The document studies the design and construction methodology of precast concrete segmental box culverts. It analyzes 6 alternative design modules for single and double box cells using different end conditions. Finite element analysis is conducted to determine the optimal section dimensions that result in minimum bending moments, shear forces, and principal stresses. Transportation cost is found to be lowest for a double box cell design with hinge joints at the top and bottom.

1. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 116
“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.
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
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.
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.

2. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 117
[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
Fig.1-Modules of sub grade reaction & spring
stiffness
[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, = Coefficient of earth pressure
Fig.2-Live load surcharge at both sides
[12] 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.
Fig.3- Earth Pressure at side wall in Partially
Submerged condition
[13] 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
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
On the basis of software analysis & above design
considerations, optimum sections of box cell with
various end conditions are as given in table 1.
sat
sub P1 P3
P2
P4
P5
Ht.ofSubmergence
BOX CELL
PaPa
X
Inside water
pressure
Saturated
earth
pressure
Pore
water
pressure
Submerged
earth
pressure

3. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 118
Table: 1- Optimum section of box culvert
Sr.
No.
Type of box
cell with end
conditions
Thickness of section (m)
Top
Slab
Bottom
Slab
Side Wall
/ Middle
wall
1
Single box cell
with all rigid
joint.
0.40 0.50 0.25
2
Single box cell
with hinge
joint at bottom.
0.40 0.55 0.25
3
Single box cell
with with
hinge joint at
top.
0.45 0.40 0.25
4
Double box cell
with all rigid
joint.
0.20 0.25 0.15
5
Double box cell
with with
hinge joint at
bottom.
0.30 0.25 0.15
6
Double box cell
with hinge
joint at top.
0.35 0.25 0.15
4. RESULT & INTERPRETATION
The analysis has been carried out by choosing suitable
resultant actions such as maximum bending moment,
shear force and principal stressed in all the alternative
designs chosen so far. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the
bending moment in all six alternative designs considered
so far. It has been observed that the values of the design
bending moment in top and bottom slab is found to
increase in case of single box cell with various end
conditions and decrease in case of double box cell with
all rigid joint.
Fig.4- 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
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.
Plate shear stress on Y-face in top slab is 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.
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
that principal stresses is maximum in top slab in Single
box cell & double box cell when hinge joint at top, and
minimum at top slab of single box cell with all rigid joint.
Fig.6- 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 practical aspects such as handling,
transportation and erection. It has been found that
transportation cost is least in case of double box cell with
hinge joint at top and bottom. Fig. 7 shows the cost
comparison of various alternatives considered so far.
ClassA Class70R
Fig.4-IRCClassA-1Lane+Class70R- wheeledvehicleatMidSpan
As perIRC:6-2016/Table no.B.2,threecombinationsareusedi.e.Basic,Rare& Quasicombination.BasicCombination
isusedforverificationofstructuralstrengthwhereas,Rare&QuasiCombinationareusedforverificationofserviceability
of limitstate.
3. OPTIMUM SECTIONS:
Onthebasisofsoftwareanalysis&abovedesignconsiderations,optimumsectionsofboxcellwithvariousendconditions
areasgivenintable1.
Table: 1-Optimumsectionofboxculvert
Sr.
No.
Type of boxcell withendconditions
Thicknessof section (m)
Top
Slab
Bottom
Slab
Side
Wall/Middle
wall
1 Single boxcellwithall rigidjoint. 0.40 0.50 0.25
2 Single box cell with bottom slab and detached inverted U-section of top slab &
side wallswithhingejointatbottom.
0.40 0.55 0.25
3 SingleboxcellwithtopslabanddetachedU-sectionofbottomslab&sidewalls
withhingejointattop.
0.45 0.40 0.25
4 Doubleboxcell withallrigidjoint. 0.20 0.25 0.15
5 Doubleboxcell with bottomslaband detachedinverted U-sectionof top slab &
side wallswithhingejointatbottom.
0.30 0.25 0.15
6 Doubleboxcell with bottomslaband detachedinverted U-sectionof top slab &
side wallswithhingejointatbottom.
0.35 0.25 0.15
RESULT &INTERPRETATION:
Theanalysishasbeencarriedoutbychosingsuitableresultantactionssuchasmaximumbendingmoment,shearforceand
principal stressedinallthe alternative designs chosen so far.Fig. 5shows the variation ofthebeanding moment inall six
alternativedesignconsidered sofar. It hasbeenobservedthat the values of thedesign bending moment in topand bottom
slabis foundtoincreaseincaseofsingleboxcellwithvariousendconditions.
Fig.5-Comparative bendingmomentofoptimumsection ofboxcellwithendconditions
0.500
Traffic Direction
5.500
Eff. Span
W11 8.5T W12 8.5T
W10 8.5TW9 8.5T
1.930
2.790
0.860
W8 6.0TW7 6.0T 0.610
1.370
2.130
1.000
1.000
1.800
W1 1.35T W2 1.35T
W3 5.7T W4 5.7T
W5 5.7T W6 5.7T
0.200
0.150
0.500
0.250
1.200
1.200
3.200
0.550
0.550
0.150
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
SBCwith
hingejointat
top
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
MAXIMUMBENDINGMOMENT
TopSlab
SideWall
BottomSlab
MiddleWall
Moreover,Fig. 6showsthe variation of shearforceofall componentsof boxculvert. IthasbeenobservedthatMaximum
shear force values of top and bottom slab in single box cell with all rigid joint type are maximum in comparison to other
typeofboxcell. Plate shearstress onX-faceintop slabis maximumincase ofdoubleboxcellwithhingejointattopand
inbottomslabisfoundtobemaximuminsingleboxcellwith hingejoint attop. PlateshearstressonY-faceintopslabis
foundtobe maximumincase ofdouble boxcellwithhingejoint attopandinbottomslabismaximumindoubleboxcell
withhingejoint at bottom.
Fig.6-Comparative shearforce ofoptimumsectionofboxcell withendconditions
Fig. 7 shows the variation of principal stress in the optimum section of box cell, it has been observed that that principal
stresses is maximum in top & bottom slab in Single box cell & double box cell when hinge joint at top, are minimum at
top slabofsingle boxcell withallrigidjoint.
Fig.7-Comparative maximumprincipal stressofoptimum section of boxcellwithendconditions
Lastly ananalysis has been carried out in orderto compare the cost of each designunit consideringallthe stresses all the
practicalaspectssuchashandling,transportationanderection. It hasbeenfoundthatcostisleastincaseofdoubleboxcell
withhingejoint attopandbottom. Fig. 8shows thecost comparison ofvariousalternatives consideredsofar.
Fig.12-Comparativecostingoptimumsectionof boxcellwith endconditions
4.CONCLUSION:
The main objectives ofthis paperis tocompare various modules, establish the variousend conditions by providing joints
at 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
analysisanddesignweconcludedthat,
1. Double boxcell withall rigidjointis one ofthe mosteconomical module.
2.Handlingandtransportationcostwillbeminimumincaseofdoubleboxcellwithhingejointatbottomaswellasdouble
boxcell withhinge jointat top.
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwithhinge
jointat
bottom
SBCwithhinge
jointattop
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
MAXIMUMSHEARFORCE
TopSlab
SideWall
BottomSlab
MiddleWall
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
SBCwith
hingejointat
top
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
SMAXN/mm2
TopSlab
SideWall
BottomSlab
MiddleWall
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
SBCwith
hingejointat
top
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
CostinLakh
Moreover, 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
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. Plate shear stress on Y-face in top slab is
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.
Fig.6- Comparative shear force of optimum section of box cell with end conditions
Fig. 7 shows the variation of principal stress in the optimum section of box cell, it has been observed that that principal
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.
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
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.
Fig.12- Comparative costing optimum section 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
at 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 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.
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
SBC with all
rigid joint
SBC with hinge
joint at
bottom
SBC with hinge
joint at top
DBC with all
rigid joint
DBC with
hinge joint at
bottom
DBC with
hinge joint at
top
MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE
Top Slab
Side Wall
Bottom Slab
Middle Wall
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
SBC with all
rigid joint
SBC with
hinge joint at
bottom
SBC with
hinge joint at
top
DBC with all
rigid joint
DBC with
hinge joint at
bottom
DBC with
hinge joint at
top
SMAX N/mm2
Top Slab
Side Wall
Bottom Slab
Middle Wall
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
SBC with all
rigid joint
SBC with
hinge joint at
bottom
SBC with
hinge joint at
top
DBC with all
rigid joint
DBC with
hinge joint at
bottom
DBC with
hinge joint at
top
Cost in Lakh

4. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 119
Fig.7- Comparative costing optimum section of box cell
with end conditions
5. 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 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, Issue-
12 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 Dec-
2017
[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
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, Apr-
2014
[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.
Fig.7-Comparative maximum principal stressofoptimum section of boxcellwithendconditions
Lastly ananalysis has been carried out in orderto comparethe costof each designunit consideringall the stresses allthe
practicalaspectssuchashandling,transportationanderection. Ithasbeenfoundthatcostisleastincaseofdoubleboxcell
withhinge joint at topandbottom. Fig. 8shows thecostcomparison ofvariousalternatives consideredsofar.
Fig.12-Comparative costingoptimum sectionof boxcell with endconditions
4. CONCLUSION:
The main objectives ofthis paperis tocompare various modules, establish the variousend conditions by providing joints
at 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
analysisanddesignweconcludedthat,
1. Double boxcellwithall rigidjoint is oneofthe mosteconomical module.
2.Handlingandtransportationcostwillbeminimumincaseofdoubleboxcellwithhingejointatbottomaswellasdouble
boxcellwithhinge jointattop.
0.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
SBCwith
hingejointat
top
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
SMAXN/mm2
BottomSlab
MiddleWall
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
SBCwithall
rigidjoint
SBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
SBCwith
hingejointat
top
DBCwithall
rigidjoint
DBCwith
hingejointat
bottom
DBCwith
hingejointat
top
CostinLakh