Proposed Modifications to AASHTO Culvert Load Rating Specifications (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 113-593
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 113... ...
113 List of Appendices Appendix A Survey Electronic media Appendix B Survey Results Electronic media Appendix C CANDE Tool Box User Manual Electronic media Appendix D 2D Analysis Backup Electronic media Appendix E 3D Modeling backup Electronic media Appendix F Field Testing Plans Electronic media Appendix G Specification Backup Electronic media Appendix H Proposed Agenda Items Electronic media Appendix I Live Load Improvements Electronic media Appendix J Regression Data Mined Electronic media Appendix K 3D Model Calibrations Electronic media Appendix L Caltrans Models Electronic media Appendix M 3D Culvert Approach Electronic media
|
From page 114... ...
A‐1 Appendix A – Survey Questions Appendix A – Survey Questions / Follow‐up Questions The following pages are is a list of questions provided in the survey. The survey was developed using the SurveyMonkey® web site and was distributed to a list of emails for AASHTO SCOBS and for the AASHTOWare BrDR User group. At the end of this Appendix is a list of questions asked to those participants requesting a follow‐up phone calls.
|
From page 115... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐2 On‐line Survey Questions
|
From page 116... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐3
|
From page 117... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐4
|
From page 118... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐5
|
From page 119... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐6
|
From page 120... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐7
|
From page 121... ...
Appendix A – Survey Questions A‐8 Follow‐up Interview Questions The following is a list of questions asked during the follow‐up phone interviews: Q: Do you have any issues with the current MBE/FHWA requirements for load rating of culverts? If so, please also note the type(s)
|
From page 122... ...
B‐1 Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results Appendix B – Complete Survey Results The following pages provide the complete survey results with state and email information removed. This appendix also includes survey questions asked during the follow‐up phone interviews.
|
From page 123... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐2 On‐line survey questions/responses Q1: For which state or U.S. territory DOT/Organization do you work? Answered: 41 Skipped: 1 Also included: Army Corp of Engineers District of Columbia
|
From page 124... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐3 Q2: Are you currently using LRFR to load rate existing Culverts? If the answer to the question above is "Yes", what types of culverts are you rating using LRFR and what types using alternate methods?
|
From page 125... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐4 Q3: What types of culverts (material) does your state currently rate?
|
From page 126... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐5 AASHTOWARE Software BrR BRASS AASHTO BRDR Ohio DOT CMP‐Excel AASHTOWare Bridge Rating for Concrete Box Require the fabricator to provide ratings for Concrete Pipe and Metal Corrugated Culv5, CulvLR ‐ both developed for TxDOT through research projects. Steel/Metal corrugated culverts are load rated using the Ohio DOT cmp spreadsheets, which were modified for the Idaho legal trucks. Concrete boxes are load rated using AASHTOWare BrR software. The BrR Culvert module is used for most new box culvert ratings, but occasionally only the top slab of the box is rated using a line girder method. Steel/Metal Corrugated ‐ Internally developed spreadsheets RC Box ‐ BRASS Culvert and AASHTO BrR AASHTOWare BrR BRASS/BrR/CANDE BRASS and LARS Bridge for concrete. We have a study with KTC at the University of Kentucky to do these ratings. In‐house developed software (CulvertCalc) is used for concrete box rating For Steel/Metal corrugated structures, in most cases, ratings are provided by manufactures. If not a spreadsheet twisted from Ohio spreadsheet is used Metal Corrugated: In‐house templates Concrete Box: BoxCar Concrete Pipes and Thermoplastic Pipes: Assigned ratings based on design loads or based on field evaluation and engineering judgment. spreadsheets for metal and AASHTOWare Bridge Rating (BrR)
|
From page 127... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐6 Q4: Does your state have issues with rating culverts (e.g., culverts that do not rate, but do not appear to be in distress)
|
From page 128... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐7 Steel/ Metal Corrugated Concrete Box Concrete Pipe Thermoplastic Other (please list) the analysis often shows that these fail in any one of the four walls, oftentimes the sidewalls or bottom slab. when the AASHTO minimum cover requirements do not meet, the rating factors are very low, but most of the times culverts are in good conditions Sidewalls typically fail rating, but show no signs of distress. (refer to "Other" below for fill)
|
From page 129... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐8 Steel/ Metal Corrugated Concrete Box Concrete Pipe Thermoplastic Other (please list) DESIGNED AS PINNED STRUCTURES, RATE AS FRAME. Flexural/axial interaction at mid‐ height of exterior wall; slab shear. Heavy section losses result in zero calculated capacity, but the culverts are often retaining their shape and stability. Often knee and leg moment capacities for boxes or 3‐sided frame culverts do not rate well, but appear to be performing adequately. n/a n/a Metal pipes are most prone to failing load ratings. Shallow fill depths. Tall exterior walls. The quality of analysis is uneven. They typically rate lower than design load because of the differences between the rating analysis and the design process.
|
From page 130... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐9 Q6: With respect to the previous question above, please describe any workaround procedures your agency has used to modify load ratings for culverts that show deficient load ratings but are performing well in service (to avoid posting or closure) . Answered: 29 Skipped: 13 Response Text Judgment ratings are often used for deeper cover culverts as permitted by AASHTO. Most of our culverts have not been load rated. If they appear to be performing well through routine inspections, we assume they can support legal loads to avoid posting. We will not post culverts ‐ use inspection results and monitor on state wide bases. We have done 3D modeling and get some benefit, but typically I will ignore exterior wall loads if results are restrictive. None. If the box culvert has been in service for many years and does not show any signs of shear damage, we will ignore the shear values and rate for moment only. We will sometimes try a different method from ASD to LFD. We will use the old spec on older culverts that allows the fill weight to be reduced to 70%. Refine analysis and various assumptions to enhance the capacity. We resort to engineering judgment. AASHTO MBE allows engineering judgment for concrete structures with no available structural details. We apply this practice to concrete culverts even if we do have plans. Field measurements including fill heights, load testing per MBE. Rate only top and bottom slabs ‐ ignore sidewalls. The majority of ratings for culverts/buried structures are considered unrated or rated based on engineering judgment. Having a software that would rate different types of culverts/buried structures (metal, concrete boxes, frames, etc.)
|
From page 131... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐10 Q7: Has your state performed any studies or research related to the rating of culverts that you would be willing to share with the research team? If "Yes" please describe below and if possible, please provide contact information for the lead researcher. Maybe. Our Engineering and Research Development Center conducted load testing on several culverts but never finished the report. I will see if I can get the draft. Yes, TDOT funded an extensive research project with TN Technology University to investigate methods to load rate concrete box culverts. The vast majority of TN culverts are of concrete box design. The lead researcher was Dr. Sharon Huo (xhuo@tntech.edu)
|
From page 132... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐11 murugesu.vinayagamoorthy@dot.ca.gov We have surveyed policies from other states and also considered the recent MBE modification for culvert load ratings with unknown construction details. For new design culverts by LRFR, we did comparison between HL 93 and MN overweight permit vehicles and develop the standard concrete culvert plan sheets meeting both HL 93 and MN overweight permit load requirements. The research report is available on the Center for Transportation Research library. Project No. 0‐5849: "Evaluating Existing Culverts for Load Capacity Allowing for Soil Structure Interaction". There are some older research reports, which we are aware of but we do not have a complete report. We had load tested several CMPs under 2 meter or more fill. We also tested a few CMPs under very shallow fill (less than 2 feet) . Their research reports are available on our research website. Dr. Issam Harik and Dr. Abheeta Peiris at the University of Kentucky. we did some culvert load testing. Results show that the live load effect is very limited even with minimum top soil. The pavement can distribute live load a lot and this is ignored in analysis. It's a little dated, and too simple, but http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/structuresresearchcenter/Final%20Reports/BC354_47_pt2.pdf We did some live load testing to show that the live load effects on culverts are minimal as the fill depth increases. The AASHTO codes are ridiculous when it comes to the live load effects on culverts for load rating purposes. FHWA required us to load rate all of our culverts regardless of the amount of fill just because of how things are stated in the manuals. They wouldn't listen to common sense on the issue. We did the research project with MU to justify using different live load distribution methods on culverts, when needed for ones that had low load ratings using normal procedures. Send me an email request at David.Koenig@modot.mo.gov and I will send you a copy of the research report.
|
From page 133... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐12 Q8: What software do you use for analysis/rating? (Check any that apply.)
|
From page 134... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐13 Q9: Would you be willing to provide input files for culverts rated by your state agency? If ‘Yes' which software program(s)
|
From page 135... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐14 Q10: Do you wish to discuss over the phone your state's practices and issues related to culvert rating? Q11: Do you have any other concerns related to culvert rating that you think would be beneficial to this research (i.e. shortcomings of the culvert load rating specifications that need to be addressed)
|
From page 136... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐15 ‐Simplified methods for rating steel and concrete pipes/arches/etc. ‐More accurate soil interaction models with no special soil/backfill parameters. The lack of information, i.e. as‐built plans and specifications, materials, thicknesses, depth and type of fill, etc. can be an issue. Not at this time. 1. Whenever DL/LL ratio exceeds a threshold (say 5 or 10) , RF approach makes no sense. C/D ratio would be a better approach. 2. In many situation, amount of compaction, fill material used are not available and therefore, rating engineer need to use approximate values for EH and EV. Use of operating and inventory load factor/pressure should be made available 3. Shear capacity expressions are very sensitive (especially MCFT)
|
From page 137... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐16 Follow‐up interview questions/responses The following questions were asked in the 14 follow‐up interviews. The table below shows the states/organizations that were interviewed and the date of the interview. Organization Date Interviewed Army Corp 9/4/15 California 8/26/15 Delaware * Florida 9/10/15 Indiana *
|
From page 138... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐17 Q1: Do you have any issues with the current MBE/FHWA requirements for load rating of culverts? If so, please also note the type(s)
|
From page 139... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐18 Q1: Do you have any issues with the current MBE/FHWA requirements for load rating of culverts? If so, please also note the type(s)
|
From page 140... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐19 Q1: Do you have any issues with the current MBE/FHWA requirements for load rating of culverts? If so, please also note the type(s)
|
From page 141... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐20 Q1: Do you have any issues with the current MBE/FHWA requirements for load rating of culverts? If so, please also note the type(s)
|
From page 142... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐21 Q2: Is the currently available software adequate for performing required load ratings? strength of the system but MnDOT does not have any means of independently verifying the vendor's claims.
|
From page 143... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐22 MnDOT uses CANDE for metal culverts. It was noted that even with CANDE various levels of analysis are available.
|
From page 144... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐23 Q4: Are you aware of any culvert-related research performed by your agency that would be helpful in our investigation? Michigan is currently working on version 2.0 of the CMP spreadsheet and they will provide that to the research team when it is available.
|
From page 145... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐24 Q5: Do you have any other concerns related to load rating of culverts? Concerned with the way the spec interprets the triangular distribution.
|
From page 146... ...
Appendix B‐ Complete Survey Results B‐25 Q6: If you have any culvert input data (for AASHTO BrR or CANDE) , particularly for problem culverts, we would be interested in making use of this for our research so please indicate whether you would be able to contribute any input files.
|
From page 147... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-1 CANDE Tool Box Manual For Load Rating 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CANDE Tool Box greatly enhances the user friendliness of the CANDE finite element program to compute load rating factors (RF) for existing culvert-soil systems for any truck or live load configuration.
|
From page 148... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-2 CANDE Tool Box Manual For Load Rating Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................
|
From page 149... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-3 2 OVERVIEW 2.1 Tool Box Purpose. CANDE Tool Box (CTB) is a stand-alone computer program that operates on existing CANDE input and output files to generate new executable CANDE input files with enhanced capabilities or to compute load rating factors from previous CANDE solutions with live loads.
|
From page 150... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-4 originating file. For example, Full-MyCulvert.cid implies a full mesh input file has been created from the Level-2 half mesh file called MyCulvert.cid.
|
From page 151... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-5 If desired, the Tool Box options may be applied in succession, i.e., one option after another. For example, to add a Pavement overlay to the newly generated full mesh file, select Option 2 and identify the originating file as Full-MyCulvert.cid.
|
From page 152... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-6 After any option number is entered, the screen shows the number and description of the selected option along with a request for the user to identify the associated CANDE CID file. The example shown below is the view screen when Option 1 is selected.
|
From page 153... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-7 As indicated by the last sentence in the above screen, the user is required to press "Enter" on the key board to open a browser to the computer directory in order to select the desired CID file by double clicking. An example browser screen is shown below wherein "Tutorial-7.cid" is the chosen CID file.
|
From page 154... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-8 3.2 Intermediate Screen Views. The above three screen views are similar for all options; however, the subsequent screen views are dependent on the selected option number. Options 1 and 4 require no additional user input, whereas Options 2, 3, and 5 require additional user input as directed by individual queries appearing on the screen.
|
From page 155... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-9 4 OPTION DETAILS 4.1 OPTION 1: Level‐2 half mesh to Level 3 full mesh. This option is applicable to any existing Level-2 input file including all Level-2-Extended modifications. To develop the new Level-3 input file with full mesh topology, information is taken from the originating Level-2 input file and also from the Level-2 output file.
|
From page 156... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-10 the Full-mesh input file and utilize the GUI Mesh Plot to visualize the nodes, elements and boundary conditions you wish to add or change. 4.2 OPTION 2: Add pavement and/or elastic wearing course. This option is applicable to any existing Level-3 input file that has a continuous horizontal soil surface.
|
From page 157... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-11 4.3 OPTION 3: Add live loads on upper surface. This option is applicable to any existing Level-3 input file that has a continuous horizontal soil surface above the culvert wherein the soil surface may be paved or unpaved. Live loads are simulated by pointlike strip forces applied as boundary conditions at specific nodes and load steps.
|
From page 158... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-12 b) Do you wish to add a lane-loading pressure on top surface?
|
From page 159... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-13 (3) Enter -1 for the legacy AASHTO Reduced Surface Load (RSL)
|
From page 160... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-14 6 0.06* Span/12, additional span term for current AASHTO D 0.0, no span term for legacy AASHTO approach 0 0 6 int 0 0 6 int W / W + 1.15H + D for H < H Spreading reduction factor = 2W / W + S + 1.15H + D for H H If 3D stiffness effects are activated (3DSE on)
|
From page 161... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-15 If it is also desired to consider 3D stiffness effects (3DSE) for rienforced concrete boxes and arches (AASHTO LRFD Section 4.6.2.10.)
|
From page 162... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-16 For example, the key axle number for HL93 Design trucks = 2 (2nd axle)
|
From page 163... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-17 4.4 OPTION 4: Minimize Bandwidth. This option is applicable to any existing Level-3 input file wherein node numbering is not optimum and is alternative to using CANDE's internal bandwidth minimizer. The downside of CANDE's internal bandwidth minimizer is that it is time consuming and must be repeated every time the input file is executed.
|
From page 164... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-18 in lower left corner of element located in the lower left corner of the mesh. Node numbers are sequentially increased for the next upward element and so on up to the top surface.
|
From page 165... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-19 To prove that the inequality in Equation 5b is exactly equivalent to the inequality in Equation 5a, muliply both sides of inequality 5b by the factored capacity Cn , then replace Dntotal with the above component definition and subtract Dndead from both sides, and finally divide by Dnlive to get the same inequality shown in 5a. Since CANDE automatically computes Equation 5b in the "assessment summary" at the end of each load step, the equivalence of the inequalities expressed in Equations 5a and 5b has the following useful benefit.
|
From page 166... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-20 then dead-load demand already exceeds the capacity so that any additional live loading is not safe (negative rating factor)
|
From page 167... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-21 USER-DEFINED KEY LOAD STEPS FOR LOAD RATING ANALYSIS: * Load step used for dead/earth load RF reference = 6 *
|
From page 168... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-22 19 9 786.17 299.37 58500.00 192.78 20 10 1972.64 48410.19 58500.00 1.17 21 12 1589.47 1097.79 58500.00 51.84 22 13 1293.09 705.88 58500.00 81.04 23 14 1067.77 27718.34 58500.00 2.07 24 14 788.82 42166.68 58500.00 1.37 25 14 172.30 717.39 58500.00 81.31 26 9 370.16 827.84 58500.00 70.22 27 10 1016.92 1145.57 58500.00 50.18 28 12 1401.07 23032.95 58500.00 2.48 29 14 1528.27 24677.12 58500.00 2.31 DESIGN CRITERION # 2 = CONCRETE CRUSHING (psi)
|
From page 169... ...
Appendix C – CANDE Tool Box Manual C-23 14 16 142.38 35.47 973.00 23.42 15 9 0.00 17.63 973.00 55.19 16 9 142.38 39.59 973.00 20.98 17 9 290.65 67.63 973.00 10.09 18 10 448.40 103.50 973.00 5.07 19 13 193.57 44.23 2117.71 43.50 20 8 118.35 72.27 973.00 11.83 21 8 85.02 65.20 973.00 13.62 22 8 68.33 58.37 973.00 15.50 23 8 66.56 51.40 973.00 17.64 24 8 75.04 43.08 973.00 20.84 25 12 143.20 147.14 2117.71 13.42 26 13 175.66 318.76 973.00 2.50 27 14 113.63 234.25 973.00 3.67 28 15 56.39 158.74 973.00 5.77 29 10 0.32 117.44 973.00 8.28 DESIGN CRITERION # 4 = RADIAL-TENSION FAIL (psi)
|
From page 170... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐1 Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup
|
From page 171... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐2 Model 1 Analysis Backup Input Information Meshes for Model 1 were generated for fills of 0.97', 2', 5' and 10'. Using the CANDE ToolBox, different fill depth meshes can be generated if needed for Phase III. M1C1 – Juniata County SR 3020 PennDOT, 25' 0" span box section – Site/Structure Information Depth of Fill (road centerline) : Invert elevation: 491.98 ft Top of pavement: 501.45 ft Top of box to top of pavement: 0.97 ft Bedding depth: 18 in. Precast Box Geometry: Span x Rise x Length: 25 ft x 7.5 ft x 4.458 ft Top/Bottom/Sidewall: 14 in., 14 in., 12 in. Haunches: 12 in. x 12 in. top & bottom Reinforcement (Sections 2 thru 6)
|
From page 172... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐3 Bedding – 18 in. structure backfill, 6 in. No. 8 stone Duncan Selig – SW100 (assume well compacted) Backfill – Assumed Duncan/Selig – SW95 Input for level 3 CANDE model for concrete area clear/ center to bar Node Number Thickness AS (inner cage)
|
From page 173... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐4 The live load distributions (see Table 1 below) for CANDE are in accordance with AASHTO, and were computed through a spreadsheet from Dr. McGrath. Briefly: Concrete culverts and arches, H<2 ft: Strip width from 4.6.2.10 Concrete culverts and arches, H≥2 ft: Section 3.6.1.2.6 (note that the LLDF for concrete pipe is variable with diameter)
|
From page 174... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐5 CANDE output results Figure 1 displays a typical CANDE plot of model 1 with the Tandem vehicle near midspan. CANDE models the vehicle by using load steps. Each load step removes the subsequent vehicle and places it at its new locations. Figure 2 displays the dead load moment diagrams for the first 6 load steps (incremental fill levels) , while Figure 3 displays the live load envelope for the tandem vehicle for all of the live load steps (7‐23)
|
From page 175... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐6 Figure 3 ‐ M2C1 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 7‐23 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle) (without pavement)
|
From page 176... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐7 Figure 4 – M1C1 showing shear stress as Tandem vehicle moves across culvert (0.97' fill, no pavement)
|
From page 177... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐8 Figure 5 below provides a sample of the CANDE output load rating report for the no pavement and 0.97' fill. *
|
From page 178... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐9 Pavement Rating Results A parametric study was performed on the model by varying the fill height in increments. Models were built for fill heights of 0.97', 2', 5', and 10'. The CANDE model with 5' of fill is shown in Figure 6. Note that while the pavement elements are SHOWN at different thicknesses, they are actually this same thickness. This is a glitch in the CANDE graphics software. For fill models of 2' and over, the CANDE shear option for LRFD for fills over 2' was selected. Each model was also reviewed for no pavement and 3 varying pavements. The rating results produced by the CANDE toolbox are provide in Table 2. The vehicle used for loading is the LRFD Tandem vehicle (2‐25kip axles spaced at 4') . The node numbering referenced in the table is shown in Figure 7. There is a noticeable jump in the shear ratings when moving from 0.97' to 2' of fill. The 2' fill takes advantage of the LRFD increase in capacity over the 2' fill level. This is discussed in more in detail under Task 5. For fill levels of 10', this culvert fails under dead load. Figure 6 – CANDE model M1C1 with 5' of backfill and pavement
|
From page 179... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐10 Table 2 – Model 1 ‐CANDE Rating Factors (from CANDE Toolbox) Tandem vehicle, without and with pavement (varying fill depths)
|
From page 180... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐11 * ‐ Note: These were transcription errors in Interim Report #2 that have been corrected. Figure 7 – Beam node numbering for M1C1 Generated BrDR Model Model 1 was also input into the AASHTOWare BrDR software and run for varying fill heights (1.99', 2.00', 5', 7', 8', and 10')
|
From page 181... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐12 For the LRFR ratings, a noticeable step can be seen from a fill of 1.99' to 2.00'. For 1.99' the controlling inventory rating of 0.727 is governed by shear in the top slab near the support at the critical shear distance. For the fill of 2', the controlling inventory rating of 1.063 is governed by flexure in the center of the top slab. This difference is due primarily to the difference in the calculation of concrete shear capacity at the 2' fill level. For fills under 2' of fill the concrete shear capacity Vc is calculated using equation 5.8.3.3‐3 (7th Edition, AASHTO LRFD specification) 5.7.3.3‐3 (8th Edition)
|
From page 182... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐13 Model 2 Analysis Backup Input Information Meshes for Model 2 were generated for fills of 2'and 5'. Using the CANDE ToolBox, different fill depth meshes can be generated if needed for Phase III. The reduction of surface load factor for Model 2 is shown in Table 5 for each fill height. Table 5 – Reduction of surface load for varying fills for Model 2 Fill Depth (ft) RSL 2 0.177 5 0.142 The live load distributions for CANDE are in accordance with AASHTO, and were computed through a spreadsheet from Dr. McGrath. A sample of the spreadsheet is provided in this appendix under ‘Model 1 Analysis Backup'. Briefly: Concrete culverts and arches, H<2 ft: Strip width from 4.6.2.10 Concrete culverts and arches, H≥2 ft: Section 3.6.1.2.6 (note that the LLDF for concrete pipe is variable with diameter)
|
From page 183... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐14 Node Bar 1 Bar 2 Bar 3 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 CANDE input Node 6 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 6 7 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 7 8 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 8 9 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 9 10 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 10 11 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 11 12 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 12 13 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 13 14 a8 0.032917 0 0 0.033 14 15 a8 0.032917 0 0 0.033 15 16 a8 0.032917 0 0 0.033 16 17 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 17 18 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 18 19 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 19 20 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 20 21 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 21 22 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 22 23 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 23 24 a6 0.016667 0 0 0.017 24 25 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 25 26 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 26 27 a8 a5 0.032917 0.018333 0 0.051 27 28 a8 0.032917 0 0 0.033 28 29 a8 0.032917 0 0 0.033 29 Outer cage 1 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 1 2 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 2 3 a3 a1 0.032917 0.025 0 0.058 3 4 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 4 5 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 5 6 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 6 7 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 7 8 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 8 9 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 9 10 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 10 11 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 11 12 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 12 13 a1 a3 0.025 0.032917 0 0.058 13 14 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 14 15 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 15
|
From page 184... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐15 Node Bar 1 Bar 2 Bar 3 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 CANDE input Node 16 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 16 17 a1 a3 0.025 0.032917 0 0.058 17 18 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 18 19 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 19 20 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 20 21 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 21 22 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 22 23 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 23 24 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 24 25 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 25 26 a1 a2 0.025 0.025 0 0.050 26 27 a3 a1 0.032917 0.025 0 0.058 27 28 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 28 29 a3 a4 a5 0.032917 0.032917 0.018333 0.084 29 Figure 10 – M2C1 reinforcement labeling CANDE output results Figure 11 displays a typical CANDE plot of model 2 with the Tandem vehicle near midspan. CANDE models the vehicle by using load steps. Each load step removes the subsequent vehicle and places it at its new locations. Figure 12 displays the dead load moment diagrams for the first 6 load steps (incremental fill levels) , while Figure 13 displays the live load envelope for the tandem vehicle for all of the live load steps (7‐23)
|
From page 185... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐16 Figure 11 – M2C1 Vertical strain with Tandem Vehicle near midspan (no pavement) Figure 12 – M2C1‐ CANDE Bending Moment ‐ Dead load envelope – Load steps 1‐6 Figure 13 ‐ M2C1 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 7‐23 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle)
|
From page 186... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐17 Figure 14 – M2C1 showing shear stress as Tandem vehicle moves across culvert (5' fill, no pavement)
|
From page 187... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐18 Figure 15 below provides a sample of the CANDE output load rating report for the no pavement and 0.97' fill. *
|
From page 188... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐19 Pavement Rating Results The CANDE mesh for this model was generated using the tools in the CANDE Toolbox and the information provided on the design drawings. The general process for generating the model is described in the main body of this report. The CANDE Toolbox will not automatically generate the interior vertical wall. The outside of the box was generated first using the toolbox and the interior vertical was added manually. The rating factors produced by the CANDE Toolbox are summarized in Table 6. The CANDE model local beam node configuration referenced in the table is shown in Figure 16. Table 6 – Model 2 ‐CANDE Rating Factors (from CANDE Toolbox) Tandem vehicle, without and with pavement (varying fill depths)
|
From page 189... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐20 Figure 16 – Beam node numbering for M2C1 The rating factors for the 5' fill for the CANDE model do not appreciably increase as is seen in the BrDR model (see next section)
|
From page 190... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐21 Generated BrDR Model Model 2 was also input into the AASHTOWare BrDR software and run for varying fill heights (1.99', 2.00', 5', 7', 8', and 10') . The reinforcement schematic from BrDR is shown in Figure 17. The LRFR ratings (HL93)
|
From page 191... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐22 For model 2 the calculations of the concrete shear capacity and overall shear resistance are presented in Table 8. This jump in shear capacity is discussed more under Task 5. Table 8 ‐ BrDR Model M2C1 shear capacity comparison at 1.99' fill and 2.00' fill Fill depth Inv Rating Oper Rating Concrete Shear Resistance Vc (kips) Steel Shear Resistance Vs (kips)
|
From page 192... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐23 Model 3 Analysis Backup Input Information Meshes for Model 2 were generated for a fill of 1.5'. Using the CANDE ToolBox, different fill depth meshes can be generated if needed for Phase III. The reduction of surface load factor for Model 3 is shown in Table 9 for each fill height. Table 9 – Reduction of surface load for varying fills for Model 3 Fill Depth (ft) RSL 1.5 0.353 Depth of Fill (max ‐ road centerline)
|
From page 193... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐24 Reinforcement for BrDR Bar Mark Type Bar Number Spacing (in) A B C A1 Straight 4 6 9.25 A2 Straight 5 6 13.75 A3 Bent 5 6 7.833333 4.416667 4.416667 A4 Straight 5 6 7.833333 CANDE output results Figure 18 displays a typical CANDE plot of vertical strain of model 3 with the Tandem vehicle near midspan. Figure 25 displays the dead load moment diagrams for the first 6 load steps (incremental fill levels)
|
From page 194... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐25 Figure 20 – M3C1 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 7‐23 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle) (with pavement)
|
From page 195... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐26 Figure 21 – M3C1 showing shear stress as Tandem vehicle moves across culvert (5' fill, no pavement)
|
From page 196... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐27 Pavement Rating Results An analysis of the CANDE model 3 was performed using the following options: Solution for tandem‐truck load traveling over surface no pavement. Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 200,000 psi Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 400,000 psi Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 600,000 psi Base Model 3 differs from the original Contech model in the following ways: The top row of SW95 soil elements changed to elastic wearing course using default Tool Box values. This is necessary to avoid failure of the shear failure of one element. Changed load factor for earth load steps 2 thru 6 to 1.37 (= 1,3 *
|
From page 197... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐28 Figure 22 – Beam node numbering for M3C1 Generated BrDR Model Model 3 was also input into the AASHTOWare BrDR software and run for varying fill heights (1.99', 2.00', 5', 7', 8', and 10') . The reinforcement schematic from BrDR is shown in Figure 23. The LRFR ratings (HL93)
|
From page 198... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐29 Figure 23 ‐ BrDR Model M3C1 reinforcement schematic Table 11 – BrDR Model M3C1 ratings – LFR/LRFR Fill LRFR Ratings LFR (Ratings) Culvert M3C1 (1.99' fill)
|
From page 199... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐30 Model 4 Analysis Backup Input Information Below (Figure 24 and Figure 25) are partial CANDE mesh images provided by CONTECH. The RT had requested the original CANDE input file and it was received by around the time that this report was being prepared. This file will be used for testing in Phase III of this project. Note: The backup for the CANDE analysis of Model is provided for Interim Report #3. Figure 24 ‐ Model 4 Element numbering
|
From page 200... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐31 Figure 25 – Model 4 area of steel for CANDE model Figure 26 – M4C1‐ CANDE Bending Moment ‐ Dead load envelope – Load steps 1‐6 Figure 27 – M4C1 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 7‐47 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle + Lane loading) (with pavement)
|
From page 201... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐32 Figure 28 – M4C1 showing vertical stress as Tandem vehicle moves across culvert (1' fill, no pavement)
|
From page 202... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐33 Pavement Rating Results An analysis of the CANDE model 4 (see Figure 29) was performed using the following options: Solution for tandem‐truck load traveling over surface no pavement. Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 200,000 psi Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 400,000 psi Solution with pavement with modulus of Elasticity = 600,000 psi Figure 29 – CANDE Model 4 (M4C1)
|
From page 203... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐34 Table 13 – Model 4 (M4C1) load ratings for a Tandem Vehicle with lane load Rating Factors per Design Criterion No pavement E = 200,000 psi = 0.20 Pavement (6")
|
From page 204... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐35 Model 5 Analysis Backup Input Information A request has been made of CONTECH for the CANDE input file for this culvert. If we are not able to obtain the file, the CANDE model will be created from the shop drawings provided. Note: The backup for the CANDE analysis of Model is provided for Interim Report #3. Figure 30 – M5C1 showing vertical stress as Tandem vehicle moves across culvert (no pavement)
|
From page 205... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐36 Pavement Rating Results An analysis of the CANDE model 5 (see Figure 31) was performed using the following options: Solution for tandem‐truck load traveling over surface no pavement.
|
From page 206... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐37 (Node 7)
|
From page 207... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐38 Model 6 Analysis Backup Input Information Meshes for Model 6 were created for CANDE for 1.5' and 2' of fill. The reduction for surface load for the fills used in the CANDE models is shown in Table 15. Table 15 – Reduction of surface load for varying fills for Model 6 Fill Depth (ft) RSL 1.5 0.324 2 0.177 The following was provided by Lane Enterprises.
|
From page 208... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐39
|
From page 209... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐40
|
From page 210... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐41 The following figures are output from the CANDE software. Figure 33 represents the bending moment for dead load and the soil load. Figure 34 provides and envelope of the tandem load that is provided in load steps 9‐27. Figure 35 provides the deflection and the shear stress as the TANDEM vehicle moves across the structure (with pavement) . Figure 33 – M6C2‐ CANDE Bending Moment ‐ Dead load envelope – Load steps 1‐8 Figure 34 – M6C2 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 9‐27 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle)
|
From page 211... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐42 Figure 35 – M6C2 – CANDE Shear stress and deflection as Tandem vehicle moves across the structure (with pavement, E=600,000 psi)
|
From page 212... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐43 Model 7 Analysis Backup Input Information Meshes for Model 7 were created for CANDE for 2' of fill and were generated with pavement and without pavement. The original model was provided by CONTECH. The reduction for surface load for the fills used in the CANDE models is shown in Table 16. Table 16 – Reduction of surface load for varying fills for Model 7 Fill Depth (ft) RSL 2 0.177 The following figures are output from the CANDE software. Figure 36represents the bending moment for dead load and the soil load. Figure 37 provides and envelope of the tandem load that is provided in load steps 9‐27. Figure 38 provides the deflection and the shear stress as the TANDEM vehicle moves across the structure (with pavement)
|
From page 213... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐44 Figure 37 – M7C1 – CANDE bending moment envelope ‐ live load steps – load steps 17‐65 (2 axle Tandem ,25 kip/axle) (with pavement)
|
From page 214... ...
Appendix D – 2D Analysis Backup D‐45 Figure 38 – M7C1 – CANDE Shear stress and deflection as Tandem vehicle moves across the structure (with pavement, E=200,000 psi) (20X magnified)
|
From page 215... ...
MEMORANDUM To: Chad Clancy & Tom Murphy, Modjeski and Masters, Mechanicsburg, PA From: Reza Baie, Summit Engineering Group, Littleton, CO RE: Project: NHCRP 15-54 Update on Lusas Modeling Progress Progress on numerical modeling of culverts using LUSAS software is reported herein. This progress report includes a general description of each culvert, geometry, and material properties.
|
From page 216... ...
Boundary Condition At the end of the in-situ soil medium, perpendicular restraints are used for each boundary surface, i.e. lateral restraints at vertical faces and vertical restraints at the bottom of the in-situ soil.
|
From page 217... ...
Figure 1. M1C1- Geometry and Culvert Thickness Assignment Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-3
|
From page 218... ...
Figure 2. M1C1- Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-4
|
From page 219... ...
Figure 3. M1C1- Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-5
|
From page 220... ...
Figure 4. M1C1- Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-6
|
From page 221... ...
Figure 5. M1C1- Vertical Strain (EV)
|
From page 222... ...
Figure 6. M1C1- Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 223... ...
Figure 7. M1C1- Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-9
|
From page 224... ...
Figure 8. M1C1- Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 225... ...
Figure 9. M1C1- Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 226... ...
Figure 10. M1C1- Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-12
|
From page 227... ...
Figure 11. M1C1- Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-13
|
From page 228... ...
Figure 12. M1C1- Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-14
|
From page 229... ...
Figure 13. M1C1- Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-15
|
From page 230... ...
Figure 14. M1C1- Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-16
|
From page 231... ...
Figure 15. M1C1- Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-17
|
From page 232... ...
Figure 16. M1C1- Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-18
|
From page 233... ...
Figure 17. M1C1- Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-19
|
From page 234... ...
Figure 18. M1C1- Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-20
|
From page 235... ...
MODEL 2- CANDIDATE 1 (M2C1) Model 2 represents a prototype of reinforced concrete box multi-cell culverts.
|
From page 236... ...
Results Figures 20 to 36 present the behavior of M2C1 in terms of displacement, strains and stresses under axle load at center of the culvert. Due to the skew, the axle loads are positioned so that the center of each axle passes through the centerline of culvert.
|
From page 237... ...
Figure 19. M2C1- Geometry and Culvert Thickness Assignment Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-23
|
From page 238... ...
Figure 20. M2C1- Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-24
|
From page 239... ...
Figure 21. M2C1- Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-25
|
From page 240... ...
Figure 22. M2C1- Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-26
|
From page 241... ...
Figure 23. M2C1- Vertical Strain (EV)
|
From page 242... ...
Figure 24. M2C1- Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 243... ...
Figure 25. M2C1- Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-29
|
From page 244... ...
Figure 26. M2C1- Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 245... ...
Figure 27. M2C1- Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 246... ...
Figure 28. M2C1- Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-32
|
From page 247... ...
Figure 29. M2C1- Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-33
|
From page 248... ...
Figure 30. M2C1- Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-34
|
From page 249... ...
Figure 31. M2C1- Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-35
|
From page 250... ...
Figure 32. M2C1- Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-36
|
From page 251... ...
Figure 33. M2C1- Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-37
|
From page 252... ...
Figure 34. M2C1- Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-38
|
From page 253... ...
Figure 35. M2C1- Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-39
|
From page 254... ...
Figure 36. M2C1- Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-40
|
From page 255... ...
Figure 37. M2C1- Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-41
|
From page 256... ...
Figure 38. M2C1- Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-42
|
From page 257... ...
Figure 39. M2C1- Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-43
|
From page 258... ...
Figure 40. M2C1- Vertical Strain (EV)
|
From page 259... ...
Figure 41. M2C1- Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 260... ...
Figure 42. M2C1- Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-46
|
From page 261... ...
Figure 43. M2C1- Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 262... ...
Figure 44. M2C1- Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 263... ...
` Figure 45. M2C1- Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-49
|
From page 264... ...
Figure 46. M2C1- Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-50
|
From page 265... ...
Figure 47. M2C1- Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-51
|
From page 266... ...
Figure 48. M2C1- Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-52
|
From page 267... ...
Figure 49. M2C1- Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-53
|
From page 268... ...
Figure 50. M2C1- Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-54
|
From page 269... ...
Figure 51. M2C1- Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-55
|
From page 270... ...
Figure 52. M2C1- Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-56
|
From page 271... ...
Figure 53. M2C1- Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Mid-Span of Left Cell Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-57
|
From page 272... ...
MODEL 3- CANDIDATE 1 (M3C1) Model 3 represents a prototype of new precast concrete box culverts.
|
From page 273... ...
truck load is moved across the culvert to capture the critical loading condition. The live load will be updated when the wheel load of the actual truck that is used in the experiment is determined.
|
From page 274... ...
Figure 54. M3C1- Geometry and Culvert Thickness Assignment Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-60
|
From page 275... ...
Figure 55. M3C1- Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-61
|
From page 276... ...
Figure 56. M3C1- Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-62
|
From page 277... ...
Figure 57. M3C1- Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-63
|
From page 278... ...
Figure 58. M3C1- Vertical Strain (EV)
|
From page 279... ...
Figure 59. M3C1- Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 280... ...
Figure 60. M3C1- Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-66
|
From page 281... ...
Figure 61. M3C1- Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 282... ...
Figure 62. M3C1- Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 283... ...
Figure 63. M3C1- Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-69
|
From page 284... ...
Figure 64. M3C1- Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-70
|
From page 285... ...
Figure 65. M3C1- Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-71
|
From page 286... ...
Figure 66. M3C1- Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-72
|
From page 287... ...
Figure 67. M3C1- Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-73
|
From page 288... ...
Figure 68. M3C1- Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-74
|
From page 289... ...
Figure 69. M3C1- Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-75
|
From page 290... ...
Figure 70. M3C1- Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-76
|
From page 291... ...
Figure 71. M3C1- Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-77
|
From page 292... ...
MODEL 6- CANDIDATE 2 (M6C2) Model 6 represents a prototype of corrugated metal box culverts.
|
From page 293... ...
Hexahedral quadratic solid elements are used to model the pavement (overlay) , footings, in-situ soil, and backfill.
|
From page 294... ...
Figure 72. M6C2- Cross Section Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-80
|
From page 295... ...
(a) Top Cross Section (b)
|
From page 296... ...
Figure 74. M6C2- Corrugation Simulation: Resultant Displacements – 1 kip Load at Center.
|
From page 297... ...
Figure 75. M6C2- Corrugation Simulation: Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber – 1 kip Load at Center.
|
From page 298... ...
Figure 76. M6C2- Positioning of Truck Axles in Two Lanes for Maximum Mid-span Deflection Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-84
|
From page 299... ...
Figure 77. Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-85
|
From page 300... ...
Figure 78. Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-86
|
From page 301... ...
Figure 79. Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-87
|
From page 302... ...
Figure 80. Vertical Strain (EY)
|
From page 303... ...
Figure 81. Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 304... ...
Figure 82. Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-90
|
From page 305... ...
Figure 83. Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 306... ...
Figure 84. Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 307... ...
Figure 85. Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-93
|
From page 308... ...
Figure 86. Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-94
|
From page 309... ...
Figure 87. Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-95
|
From page 310... ...
Figure 88. Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-96
|
From page 311... ...
Figure 89. Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-97
|
From page 312... ...
Figure 90. Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-98
|
From page 313... ...
Figure 91. Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-99
|
From page 314... ...
Figure 92. Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-100
|
From page 315... ...
Figure 93. Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-101
|
From page 316... ...
MODEL 7- CANDIDATE 1 (M7C1) Model 7 represents a prototype of deep corrugated metal culverts.
|
From page 317... ...
between 8' at edges to 2'" at center. A sensitivity analysis in linear mode showed that the current mesh size provides comparable results with finer mesh.
|
From page 318... ...
Figure 94. M7C1- Cross Section Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-104
|
From page 319... ...
` Figure 95. Resultant Displacement of Solid Elements – 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-105
|
From page 320... ...
Figure 96. Vertical Displacement of Solid Elements - 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-106
|
From page 321... ...
Figure 97. Von Mises Strain of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-107
|
From page 322... ...
Figure 98. Vertical Strain (EV)
|
From page 323... ...
Figure 99. Horizontal Strain (EX)
|
From page 324... ...
` Figure 100. Von Mises Stress of Solid Elements- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-110
|
From page 325... ...
Figure 101. Vertical Stress (SY)
|
From page 326... ...
Figure 102. Horizontal Stress (SX)
|
From page 327... ...
Figure 103. Vertical Displacement of Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-113
|
From page 328... ...
Figure 104. Von Mises Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-114
|
From page 329... ...
Figure 105. Von Mises Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-115
|
From page 330... ...
Figure 106. Bending Strain at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-116
|
From page 331... ...
Figure 107. Bending Strain at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-117
|
From page 332... ...
Figure 108. Von Mises Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-118
|
From page 333... ...
Figure 109. Von Mises Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-119
|
From page 334... ...
Figure 110. Bending Stress at Top Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-120
|
From page 335... ...
Figure 111. Bending Stress at Bottom Fiber in Culvert- 2 Lane 32 k Axle at Center of Culvert Appendix E - 3D Modeling Backup E-121
|
From page 336... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐1 Appendix F – Field Testing Plans This appendix provides the field testing plans developed for the seven culverts that were field tested for this project.
|
From page 337... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐2 Model 1 – Testing Plan ‐ Reinforced Concrete Box – Single Cell Site/General Single will be conducted – Instrumentation will be installed week of Aug 21, 2017 and load tested the following week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 338... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐3 Test Measure axle loads (see above) Record air and pavement temperature (if still warm)
|
From page 339... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐4 Testing Data General Location: State: Pennsylvania Route: 3020 Latitude-Longitude: 40.3538, -77.6488 (click link to open in browser) Actual Instrumentation Date: August 28-29, 2017 Actual Testing date: August 30, 2017 Weather/Other Test conditions: 61 F, Sunny Contractor Personnel: Dave Barrett, Chad Clancy (Modjeski & Masters)
|
From page 340... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐5 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data/ Truck Positioning Data Figure 1 – Wheel loads/configurations for Model 1‐Candidate 1 (M1C1)
|
From page 341... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐6 Lift axle up runs CL of left wheel running on gauge line Wheel Position Time 1 1 10:21 1 2 10:22 1 3 10:23 1 4 10:24 1 5 10:24 2 1 10:27 2 2 10:27 2 3 10:28 2 4 10:29 2 5 10:30 3 1 10:33 3 2 10:34 3 3 10:35 3 4 10:36 3 5 10:36 CL of truck running on gauge line Wheel Position Time 1 3 10:40 2 3 10:41 3 3 10:42 Lift Axle Down runs CL of left wheel over CL gauge line Wheel Position Time 1 1 10:45 1 2 10:46 1 3 10:47 1 4 10:47 1 5 10:48 L 1 10:50 L 2 10:50 L 3 10:51 L 4 10:52
|
From page 342... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐7 5 10:52 2 1 10:54 2 2 10:54 2 3 10:55 2 4 10:56 2 5 10:56 3 1 10:59 3 2 10:59 3 3 11:00 3 4 11:01 3 5 11:01 CL of truck running on gauge line Wheel Position Time 1 3 11:03 L 3 11:04 2 3 11:05 3 3 11:06 Left wheel on CL gauge line Lift axle down 5 mph speed going across culvert Time: 11:08 Wheel Position Descriptions (typ) 1 Wheel centered over inside face of culvert vertical wall 2 Wheel at first quarter point on top slab 3 Wheel centered over midspan (2nd quarter point)
|
From page 343... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐8 Culvert Plans Figure 2 – Model 1, Candidate 1 (M1C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 344... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐9 Model 2 – Testing Plan ‐ Reinforced Concrete Box – Twin Cell Site/General Instrumentation will be installed week of Dec 11, 2017 and load tested the same week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 345... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐10 Figure 4 ‐ Plan View Instrumentation locations – strain gauges will be mounted at each of the primary gauge locations indicated in the figure above along the "load line" near the center of the culvert segment (based on the orientation of the reinforcing, the line of sensors are to be installed along a line parallel to the traffic/outside edges of the culvert)
|
From page 346... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐11 Read instruments pre-test Truck positions for readings (as truck moves across span)
|
From page 347... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐12 Testing Data General Location: State: Maryland DOT Route: SR 7 (Philadelphia RD) Latitude-Longitude: 39.411056, -76.409278 (click link to open in browser)
|
From page 348... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐13 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data/ Truck Positioning Data Figure 5 – Wheel loads/configurations/testing times for Model 2‐Candidate 1 (M2C1)
|
From page 349... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐14 Culvert Plans Figure 6 – Model 2, Candidate 1 (M2C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 350... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐15 Model 3 – Testing Plan ‐ Reinforced Concrete Box – Single Cell Precast Site/General Instrumentation will be installed week of Nov 6, 2017 and load tested the same week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 351... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐16 Trucks A loaded truck to be provided by PennDOT per cooperative letter. All trucks shall be consistent with design loadings.
|
From page 352... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐17 Figure 8 ‐ Culvert Photo Figure 9 ‐ Layout diagram
|
From page 353... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐18 Figure 10 ‐ Culvert Segments Figure 11 ‐ Possible Truck Detour, if Required
|
From page 354... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐19 Testing Data General Location: State: Pennsylvania Route: SR 281 Latitude-Longitude: 40.0513, -78.9943 (click link to open in browser) Actual Instrumentation Date: 11/5/2017-11/6/2017 Actual Testing date: 11/7/2017 Weather/Other Test conditions: 36 F, Sunny Contractor Personnel: Dave Barrett (Modjeski & Masters)
|
From page 355... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐20 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data/ Truck Positioning Data Figure 12 – Wheel loads/configurations/testing times for Model 3‐Candidate 1 (M3C1)
|
From page 356... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐21 Culvert Plans Figure 13 – Model 3, Candidate 1 (M3C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 357... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐22 Model 4 – Testing Plan – Reinforced Concrete Arch Site/General Instrumentation will be installed week of April 16, 2018 and load tested the same week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 358... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐23 Figure 15 – M4C1 Load Traffic Line Instrumentation locations – strain gauges will be mounted at each of the primary gauge locations indicated in the figure above along the "load line" near the center of the culvert segment (based on the orientation of the reinforcing, the line of sensors are to be installed along a line parallel to the traffic/outside edges of the culvert)
|
From page 359... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐24 Read instruments pre-test Truck positions for readings (as truck moves across span)
|
From page 360... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐25 Testing Data General Location: State: Ohio DOT Route: SR 669 Latitude-Longitude: 39.79083, -82.25111 (click link to open in browser) Actual Instrumentation Date: 4/16/2018 Actual Testing date: 4/17/2018 Weather/Other Test conditions: 31 F, Snow Contractor Personnel: Dave Barrett (Modjeski & Masters)
|
From page 361... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐26 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data Figure 16 – Wheel loads/configurations/testing times for Model 4‐Candidate 1 (M4C1)
|
From page 362... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐27 Truck Positioning Data MODEL 4 CULVERT NAME: SR 669 OVER CENTER BRANCH RUSH CREEK DISTRICT/COUNTY : DISTRICT 5/ PERRY COUNTY BMS NO.: BR KEY: DATE: 4/17/2018 SNOW ‐ 31 °F 0.00L = East end NO LIFT AXLE ON TRUCK TEST TRUCK ‐ ON LOAD LINE QUARTER POINT WHEEL 1 2 3 0.00 L 9:53:55 AM 9:58:13 AM 10:01:45 AM 0.25 L 9:54:21 AM 9:58:48 AM 10:02:11 AM 0.50 L 9:54:46 AM 9:59:24 AM 10:02:35 AM 0.75 L 9:55:12 AM 9:59:53 AM 10:03:00 AM 1.00 L 9:55:40 AM 10:00:26 AM 10:03:28 AM TEST TRUCK ‐ CENTERED ABOUT LOAD LINE QUARTER POINT WHEEL 1 2 3 0.00 L 10:10:46 AM 10:14:33 AM 10:17:47 AM 0.25 L 10:11:16 AM 10:14:55 AM 10:18:12 AM 0.50 L 10:11:40 AM 10:15:20 AM 10:18:39 AM 0.75 L 10:12:11 AM 10:15:47 AM 10:19:05 AM 1.00 L 10:12:35 AM 10:16:19 AM 10:19:30 AM
|
From page 363... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐28 Culvert Plans Figure 17 – Model 4, Candidate 1 (M4C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 364... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐29 Model 5 – Testing Plan – Metal Arch Site/General Instrumentation will be installed week of June 11, 2018 and load tested the same week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 365... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐30 North Upstream Down stream Figure 19 – M5C1 Load Traffic Line Instrumentation locations – strain gauges will be mounted at each of the primary gauge locations indicated in the figure above along the "load line" near the center of the culvert segment (based on the orientation of the culvert span/ribs, the line of sensors are to be installed along a line parallel to the traffic/outside edges of the culvert)
|
From page 366... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐31 Trucks A loaded truck to be provided by Lower Paxton Township per coordination Jeff Kline (717-364-9983)
|
From page 367... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐32 Testing Data General Location: State: Pennsylvania Route: Latitude-Longitude: 40.300437, -76.8018666 (click link to open in browser) Actual Instrumentation Date: 6/11/2018 Actual Testing date: 6/12/2018 Weather/Other Test conditions: 82 F at 10:15 AM Contractor Personnel: Dave Barrett (Modjeski & Masters)
|
From page 368... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐33 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data Wheel Loads Axle Left Right Tire widths Axle widths 1 (Front) 8450 lb 9250 lb 10.5" 90" out‐out 2 9000 lb 11,600 lb 9" each and 22" out‐out 95" out‐out 3 (Rear)
|
From page 369... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐34 Figure 20 – Wheel loads/configurations for Model 5‐Candidate 1 (M5C1) Truck Positioning Data Pass #1: Load Line 1 (Note: Passes 1 and 2 were repeated as 3 and 4 after removing charger that was causing extraneous signal noise)
|
From page 370... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐35 5 3 9:40:57 Pass #2: Load Line 2 (Note: Passes 1 and 2 were repeated as 3 and 4 after removing charger that was causing extraneous signal noise) Load Point Axle No Time 1 1 9:42:16 2 1 9:42:36 3 1 9:42:53 4 1 9:43:16 5 1 9:43:41 1 2 9:44:49 2 2 9:45:13 3 2 9:45:35 4 2 9:45:59 5 2 9:46:24 1 3 9:47:20 2 3 9:47:55 3 3 9:48:10 4 3 9:48:35 5 3 9:49:15 1 3 9:51:30 2 3 9:51:45 3 3 9:52:05 4 3 9:52:46 5 3 9:53:07
|
From page 371... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐36 Pass #3: Load Line 1 (Note: Passes 1 and 2 were repeated as 3 and 4 after removing charger that was causing extraneous signal noise) Load Point Axle No Time 1 1 10:01:00 2 1 10:01:25 3 1 10:01:50 4 1 10:02:20 5 1 10:02:45 1 2 10:03:57 2 2 10:04:23 3 2 10:04:45 4 2 10:05:08 5 2 10:05:30 1 3 10:06:30 2 3 10:06:52 3 3 10:07:10 4 3 10:07:30 5 3 10:07:50
|
From page 372... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐37 Pass #4: Load Line 2 (Note: Passes 1 and 2 were repeated as 3 and 4 after removing charger that was causing extraneous signal noise) Load Point Axle No Time 1 1 10:09:15 2 1 10:09:35 3 1 10:09:55 4 1 10:10:10 5 1 10:10:33 1 2 10:11:30 2 2 10:11:44 3 2 10:12:11 4 2 10:12:30 5 2 10:12:48 1 3 10:11:30 2 3 10:11:44 3 3 10:12:11 4 3 10:12:30 5 3 10:12:48
|
From page 373... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐38 Culvert Plans Figure 21‐ Model 5, Candidate 1 (M5C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 374... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐39 Model 6 – Testing Plan – Metal Arch Site/General Instrumentation will be installed week of May 2, 2018 and load tested the same week. Gauges operation will be verified after installation and prior to test.
|
From page 375... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐40 Figure 23 – M6C2 Load Traffic Line Instrumentation locations – strain gauges will be mounted at each of the primary gauge locations indicated in the figure above along the "load line" near the center of the culvert segment (based on the orientation of the culvert span/ribs, the line of sensors are to be installed along a line parallel to the traffic/outside edges of the culvert)
|
From page 376... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐41 Pre‐test Install instruments and test proper operation Trucks A loaded truck to be provided by Carroll Township per coordination with Bryon Cramer. All trucks shall be consistent with design loadings.
|
From page 377... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐42 Testing Data General Location: State: Pennsylvania, Carroll Twp Route: Sleepy Hollow Rd. Latitude-Longitude: 40.359593, -77.142020 (click link to open in browser)
|
From page 378... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐43 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data Axle Loads (lb) Left Right Axle spacing c‐c Front to rear Front 5850 5275 13'‐1" Rear 10475 9550 Figure 24 – Wheel loads/configurations for Model 6‐Candidate 1 (M6C2)
|
From page 379... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐44 Truck Positioning Data Points Axles (2‐axle Dump truck) 1 = Edge/Wall 1 = Front 2 = 1/4 Point 2 = Rear 3 = Midspan Axle No Point No Time 2 1 9:30:00 2 2 9:30:30 2 3 9:31:27 2 1 9:32:40 2 2 9:33:20 2 3 9:33:55 2 1 9:37:00 2 2 9:37:32 2 3 9:38:14 Test No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time (time format)
|
From page 380... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐45 Culvert Plans Figure 25‐ Model 6, Candidate 1 (M6C2) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 381... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐46 Model 7 – Testing Plan – Metal Arch Site/General Two tests will be conducted – One test prior to paving with the trucks being run over the compacted pavement subgrade material and another test to be run after pavement is in place. It would be ideal if these tests could be conducted on the same day and or trip to the site but this is not necessary.
|
From page 382... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐47 If gauges are to be mounted when culvert panel is in its final position a lift or ladders will be needed to mount the gauges. Modjeski will supply ladders or will use contractor's on‐site lifts if available. Instrumentation locations – strain gauges will be mounted at each of the primary gauge locations indicated in the figure above along the "load line" near the center of the culvert segment (based on the orientation of the culvert span/ribs, the line of sensors are to be installed along a line parallel to the traffic/outside edges of the culvert)
|
From page 383... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐48 gauges and the second wheel line is 9 feet from the gauge line. Two passes will be made along each of these passes of the truck, stopping as each wheel/axle passes directly over a gauge.
|
From page 384... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐49 Testing Data General Location: State: Massachusetts Route: I-95 over North Avenue Latitude-Longitude: 41.962574, -71.299294 (click link to open in browser) Actual Instrumentation Date: May 1, 2017 (Stage A)
|
From page 385... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐50 Gage Cluster Numbering Figure 27 – Model 7 – Gage Cluster Numbering (M7C1) Figure 28 – Model 7 ‐ Plan View – Gage Numbering (M7C1)
|
From page 386... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐51 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data Stage A – without pavement Stage B – with pavement Figure 30 – Wheel loads/configurations for Model 7‐Candidate 1 (M7C1)
|
From page 387... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐52 Truck Positioning Data (Stage A – Without pavement) Truck Positions Notation Description 1 Truck centered over centerline of culvert 2 Left wheel line centered on centerline of culvert 3 left wheel line offset 3 ft from centerline of culvert, right wheel line offset (3 ft + axle width)
|
From page 388... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐53 Test No. CME Survey Shot No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Notes 18 519 2N 2 1 13:33:20 13:33:35 1:33:20 PM 1:33:35 PM 19 520 2N 3 1 13:34:11 13:34:30 1:34:11 PM 1:34:30 PM 20 521 2N 1 3 13:35:13 13:35:33 1:35:13 PM 1:35:33 PM 21 522 2N 2 2 13:36:06 13:36:22 1:36:06 PM 1:36:22 PM 22 523 2N 3 2 13:37:30 13:37:51 1:37:30 PM 1:37:51 PM 23 524 2N 1 4 13:38:35 13:38:57 1:38:35 PM 1:38:57 PM 24 525 2N 2 3 13:39:29 13:39:50 1:39:29 PM 1:39:50 PM 25 526 2N 3 3 13:40:30 13:40:55 1:40:30 PM 1:40:55 PM 26 527 2N 1 5 13:41:44 13:42:00 1:41:44 PM 1:42:00 PM 27 528 2N 2 4 13:42:30 13:42:48 1:42:30 PM 1:42:48 PM 28 529 2N 3 4 13:43:14 13:43:31 1:43:14 PM 1:43:31 PM 29 530 2N 2 5 13:44:07 13:44:24 1:44:07 PM 1:44:24 PM 30 531 2N 3 5 13:44:52 13:45:09 1:44:52 PM 1:45:09 PM 31 532 13:46:35 13:47:09 1:46:35 PM 1:47:09 PM zero 32 533 3N 1 1 13:48:12 13:48:30 1:48:12 PM 1:48:30 PM 33 534 3N 1 2 13:49:14 13:49:33 1:49:14 PM 1:49:33 PM 34 535 3N 2 1 13:50:01 13:50:19 1:50:01 PM 1:50:19 PM 35 536 3N 3 1 13:50:53 13:51:11 1:50:53 PM 1:51:11 PM 36 537 3N 1 3 13:51:49 13:52:32 1:51:49 PM 1:52:32 PM 37 538 3N 2 2 13:54:05 13:54:16 1:54:05 PM 1:54:16 PM 38 539 3N 3 2 13:54:41 13:54:54 1:54:41 PM 1:54:54 PM 39 540 3N 1 4 13:55:29 13:55:44 1:55:29 PM 1:55:44 PM hand written notes have 13:55:00 (not possible) , assume start +15 sec 40 541 3N 2 3 13:56:07 13:56:26 1:56:07 PM 1:56:26 PM 41 542 3N 3 3 13:56:49 13:57:07 1:56:49 PM 1:57:07 PM 42 543 3N 1 5 13:57:42 13:58:03 1:57:42 PM 1:58:03 PM 43 544 3N 2 4 13:58:29 13:58:50 1:58:29 PM 1:58:50 PM 44 545 3N 3 4 13:59:15 13:59:32 1:59:15 PM 1:59:32 PM 45 546 3N 2 5 14:00:13 14:00:28 2:00:13 PM 2:00:28 PM 46 547 3N 3 5 14:01:35 14:01:52 2:01:35 PM 2:01:52 PM 47 548 14:02:57 14:03:17 2:02:57 PM 2:03:17 PM zero 48 549 1S 1 5 14:04:43 14:05:07 2:04:43 PM 2:05:07 PM 49 550 1S 1 4 14:05:41 14:05:54 2:05:41 PM 2:05:54 PM 50 551 1S 2 5 14:06:25 14:06:36 2:06:25 PM 2:06:36 PM 51 552 1S 3 5 14:07:14 14:07:33 2:07:14 PM 2:07:33 PM 52 553 1S 1 3 14:08:51 14:09:09 2:08:51 PM 2:09:09 PM 53 554 1S 2 4 14:09:45 14:10:03 2:09:45 PM 2:10:03 PM 54 555 1S 3 4 14:10:28 14:10:49 2:10:28 PM 2:10:49 PM
|
From page 389... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐54 Test No. CME Survey Shot No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Notes 55 556 1S 1 2 14:11:23 14:11:41 2:11:23 PM 2:11:41 PM 56 557 1S 2 3 14:12:06 14:12:23 2:12:06 PM 2:12:23 PM 57 558 1S 3 3 14:12:50 14:13:05 2:12:50 PM 2:13:05 PM 58 559 1S 1 1 14:13:36 14:13:49 2:13:36 PM 2:13:49 PM 59 560 1S 2 2 14:14:15 14:14:32 2:14:15 PM 2:14:32 PM 60 561 1S 3 2 14:14:57 14:15:12 2:14:57 PM 2:15:12 PM 61 562 1S 2 1 14:15:42 14:15:56 2:15:42 PM 2:15:56 PM 62 563 1S 3 1 14:16:21 14:16:38 2:16:21 PM 2:16:38 PM 63 564 1S 14:17:23 14:17:37 2:17:23 PM 2:17:37 PM zero Truck Positioning Data (Stage B – With pavement) Truck Positions Notation Description 1 Truck centered over centerline of culvert 2 Left wheel line centered on centerline of culvert 3 left wheel line offset 3 ft from centerline of culvert, right wheel line offset (3 ft + axle width)
|
From page 390... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐55 Test No. CME Survey Shot No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Notes 5 604 1N 1 3 12:11:27 12:11:44 12:11:27 PM 12:11:44 PM 6 605 1N 2 2 12:12:21 12:12:39 12:12:21 PM 12:12:39 PM 7 606 1N 3 2 12:13:24 12:13:42 12:13:24 PM 12:13:42 PM 8 607 1N 1 4 12:14:38 12:14:57 12:14:38 PM 12:14:57 PM 9 608 1N 2 3 12:15:35 12:15:56 12:15:35 PM 12:15:56 PM 10 609 1N 3 3 12:16:38 12:16:57 12:16:38 PM 12:16:57 PM 11 610 1N 1 5 12:17:42 12:17:59 12:17:42 PM 12:17:59 PM 12 611 1N 2 4 12:19:59 12:20:19 12:19:59 PM 12:20:19 PM 13 612 1N 3 4 12:21:10 12:21:29 12:21:10 PM 12:21:29 PM 14 613 1N 2 5 12:22:32 12:23:04 12:22:32 PM 12:23:04 PM 15 614 1N 3 5 12:24:03 12:24:25 12:24:03 PM 12:24:25 PM 16 615 2N 1 1 12:29:05 12:29:25 12:29:05 PM 12:29:25 PM 17 616 2N 1 2 12:30:10 12:30:28 12:30:10 PM 12:30:28 PM 18 617 2N 2 1 12:31:04 12:31:21 12:31:04 PM 12:31:21 PM 19 618 2N 3 1 12:31:56 12:32:14 12:31:56 PM 12:32:14 PM 20 619 2N 1 3 12:32:56 12:33:14 12:32:56 PM 12:33:14 PM 21 620 2N 2 2 12:33:46 12:34:05 12:33:46 PM 12:34:05 PM 22 621 2N 3 2 12:34:36 12:34:52 12:34:36 PM 12:34:52 PM 23 622 2N 1 4 12:35:35 12:35:54 12:35:35 PM 12:35:54 PM 24 623 2N 2 3 12:36:37 12:36:54 12:36:37 PM 12:36:54 PM 25 624 2N 3 3 12:37:27 12:37:43 12:37:27 PM 12:37:43 PM 26 625 2N 1 5 12:38:22 12:38:40 12:38:22 PM 12:38:40 PM 27 626 2N 2 4 12:40:18 12:40:36 12:40:18 PM 12:40:36 PM 28 627 2N 3 4 12:41:14 12:41:31 12:41:14 PM 12:41:31 PM 29 628 2N 2 5 12:42:07 12:42:24 12:42:07 PM 12:42:24 PM 30 629 2N 3 5 12:42:54 12:43:12 12:42:54 PM 12:43:12 PM 31 630 3N 1 1 12:46:36 12:46:55 12:46:36 PM 12:46:55 PM 32 631 3N 1 2 12:47:36 12:47:57 12:47:36 PM 12:47:57 PM 33 632 3N 2 1 12:48:27 12:48:43 12:48:27 PM 12:48:43 PM 34 633 3N 3 1 12:49:21 12:49:38 12:49:21 PM 12:49:38 PM 35 634 3N 1 3 12:50:32 12:50:49 12:50:32 PM 12:50:49 PM 36 635 3N 2 2 12:51:14 12:51:38 12:51:14 PM 12:51:38 PM 37 636 3N 3 2 12:52:16 12:52:34 12:52:16 PM 12:52:34 PM 38 637 3N 1 4 12:53:14 12:53:32 12:53:14 PM 12:53:32 PM 39 638 3N 2 3 12:54:01 12:54:19 12:54:01 PM 12:54:19 PM 40 639 3N 3 3 12:54:49 12:55:05 12:54:49 PM 12:55:05 PM 41 640 3N 1 5 12:55:48 12:56:05 12:55:48 PM 12:56:05 PM 42 641 3N 2 4 12:56:45 12:57:02 12:56:45 PM 12:57:02 PM 43 642 3N 3 4 12:57:39 12:57:57 12:57:39 PM 12:57:57 PM 44 643 3N 2 5 12:58:33 12:58:51 12:58:33 PM 12:58:51 PM 45 644 3N 3 5 12:59:27 12:59:44 12:59:27 PM 12:59:44 PM
|
From page 391... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐56 Test No. CME Survey Shot No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Notes 46 645 1S 1 5 13:04:23 13:04:38 1:04:23 PM 1:04:38 PM originally recorded end time was 12:04:38 47 646 1S 1 4 13:05:47 13:06:12 1:05:47 PM 1:06:12 PM 48 647 1S 2 5 13:06:52 13:07:10 1:06:52 PM 1:07:10 PM 49 648 1S 3 5 13:07:51 13:08:14 1:07:51 PM 1:08:14 PM 50 649 1S 1 3 13:09:02 13:09:19 1:09:02 PM 1:09:19 PM 51 650 1S 2 4 13:09:59 13:10:18 1:09:59 PM 1:10:18 PM 52 651 1S 3 4 13:10:47 13:11:02 1:10:47 PM 1:11:02 PM 53 652 1S 1 2 13:11:40 13:11:56 1:11:40 PM 1:11:56 PM 54 653 1S 2 3 13:13:28 13:13:46 1:13:28 PM 1:13:46 PM 55 654 1S 3 3 13:14:20 13:14:37 1:14:20 PM 1:14:37 PM 56 655 1S 1 1 13:15:18 13:15:37 1:15:18 PM 1:15:37 PM 57 656 1S 2 2 13:16:10 13:16:33 1:16:10 PM 1:16:33 PM 58 657 1S 3 2 13:17:19 13:17:35 1:17:19 PM 1:17:35 PM 59 658 1S 2 1 13:18:14 13:18:31 1:18:14 PM 1:18:31 PM 60 659 1S 3 1 13:18:59 13:19:18 1:18:59 PM 1:19:18 PM 61 660 2S 1 5 13:22:17 13:22:36 1:22:17 PM 1:22:36 PM 62 661 2S 1 4 13:23:12 13:23:29 1:23:12 PM 1:23:29 PM 63 662 2S 2 5 13:24:02 13:24:19 1:24:02 PM 1:24:19 PM 64 663 2S 3 5 13:24:55 13:25:09 1:24:55 PM 1:25:09 PM 65 664 2S 1 3 13:25:45 13:26:03 1:25:45 PM 1:26:03 PM 66 665 2S 2 4 13:26:36 13:26:53 1:26:36 PM 1:26:53 PM 67 666 2S 3 4 13:27:21 13:27:39 1:27:21 PM 1:27:39 PM 68 667 2S 1 2 13:28:22 13:28:38 1:28:22 PM 1:28:38 PM 69 668 2S 2 3 13:29:13 13:29:32 1:29:13 PM 1:29:32 PM 70 669 2S 3 3 13:30:09 13:30:28 1:30:09 PM 1:30:28 PM 71 670 2S 1 1 13:31:05 13:31:22 1:31:05 PM 1:31:22 PM 72 671 2S 2 2 13:31:59 13:32:17 1:31:59 PM 1:32:17 PM 73 672 2S 3 2 13:32:55 13:33:13 1:32:55 PM 1:33:13 PM 74 673 2S 2 1 13:33:54 13:34:11 1:33:54 PM 1:34:11 PM 75 674 2S 3 1 13:34:47 13:35:07 1:34:47 PM 1:35:07 PM 76 675 3S 1 5 13:38:59 13:39:09 1:38:59 PM 1:39:09 PM 77 676 3S 1 4 13:40:15 13:40:53 1:40:15 PM 1:40:53 PM 78 677 3S 2 5 13:41:44 13:42:07 1:41:44 PM 1:42:07 PM 79 678 3S 3 5 13:42:44 13:43:03 1:42:44 PM 1:43:03 PM 80 679 3S 1 3 13:43:49 13:44:07 1:43:49 PM 1:44:07 PM 81 680 3S 2 4 13:45:45 13:46:09 1:45:45 PM 1:46:09 PM 82 681 3S 3 4 13:47:03 13:47:21 1:47:03 PM 1:47:21 PM 83 682 3S 1 2 13:48:07 13:48:24 1:48:07 PM 1:48:24 PM 84 683 3S 2 3 13:49:16 13:49:35 1:49:16 PM 1:49:35 PM 85 684 3S 3 3 13:50:07 13:50:22 1:50:07 PM 1:50:22 PM 86 685 3S 1 1 13:51:46 13:52:02 1:51:46 PM 1:52:02 PM
|
From page 392... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐57 Test No. CME Survey Shot No. Truck Position Axle No. Gauge Location Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Notes 87 686 3S 2 2 13:52:42 13:52:59 1:52:42 PM 1:52:59 PM 88 687 3S 3 2 13:53:32 13:53:49 1:53:32 PM 1:53:49 PM 89 688 3S 2 1 13:54:45 13:55:06 1:54:45 PM 1:55:06 PM 90 689 3S 3 1 13:55:45 13:56:04 1:55:45 PM 1:56:04 PM
|
From page 393... ...
Appendix F – Field Testing Plans F‐58 Culvert Plans Figure 31‐ Model 7, Candidate 1 (M7C1) – Plan and Typical Section
|
From page 394... ...
G-1 Appendix G – Specification Backup Full Table of BrDR runs for Shear Capacity changes. The following table represents the AASHTOWare BrDR analysis runs for a select set of the Caltrans culverts for the change in the shear capacity.
|
From page 395... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-2 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 396... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-3 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 397... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-4 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 398... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-5 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 399... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-6 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 400... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-7 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 401... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-8 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 402... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-9 Bridge ID Fill Depth Critical Element (Before) Location (Before)
|
From page 403... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-10 Full Table of BrDR runs for LL Surcharge vs Approaching Wheel Load changes. The following table represents the AASHTOWare BrDR analysis runs for a select set of the Caltrans culverts and project culverts for the change in the LL Surcharge vs.
|
From page 404... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-11 Culvert Cover Inv Rating HL93 (Before) Oper Rating Factor HL93 (After)
|
From page 405... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-12 Culvert Cover Inv Rating HL93 (Before) Oper Rating Factor HL93 (After)
|
From page 406... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-13 Culvert Cover Inv Rating HL93 (Before) Oper Rating Factor HL93 (After)
|
From page 407... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-14 Culvert Cover Inv Rating HL93 (Before) Oper Rating Factor HL93 (After)
|
From page 408... ...
Appendix G – Specification Backup G-15 Culvert Cover Inv Rating HL93 (Before) Oper Rating Factor HL93 (After)
|
From page 409... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐1 Appendix H – Proposed AASHTO Ballot Items Proposed ballot items for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 1. Depth of live load, Article 3.6.1.2a 2.
|
From page 410... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐2 Ballot LRFD-1 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Culverts – Depth of Fill and Consideration of Live Load TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-5 Loads and Load Distribution, T-13 Culverts, T-18 Bridge Management Evaluation and Rehabilitation ☒ REVISION ☐ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☒ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☐ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Revise the first paragraph of Article 3.6.1.2.6a-General in the Design Specifications as follows: The effects of live load may be neglected when the factored live load pressure at the surface of the culvert is less than 10% of the sum of the factored earth load plus factored live load pressure. OTHER AFFECTED ARTICLES: None BACKGROUND: Currently the AASHTO LRFD Specifications state: "For single span culverts the effects of live load may be neglected where the depth of fill is more than 8.0 ft and exceeds the span length; for multiple span culverts the effects may be neglected where the depth of fill exceeds the distance between inside faces of end walls." This provision requires consideration of live load until the depth exceeds the span; however, in the experience of some members of the research team the provision is often interpreted as ignoring live loads at depths of 8 ft and greater.
|
From page 411... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐3 Also, the proposed revision provides a clear method for engineers to consider the depths at which permit vehicles and other non-standard loadings need not be considered in design or rating. REFERENCES: NCHRP Project 15-54, "Proposed Modifications to AASHTO Culvert Load Rating Specifications".
|
From page 412... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐4 Ballot LRFD-2 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Live Load Distribution for Culverts TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-5 Loads and Load Distribution, T-13 Culverts, T-18 Bridge Management and Evaluation ☒ REVISION ☐ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☒ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☐ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Item #1 Article 3.6.1.2.6a Revise 2nd paragraph Live load shall be distributed to the top slabs of flat top three- or four-sided concrete culverts, three-sided arch top concrete culverts or concrete arch culverts over the area calculated in this Article, but not less than the dimensions calculated using the procedure specified in Article 4.6.2.10. Live load shall be distributed to concrete pipe culverts with 1.0 ft or more but less than 2.0 ft of cover in accordance with Article 4.6.2.10.
|
From page 413... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐5 Add to notation td1 = tire dimension (lt or wt, see 3.6.1.2.6) perpendicular to the span td2 = tire dimension (lt or wt, see 3.6.1.2.6)
|
From page 414... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐6 Item #3 Revise Article 4.6.2.10.3 Traffic traveling perpendicular to the span shall consider multiple lane loadings with the appropriate multiple presence factor. When traffic travels perpendicular to the span, wheel loads shall be distributed to the top slab as specified here: Perpendicular to the span: E = ((Ax -1)
|
From page 415... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐7 This change will increase the distribution width for some culverts in some cases and in those cases will increase the load ratings due to the resulting increase in the capacity of the structure. REFERENCES: Project 15-54, "Proposed Modifications to AASHTO Culvert Load Rating Specifications" OTHER:
|
From page 416... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐8 Ballot LRFD-3 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Use of At-Rest Pressure Coefficient for Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-5 Loads and Load Distribution, T-18 Bridge Management Evaluation and Rehabilitation, T-13 Culverts ☐ REVISION ☒ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☒ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☐ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Addition to Article 3.11.5.1 3.11.5.1-Lateral Earth Pressure: EH Add to existing Article: For the design of rectangular reinforced concrete culverts, the lateral pressure coefficient, ko, need not be taken greater than 0.5 for culverts embedded in granular soils. Add to existing commentary: C3.11.5.1 The lateral pressure on culverts is the same on both sides of the structure and produces small culvert forces relative to the forces due to vertical loads.
|
From page 417... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐9 The proposed addition is intended to achieve consistency between the design and rating specifications. The existing provision for lateral earth pressure in the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications results in a higher pressure than what is specified in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
|
From page 418... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐10 Ballot LRFD-4 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Use of At-Rest Pressure Coefficient for Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-5 Loads and Load Distribution, T-13 Culverts, T-18 Bridge Management, Evaluation and Rehabilitation ☐ REVISION ☒ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☒ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☐ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Add new title to Article 3.11.6.4.1 Article 3.11.6.4.1 Walls (section otherwise unchanged) Add new article: Article 3.11.6.4.2 Culverts Concrete box culverts and three-sided flat-topped culverts with a depth of fill less than 2 ft shall be subjected to an approaching wheel load in the form of a lateral soil pressure representing a vehicle approaching the culvert.
|
From page 419... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐11 Retaining walls have historically been designed considering a lateral live load surcharge pressure to represent the additional load applied by a vehicle located near the wall. This loading was historically applied to culverts as well.
|
From page 420... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐12 ANTICIPATED EFFECT ON BRIDGES: The current LRFD specifications do not explicitly exclude the use of LS for culverts under large fill depths so there is inconsistency in the application of the current provisions while it is known that the effects of LS decrease quickly as the depth of fill increases. The proposed change provides for a more rationally based application of LS to the design and analysis of box culverts.
|
From page 421... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐13 Ballot MBE-1 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Rating and Condition Evaluation of Culverts TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-18 Bridge Management, Evaluation and Rehabilitation, T-13 Culverts ☒ REVISION ☒ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☐ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☒ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Item #1 Delete Article 6A.5.12 As noted, portions of this Article are incorporated into the proposed new Article 6A.10 Item #2 Add new Article 6A.10 Rating of Culverts 6A.10.1-Scope This Article incorporates provisions specific to the load rating culvert of types designed using the AASHTO LRFD methodology and it provides a load rating that is consistent with that approach. This Article assumes culverts have been inspected prior to rating and that the current condition of the culvert can be properly accounted for.
|
From page 422... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐14 material properties, and installation methods should be confirmed during a visual inspection of the culvert and any discrepancies from the construction documents should be addressed. 6A.10.2-General Rating Requirements Culvert ratings should recognize that these structures experience several loadings that are not applicable to most bridge superstructures, including vertical and horizontal soil loads and approaching wheel load.
|
From page 423... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐15 Table 6A.10.3.1-1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Bedding Support of Rectangular Concrete Culverts Soil Range2 (pci) Rating Value3 (pci)
|
From page 424... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐16 time, expertise, and computer capacity. It is included here as it provides the most complete and accurate model currently possibly of soil-culvert interaction and does not require external decisions on how to apply and distribute live loads to account for the three-dimensional load spreading that occurs as load is transmitted through the soil.
|
From page 425... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐17 Finite element analysis should consider loadings to mimic reduced lateral pressure as is done for rectangular concrete culverts in frame models. This can be accomplished by adjusting the soil properties, such as by reducing the backfill density.
|
From page 426... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐18 RF = rating factor C = capacity Rn = nominal member resistance (as inspected) DC = dead load effect due to structural components and attachments DW = dead load effect due to wearing surface and utilities EV = vertical earth pressure EH = horizontal earth pressure ES = uniform earth surcharge LL = live load effect IM = dynamic load allowance AW = approaching wheel load γDC = LRFD load factor for structural components and attachments γDW = LRFD load factor for wearing surfaces and utilities γEV = LRFD load factor for vertical earth pressure γEH = LRFD load factor for horizontal earth pressure γES = LRFD load factor for earth surcharge γLL = evaluation live load factor γAW = LRFD load factor for approaching wheel load φc = condition factor φs = system factor φ = LRFD resistance factor The product of φc and φs shall not be taken less than 0.85.
|
From page 427... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐19 Table 6A.10.5-1 Limit States and Load Factors for Culvert Load Rating (Modified from current MBE Table 6A.5.12.5-1)
|
From page 428... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐20 6A.10.6-Resistance Factors Resistance factors for culverts shall be taken as specified in LRFD Design Article 12.5.5. 6A.10.7-Condition Factors Use of condition factors as presented in Table 6A.4.2.3-1 may be considered optional based on an agency's load rating practice.
|
From page 429... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐21 6A.10.10.3-Live Loads No change from current Article 6A.5.12.10.3 C6A.10.10.3 No change from current Article C6A.5.12.10.3 C6A.5.10.10.3a-Live Load Distribution Current specification Article 6A.5.12.10.3a with proposed changes listed below. Change 1- Replace deleted sentence with: Culverts where design for live load is not required per the LRFD Design Specifications Article 3.6.1.2.6a do not require rating for live loads.
|
From page 430... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐22 Distribution parallel to the span with increasing depth is accomplished by adding LLDF * Depth of fill to the tire dimension.
|
From page 431... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐23 of Precast Concrete Box Sections for Zero to Deep Cover Earth Cover Conditions and Surface Wheel Loads, Concrete Pipe and the Soil-Structure System, ASTM STP 630. 6A.10.10.3d - Pavements Pavements are used to spread the effects of wheel loads over a greater area and thus reduce soil stresses below the pavement.
|
From page 432... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐24 E-concrete pavement = 4,000 ksi E-asphalt pavement = 0.3 ksi E-soft subgrade approximately 8 ksi E-stiff subgrade approximately 100 ksi One relationship between the soil modulus and the common parameters, as recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5320-6F, 2016, are: E = 1,500 CBR Eq.
|
From page 433... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐25 The use of springs to represent bedding pressure noted in Article 6A.10.3.1 results in reduced shear and moments. The rating factors for the lower half of box culverts analyzed in this manner may be applied to the locations in the upper half of the culvert provided the following conditions are met: The culvert is installed at a depth where live load is not considered.
|
From page 434... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐26 C6.A.10.12 The long-term performance of these culverts is dependent on the performance of the backfill soil around the culvert. The culvert shape is a key indicator of backfill quality and careful measurements in the field are warranted.
|
From page 435... ...
Appendix H – Proposed Ballot Items H‐27 Ballot MBE-2 2019 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: Click here to enter text SUBJECT: Rating and Condition Evaluation of Culverts TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-18 Bridge Management, Evaluation and Rehabilitation, T-13 Culverts ☐ REVISION ☒ ADDITION ☐ NEW DOCUMENT ☐ DESIGN SPEC ☐ CONSTRUCTION SPEC ☐ MOVABLE SPEC ☒ MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ☐ SEISMIC GUIDE SPEC ☐ MANUAL BRIDGE ELEMENT INSP EVALUATION ☐ OTHER Research DATE PREPARED: 7/3/2019 DATE REVISED: Click here to enter a date AGENDA ITEM: Item #1 Add New Article 6B.9 Article 6.B.9 Culverts may be load rated in accordance with the current LRFD Specifications or with the Specifications under which they were originally design. Culvert ratings based on older specifications must be inspected prior to rating and the current conditions must be considered.
|
From page 436... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐1 Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specifications for 2D Analysis of Buried Culverts Under Live Load This appendix provides a white paper prepared by Dr. Katona for Live Load Distribution.
|
From page 437... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐2 WHITE PAPER IMPROVING AASHTO LRFD/LRFR SPECIFICATIONS FOR TWO‐DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF BURIED CULVERTS UNDER LIVE LOAD Dr. Michael Katona
|
From page 438... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐3 A White Paper on Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specifications for Two-dimensional Analysis of Buried Culverts under Live Loads INTRODUCTION Background. Buried culverts, due to their long prismatic configuration, are generally designed and analyzed as two-dimensional (2D)
|
From page 439... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐4 Ritz Technique, and compares and contrasts results with current AASHTO methods. The paper concludes with a summary of findings and list of recommendations.
|
From page 440... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐5 The reason for the change from Equation 1 to Equation 3 is because analytical studies revealed that Equation 1 is too conservative when H is less than 2 feet particularly for box culverts that are sometimes installed with zero soil cover. For precast boxes and arches, AASHTO sections 12.11.2.1 and 12.14.5.2 infer that ELong should not exceed two lay lengths.
|
From page 441... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐6 Figure 1. Reduction factor versus soil depth for three example culverts.
|
From page 442... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐7 with H = 1.999'. This is a serious problem and needs to be rectified in future AASHTO specifications.
|
From page 443... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐8 Figure 2. Longitudinal distribution widths for 1-wheel load versus span as tabularized below: Source of distribution widths Distribution-width symbols Relationships/Equations PennDOT 3D FEM solutions 2004 bM+ = max positive moment bM- = max negative moment bQx = maximum edge shear Discrete data points for 8', 12' & 24' spans with separate symbols for each maximum force effect.
|
From page 444... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐9 Two other parametric studies from the PennDOT report reveal how distribution widths are influenced by loading along the free edge and by orthotropic properties of the top slab. Not too surprisingly, when the transverse-traveling HS20 load was relocated from the slab center to the free-edge, the computed distribution widths decreased due to less 3D stiffness support.
|
From page 445... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐10 (5) Justification for applying r/c box culvert results to r/c arches.
|
From page 446... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐11 Figure 3. View of rectangular plate model with line-load (lbs./inch)
|
From page 447... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.70.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 100% 25% 50% 75% Ce nt er lin e de fle ct io n, % Δ m ax W* < Wcritical Position along plate's positive z‐axis, z/(½L)
|
From page 448... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐13 Next consider the 3D deflection profile for the case W* < Wcritical.
|
From page 449... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐14 Saxle = center-to-center wheel spacing on axle (usually 72 inches) Hint = two-wheel interaction soil depth = (Saxle– W0)
|
From page 450... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐15 The general equation for reduced surface pressure for an arbitrary burial depth H is easily deduced from Equations 10 and 11 as, 0H Hp r p = reduced surface load applicable to any depth H Equation 12 where, 0 0( , )
|
From page 451... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐16 As originally presented, the CLS method only corrects for longitudinal load spreading. It did not address the problem of additional 3D stiffness effects in the culvert structure.
|
From page 452... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐17 Using the above expression for Wcritical in the proposed RSL or CLS methods results in the same 2D analysis prediction as the current AASHTO methodology except soil depths in the range 2' < H < HT wherein the new procedure provides a smooth transition without discontinuities. The second half of this white paper is devoted to developing a rational framework to quantify Wcritical based on a plate model representing the top slab of a r/c box culvert.
|
From page 453... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐18 s = ½S = half Span of plate (slab) l = ½L = half Length of plate (slab)
|
From page 454... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐19 By expressing stresses in terms of displacement gradients via stress-strain and strain-displacements relationships, the y integrations are performed over the two differential faces dxdy and dzdy, wherein different stiffness properties are allowed on the x-face and y-face. This operation results in the following moment-to-curvature equations, /2 2 /2 /2 2 /2 /2 2 /2 1 2 ( , , )
|
From page 455... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐20 Interior plate pressure loading is zero, q(x,z) = 0, because loading is applied through the shear-force boundary condition as discussed next.
|
From page 456... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐21 connection. Moreover, it is postulated that the ratio-forming procedure used to compute the critical distribution width Wcritical is relatively insensitive to the choice of slab-to-wall connection.
|
From page 457... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐22 integrations and mathematical manipulations. After several ill-fated attempts, the following results are believed to be accurate.
|
From page 458... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 64 131 1 175 4 33 43 391 175 44 11 33 43 391 175 44 11 18 11 131 175 12 3 [( )
|
From page 459... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐24 Table 2. Spans and associated lay lengths for R/C culverts.
|
From page 460... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐25 Figure 7b. Normalized displacement profile for S/L = 0.8
|
From page 461... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐26 Figure 7c. Normalized displacement profile for S/L =2.0 Figures 7a shows that when S/L is less than 0.5 the deflection profiles have pronounced peaks under the load, and the value of Wcritical/L is approximately 0.5 or less.
|
From page 462... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐27 both wheels on the truck's axle. In the next section, the solution to the 2-wheel problem is approximated by superposition of the 1-wheel Ri RITZ 2‐WHEEL SOLUTION BY SUPERPOSITION Given that truck axles have two wheels, which are typically spaced at 6 feet, the second wheel may also contribute to the culvert's displacement profile depending on the culvert's lay length.
|
From page 463... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐28 One last observation from Figure 9 is the 2-wheel peak displacement happens to be slightly greater than 90% of ΔMax (i.e. 90% of Normalized Displacement)
|
From page 464... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐29 Given the length and span dimensions for any slab (culvert) , Figure 10 provides the means to compute Wcritical to account for the 3D stiffness effect of that particular culvert.
|
From page 465... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐30 based on PennDOT's solution for shear control when the loading location is shifted near the supporting wall of the box. Unfortunately, the Ritz model is only applicable to centrally loaded slabs that produce maximum positive moments and deflections; hence, no direct comparison with the AASHTO specification is meaningful.
|
From page 466... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐31 Figure 12 reveals three significant findings for centrally loaded culverts: 1. Culvert length L has a significant impact on Wcritical except in the range, 6 ≤ L ≤ 12 ft.
|
From page 467... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐32 Because the Ritz and the PennDOT predictions for Wcritical show good agreement for centrally loaded slabs for the case L = 30 feet, it is tentatively concluded that the Ritz slab model is a viable surrogate for all centrally loaded box culverts. However, this conclusion needs to be validated with 3D FEM models with smaller culvert lengths.
|
From page 468... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐33 For any particular S/L ratio, the above curves reveal the comparative change in Wcritical/L when an isotropic slab is compared to an orthotropic slab. The relative change applies to 2-wheel loading as well as 1-wheel loading because 2-wheel loading is achieved by superposition of 1-wheel loading.
|
From page 469... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐34 stiffness effect that is not captured by 2D culvert models subject to live loads at shallow burial depths. More precisely, a 2D model underrepresents the actual 3D stiffness whenever the width of the longitudinal line-load impinging on the plate (culvert)
|
From page 470... ...
Appendix I – Improving AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Specs for 2D for Buried Culverts under LL I‐35 2. Influence of culvert length.
|
From page 471... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐1 Appendix J – Plots Mined from BrDR Regression Data – Caltrans Double Box This appendix shows plots mined from BrDR regression data for Caltrans double cell culverts. The plots show the RF and it's contributing components.
|
From page 472... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐2 CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6) CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6)
|
From page 473... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐3 CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 3 of 6) CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 5 of 6)
|
From page 474... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐4 CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: FLAG for Hand Calculations CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6) CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6)
|
From page 475... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐5 CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6) CD12x10;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6)
|
From page 476... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐6 CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6) CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6)
|
From page 477... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐7 CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 3 of 6) CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 5 of 6)
|
From page 478... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐8 CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6) CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6)
|
From page 479... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐9 CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6) CD12x12;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6)
|
From page 480... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐10 CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6) CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6)
|
From page 481... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐11 CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 3 of 6) CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 5 of 6)
|
From page 482... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐12 CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: FLAG for Hand Calculations CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6) CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6)
|
From page 483... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐13 CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6) CD12x6;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6)
|
From page 484... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐14 CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6) CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6)
|
From page 485... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐15 CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 3 of 6) CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 5 of 6)
|
From page 486... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐16 CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: FLAG for Hand Calculations CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6) CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 2 of 6)
|
From page 487... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐17 CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6) CD12x7;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: R_Soil 2: 120V; 60H (MDL 4 of 6)
|
From page 488... ...
Appendix J – Data Mining BrDR Regression Data J‐18 CD12x8;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Moment RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6) CD12x8;14 1966:MM‐LRFR‐Culvert: Shear RF: D_Soil 1: 120V; 36H (MDL 1 of 6)
|
From page 489... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐1 Appendix K – Calibration Information
|
From page 490... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐2 1 Introduction This appendix contains the calibration summaries for the seven models load tested for this research. 1.1 Calibration Summary – Model 1, Candidate 1 Model 1, Candidate 1 consists of a single‐cell precast concrete culvert located in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis) of Model 1, Candidate 1 under the truck load that was used in the experimental program. The field test loading consisted of two main phases: Phase 1 loading as based on the culvert being loaded with the lift axle of the truck in the up position; and Phase 2 loaded the culvert with the lift axle down. The first phase included four main sets of loading where the marked points are the locations on the slab directly above the line of strain gauge installations: - U‐1: the center of left wheel of Axle 1 of truck over the marked points (see Figure 4)
|
From page 491... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐3 Figure 1 ‐ Culvert Plan and Elevation Figure 2 ‐ Culvert Typical Section
|
From page 492... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐4 1.1.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 3 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 3 – Model 1 (M1C1) Isometric 3D LUSAS Model Calibration Results Comparisons between the field data stresses and displacements as compared to the 3D model predicted values are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 16. The table below provides a more detailed notation and descriptions of the stress and displacement figures than the abbreviated keys for each these figures. In each of the graphs, the vertical axis represents either the stress (for strain gauge locations)
|
From page 493... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐5 Notation Description G1 Gage 1 – 3D LUSAS model results G1 – Data Gage 1 – Field testing data results G2 Gage 2 – 3D LUSAS model results G2 – Data Gage 2 – Field testing data results G3 Gage 3 – 3D LUSAS model results G3 – Data Gage 3 – Field testing data results G4 Gage 4 – 3D LUSAS model results G4 – Data Gage 4 – Field testing data results G5 Gage 5 – 3D LUSAS model results G5 – Data Gage 5 – Field testing data results POT‐2 String Potentiometer 2 ‐ 3D LUSAS model results POT‐2‐Data String Potentiometer 2 – Field testing data results POT‐3 String Potentiometer 3 ‐ 3D LUSAS model results POT‐3‐Data String Potentiometer 3 – Field testing data results Figure 8 through Figure 11 are for the lift axle up configuration showing each axle placed over each of the marked points with the left wheel centered on the gauge line and then with the center of the truck centered over the gauge line. Figure 12 through Figure 16 are for the lift axle down configuration showing each axle placed over each of the marked points with the left wheel centered on the gauge line and then with the center of the truck centered over the gauge line. As can be seen in Figure 8 through Figure 16, at axle load locations that produce the peak positive and negative moment stresses, good agreement is seen in the negative moment stresses at the corner of the culvert (gauge locations G3 and G4) and at the quarter‐point gauge location (G4)
|
From page 494... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐6 Figure 4 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 495... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐7 Figure 6 ‐ Load Truck Configuration for Phase 1 (lift axle up)
|
From page 496... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐8 Figure 8 ‐ Load Case U‐1: Lift Axle Up and Axle 1 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 497... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐9 Figure 9 ‐ Load Case U‐2: Lift Axle Up and Axle 2 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 498... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐10 Figure 10 ‐ Load Case U‐3: Lift Axle Up and Axle 3 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 499... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐11 Figure 11 ‐ Load Case U‐4: Lift Axle Up and Center of each Axle over Midspan (M1C1)
|
From page 500... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐12 Figure 12 ‐ Load Case D‐1: Lift Axle Down and Axle 1 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 501... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐13 Figure 13 ‐ Load Case D‐2: Lift Axle Down and Axle 2 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 502... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐14 Figure 14 ‐ Load Case D‐3: Lift Axle Down and Axle 3 Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 503... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐15 Figure 15 ‐ Load Case D‐L: Lift Axle Down and Lift Axle Left Wheel over Marked Points (M1C1)
|
From page 504... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐16 Figure 16 ‐ Load Case D‐4: Lift Axle Down and Center of each Axle over Midspan (M1C1)
|
From page 505... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐17 1.2 Calibration Summary – Model 2, Candidate 1 Model 2, Candidate 1 consists of a two‐cell cast‐in‐place reinforced concrete culvert located in the state of Maryland and owned by the Maryland DOT (Structure Number 0329500) . Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis)
|
From page 506... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐18 Figure 17 – Culvert Plan View (Skewed) Figure 18 ‐ Culvert Typical Section
|
From page 507... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐19 1.2.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 19 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 19 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model (M2C1) Calibration Results Comparisons between the field data stresses and displacements as compared to the 3D model predicted values are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25. In each of the graphs, the vertical axis represents either the stress at strain gauge locations. The horizontal axis represents the load locations for each of the six load positions shown in Figure 20. For all gauge locations, see Figure 30. In the graphs, the dashed lines represent field‐collected data while the solid lines represent the results obtained from the 3D model. Figure 22 and Figure 23 are for the lift axle up and down configurations, respectively, showing each axle placed over each of the marked points with the centerline of the truck centered on the gauge. As can be seen in the representative results shown, the 3D model is significantly conservatively overestimating the stresses, particularly for loads placed over the first cell of the culvert. It should be noted that the redundant sets of gauges generally produced similar results to one another.
|
From page 508... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐20 Figure 20 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 509... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐21 Figure 24 ‐ Load Case 10: Lift Axle Up and Axle 4 Truck Centerline over Marked Points (M2C1) ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 10, Gauges 1‐2 Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Model ‐15 ‐10 ‐5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 10, Gauges 5‐6 Gauge 5 Gauge 6 Model ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 10, Gauges 7‐8 Gauge 7 Gauge 8 Model
|
From page 510... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐22 Figure 25 ‐ Load Case 14: Lift Axle Down and Axle 4 Truck Centerline over Marked Points (M2C1) ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 14, Gauges 1‐2 Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Model ‐15 ‐10 ‐5 0 5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 14, Gauges 5‐6 Gauge 5 Gauge 6 Model ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 L Test 14, Gauges 7‐8 Gauge 7 Gauge 8 Model
|
From page 511... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐23 1.3 Calibration Summary – Model 3, Candidate 1 Model 3, Candidate 1 consists of a single‐cell precast concrete culvert located in Somerset County Pennsylvania and owned by PennDOT (Structure BRKEY 48389) . Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in the testing plan document. Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis)
|
From page 512... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐24 Figure 26 ‐ Culvert Plan View (Skewed)
|
From page 513... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐25 1.3.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 28 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 28 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model Calibration Results Comparisons between the field data stresses and displacements as compared to the 3D model predicted values are shown in Figure 33 through Figure 33 . In each of the graphs, the vertical axis represents either the stress (for strain gauge locations) or displacement (for string potentiometer locations)
|
From page 514... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐26 Figure 29 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 515... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐27 Figure 31 ‐ Load Truck Configuration for Phase 1 (lift axle up)
|
From page 516... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐28 Figure 33 ‐ Model 3 Results for Test 2 (Axle 3)
|
From page 517... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐29 Figure 34 ‐ Model 3 Results for Test 6 (Axle 3)
|
From page 518... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐30 1.4 Calibration Summary – Model 4, Candidate 1 Model 4, Candidate 1 consists of a three‐sided precast concrete arch culvert (CONSPAN‐type) located in the state of Ohio and owned by the Ohio DOT. Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis)
|
From page 519... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐31 Figure 35 ‐ Culvert Plan View Figure 36 ‐ Culvert Typical Section
|
From page 520... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐32 1.4.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 37 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 37 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model (M4C1) Calibration Results Comparisons between the field data stresses and displacements as compared to the 3D model predicted values are shown in Figure 41 through Figure 46. In each of the graphs, the vertical axis represents experimentally measured or modeled stress. The horizontal axis represents the load locations for each of the five load positions shown in Figure 38. For all gauge locations, see Figure 39. In the graphs, the dashed lines represent field‐collected data while the solid lines represent the results obtained from the 3D model. As can be seen, good agreement is seen in the axial gauges (1 & 2)
|
From page 521... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐33 Figure 38 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 522... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐34 Figure 40 ‐ Load Truck Configuration for Phase 1 (No lift axle)
|
From page 523... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐35 Figure 41 ‐ Load Test 4 (Gauges 1‐6) (: Axle 1 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 524... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐36 Figure 42 ‐ Load Test 4 (Gauges 7‐10) (: Axle 1 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 525... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐37 Figure 43 ‐ Load Test 5 (Gauges 1‐6) : Axle 2 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 526... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐38 Figure 44 ‐ Load Test 5 (Gauges 7‐10) : Axle 2 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 527... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐39 Figure 45 ‐ Load Test 6 (Gauges 1‐6) : Axle 3 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 528... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐40 Figure 46 ‐ Load Test 6 (Gauges 7‐10) : Axle 3 over Marked Points (Truck Centered)
|
From page 529... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐41 1.5 Calibration Summary – Model 5, Candidate 1 Model 5, Candidate 1 consists of a corrugated steel arch culvert with a span of 23 feet located in the Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania in a private housing development. Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis) of Model 5, Candidate 1 under the truck load that was used in the experimental program. The wheel line of the truck was first run over the line of gauges below. Next, the tests in each phase were also repeated for the case where the truck centerline coincided with the line of gauges. The table below summarizes the loading cases. Test Load Case Drop Axle Configuration Axle of Truck Placed on each Load Point*
|
From page 530... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐42 North Upstream Down stream Figure 47 ‐ Culvert Plan View Schematic (Skewed)
|
From page 531... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐43 1.5.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 49 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 49 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model (M5C1) Calibration Results The results shown in Figure 53 through Figure 54 are for the second series of test loadings for Model 5. The calibration for this model shows good agreement in the shape of the response curves for the various load points. Good agreement was obtained in the displacements between the 3D analyses and the field test results but as discussed herein, greater differences were observed in the stress value comparisons. Figure 50 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 532... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐44 Figure 51 ‐ Location of Strain Gages and String Potentiometers (M5C1) Figure 52 ‐ Load Truck Configuration (M5C1)
|
From page 533... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐45 Figure 53 ‐ Load Case 2: Gauges 1 and 3 (M5C1)
|
From page 534... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐46 Figure 54 ‐ Load Case 2: Gauges 5, 7, and 9 (M5C1)
|
From page 535... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐47 1.6 Calibration Summary – Model 6, Candidate 2 Model 6, Candidate 2 consists of a corrugated aluminum arch culvert Carroll Township, PA. Additional details of the testing plan and instrumentation can be found in Appendix F of this document. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis) of Model 6, Candidate 2 under the truck load that was used in the experimental program. The wheel line of the truck was run over the line of gauges below. Due to the heavy skew and the narrow roadway between guardrails, the load configuration with the centerline of the truck could not be included for this model. Furthermore, only the heavy rear axle could be located over each of the quarter‐point loading locations. For a culvert of such a short span, this is expected to be the controlling loading case. Due to the limited number of loadings to be applied in this single load case, the tests were repeated three times. Test Load Case Drop Axle Configuration Axle of Truck Placed on each Load Point*
|
From page 536... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐48 Figure 56 ‐ Culvert Typical Section (M6C2) 1.6.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 57 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 57 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model (M6C2)
|
From page 537... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐49 Figure 58 ‐ Location of Marks (Location of Axles for each Load Case)
|
From page 538... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐50 Figure 61 ‐ Load Case 1: Rear Wheel Placed Over Each Loading (Quarter) Point (M6C2)
|
From page 539... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐51 1.7 Calibration Summary – Model 7, Candidate 1 Model 7, Candidate 1 consists of a corrugated aluminum arch culvert in Attleboro, Massachusetts. Additional details of the field testing plan and instrumentation can be in Appendix F of this document. Multiple approaches were taken to determine the best course of modeling the structure in LUSAS and then using the selected approach to carry out the calibration effort. This effort and the lessons learned were then used to shape the approach used to model and calibrate the remaining corrugated metal culverts. A detailed overview of the modeling approach used in the 3D modeling of this culvert is provided following the results along with comparisons between the before and after paving conditions. Experimental Data is recorded and presented in forms of stresses and displacements. The location of the strain gages and the string potentiometers are depicted in Figure 62. The load configuration of the experimental truck is shown in Figure 63. Phase 1 is the truck configuration for the loading prior to paving and Phase 2 is the configuration for the loading after paving was completed. The calibration summary herein, presents the LUSAS results (3‐D finite element analysis) of Model 7, Candidate 1 under the truck load that was used in the experimental program. The wheel line of the truck was run over the line of gauges below. Because the culvert is composed of corrugated metal rib sections, the gauges were mounted in clusters to capture both the crest and the valley strains in the corrugations. Adjacent ribs were instrumented for redundancy. Figure 62 ‐ Location of Strain Gages and String Potentiometers (M7C1)
|
From page 540... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐52 1.8 Truck Wheel Load and Spacing Data Phase 1 Phase 2 Figure 63 ‐ Truck Loading Configurations for Phases 1 and 2
|
From page 541... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐53 Figure 64 ‐ Culvert Plan View Schematic with Gauge Cluster Locations (M7C1) Load Set 1 thru 7.
|
From page 542... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐54 Load Set 8 thru 15. Figure 65 ‐ M7C1 Schematics of Loading for Each Load Case
|
From page 543... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐55 1.8.1 3D LUSAS Model An isometric view of the 3D LUSAS model is shown in Figure 57 below. In general, the 3D models were developed using the parameters described in Appendix B of this document. Figure 66 ‐ Isometric View of 3D LUSAS Model (M7C1) Calibration Results Comparisons between the field data stresses and displacements as compared to the 3D model predicted values are shown in Figure 67 through Figure 81. A comparison between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 results follows in the next section. In each of the graphs, the vertical axis represents the stress at strain gauge locations. The horizontal axis represents the load locations for each of the load positions shown in Figure 65. For all gauge locations, see Figure 64in the graphs, the dashed lines represent field‐collected data while the solid lines represent the results obtained from the 3D model.
|
From page 544... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐56 Figure 67 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N1 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 1 thru 4 (Gage Cluster 5)
|
From page 545... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐57 Figure 69 – Results of Test 1‐N1 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 9 thru 12 (Gage Cluster 3)
|
From page 546... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐58 Figure 71 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N1 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 17 thru 20 (Gage Cluster 1)
|
From page 547... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐59 Figure 73 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N2 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 5 thru 8 (Gage Cluster 4)
|
From page 548... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐60 Figure 75 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N2 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 13 thru 16 (Gage Cluster 2)
|
From page 549... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐61 Figure 77 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N3 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 1 thru 4 (Gage Cluster 5)
|
From page 550... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐62 Figure 79 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N3 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 9 thru 12 (Gage Cluster 3)
|
From page 551... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐63 Figure 81 ‐ Results of Test 1‐N3 Culvert 7 (15 load‐cases) for Gages 17 thru 20 (Gage Cluster 1)
|
From page 552... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐64 1.9 Details on Model 7 Calibration This section documents the process used to model and calibrate Model 7, the long span corrugated metal culvert located in Attleboro, MA. Multiple approaches were taken to determine the best course of modeling the structure in LUSAS and then using the selected approach to carry out the calibration effort. This effort and the lessons learned were then used to shape the approach used to model and calibrate the remaining corrugated metal culverts. These modeling methods can also serve as a guide for further research in the 3D modeling of culverts using FEA. The experimental program for Culvert 7 consists of two main phases: Phase 1 loading the culvert prior to placement of the pavement; and Phase 2, loading the culvert after the pavement is placed. Each phase included three main sets of loading (Figure 82) : N1, with the center of truck over the center of culvert (and gages)
|
From page 553... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐65 Model 4 is similar to Model 3, except that E y is adjusted based on axial properties and E xy is adjusted based on flexural (warping) properties.
|
From page 554... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐66 The proposed approaches are used to create six culverts (without surrounding soil) . Each culvert is loaded with an axial and lateral force and the deformation and stresses at each culvert is compared (Figure 83)
|
From page 555... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐67 𝜎 𝑁 𝐴 𝑀𝑥 𝐼 where: 𝜎 stress along the direction of strain gages (strong axis) ; 𝑁 Axial force transferred in the direction of the strong axis (kip/in)
|
From page 556... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐68 Model 7 Results Before and After Paving Introduction Model 7 is a corrugated metal box culvert located in Attleboro, Massachusetts. The Research Team was able to coordinate with MASSDOT and the culvert contractor to instrument and test this culvert under construction with the intent that the effects of paving on the response of the culvert could be captured.
|
From page 557... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐69 Figure 86 ‐ Instrumentation Locations
|
From page 558... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐70 (a) Load Set 1 thru 7.
|
From page 559... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐71 Figure 88 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N1, Gauges 1‐4 (Cluster 5) Figure 89 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N1, Gauges 5‐8 (Cluster 4)
|
From page 560... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐72 Figure 90 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N1, Gauges 9‐12 (Cluster 3) Figure 91 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N1, Gauges 13‐16 (Cluster 2)
|
From page 561... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐73 Figure 92 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N1, Gauges 17‐20 (Cluster 1) Figure 93 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N2, Gauges 1‐4 (Cluster 5)
|
From page 562... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐74 Figure 94 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N2, Gauges 5‐8 (Cluster 4) Figure 95 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N2, Gauges 9‐2 (Cluster 3)
|
From page 563... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐75 Figure 96 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N2, Gauges 13‐16 (Cluster 1) Figure 97 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N2, Gauges 17‐20 (Cluster 1)
|
From page 564... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐76 Figure 98 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N3, Gauges 1‐4 (Cluster 5) Figure 99 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N3, Gauges 5‐8 (Cluster 4)
|
From page 565... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐77 Figure 100 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N3, Gauges 9‐12 (Cluster 3) Figure 101 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N3, Gauges 13‐16 (Cluster 2)
|
From page 566... ...
Appendix K – Calibration Information K‐78 Figure 102 ‐ Model 7 Before and After Paving: Test N3, Gauges 17‐20 (Cluster 1)
|
From page 567... ...
L‐1 Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR Comparisons Appendix L – LRFR/LFR Rating Comparisons in BrDR Using Caltrans Models This appendix provides a comparison of a select set of culverts provided by Caltrans in the software package AASHTOWare BrDR. The runs were made in Version 6.8.2 of the software.
|
From page 568... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐2 Naming convention for ‘Culvert Name' CX WWxHH; XX DDDD CS – single cell culvert CD – double cell culvert WW – cell width HH – Cell height XX – maximum fill height DDDD – culvert year For Example The culvert name "CS10x8;10 2002" Is a single cell culvert with a 10' cell width, 8' cell height; a maximum fill of 10' and was designed in 2002. Notes: ‐ In the tables on the following pages, the ratio represents the ratio of the LFR rating to the LRFR rating. In cases where the ratio is less than one (i.e. the LFR rating is less than the LRFR rating) the column is highlighted in red. ‐ The LFR ratings were performed with the HS20‐44 vehicle with a scale factor of 1.25
|
From page 569... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐3 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR 42 CS10x8;10 2002 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 570... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐4 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS10x8;8 1966 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 571... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐5 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS10x8;5 1952 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 572... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐6 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS10x8;5 1922 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 573... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐7 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS7x7;10 2010 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 574... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐8 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS4x4;10 2010 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 575... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐9 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD10x8;2 1966 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 576... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐10 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD10x8;9 1952 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 577... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐11 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD8x8;5 1933 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 578... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐12 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD8x8;10 1924 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 579... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐13 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS4x3;10 2010 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 580... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐14 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD4x3;10 2010 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 581... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐15 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD8x6;10 2010 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 582... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐16 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS4x3;10 2002 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 583... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐17 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS12x8;10 2002 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 584... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐18 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD6x4;10 2002 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 585... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐19 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD14x9;10 2002 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 586... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐20 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS4x3;28 1966 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 587... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐21 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS12x8;5 1966 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 588... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐22 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CD12x8;2 1966 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 589... ...
Appendix L – Caltrans Models‐LRFR‐LFR comparisons L‐23 ID Culvert Name LRFD Vehicle Fill Height (ft) LRFR Inv LRFR Oper LFR Vehicle HS20‐44 with a 1.25 factor LFR Inve LFR Opera Ratio Inventory LFR/LRFR Ratio Operating LFR/LRFR CS4x3;13 1952 HL‐93 (US)
|
From page 590... ...
Appendix M – 3D Culvert Approach M‐1 Appendix M – 3D Culvert Analysis Approach MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 2017 TO: Mark Mlynarski FROM: Thomas Murphy RE: NCHRP 15‐54 – 3D Culvert Analysis PN3471 This memo documents M&M's planned approach to modeling the 6 test culverts using three dimensional FEA. The intent is to communicate to the research team our approach, and resolve any concerns prior to beginning model development. Soil Constitutive Model: linearly‐elastic, perfectly‐plastic model with a Mohr‐Coulomb failure criterion for backfill soils and a linear‐elastic model for in‐situ soils o LUSAS Mohr‐Coulomb material model will be used for backfill soils. (See attached description) It is applicable where there is no volumetric strain during shear but allows volumetric plastic strain.
|
From page 591... ...
Appendix M – 3D Culvert Approach M‐2 Pavement Constitutive Model: assume pavement behaves in linear‐elastic fashion. elastic pavement properties based on material (concrete or asphalt) o Asphalt pavement modulus varies based on temperature and individual materials; values increase with decreased temperatures Range from 70 ksi to 434 ksi in (Little, Crockford, & Gaddam 1992)
|
From page 592... ...
Appendix M – 3D Culvert Approach M‐3 o Use isotropic material properties/elements for concrete and smooth metal culverts. For concrete, an effective moment of inertia will be utilized in those areas where preliminary analysis indicates cracking is likely. o Use orthotropic material properties/elements for corrugated metal and profile wall culverts. With orthotropic material properties, the bending stiffness in both directions will be correct, and the axial stiffness in one direction will be correct, but not in the other. This approach will be validated with a more detailed model. Culvert‐Soil Interface – The interface will not be explicitly modeled. Soil – use hexahedra solid elements to represent soil, using material properties from Selig. We will define different materials to be used throughout the depth of the trench to account for the variation in principal stress. Pavement – use solid elements to represent pavement o select reasonable values for required material properties o Use of solid elements will allow modeling of the load spreading through the pavement in both horizontal directions. Refine mesh based on initial results; increase density in areas of large strains. Choice of linear or quadratic elements (mid‐side nodes) left to designer based on speed and accuracy of results. MODELING TECHNIQUES: Extents of soil to be included in analysis o The width of the model will be approximately 3 times the culvert span o Model full length of culvert o Include 2×culvert rise of soil under bottom of trench surface where culvert is placed, may reduce to 1×culvert rise due to load spreading through the pavement and soil above the culvert. Do not model stages of construction and back‐fill, but assume a soil density and in‐situ stress state. In‐situ stresses o Assumed based on depth of culvert and type of soils o Vertical pressure will depend on the material – take as γ×h where γ is the unit weight of the overburden soil and h is the depth to the location of interest. o Horizontal pressure will depend on the vertical pressure and Ko as well as the amount of water present. Ko can range from 0.3 to 1.1 depending on the type of soil. Will use one of the common equations for concrete culverts. Use of equations for metal culverts will have to be evaluated. A panel member asked how Ko is computed. In finite element analysis the lateral pressures develop as soil is placed in increments. The lateral pressures are variable as a function of the soil properties input by the user. This can result in some discrepancies from frame analysis results where specific lateral pressures are input. We will assess whether these discrepancies are acceptable or need to be addressed. γ ranges from 70‐150 lb/ft3 o accounted for using initial stress loadings Live loads o Wheel loads and areas need to be measured during field testing to be used in LUSAS
|
From page 593... ...
Appendix M – 3D Culvert Approach M‐4 o Wheel loads will be modeled using patch loads o Wheel loads will be marched across the structure in each analysis – use non‐linear analysis Nonlinear & Transient Analysis o We will not consider consolidation, or other time‐related effects. Support conditions o Restraints Horizontal restraint provided on vertical faces of soil Provide vertical restraint at bottom surface of model Restrain rotation about the X‐ (along direction of travel) and Y‐ (vertical)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.