box irc

ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)
Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Impact Factor: 6.252
Hydrological Study and Design of Box Culvert with

Comparative Study with and without Cushion
Loading
Diksha R. Sakore1, Dr. S. G. Makarande2, Dr. P.P. Sakalecha, Prof. Ms. R. K. Kakpure4
PG Student/Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering2,3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering4
Bapurao Deshmukh College of Engineering, Sevagram, Maharashtra, India
Abstract: The hydrology and hydraulic calculations has been carried out for the proposed box culvert to
justify the waterway required for the river crossing the alignment. Structural analysis is a process to analyse
a structural system in order to predict the responses of the real structure under the action of expected loading
and external environment during the service life of the structure. The present work reflects on the analysis
and design of bridges which are the main source of human life which helps to travel from place to place. The
modeling and analysis of bridge is carried out by using the software Staad-pro software. The bridge we
designed is box culvert bridge. The design loads are considered as per IRC 6. Box culvert is designed by
using Staad-pro and results are compared manually.
Keywords: Reinforced cement concrete box culvert, hydraulics calculation, cushion loading, earth pressure,
structural design, theoretical calculation, STAAD PRO etc.
I. INTRODUCTION
Box culverts are the structures constructed below highways and railways to provide access to the natural drainage across
them. They are also constructed sometimes to provide the access to the animals to cross the road which is known as animals
crossing, vehicular under pass (VUP) & railway under pass (RUB). The opening of the of the culvert section is designed
based on the loads applied on the culvert.
Fig 1:- Box Culvert Fig 2:- Railway Over Bridge Fig 3:- Vehicular Underpass
Culverts are the structures constructed across the drainages below the highway and railways for easy access for animals
and humans. The dimensions of culvert are designed based on waterway. Thickness is adopted based on loads acting on
culvert and span of culvert.
The topography of the land across the country varies widely and conditions may be dissimilar even within the same State,
depending on the annual rainfall and nature of terrain. The hill streams are flashy in nature, which need tall substructures to
span them. The natural streams in plains and rolling terrains are usually wide and need longer superstructures with relatively
shorter substructures. The man made drains both for irrigation and industrial use could be low cost structures such as pipe
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 342
www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

culverts. Since the catchment area varies widely, it is suggested to estimate discharge of a natural stream by direct
measurement. If it is not possible to measure, some of the empirical formulae (like, Dicken's and Inglis) listed in IRC:SP:
13 may be referred to fix the waterway. In the plains of north-eastern States, the CD works may be expected to carry a very
heavy discharge necessitating deeper foundations and/or adoption of longer span lengths.
A box culvert can have more than single cell and can be placed such that the top slab is almost at road level and there is
no cushion. A box can also be placed within the embankment where top slab is few meters below the road surface and such
boxes are termed with cushion.
Box culvert rest where safe bearing pressure (SBP) of soil is less, such as soft soil, sand not in hard rock. Therefore
geotechnical investigation report are required at the time of design of structure Cut-off walls shall run continuously from
outer wall to outer wall and shall rest only on elastic medium no part of it shall rest on hard strata.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

[1]. Ajay R. Polra, Pro. P. Chandresha, Dr. K.B Parikh (2017), had done the analysis and comparison by using design
consideration in mind of box coefficient of earth pressure, cushion, width or angle of dispersion and load case for design.
The result is without cushion or with cushion and angle of dispersion is zero there will be maximum live load greater
stresses are created without cushion.
[2]. RajendraThakaiet all (2016) , have carried out the analytical study of the box girder bridge for rectangular and
trapezoidal cross-section. The model is analyzed using the software SAP 2000 which is economically accessible for the
finite element analysis. The model is studied for the combination of loads i.e. dead load and live load taken from IRC 70R
loading for zero eccentricity for continuous and simply supported span. In this paper, the work is done for the bending
moment and longitudinal bending stress in both the top and the bottom flanges. Some of the assumptions which are made
during the analysis are:
The vehicular loads taken are from class 70R wheeled vehicle having seven axles given in IRC. The box girder used in
this paper is of rectangular and trapezoidal section of single celled box girder bridges. The study can be concluded by the
following conclusions:
 Rise in the depth of the box girder increases the bending moment but decreases the bending stress in both the top
and the bottom flange.
 Between the rectangular and the trapezoidal cross section, the bending moment is highest in trapezoidal section
under the combination of loads (DL+LL). Thus, from the result obtained, it can be said that the rectangular section
is stiffer than the trapezoidal section.
[3]. Ketan Kishor Sahu, Shraddha Sharma (2015), had study by using software hydraulic parameters, graphs, charts,
tables are showing variations in test result for different ratio which are aspect bending moment, shear force, discharge
capacity, loads etc are find out. Result is declared on the basis of the software analysis tables for hydraulic parameter,
bending moment for bottom slab, side walls and top slab are shown in tables for different aspect ratio of cell.
[4]. M. Bilal Khan, M. Parvez Alam (2015), This paper includes the hydraulic design which the catchment area,
maximum HFL, longitudinal area, cross section, velocity observation and estimation of discharge by rational method
empirical formula (dickens formula), critical depth and height of jump also decides the area and length of apron. The
culvert are designed by manual calculations which gives size and shape of box according to discharge and depth
of scour deciding the jump is undular jump and required to be made of 2m×2m box culvert.
[5]. Neha Kolate et al (2014), have carried out an analytical study on design of RCC box culvert. In this study, they have
given a brief idea about a box culvert and usefulness of the box culvert in reducing the flood level. In this paper, the box of
3mX3m with and without cushion of 5m has been taken. Different load cases are calculated and are checked for shear for
the box culvert. The results of analysis and design have discovered that RCC box culvert has many advantages over slab
culvert for cross drainage work across high embankment. In box culvert it’s easy to add length for widening of road and is
structurally rigid and safe. The examination and analysis revealed that box does not need any elaborate foundation, it’s easy
to construct, requires no maintenance and small variation in coefficient of earth pressure has little influence on the design
of box without cushion.
[6]. Sujata Shreedhar, R. Shreedhar (2013), had find out the coefficients for moment, shear and thrust of single and two cell
box culvert by using Staad Pro software. The result is the design of box culvert includes the information regarding the effect
www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

different ratio L/H=1.0, L/H=1.25 etc. Also moments and loads are found out
[7]. B.N Sinha and R.P Sharma (2009), have worked with box culverts made of RCC without and with the cushion. In this
study, design of RCC box culvert has been done manually and by computer method. RCC box culverts are modeled and
analyzed using STAAD Pro. The structural design involves consideration of load cases like box empty, full, surcharge load
etc. and factors like live load, effective width, impact force, coefficient of earth pressure. Relevant IRC codes are referred
in this paper. The designs are done to withstand maximum bending moment and shear force. Effective width in case of box
culvert plays an important role without cushion as the live load becomes the main load on the top slab and effective width
should withstand this load. Impact of live load, shear stress, distribution reinforcement, load cases have also been discussed
in this paper. It has been concluded that the box culvert have more advantages than slab culvert, easy to add length for
widening of roads. Box culvert is structurally strong, rigid and safe and does not need any elaborate foundation.
III. OBJECTIVE
1. To study the parameter needed for Hydrological study.
2. To study the behavior of box culvert with cushion and without cushion loading.
3. For analysis, the box model is subjected to Dead loads, SIDL, Earth pressures, Surcharge loads on the side walls,
and Live Loads.
4. To study the effect of different load combination which will produce worst effect for safe structural design.
5. To study the steel & concrete quantity require for both cases cushion and without cushion.
IV. PURPOSES
1. To study the effect of cushion over structural.
2. Culvert is a structure which is built over some physical obstacle such as a body of water, valley, or road, and its
purpose is to provide crossing over that obstacle. It is built to be strong enough to safely support its own weight as
well as the weight of anything that should pass over it.To save human life and buildings
3. They easily accommodate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
4. To compare with & without cushion loading box culvert.
V. METHODOLOGY
5.1. Hydrological Study
For survey, following points are required to be prepared:
Right angle crossing (Proposed location of bridge is 0 degree skew angle)
Fig 4: Catchment Area Fig 5: Bridge Site Plan

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Check soil strata available at a site is sand & also we check direction of water flow.
Lowest Bed Level: Measuring lowest level of water and mark on cross section.
Highest Flood Level: The high flood level should be ascertained by intelligent local observation, supplemented by local
inquiry, and mark on cross section.(LBL to HFL diff. is 3.4m)
Catchment Area: Marking the watershed on “topo” (G.T.) sheet & it is found in the Survey of India.(42.5 Sq km).
5.2 Hydraulics Calculations

Nallah L-section = Bed slope (S) = 0.0030
Catchment area in sq km. (M) = 42 sq.km
Annual reinfall is 60-120 cm (C) = 11-14 (As per Clause.4.2 IRC:SP:13-2004)
Mean Depth (R) = 2.150 m
Rugosity coefficients (n) = 0.033 (As per IRC:SP:13-2004)
Discharge calculation: (As per Clause. 4.2 IRC:SP:13-2004)
Discharge by Dickne’s Formula (Q) = C * M 3/4
= 14 * (42.50) 3/4
= 233.034 m3/sec
Velocity (V) = (R 2/3+S 1/3) / n
= ( 2.150 2/3 + 0.0030 1/3) / 0.033
= 2.78 m/sec
Linear waterway required (L) = Wetted area at HFL / Max. flood depth= 84.47/3.82 = 21.10 m
Provide Linear waterway > Linear waterway is required
24 > 21.10 m,……………………………Hence ok
Therefore 3 x 8 m Box size to be provide.
5.3. Proposal Finalization and Preparation of Drawing

Proposal Finalization as per hydraulics study of box which is (Nos x L) ,3x 8m size of box to be provided. Preparation of
drawings shown in fig.1 & fig.2
Sr. Description Cushion Box Culvert Without Cushion Box Culvert
No. (LxBxH) (LxBxH)
1. Size of box 3 x 8 x 4.442 m 3 x 8 x 4.442 m
2. Cushion height 3.730 m 0
3. HFL to Soffit difference 0.9 m 0.9 m
4. Raft thickness 0.900 0.600
5. Top slab 0.800 0.550
6. Side wall 0.800 0.450
7. Intermediate Wall 0.700 0.400

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Fig 6: With Cushion Box Culvert Fig 7: Without Cushion Box Culvert
5.4 Loading Calculations:

Density of concrete = 25 KN/m3
Density of soil = 20 KN/m3
Density of water = 10 KN/m3
Density of wearing coat = 22 KN/m3
Angle of internal friction (in degree) = 30
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest = 0.500
Coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.279
Coefficient of passive earth pressure = 0.400
DEAD LOAD- Self weight of the structure has been calculated directly in STAAD file by the comment "SELFWEIGHT -
1".
SUPER IMPOSED DEAD LOAD-
Load (UDL) on top slab due to W.C (thick.*density of WC)= 0.065*22 = 1.43 kN/m
Wt of crash barrier (Width *height*density of concrete) = 0.5 *1.1*25 = 13.75 KN/m
EARTH PRESSURE
Total height c/c of top slab to raft = 3.717 m
Height of overburden = 3.730 m
Earth Pressure at Rest
Height from top Intensity of Earth pressure( Ka*y*H)
(m) (KN/m2)
3.905 3.905 0.5 x 20 x 3.905 = 39.050
4.255 4.255 0.5 x 20 x 4.255 = 42.550
4.705 4.705 0.5 x 20 x 4.705 = 47.050
5.170 5.170 0.5 x 20 x 5.170 = 51.697
5.634 5.634 0.5 x 20 x 5.634 = 56.343
6.099 6.099 0.5 x 20 x 6.099 = 60.989
6.564 6.564 0.5 x 20 x 6.564 = 65.635
7.028 7.028 0.5 x 20 x 7.028 = 70.282

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

7.493 7.493 0.5 x 20 x 7.493 = 74.928

7.957 7.957 0.5 x 20 x 7.957 = 79.574
8.422 8.422 0.5 x 20 x 8.422 = 84.220
8.872 8.872 0.5 x 20 x 8.872 = 88.720
9.247 9.247 0.5 x 20 x 9.247 = 92.470
Active Earth Pressure

Height from top Intensity of Earth pressure
(m) (KN/m2)
3.905 3.905 0.2794 x 20 x 3.905 = 21.822
4.255 4.255 0.2794 x 20 x 4.255 = 23.777
4.705 4.705 0.2794 x 20 x 4.705 = 26.292
5.170 5.170 0.2794 x 20 x 5.170 = 28.888
5.634 5.634 0.2794 x 20 x 5.634 = 31.485
6.099 6.099 0.2794 x 20 x 6.099 = 34.081
6.564 6.564 0.2794 x 20 x 6.564 = 36.677
7.028 7.028 0.2794 x 20 x 7.028 = 39.274
7.493 7.493 0.2794 x 20 x 7.493 = 41.870
7.957 7.957 0.2794 x 20 x 7.957 = 44.466
8.422 8.422 0.2794 x 20 x 8.422 = 47.063
8.872 8.872 0.2794 x 20 x 8.872 = 49.577
9.247 9.247 0.2794 x 20 x 9.247 = 51.673
Live Load Surcharge

Uniform Intensity of loading (for Rest condition) = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest * Equivalent height * Density of
soil =1.2*0.5*20 = 12.0 KN/m2
Uniform Intensity of loading (for Active condition) = Coefficient of earth pressure at active * Equivalent height * Density
of soil =1.2*0.279*20 = 6.71 KN/m2
CUSHION LOAD = (3.730M * 20 )/12 = 15.56 kN/m
BRAKING LOAD
Carriageway Live Load = 100 t
Width of the box = 12 m
Braking Load = 0.2*100 = 20 t
Applied on one points = 20 * 9.81/12 = 16.35 KN /m
LIVE LOADING (Refer: Clause 204.1.3, Fig.2, IRC : 6-2014 )
Effective width of tyres and load distribution for different vehicular loadings:
Effective span (I0) = 8.68 m
Total Width of Box culvert (b) = 12.0 m
Width/Effective Span ratio,b/ I0 = 1.38
As per Cl. B3.2 of IRC:112-2011(Page-278), for continous slab, α = 2.47
Loading Intensity of Load (t/m2)
70R - Axle 'l' 2.325
Class A 0.363
Live load max sagging , max hogging, max shear force is 23.25 KN/m2

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

VI. RESULTS
With Cushion Load (B.M & Sf)
Bending Moment (KN/m) Shear Force (KN)
Member Case Section
ULS SLS (Rare) SLS (QP) ULS
Mid Span 440 412 100 8
Curtailment 343 305 218 3
Sagging
deffective 377 215 96 3
Haunch End 50 42 36 1
Top Slab Face of Support 353 200 115 198
Haunch End 288 253 202 188
Hogging deffective 40 35 30 76
Mid Span 30 8 8 20
Mid Span 47 41 47 6
Sagging
Face of Support 430 400 154 189
Side Wall
Haunch End 405 371 131 166

Mid Span 147 108 73 31
Mid Span 1 1 0 2
Sagging
Intermediate
Wall
Hogging Haunch End 35 23 0 2
Mid Span 4 3 1 1
Mid Span 580 412 100 9

Sagging
Bottom Slab Haunch End 150 42 36 2

Hogging
Haunch End 388 253 202 251

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Mid Span 53 8 8 53
Without Cushion Load (B.M & SF)
Bending Moment (KN/m) Shear Force (KN)
Member Case Section
ULS SLS (Rare) SLS (QP) ULS
Mid Span 280 260 99 6
Sagging
Top Slab
Haunch End 241 220 99 115
Mid Span 15 8 8 125
Mid Span 40 35 30 4
Sagging
Haunch End 9 9 0 4
Side Wall Face of Support 285 270 199 159
Haunch End 280 265 106 120

Mid Span 99 50 60 20
Mid Span 1 1 0 2
Sagging
Intermediate Face of Support 61 54 0 8
Wall
Hogging Haunch End 35 23 0 2
Mid Span 4 3 1 1

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Mid Span 315 285 125 5

Sagging
Bottom Slab Face of Support 208 184 99 156
Haunch End 175 160 125 130
Mid Span 12 8 5 160
BOTTOM SLAB WITH AND WITHOUT TOP SLAB WITH AND WITHOUT
CUSHION BENDING MOMENT CUSHION BENDING MOMENT
700
600 500
450
500
400
400 350
300 300
250
200
200
100 150
0 100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50
0 Series1 Series2
Series1 Series2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
VII. MODOLING AND LOAD APPLICATIONS:
Figure 8: Model
www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Fig 9 :- Self Weight Fig 10 :- Super Imposed Dead Load
Fig
11 :- Earth Pressure Fig 12 :- Live Load Surcharge
Fig 13: Bending Moment Fig 14: Shear Force

Design Top Slab, Raft, Side Wall, Intermediate Wall
Depth of top slab (D1) = 700 mm,
Depth of raft (D2) = 750 mm
Thickness of outer wall (T1) = 750 mm
Thickness of outer wall (T2) = 600 mm
Width of the member (b) = 1000 mm
3.1 Top Slab Sagging
Top slab bottom main bar = 16mm @ 150mm c/c
Extra bar = 10mm @ 150mm c/c
Ast provided = ( ᴫ/4 *162 * 150 ) + ( ᴫ/4 *102 * 150 ) = 1864 mm2
Xumax /d = εcu2/(εcu2+εud) = 0.0035 /(0.0035+0.00405) = 0.4636
Xumax = 0.4636*642=298mm
Xu = 0.87 fykAst / 0.36 fck b = 0.87 * 500*1864/0.36*35*1000 = 64mm
Xu <Xumax,……………………………..Hence ok
www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

Ast,cal = M/0.87*fyk*(d'-0.416*xu)
= 280/0.87*500*(642-0.416*64) =1046 mm2
Ast Calc. <Ast Provided,……….Hence ok
Distribution steel at bottom of top slab: (Refer IRC:112 clause 16.6.1.1)
Distribution Reinforcement : At Least 20% of the main Reinforcement =268 mm2
Provide distribution steel = 10mm @ 150mm c/c
Ast provided = ( ᴫ/4 *102 * 150 ) = 525 mm2
268 < 525mm…………………………….Hence ok
Safe Bearing Capacity Calculations

A. SBC FOR CUSHION LOAD.
SR STRUCTURSL
NO L W H VOLUMN DENSITY LOAD
NO ELEMENTS
m m m m3 t/m3 t
1 TOP SLAB 1 26.7 12 0.9 288.36 2.5 640.80
2 BOTTOM SLAB 2 26.7 12 0.9 576.72 2.5 1441.80
3 OUTER WALL 2 12 0.8 4.442 85.2864 2.5 213.22

4 INNER WALL 2 12 0.7 4.442 74.6256 2.5 186.56
5 HAUNCH 12 0.45 12 0.45 14.58 2.5 36.45
6 WEARING COAT 1 26.7 11 0.065 19.0905 2.2 42.00
7 CRASH BARRIER 2 26.7 0.5 1.1 29.37 2.5 73.43
8 CUSHION LOAD 1 26.7 1 3.73 99.591 2.0 199.18

9 LIVE LOAD 1 23.25 23.25
TOTAL LOAD 2833.44
TOTAL
LOAD 2833.44
AREA = 320.4
SBC = 8.840
SBC 8.840 < 10 t/m2………Hence ok

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

B. SBC FOR WITHOUT CUSHION LOAD.
SR STRUCTURSL
NO L W H VOLUMN DENSITY LOAD
NO ELEMENTS
m m m m3 t/m3 t
1 TOP SLAB 1 26.7 12 0.55 176.22 2.5 440.55
2 BOTTOM SLAB 2 26.7 12 0.6 384.48 2.5 961.20
3 OUTER WALL 2 12 0.45 4.442 47.9736 2.5 119.93
4 INNER WALL 2 12 0.4 4.442 42.6432 2.5 106.61
5 HAUNCH 12 0.45 12 0.45 14.58 2.5 36.45
WEARING
6 1 26.7 11 0.065 19.0905 2.2 42.00
COAT
CRASH
7 2 26.7 0.5 1.1 29.37 2.5 73.43
BARRIER
8 CUSHION LOAD
9 LIVE LOAD 1 23.25 23.25
TOTAL LOAD 1780.17
TOTAL
LOAD 1780.17 t
AREA = 320.4
SBC = 5.556 t/m2
SBC 5.56 < 10 t/m2…………. Hence ok
VII. CONCLUSION
 In this paper hydraulics calculation are done.
 As per IRC SP : 13 required HFL to Soffit clearance is 0.9m, Hence both cases applicable. Where clearance is
0.9 m maintained there available Cushion height is 3.730 m.
 If clearance is 0.9 m not maintained then box culvert height will increase.
 With cushion loading box Wall, slab, Raft slab thickness is more as compare to without cushion loading box
culvert.
 Without cushion load box culvert is more economical.
 Safe baring capacity of box culvert is 8.840 t/m2 which is less than10 t/m2 , so the Box type structure is suitable
for less available safe bearing capacity of soil at site

www.ijarsct.co.in
IJARSCT

REFERENCES
[1]. Ajay R. Polra, Pro. J.P Chandresha, Dr. K.B Parikh (2017), " A review paper on analysis and cost
comparison of box culvert for different aspect of cell " International journal of engineering trends & technology,
ISSN no.2231-5381, Vol.44, Issue-03, p. p 112-115.
[2]. Rajendra Thakai, Raghunath Deshpande, Shantinath Bedkihal on “Parametric Study on Behavior of Box Girder
Bridges using Finite element Method”. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET),
ISSN 2395-0056, Vol 03, August 2016.
[3]. Ketan Kishor Sahu, Shraddha Sharma (2015), "Comparison & study of different aspect of box culvert"
International journal of scientific research & development, ISSN no.2321-0613, Vol.03, Issue-07, p.p. 167-
175.
[4]. M. Bilal khan, M. Parvez alam (2015)," Hydraulic design of box culvert for highway at coastal region"
International journal of advanced in engineering research, ISSN no.2231-5152, Vol.09, Issue-02, p. p 31-
40.
[5]. ] Neha Kolate, Molly Mathew, Snehal Mali (2014), "Analysis and design of R.C.C. box culverts"
International journal of scientific & engineering research, ISSN no.2229-5518, Vol.05, Issue-12, p.p. 36-
41.
[6]. Sujata Shreedhar, R. Shreedhar (2013)," Design coefficients for single and two cell box culvert"
International journal of civil & structural engineering, ISSN no.0976-4399, Vol.03, Issue-03 , p.p. 475-494.
[7]. B.N.Sinha, R.P.Sharma on “RCC Box Culvertmethodology and Design Including Computer Method”. Journal of
the Indian Roads Congress (JIRC), December 2009, pp 555.
[8]. IRC (Indian Road Congress): 6-2000, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges.
[9]. IRC SP: 13, Guidelines for the Design of Small Bridges and Culverts.
[10]. IRC:5,“Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section I,1998.
[11]. IRC:78, standard Specifications and Code of Practice Road Bridges, The Indian Road Congress, Section: VII
(Foundation and Substructure)
[12]. IRC:112 , Standard specification and code of practice for road bridges section II Loads and stresses, The Indian
Road Congress, 2011

www.ijarsct.co.in

box irc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

box irc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

box irc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN (Online) 2581-9429

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Hydrological Study and Design of Box Culvert with

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Fig 4: Catchment Area Fig 5: Bridge Site Plan

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 344

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

5.2 Hydraulics Calculations

5.3. Proposal Finalization and Preparation of Drawing

1. Size of box 3 x 8 x 4.442 m 3 x 8 x 4.442 m

2. Cushion height 3.730 m 0

3. HFL to Soffit difference 0.9 m 0.9 m

4. Raft thickness 0.900 0.600

5. Top slab 0.800 0.550

6. Side wall 0.800 0.450

7. Intermediate Wall 0.700 0.400

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 345

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

5.4 Loading Calculations:

Height from top Intensity of Earth pressure( Ka*y*H)

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 346

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

7.493 7.493 0.5 x 20 x 7.493 = 74.928

Active Earth Pressure

Live Load Surcharge

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 347

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Hogging deffective 299 135 105 126

Mid Span 147 108 73 31

Mid Span 580 412 100 9

Face of Support 553 200 115 254

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 348

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

deffective 140 53 30 199

Curtailment 150 140 70 60

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 349

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Mid Span 315 285 125 5

Curtailment 258 220 100 5

Bottom Slab Face of Support 208 184 99 156

Haunch End 175 160 125 130

Hogging deffective 125 99 60 70

Mid Span 12 8 5 160

VII. MODOLING AND LOAD APPLICATIONS:

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Fig 9 :- Self Weight Fig 10 :- Super Imposed Dead Load

Fig 13: Bending Moment Fig 14: Shear Force

Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2022

Safe Bearing Capacity Calculations

1 TOP SLAB 1 26.7 12 0.9 288.36 2.5 640.80

2 BOTTOM SLAB 2 26.7 12 0.9 576.72 2.5 1441.80

3 OUTER WALL 2 12 0.8 4.442 85.2864 2.5 213.22

6 WEARING COAT 1 26.7 11 0.065 19.0905 2.2 42.00

7 CRASH BARRIER 2 26.7 0.5 1.1 29.37 2.5 73.43

8 CUSHION LOAD 1 26.7 1 3.73 99.591 2.0 199.18

TOTAL LOAD 2833.44

SBC 8.840 < 10 t/m2………Hence ok

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/568 352

Height from top Intensity of Earth pressure( KayH)