test (Fig. 14). After
the box endured the second 5 million cycles, static loading
was performed using a point load of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) to
investigate if the fatigue test had any negative impact on the
reinforcement behavior after 10 million cycles (Fig. 15). A
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Fig. 13—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive Fig. 15—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen B, under static point load reinforcement (As2) for Specimen B, under static point load
of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN). of 18.4 kips (81.85 kN) after finishing fatigue testing.

Fig. 14—Crack extension throughout the second 5 million

cycles at load level of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) for Specimen B.
Fig. 16—Strain gauge readings for top slab positive
reinforcement (As2) for Specimen B, under static point load
point load of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) was then applied to the of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN) after finishing fatigue testing.
box (Fig. 16). Figures 15 and 16, respectively, show the
strain gauge readings for these two test phases.
After the fatigue test was concluded, the box was loaded
monotonically until failure by applying a point load at the
center of the top slab using the footprint plate. The failure
mechanism was initiated by cracks at the negative moment
sections of the side walls at a load level of 55 kips (244.65 kN).
Later, there was a crack at the bottom of the midspan section
of the top slab, which increased in width until failure. This
crack was a new one along the edge of the footprint, and
approximately 5 in. (127 mm) away from the crack initiated
during fatigue testing.
The ultimate load recorded was 115.86 kips (515.37 kN).
Figure 17 shows cracks at the negative moment section of Fig. 17—Negative and positive moment sections at failure
the side wall and midspan section of the top slab. This load for Specimen B.
level was 3.12 times the Strength I load in AASHTO LRFD,
which is 16 × 1.33 × 1.75 = 37.2 kips (165.47 kN).
Although the effect of fatigue was recorded as an increase moment at the midspan section of the top slab because the
in the strain in reinforcement under the same load level, the slab started to act as a simple beam.
achieved ultimate load, after 10 million cycles, states that the Based on this information, the load factor is calculated to
section capacity was not affected dramatically. Figure 12 be 5.45 [115.86/(16 × 1.33) = 5.45], a value that is 211.5%
shows a stress range in the wires of As2 that is considerably greater than the load factor used for design as per the
less than the suggested stress ranges in different versions of Strength I limit state in AASHTO LRFD.
the AASHTO LRFD specifications. In addition, Fig. 17(b) Many other studies have been conducted on the behavior
shows that the cracks that led to failure of the midspan of buried RC box culverts.9-14 Based on these studies’ findings, it
section of the top slab are different than the crack initiated is reasonable to consider that behavior is not just a beam
during the fatigue testing. behavior. Due to the arching action resulting from the
The observed failure mechanism (Fig. 17) was due to the restraint provided by the side walls and the supporting earth
formation of a plastic hinge at the negative moment section. fill, box culverts present greater strength in the field as
Once this hinge was formed, there was an increase of the compared to in-laboratory conditions. The presence of the

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 19

distribution reinforcement (the reinforcement that is
perpendicular to the main reinforcement in the section) helps
to redistribute 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 and 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.
Even in the absence of the additional restraint from lateral
earth pressure behind the wall in the lab testing conditions,
the capacity of the box culvert sections was greater than
calculated. In field installation conditions, the capacity
would be greater due to the arching action.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Two box culvert specimens (Specimens A and B) were
produced according to ASTM C1577 and tested in this study.
Specimens were first tested using a static load of 18.4 kips
(81.85 kN) corresponding to a load factor of 1.0. The same
load was then applied for 5 million cycles at a frequency of
2 Hz. Both specimens endured the first 5 million cycles. Five
more million cycles, at a frequency of 2 Hz, were applied
using the load level of 27.6 kips (122.77 kN), corresponding
to a load factor of 1.5. Specimen A endured 2 million cycles
under this load level, whereas Specimen B endured 5 million
cycles. When loaded monotonically until failure, both
specimens showed a higher load capacity than the Strength I
design load in AASHTO LRFD, which corresponds to a load
factor of 1.75.
Based on the results of this study, it is evident that, if both
recently proposed changes regarding fatigue design were
adopted for the design of box culverts, highly conservative,
and therefore uneconomical, designs will result. Therefore,
the authors recommended to AASHTO Committee T13
that one of the following options be adopted for box
culvert design:
1. Waive the fatigue requirements in box culvert design,
similar to the requirements for bridge decks; or
2. Design according to AASHTO 2007 with a fatigue load
factor of 0.75.
It must be noted that 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).
After the conclusion of the project, the committee selected
to waive the fatigue requirements in box culvert design
(Option A), which will appear in the next version of the
AASHTO LRFD standards.
20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their deepest appreciation to the American
Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA) and its technical committee for sponsoring
this study, and to Cretex for donating the box culvert sections. Special
thanks go to J. Beakley from ACPA for his sincere help in coordinating the
different parties involved in this study, and to D. Mertz, Chair of the
AASHTO T13 Committee, in supporting the modification adopted by
AASHTO based on this research. Authors are also grateful for the help of
Minnesota Department of Transportation bridge engineers D. Dorgan and
K. Western, and appreciate the assistance of K. Lein in the experiments.
REFERENCES
1. Amorn, W.; Bowers, J.; Girgis, A.; and Tadros, M. K., “Fatigue of
Deformed Welded-Wire Reinforcement,” Journal of the Prestressed
Concrete Institute, V. 52, No. 1, 2007, pp. 106-120.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
“AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” third edition, Washington:
AASHTO, 2005-2006 interim. LRFDUS-3-I2.
3. Runs, R. E., and McGrath, T. J., “Comparison of AASHTO Standard
and LRFD Code Provisions for Buried Concrete Box Culverts,” ASTM
Special Technical Publication No. 1368, 2000, pp. 45-60.
4. ASTM C1577, “Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced
Concrete Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers Designed
According to AASHTO LRFD,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 17 pp.
5. ASTM C1433, “Standard Specifications for Precast Reinforced
Concrete Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004, 25 pp.
6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
“AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” fourth edition, Washington,
DC, 2007.
7. ACI Committee 215, “Considerations for Design of Concrete
Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading,” ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings
V. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1974, pp. 97-121.
8. Rabbat, B. G.; Kaar, P. H.; Russell, H. G.; and Bruce Jr., R. N., “Fatigue
Tests of Pretensioned Girders with Blanketed and Draped Strands,” Journal
of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 24, July-Aug. 1979, pp. 88-114.
9. Tadros, M. K.; Benak, J. V.; and Gillilan, M. K., “Soil Pressure on
Box Culverts,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug. 1989,
pp. 439-450.
10. Yee, R.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Investigating the Shear
Strength of Concrete Box Culverts,” Proceedings of the TRB Annual
Meeting, 2007. (CD-ROM)
11. Oh, B. H., “Fatigue-Life Distribution of Concrete for Various Stress
Levels,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1991, pp. 122-128.
12. Abolmaali, A., and Garg, A. K., “Effect of Wheel Live Load on
Shear Behavior of Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts,” Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 13, No. 1, 2008, pp. 93-99.
13. Tarhini, K. M.; Frederick, G. R.; and Mabsout, M., “Finite Element
Analysis of Precast Concrete Box Culverts,” Computing in Civil Engineering,
1996, pp. 677-682.
14. Garg, A. K., and Abolmaali, A., “Finite Element Modeling and
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts,” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE, V. 135, No. 3, 2009, pp. 121-128.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010