International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Design of Box Culvert using Limit State Method

Jerin Jose#1, Kiran S Chirayath#2, M.A Muhammed Riswan#3, Megha Shankar#4, Rose Mariya George#5
#1
Department of Civil Engineering, Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology, Kochi, Kerala

Abstract— A culvert is a structure that allows water to flow under a road, railroad or similar obstruction from one side to the other side.
Culverts come in many sizes and shapes including round, elliptical, flat-bottomed, open-bottomed, pear-shaped, and box-
like constructions. Limit state design (LSD), also known as load and resistance factor design (LRFD), refers to a design
method used in structural engineering. A limit state is a condition of a structure beyond which it no longer fulfills the
relevant design criteria. This paper deals with the design of box culvert made of RCC, without cushion using limit state
method. The design of RCC box culvert presented in this paper is as per relevant IRC codes. Bending moments and shear
forces for the design are obtained from analysis using STAAD.Pro. The structural elements are required to be designed to
withstand maximum bending moment and shear force. The paper provides full discussions on the provisions in the codes,
considerations and detailing of the culvert.
Keywords— Box culvert, IRC Specifications, Load cases, Analysis, Design.

I. INTRODUCTION

Box Culverts consists of two horizontal and two vertical slabs built monolithically are ideally suited for a road or railway bridge
crossing with high embankments crossing a stream with a limited flow. If the discharge in a drain or channel crossing a road is
small, and if the bearing capacity of the soil is low, then the box culvert is an ideal bridge structure. This is a reinforced concrete
rigid frame box culvert with square or rectangular openings. In box culverts, mainly three load cases govern the design. They
are given below.
(a)Dead load and live load acting from outside while no water pressure from inside.
(b)Dead load and live load acting from outside while water pressure acting from inside.
(c)Dead load and live load acting on top of the slab while water pressure acting from inside and no lateral pressure due to live
load. All the three cases are analysed using analysis software STAAD.Pro. For a box culvert, the top slab is required to withstand
dead loads, live loads from moving traffic, earth pressure on sidewalls, water pressure from inside, and pressure on the bottom
slab besides self weight of the slab. The structure is designed like a rigid frame adopting analysis softwares for obtaining final
distribution moments on the basis of the relative stiffness of the slab and vertical walls.

II. DESIGN PARAMETERS

A. Box Culvert Section – Size : 5 x 3 m.
Assume unit weight of soil =17.27kN/m3
Unit weight of wearing coat is assumed to be 22 kN/m3
Unit weight of base and sub base is assumed to be 16.8 kN/m3
Assume angle of repose of soil,α is 30°
M20 concrete and Fe415 steel is used for construction.
Road width is assumed to be 8.5m.
Live load is considered as per IRC: 6-2000 =33.18 kN/m2
Thickness of surface coarse = 0.15 m
Total depth of base and sub base = 0.4 m
For design purpose 5m length and 3m width of box culvert is considered.
Assume a slab thickness of 300 mm.
A wearing coat of thickness 0.08m is provided above the culvert.
Therefore, effective span of box culvert = 5.3x3.3 m.

B. Load Combinations
The design loads and load combinations are taken as per IRC 6 – 2016.
The load combinations used in analysis and design are listed below:
(1.5 x DL) + (1.5 x LL)
(1.2 x DL) + (1.2 x LL)

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 311

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

(1.5 x DL)
(0.9 x DL)
The maximum value of shear forces, bending moments and deflections are obtained in the load combination (1.5 x DL) + (1.5 x
LL)

III. DESIGN LOADS

A. Top Slab
D.L = 0.3x25 = 7.50 kN/m2
Factored D.L = 1.5x7.5 = 11.25 kN/m2
L.L = 33.18 kN/m2
Factored L.L = 1.5x 33.18 = 49.77 kN/m2
SIDL = 11.07 kN/m2
Factored SIDL = 1.5x11.07 = 16.61 kN/m2
Total load on culvert = 44.97+16.61= 66.38 kN/m2
Total design load on top slab = 66.38+11.25 = 77.63 kN/m2
B. Side Wall
D.L = 3.3x0.3x25 = 24.75 kN/m
Factored D.L = 1.5x24.75 = 37.13kN/m
C. Pressure on bottom slab
Load from top slab =72.83 = 77.63 kN/m2
Weight of 2 side walls = 2x37.13 = 74.25 kN/m
Total pressure on bottom slab = (77.63x5.3+74.25)/5.3 = 91.64 kN/m2
D. Lateral pressure through earthfill
Active earth pressure coefficient, Ka= (1-sin α)/(1+sin α)= 0.33
Lateral pressure due to LL and SIDL= Ka x (LL+SIDL)
=0.33x (49.77+16.67)
=22.13 kN/m2
Lateral pressure due to earth fill = Ka x γ x h =19.00 kN/m2
Factored lateral pressure due to earth fill= 1.5x19 = 28.50 kN/m2
E. Lateral pressure due to water inside the culvert
Assume the considered depth is completely under water table.
Height from the bottom slab to the water table= 3.30m
Water pressure at bottom= γw x h= 9.81x3.3= 32.37 kN/m2
Factored water pressure=1.5x32.37=48.56 kN/m2

IV. DESIGN OF TOP SLAB

Max bending moment occurs in the load combination 1.5 DL and 1.5 LL

TABLE I
BENDING MOMENTS AND SHEAR FORCES
Bending moment at the Bending moment at the
Case Direct force (kN)
centre (kNm) end (kNm)
1 144.11 158.02 69.93
2 151.80 148.81 43.68
3 165.08 134.33 -10.04
Critical case is case 3
A. Top slab details
Length = 5600mm
Breadth = 1000mm
Depth = 300mm
Bending moment (Mu) = 165.084728 kNm

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 312

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Shear force (Vu) = 69.93 kN

Depth required, dreq = 218.04mm
Depth provided, dprov = 257.5mm
Overall depth, D = 300mm
B. Main Steel Reinforcement
Compression steel diameter , Ø = 25mm
R = Mu/(b x dprov2) = 2.489N/mm2
Ast required = ((fck x b x dprov)/(2 x fy))x(1-(1-(4.598xR)1/2/fck)) = 2147.366mm2
Spacing of bars = (Ø 2 x 1000)/Ast req = 228.59mm
Spacing provided = 220mm
Ast provided = 2231.244782mm2
C. Transverse Steel Reinforcement
Ast required = 0.12bD/100 = 360mm2
Assume bar dia, Ø = 10mm
spacing of bars, (Ø2x1000)/Ast req = 218.166mm
spacing provided = 200mm
D. Check for Shear
Nominal shear stress, τv = Vu/(b x D) = 0.23N/mm2
Pt, (100 x Ast)/(b x D) = 0.74
fck provided = 20N/mm2
Shear strength of concrete, τc (FROM IS 456:2000, PG. 73, TABLE 19) = 0.5572N/mm2
τv < τc, no need shear reinforcement.
E. Check for Deflection
Pt = Ast prov/(bd) x 100 =0.87
Fs = 0.58 x fy x Ast reqd /Ast prov = 231.65
Modification factor, k(FROM IS456:2000,PG. 38,FIG 4) =1.09
20k = 21.8
L/d prov = 21.748
Hence, safe in design

V. DESIGN OF BOTTOM SLAB

Max bending moment occurs in the load combination 1.5DL and 1.5LL

TABLE II
BENDING MOMENTS AND SHEAR FORCES
Bending moment at Bending moment at the end
Case Direct force ( kN)
the centre (kNm) (kNm)
1 163.74 158.02 130.23
2 172.95 148.81 76.35
3 187.43 134.33 -4.80

Critical case is case 3

A. Bottom Slab Details
Length = 5600mm
Breadth = 1000mm
Depth = 300mm
Bending moment (Mu) = 187.427 kNm
Shear force(Vu) = 130.23 kN
Depth required, dreq = 232.32mm
Depth provided, dprov = 262mm
Overall depth, D = 300mm

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 313

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

B. Main Steel Reinforcement

R = Mu/(b x dprov2) = 2.730N/mm2
Ast required = ((fck x b x dprov)/(2 x fy))x(1-(1-(4.598xR)1/2/fck)) = 2461.258mm
Spacing of bars = (Ø 2 x 1000)/Ast req = 81.690 mm
Spacing provided = 80mm
Ast provided = 2513.274mm2
C. Transverse Steel Reinforcement
Ast required = 0.12bD/100 = 360mm2
Assume bar dia, Ø = 10mm
Spacing of bars, (Ø2x1000)/Ast req = 218.166mm
Spacing provided = 200mm
D. Check for Shear
Nominal shear stress, τv = Vu/(b x D) = 0.43N/mm2
Pt, (100 x Ast)/(b x D) = 0.84
fck provided = 20N/mm2
Shear strength of concrete, τc (FROM IS 456:2000, PG. 73, TABLE 19) = 0.5568N/mm2
τv < τc, no need shear reinforcement.
E. Check for Deflection
Pt = Ast prov/(bd) x 100 =0.96
Fs = 0.58 x fy x Ast reqd /Ast prov = 235.72
Modification factor, k(FROM IS456:2000,PG. 38,FIG 4) =1.07
20k = 21.4
L/d prov = 21.374
Hence, safe in design

VI. DESIGN OF SIDE WALLS

Max direct force occurs in the load combination 1.5DL and 1.5LL

TABLE III
BENDING MOMENTS AND SHEAR FORCES

Case Bending moments at the end (kNm) Direct force (kN)

1 150.53 242.83
2 141.32 242.83
3 127.38 242.83
Critical case is case 1
A. Column Details
Width(mm) =1000mm
Depth(mm) =300mm
Unsupported length(mm)= 1800mm
Effective cover(mm) =60mm
Effective length(mm) =3600mm
Direct force Pu(kN) =242.83 kN
Bending moment Mu(kNm) = 150.53 kNm
fck = 20 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
leff/D =12
12<=12 Therefore, it is a short column
e min(mm) =13.6mm

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 314

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

0.05D = 15mm
e min<0.05D
Hence safe.
Pu/fckbD = 0.040
Mu/fckbD2 = 0.084
d'/D = 0.2
Reinforcement is equally distributed on 2 sides.
B. Main Steel Reinforcement
From chart 33, SP 16, pg 227,
P/fck = 0.06
P =1.2%
Asc required= PbD/100= 3600mm2
Assume 25mm dia bars
Diameter of bar = 25mm
spacing of bars=136.35mm
spacing provided =100mm
C. Distribution Steel Reinforcement
Ast required= 0.12bD/100= 360mm2
Assume bar dia=10mm
Spacing of bars= (Ø2x1000)/Ast req= 218.16mm
Spacing provided = 200mm

VII. DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL

Density of earth = 17.27 kN/m3

Angle of Repose, α = 30º
Coefficient of friction b/w soil and concrete, μ= 0.5
Bearing Capacity, q = 200 kN/m2
fck= 20N/mm2
fy= 415N/mm2
Active Earth Pressure coefficient, Ka= (1-sin α)/(1+sin α)= 0.33
Minimum depth of foundation = 1.29m
Provide depth of foundation as 1.5m
A. Preliminary dimensions of retaining wall

O
Fig. 1 Dimensions of retaining wall

B = 0.48H to 0.56H =2.30 to 2.69m

Say b= 2.5m
Toe projection= 0.3b = 0.75m
Thickness of base slab= Thickness of stem= H/12= 0.4m
Heel projection=1.35m

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 315

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Let top width of stem be 0.2m

B. Check for stability

TABLE III
CHECK FOR STABILITY

Weight in kN x in m Ms in kNm

Weight of backfill 76.94 1.825 140.41

rectangular portion of stem 16.5 1.05 17.325
triangular portion of stem 8.25 0.88 7.2875
Base slab 25 1.25 31.25
Surcharge load 66.38 1.825 121.14
ƩW= ƩMs=
193.06 317.41
Horizontal Pressure, Ph= 0.5 x Ka x γ x H2=66.32 kN
Overturning Moment, Mo= Ph X H/3= 106.11 kNm
Factor of safety for overturning is
F1= 0.9 x Ms/Mo=2.69>1.4 Hence OK
F2= 0.9 x Μ x ƩW/ Ph=1.31<1.4 Hence Provide Shear Key
C. Pressure under base slab
Total moment about point O= Ms-Mo=166.88 kNm
Total vertical load=W=193.06 kN
Horizontal distance from O where resultant intersects base line, x= 166.88/193.06=0.864m
Eccentricity, e= (2.4/2)-7.58= 0.386m
Maximum pressure, P1=ƩW x (1+6e/b)/b=148.70kN/m2
Minimum pressure, P2=ƩW x (1-6e/b)/b=5.75 kN/m2
Thus P1<SBC of soil and P2 is positive. Hence satisfactory.
D. Design of stem
Stem acts as a cantilever of height = (4.8-0.4) =4.4m
Subject to uniformly varying load= Ka x γ x h= 25.33
Maximum moment at the base of cantilever= .5 x Ka x γ x h2 x h/3= 81.73 kNm
Mu=1.5 x 81.73=122.59 kNm
Since M20 concrete and Fe415 steel is used,
0.138 fck b d2= Mu for balanced section
0.138x20x1000xd2= 122593973.3kNm
d = 210.76mm
Provide depth d= 350mm and overall depth D=400mm give sufficiently under reinforced section.
Area of steel required is obtained from
Mu=0.87 fy Ast d(1-(Ast x fy/b d fck))
Using 12mm bars,
Ast=1033.45mm2
Spacing =(3.14x122) x1000/1033.45=109.44mm
Provide 12mm bars at 100mm c/c
E. Distribution steel
Average thickness of wall= 200+400/2= 300mm
Ast = 0.12x1000x300/100= 360mm2
Providing 180mm2 on each face and using 8mm bars
S=3.14x82x1000/180= 279.25mm
Provide 8mm bars at 270 mm c/c on tension face
A mesh of 8mm bars @ 270mm is given on compression face of the wall.
F. Curtailment of vertical bars

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 316

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

1/3rd of the main steel should be curtailed at a distance of 4.8/3= 1.6m

Another 1/3rd of the steel should be curtailed at a distance of (2x4.8/3)= 3.2m from the base.
G. Design of toe slab
Pressure diagram under the base varies from 149.43 kN/m2 to1.18 kN/m2
Pressure at the face of the toe= 1.18 kN/m2

Fig. 2 Pressure diagram of toe slab

x = 100.063kN/m2
M = 37.262 kNm
Mu=1.5xM=55.893kNm
d = 350mm
Mu = 0.87 x fy x Ast x d x(1-(Ast x fy)/bdfck))
Solving the quadratic equation, Ast= 460.635mm2
Ast minimum= 0.12x1000x400/100=480mm2
Using 12mm bars, spacing= 235.62mm
Provide 12mm bars at 230mm c/c
H. Design of heel slab
γ x h=3.3x17.27= 56.991 kN/m2
Self weight= 0.4x1.35x25= 13.5 kN

Fig. 3 Pressure diagram of heel slab

x = (149.43-1.18)x1.35/2.5= 77.191kN/m2
M= 37.294kNm
Mu= 1.5xM= 55.941kNm
d = 350mm
Mu= 0.87 x fy x Ast x d x(1-(Ast x fy)/bdfck))
Solving the quadratic equation, Ast= 478.913mm2
Using 12mm bars, spacing= 236.15mm
Provide 12mm bars at 230mm c/c
I. Design of shear Key
Pressure at face of shear key = 100.063kN/m
Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp= 1/Ka = 3
If ‘a’ is the projection of shear key, resistance offered by passive earth pressure= Kp x vertical pressure=300.18a kN
Factor of safety against sliding, F2= (0.9 x μ x ƩW+311.317a)/Ph
a= 0.0199m
Provide 150mm deep shear key

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 317

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

VIII. DETAILING
Detailing of the box culvert and the retaining wall is done using AutoCAD.
A. Box Culvert

Fig.4 Sectional view AutoCAD detailing of box culvert

B. Detailing of Retaining Wall

Fig.5 Reinforcement details of retaining wall

IX. CONCLUSION
Complete design of RCC box culvert is done using limit state method of design as per relevant codes. Design of top slab, bottom
slab, side walls, retaining walls are done. Bending moments and shear forces of all the three cases of analysis were calculated using
STAAD. Pro V8i. After designing, detailing is done by using drafting software AutoCAD.

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 318

International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The design and detailing work was completed by the support of Civil Engineering Department of the Viswajyothi College of
Engineering and Technology, Kochi, Kerala.

REFERENCES
[1] Codes by Indian Road Congress and IS code for design : IRC SP- 41, IRC 6-2016, IRC 103-2012, IRC 103-1988, SP – 16
and IS 456:2000.
[2] Dr. S.K.Hirde, S.B. Kambale(2018): Effect of Water Pressure on Design Parameters of RCC Box Culvert, International
Journal of Computer & Mathematical Sciences, vol. 7, Issue 3, March 2018
[3] Serin Sara Roy, Greeshma K.R, Rahsina M.A, Reshma Raveendran, Sajeev Philip (2017): Safety Analysis and Performance
Evaluation of Pedestrians At Vytilla Junction, Kochi, Kerala, International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering,
Vol. 3, Issue 9, March 2017
[4] Aishwarya Fadnavis (2015): Success and failures of crossing facilities for pedestrians International Journal Of Research
In Engineering And Technology, Vol. 04, No 9, September 2015, pp.321-327.
[5] Y.Vinod Kumar and Dr. Chava Srinivas (2015) : Analysis and design of box culvert by using computational methods,
International Journal Of Engineering & Science Research, Vol. 5,No 7, July 2015, pp. 850-861.
[6] Sujata Shreedhar and R.Shreedhar (2013): Design coefficients for single and two cell box culvert, International Journal of
Civil and Structural Engineering ,Vol. 3, No 3, 2013, pp 475-494.
[7] K. Swetha, K.L.A.V.Harnadh, and DR. T.Chandra Sekhar Rao (2012): Analysis of accident survey on pedestrians on
national highway -16 using statistical methods, Elk Asia Pacific Journals
[8] K Singh (2011): Methods of assessing pedestrian Level of Service, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. 2,
No 1, January-March 2011.
[9] B.N. Sinha & R.P. Sharma,” RCC box culvert –methodology and design including computer method 2009”
[10] T. R. Jagadeesh, M. A. Jayaram,”Design of bridge structures”, prentice hall of India private limited new delhi-110001:2001.
[11] A Chakrabarti, B.C. Roy, S.S. Mondal (1999), Design And Detailing For Durability: Concrete Subways And Underpasses,
Concrete model code for Asia, pp.101, 8092.
[12] D.J.M Van Der Voordt and H.B.R Van Wegen (1987): Underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists: user requirements and
implication for design, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 8, 1983, pp.1-4 .
[13] Yordphol Tanaboriboon, Sim Siang Hwa, and Chin Hoong Chor (1986): Pedestrian characteristic study in Singapore,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 112, No.3, May 1986. ©ASCE.

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 319