IRJET- Study & Improvement of Design and Construction Methodology of Precast Concrete Segmental

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

“STUDY & IMPROVEMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY OF PRECAST CONCRETE SEGMENTAL BOX CULVERT (PCSBC)” Pallavi Gadge1 Assistant Professor Apoorva Kitey2, 1M.Tech

Student (Structural Engg.), Department of Civil Engineering, G.N.I.T, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India 2 Guide, Department of Civil Engineering, G.N.I.T, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract - Bridges in today’s era play an important role in transportation and connecting the important points of the road. Sometimes due to typical topography and site conditions, it is important to provide the structures through rivers/nala, which avoids obstruction to natural flow of water; such structures are most popularly known as bridges and culverts depending on their span arrangements. The rate of flow through the river is an important factor in the design of major, minor bridges and culverts. The present study is based on the design of precast box culvert by considering total six alternative design modules using fixed and hinged end conditions at top and bottom slab of single & double box cell in order to arrive at the optimum design of components of box culvert.

repetitive construction elements. The process involves the casting of segmental box elements based on detail designs, curing in the casting yard, transporting the precast segments to the various construction sites, lifting and launching the segments and assembling in place at site. Connecting and jointing various elements together properly by cross prestressing if required and completing other components such as cut off walls, aprons, quadrant pitching, railing approaches etc.

Precast concrete box culvert segments can be manufactured in the yard and delivered captive or commercially as a finished section of required shape and modules as per designs and standards of construction. If the length and internal size of box cell is more, then it poses problem in hauling, lighting and placing. It is therefore essential to evolve various shapes and joints so that these sections can be easily transported and assembled at work sites. Various types of segments are tried and alternative designs are worked out by changing the end condition and shapes of the segments.

Key Words: Box Culvert, discharge, design modules, optimum section, economy.

1. INTRODUCTION It is observed that the construction of small culverts and minor bridges involve large scale planning, diversion roads, labour mobilization and machinery transport from one place to other. The number of these structures to be constructed for particular stretch of road project is alarming in comparison to major structures such as major bridges, grade separator, Rail over bridges, tunnel etc.

The quantity of construction material and process involved in comparatively less however shifting of material, machinery, formwork from one place to another consumes sizeable time and expenditure. More over at each location of construction, the diversion roads are to be provided for duration of construction of such structure which is again costly and hazardous from safety point of view. Repetitive diversion roads also result in to inconvenience to moving traffic for entire period of construction. It is therefore essential to minimize the period of construction, avoid repetitive transportation of labour, material and machinery from place to place and improve quality control on construction. Precast concrete segmental box culverts are one of the most versatile, cost effective, time saving and quality construction process for such type of

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Following alternative segments with joints at alternative location are tried. Structural designs are carried out for each type of segment with various end condition as under.

[1] Single box cell with all rigid joint.

[2] Single box cell with bottom slab and detached inverted U-section of top slab & side walls with hinge joint at bottom.

[3] Single box cell with top slab and detached U-section of bottom slab & side walls with hinge joint at top.

[4] Double box cell with all rigid joint.

[5] Double box cell with bottom slab and detached inverted U-section of top slab & side walls with hinge joint at bottom.

[6] Double box cell with top slab and detached U-section of bottom slab & side walls with hinge joint at top.

[7]

2. CASE STUDY Following parameters are used for designing of box cell with end conditions.

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 116

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

[1] Span Arrangement - Single cell – 1x5.0mx4.0m & Double Cell – 2x2.5mx4.0m [2] Total width of structure – 12.0m [3] Carriageway width – 11.0m [4] Width of Crash barrier – 0.50m [5] Thickness of wearing coat –65mm (40mm Bituminous Concrete + 25mm Mastic Asphalt) [6] Coefficient of earth pressure – 0.50 [7] Grade of concrete – M30 [8] Grade of steel – Fe500 Section properties – The centerlines of top slab, side walls and bottom slab are used for computing section properties and for dimensional analysis.

Standard fillets which are not required for moment or shear or both shall not be considered in computing section properties.

[9] Modules of subgrade reaction – Box Culvert is modeled and analysed in STAAD Pro software as a 3D model. Bottom slab is divided into equal parts and spring support is provided at base of slab and soil spring stiffness is provided as per “Foundation Analysis and Design” by Joseph E.Bowles.

Ks = 40 x SF x qo Where, SF = Factor of safety = 2.50, qo= Safe bearing capacity of soil

[12]

sat

P2

Ht. of Submergence

P4

sub

P3

P1

Inside water pressure

Saturated earth pressure

P5

Pore water pressure

Submerged earth pressure

BOX CELL Pa

Pa

X

Fig.3- Earth Pressure at side wall in Partially Submerged condition [13]

Fig.1-Modules of sub grade reaction & spring stiffness

Live Loads – For analysis of 3D model, wheel loads are taken. The following live loads are considered for the design.

Case I - IRC Class A-1 Lane + Class 70R – wheeled vehicle Case II - IRC Class A-3 Lanes As per IRC: 112:2011, the dispersion of loads through fills and wearing coat shall be assumed at 45 degree both along transverse and longitudinal direction. Length of dispersion of load is calculated by equation, wtd = B+2(Dd + t) Where, wtd = Length of dispersion B = Tire contact length D = Top slab thickness t = Fill over slab including wearing coat

[10]

Dead Loads - The design loading for the box cell has been considered in accordance with IRC: 6 -2016 (Loads and Stresses), so as to sustain the most critical combinations of various loads, forces and stress.

Total dead load includes self-weight, weight of wearing coat and crash barrier.

[11] Live Load Surcharge - As per IRC 6:2016, clause 214.1.1.3, live load surcharge at a height of 1.2 m is considered. The live load surcharge is considered at both sides of box for maximum bending moments.

Where,

Earth Pressure Loads –For calculating the earth pressure on side walls, five soil conditions are used which are as under.

Moist condition, Dry condition, Saturated condition, Submerged condition and Partially submerged condition.

= Coefficient of earth pressure

As per IRC:6-2016/ Table no. B.2, three combinations are used i.e. Basic, Rare & Quasi combination. Basic Combination is used for verification of structural strength whereas, Rare & Quasi Combination are used for verification of serviceability of limit state.

3. OPTIMUM SECTIONS Fig.2-Live load surcharge at both sides On the basis of software analysis & above design considerations, optimum sections of box cell with various end conditions are as given in table 1.

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 117

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Traffic Direction 1.000

0.150 1.800 W5 5.7T W3 5.7T

Sr. 5.500 No. Eff. Span

2.790 1.930

0.500 Table: 1- Optimum section of box culvert W6 5.7T W11 8.5T W12 8.5T 1.200 Thickness of section (m) W4 5.7T 1.370 Type of box Top Bottom Side Wall 0.500 W9 8.5T W10 8.5T cell with end Slab Slab / Middle conditions 3.200 wall 2.130 0.550

0.250

1.200

Single 0.150 box cell W7 6.0T 0.610 W8 6.0T 0.200 1 with all rigid 0.40 0.50 0.25 W1 1.35T W2 1.35T 0.550 0.860 joint.

1.000 Single Class A box cell Class 70R 2 Fig.4- IRC with 0.40vehicle at Mid 0.55 0.25 Class A-1 Lanehinge + Class 70R - wheeled Span As per IRC:6-2016/joint Table no.at B.2,bottom. three combinations are used i.e. Basic, Rare & Quasi combination. Basic Combination Single is used for verification of structuralbox strengthcell whereas, Rare & Quasi Combination are used for verification of serviceability of limit state. with with 3 0.45 0.40 0.25 hinge joint at 3. OPTIMUM SECTIONS: top.

On the basis of software analysis & above design considerations, optimum sections of box cell with various end conditions Double box cell are as given in table 1.

4 with all Table: rigid 0.20 0.25 0.15 1- Optimum section of box culvert joint.

Thickness of section (m) Double box cell Sr. Top Bottom Side with Type of boxwith cell with end conditions 0.30 0.25 0.15Slab No. 5 Slab Wall/Middle hinge joint at wall bottom.

1 Single box cell with all rigidbox joint. cell 0.40 0.50 0.25 Double 6 with hinge 0.35 0.25 0.15 2 Single box cell with bottom slab and detached inverted U-section of top slab & 0.40 0.55 0.25 joint side walls with hinge at jointtop. at bottom.

3 Single box cell with top slab and detached U-section of bottom slab & side walls 0.45 hinge joint at top. & INTERPRETATION 4.withRESULT 4 Double box cell with all rigid joint.

0.20

0.40

0.25

0.25

0.15

comparison to other type of box cell. Plate shear stress on X-face in top slab is maximum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at top and in bottom slab is found to be maximum in single box cell with hinge joint at top.

Moreover, shear Fig. 6 shows stress the variation ofon shearY-face force of all components culvert.is It hasfound been observed Maximum Plate in topof box slab tothatbe shear force values of top and bottom slab in single box cell with all rigid joint type are maximum in comparison to other maximum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at type of box cell. Plate shear stress on X-face in top slab is maximum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at top and top and is cell maximum inPlate double box in bottom slab is in foundbottom to be maximumslab in single box with hinge joint at top. shear stress on Y-facecell in top slab is with hinge joint at bottom. found to be maximum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at top and in bottom slab is maximum in double box cell with hinge joint at bottom.

800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 Top Slab 300.00 Side Wall 200.00 100.00 Bottom Slab Moreover, 0.00 Fig. 6 shows the variation of shear force of all components of box culvert. It has been observed that Maximum shear force values of top and bottom slab in single box cell with all rigid joint type are maximum in comparison to other Wall joint at top and SBC with all SBC with hinge SBC with hinge DBC with all DBC with DBC with type of box cell. Plate shear stress on X-face in top slab is maximum in case of double box cellMiddle with hinge rigidis joint at joint at topbox rigid joint hinge hingejoint jointatattop.hinge at stress on Y-face in top slab is in bottom slab found to bejoint maximum in single cell with Platejoint shear found to be maximum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at top and in bottom bottom bottom topslab is maximum in double box cell with hinge joint at bottom.

800.00 MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE 700.00 600.00 500.00 Fig.6- Comparative shear force of optimum section of box cell with end conditions 400.00 Top Slab 300.00 Fig. 7 shows the variation of principal stress in the optimum section of box cell, it has been Side observed that that principal Wall 200.00 stresses at top, are minimum at 100.00 is maximum in top & bottom slab in Single box cell & double box cell when hinge joint Bottom Slab top 0.00 slab of single box cell with all rigid joint.

Middle Wall SBC with all SBC with hinge SBC with hinge DBC with all DBC with DBC with joint at joint at top rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at 20.00 rigid joint bottom bottom top

Fig.5- Comparative shear force of optimum section of box cell with end conditions

Fig. 6 shows the variation of principal stress in the optimum section of box cell, it has been observed that 15.00 MAXIMUM FORCE that principal stresses isSHEAR maximum in top slab in Single 10.00 cell &Fig.6Top Slab box double box cellof optimum when hinge at top, and Comparative shear force section of box celljoint with end conditions Fig. 7 shows the variation of principal stress insingle the optimumbox sectioncell of boxwith cell, it hasall beenrigid observed joint. that that principal minimum at top slab of Side Wall 5.00 stresses is maximum in top & bottom slab in Single box cell & double box cell when hinge joint at top, are minimum at top slab of single box cell with all rigid joint.

Bottom Slab

0.00

has outof top byslabchoosing suitable 0.15 5 The Doubleanalysis box cell with bottom slab been and detachedcarried inverted U-section & 0.30 0.25 side walls with hinge joint at bottom.such as maximum bending moment, resultant actions 6 shear Double boxforce cell with bottom and detached inverted U-section of top 0.35 alternative 0.25 0.15 andslabprincipal stressed inslaball& the side walls withchosen hinge joint at bottom. designs so far. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the

20.00 15.00 10.00

SBC with all SBC with SBC with DBC with all DBC with DBC with rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at bottom top bottom top

5.00

bending moment in all six alternative designs considered RESULT INTERPRETATION: so&far.

It has been observed that the values of the design bending moment in top and bottom slab is found to The analysis has been carried out by chosing suitable resultant actions such as maximum bending moment, shear force and increase in case of single box cell with various end principal stressed in all the alternative designs chosen so far. Fig. 5 shows the variation of the beanding moment in all six conditions case with alternative design consideredand so far. Itdecrease has been observed in that the values ofofthedouble design bendingbox momentcell in top and bottom slab is all foundrigid to increasejoint. in case of single box cell with various end conditions.

Middle Wall Top Slab Side Wall

SMAX N/mm2

Bottom Slab SBC with allFig.7SBCComparative with SBCmaximum with DBCprincipal with all stress DBC of with DBCsection with of boxMiddle optimum cell with Wallend conditions rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at Lastly an analysis has been carried out intoporder to compare the cost of each design bottom bottom top unit considering all the stresses all the 0.00

practical aspects such as handling, transportation and erection. It has been found that cost is least in case of double box cell SMAX N/mm2 with hinge joint at top and bottom. Fig. 8 shows the cost comparison of various alternatives considered so far.

Fig.7- Comparative maximum principal stress of optimum section of box cell with end conditions Lastly an analysis has been carried out in order to compare the cost of each design unit considering all the stresses all the practicalFig.6aspects suchComparative as handling, transportationmaximum and erection. It has been found that cost stress is least in case principal ofof double box cell 25.00 with hinge joint at top and bottom. Fig. 8 shows the cost comparison of various alternatives considered so far.

optimum section of box cell with end conditions 20.00

600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00

25.00

15.00 Lastly 20.00 an analysis has been carried out in order to 10.00the cost of each design unit consideringCost 15.00 in Lakh compare all the 10.00 Cost in Lakh 5.00 all the practical aspects such as handling, stresses, 5.00 0.00 transportation and erection. It has been found that 0.00 SBC with withcost all SBC SBCis withleast SBC with with DBC with with all allof DBC DBC with DBC DBCbox with cell with SBC all with SBC DBC with with transportation in case double rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at hinge joint at topbottom and bottom.

Fig.bottom 7 shows the cost top top bottom top bottom top comparisonFig.12of various alternatives so far.

Comparative costing optimum section ofconsidered box cell with end conditions

Top Slab Side Wall SBC with all SBC with SBC with DBC with all DBC with DBC with rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at bottom top bottom top

Bottom Slab Middle Wall

4. CONCLUSION:

The main objectives of this paper is to compare various modules, establish the various end conditions by providing joints at different location and minimize the handling & transpiration cost and to arrive at the economical and practical precast The mainforobjectives of this paperatissites. to compare various establish the various endSTAAD conditions providing element ease of construction Modeling and modules, analysis has been done by using Pro by software.

So joints from analysis andlocation design we at different andconcluded minimizethat, the handling & transpiration cost and to arrive at the economical and practical precast 1. Double box cell with all rigid joint is one of the most economical module. element for and easetransportation of constructioncostatwill sites.beModeling analysis has been donewith by hinge using joint STAAD Pro software. from 2.

Handling minimumand in case of double box cell at bottom as well asSodouble analysis and design we concluded box cell with hinge joint at top. that,

Fig.4- Comparative bending moment of optimum section of box cell with end conditions Fig.5- Comparative bending moment of optimum section of box cell with end conditions

Moreover, Fig. 5 shows the variation of shear force of all components of box culvert. It has been observed that Maximum shear force values of top and bottom slab in single box cell with all rigid joint type are maximum in

Š 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Fig.12- Comparative costing optimum section of box cell with end conditions

4. CONCLUSION:

MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT

1. Double box cell with all rigid joint is one of the most economical module.

2. Handling and transportation cost will be minimum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at bottom as well as double box cell with hinge joint at top.

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 118

Bottom Slab

0.00 SBC with all SBC with SBC with DBC with all DBC with DBC with rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at bottom top bottom top

Middle Wall

SMAX N/mm2

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

Fig.7- Comparative maximum principal stress of optimum section of box cell with end conditions Volume: 2019 www.irjet.net Lastly an analysis has been carried out 06 in orderIssue: to compare 05 the cost| ofMay each design unit considering all the stresses all the practical aspects such as handling, transportation and erection. It has been found that cost is least in case of double box cell with hinge joint at top and bottom. Fig. 8 shows the cost comparison of various alternatives considered so far.

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

methods”, International Journal of Engineering & Science Research, Vol-5, Issue-7, July 2015 [7] M.G.Kalyansheti, S.A.Gosavi, “Analysis of box culvert – Cost optimization for different aspect ratios of cell”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol-3, Issue-4, Apr2014 [8] Komal S. Kattimani, R. Shreedhar, “Parametric studies of box culverts” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science, Vol-1, Issue-1, May-2013 [9] Ali Abolmaali and Anil Garg, “Effect of wheel live load on shear behavior of precast reinforced concrete box culverts” Journal of bridge engineering, ASCE, Vol. 3, Issue-93, Feb-2008.

25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Cost in Lakh

5.00 0.00 SBC with all SBC with SBC with DBC with all DBC with DBC with rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at rigid joint hinge joint at hinge joint at bottom top bottom top

Fig.12- Comparative costing optimumoptimum section of box cell section with end conditions Fig.7- Comparative costing of box cell with end conditions

4. CONCLUSION:

The main objectives of this paper is to compare various modules, establish the various end conditions by providing joints CONCLUSION at 5. different location and minimize the handling & transpiration cost and to arrive at the economical and practical precast element for ease of construction at sites. Modeling and analysis has been done by using STAAD Pro software. So from analysis design we objectives concluded that, Theandmain of this paper is to compare various 1. Double box cell with all rigid joint is one of the most economical module. modules, establish thein casevarious 2. Handling and transportation cost will be minimum of double box cellend with hingeconditions joint at bottom as well asby double at different location and minimize the boxproviding cell with hinge jointjoints at top.

handling & transpiration cost and to arrive at the economical and practical precast element for ease of construction at sites. Modeling and analysis has been done by using STAAD Pro software. So from analysis and design we concluded that, 1. Double box cell with all rigid joint is one of the most economical module.

2. Handling and transportation cost will be minimum in case of double box cell with hinge joint at bottom as well as double box cell with hinge joint at top.

REFERENCES: [1] Neha Kolate, Molly Mathew, Snehal Mali, “Analysis & Design of RCC Box Culvert”International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol-5, Issue12 Dec-2014 [2] A.D. Patil, A.A. Galatage, “Analysis of Box culvert under cushion loading”International Advanced Research Journal in Scientific & Engineering and Technology, Vol-3, Issue-6 Dec-2016 [3] Siva Rama Krishna, Ch. Hanumantha Rao, “Study on Box culvert Soil Interaction”International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology, Vol-8, Issue-1 Dec2017 [4] Saurav, Ishaan Pandey, “Economic Design of RCC Box culvert through comparative study of conventional and finite element method” International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol-9, No-3, july-2017.

[5] KetanKishorSahu, Shraddha Sharma, “Comparison and study of different aspect ratio of box culvert” International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, Vol-3, Issue-7 Dec-2015 [6] Y. Vinod kumar, Dr. Chava Srinivas, “Analysis and design of box culvert by using computational

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 119