ELASTIC PLASTIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SOIL-CULVERT INTERACTION By: Yahia E-A.Mohamedzein* & Jean Lou Chameau ** ABSTRACT: A finite element based methodology has been developed for the analysis of soil culvert interaction. ‘An elastic plastic work hardening cap soil model and a large deformation formulation are included in the computer program. ‘The possibility of yielding of the culvert is accounted for by using a Von ‘Mises yield criterion. The compaction and construction processes are also simulated. Predictions with this program agreed with experimental results. The i of using an elastic plastic cap soil model is demonstrated through the analyses of typical sol culver systems” Analyses are performed using the capas well as elastic soil models. Due to presence of shear failure (plastic deformation) of the soil, the Cap model is found to predict more accurately the response of soil culvert systems. 4. INTRODUCTION Culverts are used extensively as transverse drains for highways’ and railroads and in some cases as substitute to traditional highway bridges. The need for culverts in a developing country like Sudan is obvious, since the process of building infrastructural systems,such as modern, highway, is just started. The choice of buried culverts as a substitute for traditional highway bridges is specially attractive for economical and technical reasons. Culverts are ustially cheaper and require less advanced construction technology than the concrete or steel bridges. ‘The convenience of installation of culverts is also an advantage over the construction of concrete or steel bridges In early developments, culverts were usually made of corrugated steel or reinforced concrete, and were restricted to small sizes. In present practice the use of culverts has expanded to largertsizes, various shapes, and various materials, including corrugated steel, aluminum, reinforced concrete, clay and even fibre ass reinforced plastic. Culvert shapes include circular, elliptical, arch, pipe arch, bypass, and other irregular shapes. Culverts having rises as large as 15 m, spans of 20 m and buried as deep as 50 m, are not uncommon. For highways, culverts are usually buried 1 to 3 m below the road surface. Classical analytical methods have been developed for analysis of buried culverts. ‘They include Marston load distribution method [ 12 , 21 , 24 ], Spangler's lowa formula [24], ring compression theory [26], and closed form elastic methods [10, 11, 13, 20, 27]. All these methods have their limitations and do not adequately redict the performance of buried culverts uuse of their simplified assumptions. A review of the classical methods and their limitations is given by Mohamedzein (1989) and (1995) (16, 18] Recently, the advancement in numerical methods, especially the finite clement method, made it easier to analyze the whole soil culvert system without serious ‘geometrical approximation, and a number of special purpose finite element codes have been developed for the analysis and design of buried culverts: CANDE [11], SPIDA [23], KINLIN [13], SSTIP and NLSSIP [9], are examples of such codes. Although the application of the finite element method to the analysis of soil-culvert system is a vast improvement over the classical methods,the finite element modellers have encountered some difficulties in simulating basic features of the soil culvert response. Many of these difficulties are related to the nonlinear characteristics of the soil culvert system, * Building and Road Research Institue / University of Khartoum . Khartoum ** President, Golder Associates, Allania, Georgia, US.A (Also with the Department of Civil Engineering Georgia lastiuate of Technology, Allanta, Georgia, U.S.A.)including material, geometrical and construction-induced nonlinearities. Soils have limited shear and tensile resistances, and studies [4, 10, 25] have shown that the soil around a buried culvert is frequently subjected to shear or tensile failures, thus, resulting in additional loads onthe culvert. Therefore, the possibility of shear and tensile failures should be accounted for. Given the current state of soil modelling, the most suitable soil model to capture these features is an elastic plastic soil model. None of the existing finite clement codes has used an plastic soil model although some of them have employed hyperplastic soil models, thus limiting their applications to monotonic loading and situations where soil shear failure is not widely spread. The objective of this study is to contribute to the understanding of soil culvert interaction by incorporating in the analysis important aspects of this interaction previously overlooked. An elastic plastic constitutive model is used to present the stress strain relationship of the soil medium. The cap model [3] is selected because it is relatively simple and can model sands and clays as well. The use of the elastic plastic constitutive law enhances the simulation of construction sequences and compaction loads. Perhaps, the main advantage in this respect is the simulation of compaction loads as transient loads (i.e, loading/unloading process). ‘The concentrated compaction loads are represented by equivalent line loads. Furthermore, a finite strain formulat used to account for large buc! deformations, and hence a better prediction of load deflection history and buckling or collapse loads is achieved. For flexible metal culverts, yielding of the culvert wall is accounted for by using a Von Mises yield criterion. Also, close monitoring of relative movement between the soil and the culvert is provided through the use of interface elements. Following a comparison to a case study. typical performance of scil-culvert system is presented with regards to the effect of soil model on the performance of the soil-culvent system. The effects of other important factors such as buckling and Jarge deformation on the performance of soil culvert systems was reported earlier {17h 2. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION Figure 2 shows a typical finite clement mesh used in this study. This mesh is the same as the mesh used in the computer code CANDE [11], however, different elements are used here. The elements used in this study are higher order isoparametric element because they are found to be efficient in nonlinear analysis [2]. In this study, three-node isoparametric beam clements are used to represent the culvert and 8-node quadrilateral elements are used to represent the soil. Each beam element has 9 degrees of freedom: 3 at each node e.g. longitudinal and normal displacements and a rotation. Each quadrilateral element has 16 degrees of freedom; two at each node, i.¢. horizontal and vertical displacements. The general formulations of the beam and the quadrilateral elements are described elsewhere [2] and the explicit formulations for plane strain case are given by Mohamedzein (1989)[18]. 3.IMPLEMENTATION The formulation presented herein has been implemented into a plane strain finite element program for analysis of soil-structure interaction problems with special emphasis on soil-culvert systems [18]. Figure 1 shows a flow chari of the program. The computer program has options for analysis of other soil structure interaction problems such as beam on elastic foundation, piles and retaining walls. The computer program can also be specialized for the analysis of structural members (c.g. frames, beams, arches and struts). Likewise the program can be used for the analysis of continuum media such as slopes. The program has been developed on IBM 3090 Mainframe computer. A recent version of the program has been developed for use in personal computers [19]. The program has the following featuresand capabilities: (1) A soil library which includes the cap, elastic-perfectly plastic with Drucker-Prager failure surface, Duncan-Chang, modified Duncan, variable elastic modulus, and linear clastic soil models, (2) Large deformation formulation to account for the effects of large strains associated with failure of soil-culvert systems, (3) Simulation of both construction sequences and compaction loads, (4) Yielding of the culvert wall modelled by a Von Mises yield criteria, (5) Interface elements to simulate the interaction between the culvert and the soil, (6) Trench and embankment installations simulated; mesh is automatically generated based upon the dimensions of the culvert, and (7) The modified Newton with Aitken acceleration scheme or the BFGS iteration methods to solve for equilibrium equations. The construction sequences are simulated as follows: At the start, the soil-culvert system consists of the culvert and the foundation soil; every time a new soil layer is placed, new élements are added to the existing elements and the system response is solved for, and the accumulated response is stored. The weight of the soil on each new layer is modeled as a uniform pressure at the top of that layer. The 3-dimensional compaction loads are represented by equivalent line loads which will produce the same vertical stresses at the nearest point in the soil-culvert interface. The equivalent line loads are found from Boussinesq theory. For a given ‘compaction layers, the uncomipacted, loose soil properties are used when compaction loads are applied and the compacted soil properties are used upon the removal of the compaction loads, and for the subsequent leadings. 4, CASE STUDIES: 4.1 Laboratory Model (Hoeg, 1968). The laboratory study conducted by Hoeg in 1968 is one of the best documented case study currently available to which the prediction capabilities of the present model can be compared. The study did not only show the fundamental response of buried culverts but also used a back fill (e.g. Ottawa sand) for which the elastic plastic parameters have been extensively reported in the literature (e.g. [JS/{15). In the following a brief description of the testing program is given. Details of testing equipments and testing procedures are reported by Hoeg (1968)[ 10]. A. steel bin of approximately 90 em (35.Sinches) inside diameter and a height of 71 cm (28 inches) was used for the experimental investigation (see Figure 3). Steel cylinders (culverts) with an outside diameter of 11.4 cm (4.5 inches), a length of 90 cm (35.5 inches) and a variable thickness were tested. The cylinders were buried 32 cm (12.5 inches) from the bottom of the bin and under a variable depth of soil cover. The backfill used was uniform Ottawa sand, consisting of round quar particles (retained between number 20and number 30 sieves). Four test series were performed, however, in this section only Test # 2 and Test # 3 will be discussed. In Test #2 2.85 mm (0.1125 inches) thick cylinder was buried under a 11.50m (4.5 inches) soil cover above the crown ( the crown is the highest point in the culvert) and a 1050 kPa (150 psi) surface pressure was applied. Test #3 was the same as Test #2 except that a 1.43 mm (0.05625 inches) thick cylinder was used. In the present analysis the culvert is assumed linear elastic with a Young modulus of 210X10° kPa (30X10° psi) and a Poisson's ratio of 0.3. The elastic Young modulus of the soil is determined and the relation between the constrained modulus and the Young modulus is tabulated as a function of the applied pressure as shown in Table 1. The Poisson's ratio of the soil is assumed to be constant and equal to 0.35. Alternatively, the nonlinear elastic parameters are estimated from published parameters for the modified Duncan model (see Table 2). The cap parameters are also shown in Table 2 and are adopted from the previously published data (e.g. [1 },[15)). ‘Test # 2 was analyzed three times: first using a variable elastic Young modulus, secondly, using the modified Duncan 48 Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL January 1997 Vol. 43, No.3)‘model, and thirdly, using a cap model with a variable clastic Young modulus. The results of the analyses are compared to the test results as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows the change in the vertical diameter as a function of the applied surface pressure. The results of the elastic-plastic analysis agrees better with the test results than the results of the clastic analyses. This is mainly due to the plastic ‘compaction of the soil. Figure 5 shows the change in the horizontal diameter as a function of the applied surface pressure. Again, the figure 10Ws the excellent agreement between the elastic-plastic analysis and the test results. Test #3 was analyzed three times using a variable elastic Young modulus, the modified Duncan model, and a cap model with a variable elastic Young modulus. Although the results of the analyses are not shown here, good agreement was obtained between the cap model and the laboratory measurements [18]. The agreement was even better for the predicted horizontal deflections. It was also seen that both the variable modulus and the modified Duncan models predicted stiffer response. In summary, the results of the elastic plastic analysis agrees better with the experiments. The elastic analyses give responses which are generally small. The main difference between the results of the elastic and the elastic-plastic analyses is due to the plastic compaction of the soil, which is simulated very well by the elastic-plastic analysis. 42 Field Culvert (Duncan and Jeyapalan 1982) The field measurements of the Tice Valley culvert were documented by Dunean and Jeyapalan (1982). [6]. The culvertis a long span aluminum structure with span and rise of about 7.62 and 3.66 m (25 and 12 ft), respectively (Figure 6). The culvert is constructed of aluminum structural plates 3.81 mm (0.15 inches) in thickness and has aluminum bulb angle stiffener ribs of 686 mm (27 inches) spacing across the crown. The backfill was a sandy clay compacted to a minimum Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, Janua 1997 Vol. 43, No.4 density of 95% of the maximum dr density by the Standard AASHT! ‘Compaction Test. It was placed in 031 m (1 fi) thick lifts and compacted with a 73.4 KN (16500 |b) bulldozer and a 15.58 KN (3500 Ib) vibratory roller. The final soil cover was 1.22 m (4.0 ft) above the crown. Deflection gauges were used to measure the change in the span and the change in the rise. Measurements were made before and after compaction As the properties of the backfill are not available to develop the cap parameters, an elastic-perfectly plastic model is used to. represent the soil. A modified Duncan model is used for the elastic part. The soil parameters are given in Table 3. The elastic parameiers were used previously [22]. The parameters needed for the Drucker Prager surface are computed from the shear strength parameters (ie. C , ) The minimum operating distance between the culvert and compaction equipment in the field was 0.457 m (1.5 ft). The dynamic thrust of the roller is modeled as twice the static weight [22]. Figures 7 and 8 show the resulis of the analysis together with the field measurements and the results reported by seed and Duncan (1986)[22]. For both the changes in the rise and span versus fill height (Figures 7 and 8, respectively), the predictions made with the approach proposed herein for compaction loads agree fairly well with the Seed and Duncan results and the actual measurements. The agreement is better for the change in span than for the change in rise. The finite element analyses underestimate the maximum peaking (i.e. elongation in vertical diameter) observed in the field. As will be shown in the following section, the cap model gives higher peaking than the modified Duncan and elastic-perfecily plastic models. Thus, the finite element results could be improved further if the clastic plastic cap model is used. 5. EFFECT OF SOIL SHEAR FAILURE Culverts (specially flexible culverts) depend on the surrounding soil to carry the 19)applied loads and to provide sufficient lateral support. Thus, accurate modelling of the soil is very important for reliable analysis of flexible buried culverts. A previous study [14] has shown that different linear and non linear elastic soil models used in the analysis of buried culyeris produce inconsistent culvert responses. In the present study different nonlinear elastic and elastic plastic models are investigated: e.g. Duncan Chang or Modified Duncan non linear elastic model (7) 48); and the non linear elastic plastic cap model [3]. The characteristics of the problems analyzed are given in Table 4. They represent a practical range of culveit flexibility, culvert size, culvert type and culvert material. The results of the second problem [a3 m (10 fi) diameter steel culvert buriéd under a 9.2 m (30 ft)] of dense sand) will be discussed in this presentation. This problem is considered more practical than the other case. Detailed discussions of all cases is given by Mohamedzein (1989){18} The soil used for the second problem is a dense Ottawa sand and is represented by acap model with the nonlinear elastic part represented by the modified Duncan model. The parameters for this sand are listed in Table 2, and are estimated from published data [1] {5}[15}. ‘The resulis of the analysis are presented in Figures 9 to 12. Figure 9 shows the percentage change in vertical diameter as a function of fill height above the spring line (the spring line is a point on the surface of the culvert at the mid-height of the culvert), The figure shows that, the difference in the maximum peakings predicted by the cap and modified Duncan models is significant. The cap model shows shear failure of about 10 soil elements near the spring line. This soil shear failure produces lateral movement of soil, thus resulting in additional peaking of the culvert. This emphasize the important of modelling soil movement during its placement around the culvertand the need to have a soil model that can represent shear failure (e.g. cap model). Figure 10 shows the deflected shape of the culvert when the fill height is 10 m (30 ft) above the spring line. ‘The differences between the predictions of the two models are significant especially in the upper half of the culvert. The deflected shape is not elliptical and that of the cap shows local bucking at the shoulders (shoulders are the locations between the crown, i.e. the highest tpoint on the culvert, and the spring line). Thus. the Spangler's lowa formula which is based on the assumption of elliptical deformations is not suitable for this type of culvert. The distribution of bending moment is shown in Figure 11. The trends are in fair agreement, however, the magnitudes are very different at some locations, with difference of 70% at the crown and more than 100% near the spring line. The difference is a direct reflection of the difference in deformation patterns especially near the spring line (Figure 10). ‘The maximum positive momentis at the shoulders and has a magnitude of 0.6 and 0.7 m-kNim (138 and 148 in-Ib/in) for the cap and modified Duncan models, respeciively. The maximum negative moment is at the crown with respective magnitudes of 0.5 and 0.3 m-kN/m (110 and 66 in-Ib/in) for the cap and modified Duncan models. Both models gave a negligible moment for the lower half of the culvert. istributions of the thrust show ences (Figure 12). The same results were observed previously [13]. It appears that the thrust depends only on the height of soil cover and the size of the culvert. Table 5 lists the key features of the responses of the two soil-culvert systems analyzed above. The most important aspects of this parametric study can be summarized as follows: 1- If a number of soil elements fail in shear, the use of the Duncan - Chang model (or modified Duncan or any other elastic soil model) will not accurately predict the culvert response. Similarly, if the soil elements become normally consolidated (i.e. the stress path rea ches the cap surface), both the Dunean-Chang or elastic perfectly ‘20 Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1997 Vol. 43, No.34 (20 dan gineering Society JOURNAL, Tanna 1997 Vol, 45, NO33)models will not accurately predict the culvert response. 2- The differences between the predictions of the plasticity and elasticity based models are significant for the cases analyzed in this study: (a) a medium size flexible culvert buried in a dense soil (e.g: problem No. 2), and (b) a flexible culvert of small size buried in a loose soil (e.¢., problem No. 1). The first case represents a type of culverts commonly used in practice, and the second case has applications in buried plastic pipes. 3- Buried culverts perform their intended functions as beam column type system. ‘Thus, it was found that the use of different soil models may produce similar results for some of the culvert response, and totally different results for other aspects. The deflections and bending moments are most sensitive to the choice of the soil models, however, the soil modei has only a modest effect on the thrust. 6. CONCLUSIONS A finite element model for elastic plastic large deformation analysis of soil culvert system was presented. Analyses of typical buried culverts have shown that soil culvert systems are often characterized by plastic deformation of soil. The cap model captured this type of behaviour, The difference between the predictions of the cap and.other models is significant for the types of buried culveris analyzed in this study: (a) long span flexible culverts buried in dense soils, and (b) flexible culverts of smaller size buried in loose soils. Both cases have practical applications in buried culverts and pipes. REFERENCE [1]. Baladi, G.-Y, and Sandler, 1.S. (1980), " Examples of the Use of the Cap Model for Simulating the Stress-Strain behavior of Soils" Proc. Workshop on Limit Equil, Plast. & Gener. Stress Strain in Geotech. Engre., McGill Univ., Canada, pp 64-710, judan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1997 Vol, 43, No34 21 [2]. Bathe, K. J, (1982), *Finite Element Procedures in engineering analysis". Prentice Halll Inc. (3). Chen, W.F., and Balade, G.Y, (1985), Soil Plasticity: theory and Implementation" Elsevier Science Publishers, [4]. Dessouki, A.K., and Monforton, G.R. (1986), " Effect of Soil Failure on Soil-Steel Structures". J. Geot, Engrg. Div., ASCE, Vol.112, No.GTS, pp. 527-335. {5}. Dunean, J.M. (1980), "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Relationships" Proc. Workshop on Limit Equilibrium, Plasticity and Generalized Stress-Strain in Geotechnical Engineering, McGill Univ., Canada, pp 43-460, Duncan, J. M., and Jeyapalan, J.K. (1982), "Deflection of Flexible Culverts due to Backfill Compaction". Transportation Research Couneit, Washington D. C. |. Duncan, J.M, and Chang, C-Y. (1970), " Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils’ 3. Soil Mech. & Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 96,No. SMS, Sep. 1970. {8}. Duncan, JM. Byme, P., Wong, KS., and Mabry, P. (1978), " Suength, Stress-Surain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses" Report No UCBIGT/78-02, Univ. of Califomia, Berkeley, April, 1978. Duncan, M.Seed,R.B. and Drawsky.RH. (1985), "Design of Corrugated Metal Box Culverts". Transportation Research Record 1008,TRB, NRC, Washington D.C.,pp. 3341, [10], Hoeg,K. (1968), "Stresses Against ‘Underground Structural Cylinder’ J. Soil Mech. & Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, Vol.94, NoSM4, pp. 833-858, U1]. Katena, MG., Smith, .M.Odello.R S..a nd Allgood, FR.,"CANDE-A Modern Approach for Structural Design and Analysis of Buried Culverts". Engineering Report,User Manual, System Manual, Reports FHWA- RD-77-5, 71-6, 77-7. U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Port Hueneme, Cal, 1976. [12}. Kellogg, C. G, (1993)," Vertical Earth Loads on Buried Engineering Works". J Gcotech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 119, No, 3, pp. 487 506, (6) 7 9) oe13}. U4). fis]. (6). o71. 18] [19], Leonards,G.A.,and Roy,M.B. (1976), "Predicting Performance of Pipe Culverts Buried in Soil ", Report JHRP-76-15. Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayetle, Ind, May. Leonards, G.A.; Juang, CH: Wu, T. H., and Stetkar, R-E. (1985), "Predicting Performance of Buried Metal Conduits’. Transportation Research Record 1008,TRB, NRC, Washington DC. pp.42-52 10, E,, and Chen, W.F. (1980), icity’ Models for Soils" Proc Workshop on Limit Equilibrium, Plasticity and Generalized Stress-Strain tn Geotechnical Engineering, McGill Univ, Canada, 1980, pp 553 Mohamedzein, Y, E-A. 1 é Classical Analytical Methods for Buried Culverts”. J. Building and Road Research Institute, University of Khartoum, Dee. 1995 Mohamedzein, Y. E-A. (1992), " Predicting the Performance Limits of Soil-Culvert Systems", Proc, Sth, Conf. on Engrg. Mech., ASCE, College Station, Texas, pp. 908-911, Mohamedzein, Y. E-A., (1989) "Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Soil Culvert Interaction". A PhD Thesis Submitted to the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, US.A. Mohammed, M. G. (1995), " Finite Element Analysis of Short Piles in Expansive Soils", A MSc. Thesis Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Arch.. Univ. of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan. 2. ‘sudan Engineering Soc [20]. Moore, 1.D. (1987), * Response of Buried Cylinders to Surface loads". J. of Geotech. Div., ASCE, Vol.113, No.7, pp. 758-773. [21]. Poorooshasb, H. B. (1991), " An Analytical Reevaluation of Marston Theory of Earth Pressure on Buried Box “Structures”. J. Soils & Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 31,No. 4, pp. 1-12. (22). Seed,R.B.and DuncanJ.M., (1986), "FE. Analysis: Compaction-Induced ‘Stresses and Deformations". J. Geotech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 112, No.1, pp. 23-43. [23]. Selig, E-T., and Packard, D.L. (1986), "Buried Concrete Pipe Embankment Installation Analysis". J. Transportation Diy., ASCE, Vol. 112. No.6, pp 516-2. [24]. SpanglerM.G..and Handy,R.L. (1982), "Soil Engineering ". Harber and Row, Publication Co..New York. (25]. Valliappan, S.; Matsuzaki, K., and Rajasekar, H.L. (1977), " Nonlinear Stress Analysis of Buried Pipes". Intern. Symp. on Soil-Structure Interaction, Roorkie, India. [26]. White,H.L. and Layer,J.P. (1960), "The Corrugated Metal Conduit’ as a Compression Ring’. Highway Research Boatd Proceedings, Vol. 39, pp. 389-397, [27]. Zarghamee, M. (1986), " Buried Flexible Pipe with Non-Uniform Soil Support" J. Trans, Div,, ASCE, Vol.112, No.4, pp 40-415, JOURNAL, January 1957 Val, 43.START | READ weUI OXTA LOOP OVERALL WAD INCRE MENISke¢—— ALL INTEGRATION PO) COMPUTE EQUIALEN! APLIED NODAL LOADS) INTHE FIAST ITERATION ONLY COMPUTE LINEAR AND NON LINEAR SIRAIN— DISPLACE MEW! WAIAICES COMPUTE THE STRAINS SIRESS- SIAAIN RELATION MAT IZ, STRESSES AT THE 1 OM POINT | COMPUTE INE ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIX AMD LOAD VECIOR po ASSEMBLE IME BANOED sTAUCIUaAL SHFFMESS | ‘AND LOAD H | (COMPUTE THE QUI-OF-BALANCE LOADS AND DISPLACE-| MENT INCREMENTS. J <> t ——- i PRINT THE SYSTEM RESPONSE End Figure : 1 FLOW CHART FOR THE COMPUTER PROGRAM ‘Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1997 Vol. 4: 034 BFigure : 2 Mesh Uséd In Cande (After Katona et al, 1976) eprint Pa ow i ane ; Emo oy 2 0 ad 309 cr 80 1809 sPPLED PRESSURE, PL Figure : 4 Hoeg Teste2 : Predicted and Measured Change in Vertical Diameter vs. Pressure (1psi = 6.89kpa, in, = 25 Amm) (COANE NHORKONTAL OAMETER X04 24 ‘Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1997 Vol. 43, Figure: 3 Test Bin Used by Hoeg (1968) (1 in, = 25.4mm) Deon Oca ‘eal lao ol + Me Danza oe ioe aaa APRLED PRESSE, Pl Figure : § Hoeg Testé2 : Predicted and Mesoured Change in Horizontal Diameter vs. Pressure (psi = 6.89kpa, in.= 254mm)Sudan Engi Fo ALYMINUM BULB ANGLE (24 LONG) 23" SPACING iweote2 Bacxree son UNIFIED CLASSCATION CL Rev. coun +95% S12 AASHTO 0.80" ALUM STRUCTURAL PLATE Fig. 6. The Valley Cuiven(atter Duncan and 20. z 2 z oy 3 cae 8 oe. (© Present analysin {Seed and Duncan (1986) “Se 2 0 & woo To FL HEIGHT ABOVE SANG LNE. FT Figure :7 Tice Valley Culvert: Predicted and Measured Change 24 Texpatmecta © Protnt anaes 1. Seo ne Dunc 1586) oof ona] 29h ze oso 100 FLL HEGHT ABOVE SPRAG LNE, FT. Fla. Tee Vahey Caner Peaected end mansurea Ciange fn Span ve FH Haight (1 = 0208.18. =28 Aen 1997 Vol. 43, No3a” 25)eee vet ee Fe 10 Etat of Sak Modal (brotena2) Fla. 9. Etec of Sot Mocalproblame7, Grange ‘ttl Dien va Fag = 035m) SoC GLE FROM CMON. ca [ANGLE FROM CROWN, De. Fig tet ot Sot Metta ‘12: erme 98 Nomegrmnemezs capi sthebent: Dis ttin sie " oft Bing Monee. drm 18 = 448 N) ‘lhe fo (1k 25mm = 445 1) jrammememamenssan( 25 Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1997 V No34Table.| Hoeg Problem: Constraint and Young Moduli for Ottawa Sand ‘Axial | Constrained Young Stress (psi) | Modulus (psi) | Modulus (psi) @) (2) (3) 0-15 9400 5857 15-30 20000 12462 30-60 33000 20562 60-90 47000 29285, 90-120 60000 37385 Note: 1 psi = 6.89 kPa. ‘Table 2 Soll Parameters for Dense Ottawa Sand ‘Parameter Value ) (2) Non-linear Blastic (Mod. Dunean) © (psi) 0.5 # (des) 43% k 400 a 88 Re 86 Ke 700 Drucker-Prager Parameters ° 21 k (si) a4 Cap Parameters R 2.48 w 024 D (psi) 02 Note: 1 psi = 6.80 kPa, Sadan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 1907 Val, 43, Noa” 7Table3. Soil Parameters Used in the Analysis Tice Valley Culvert Parameter Value a @) Mod. Duncan Parameters © (psi) 2a 4 (deg) a3? ke 120 a 45 Re 7 Kp Unit Weight (pet) Ky 48 Note: 1 ps 6.80 kPa, 1 pet able. Effect of Sell Model: Probleme Analyzed Problem “No. No. 2 q@ @) &) ‘Culvert plastic steel material Soil type | loosesand | dense sand | Guivert 4 10 dia. (ft.) Flexibhivy G04 384 1 (psiy Te><10* BOscI0* 2 i 3 3 TC in*7in.) 0015, 0086 Note: 1 ft = 305 m, 1 in. — 24.6 mm, 1 pai — 6.80 ko 28 Sudan Engineering Society JOUBNAL, January 1997 Vol. 43, Nos)Table 5. Effect of Soil Model: Summary of the Culvert Response D=Duncan-Chang; MD=Modified Duncan C=Cap; PP=Elastic-Perfectly Plastic +M=max. tive bending moment; -M=max. -ive bending moment T=inax. thrust; AY=percentage change in vertical dia. = max. stresses within the soil. Fake) Tea! PNT yes Problem No. 1 No. 2 D |PpP]c |MD ] c U) (2); (3) | (4) | (5) | (8) +M 2 | 25 | 35 | 148 | 138 (in-Ib/in) -M “1h -17 -66 “Tt (in-Ib/in) ‘rT (Ib/in.) | 620 | 620 | 620 | 1570 | 1555 AY (%) ~.46 | -.36 | -.64 04 1.76 o,,, | 86 | 28 | 27 | so | 36 (Ib/in2) Dy ynune 31 32 31 54 45 (Ib/in?) Tm, | 65 | 63 | 69 | 184 | 6.2 (Ibfin2) Note: 1 in = 26.4 mm, 11b = 4.45 N, Ib/in.? (psi) = 6.89 kPa.