Assessment Of Rain Water Drainage System

In 3 Roads In Khartoum

BY:

NUHA HYDER MEKKI SADIG

(B.Sc. Honors in Civil Engineering, University of Khartoum, 2012)

A Thesis Submitted to the University of Khartoum as Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Building Technology

Supervisor: Dr. Awad-Elkareem Mustafa

Building and Road Research Institute (BRRI)

May, 2015
 Acknowledgement
This thesis to obtain Master Degree in Civil Engineering, the
Building Technology Track, at The University of Khartoum. I have
been working on Master thesis from June, 2014 to April, 2015.

While under taking this thesis I have had much

encouragement from many people whom I would like to express my
sincere gratitude my family, my Colleagues, and my friends.

First of all I am particularly indebted to Dr. Awad-

Elkareem, my supervisor. I appreciated his great support when I
had unexpected problems during my research, and a lot of thanks
for his patience and flexibility that encouraged me to work on my
graduation research. Further I would like to thank: Dr.Omer
Graham, Eng. Aalaa Mohamed, Eng. Khalid Abd-Elrazig, Eng.
Moaz Mohamed Omer, Eng. Suhaib Ahmed Abd-Elatif, Eng.
Reham Ibrahim Ghanim, Mrs: Mawada and Mr: Tarig Elkhawad
who supported and helped me in collecting data for the project.

Finally I am grateful to my parents, my brothers and my sister.

I
 Abstract
The main objectives of this research to develop sustainable
rainwater drainage system, present planning and design guideline
for roads drainage system (case study) and emphasize the ability of
comprehensive and enlightened planning, design, review practices
to minimize and facilitate rainwater drainage system maintenance
and limit flooding of public and private property, both within the
catchment and downstream, to acceptable levels. Three roads were
randomly selected “Alshaheed Osama Almagbool, Alazhari
University, and Alferdos“ based on heavy traffic and severe water
effect. Drainage systems were designed geometrically, hydro-
logically and structurally. Geometrically; levels was recorded
transversely and longitudinally. They were modified in accordance
to direct the water off the road smoothly. Hydro-logically; In order
to obtain the design discharge catchment area was defined (using
GIS “Geographic Information system” and Google Earth).Runoff
coefficient for an area is governed by land use. The rational method
is used to predict the rain-fall flow. Outcome of the Hydrological
design is drain with an area of (1*0.6) m² for Elshaheed Osama
Elmagboul Road, (1*1.6) m² Alazhariy University Road and for
Alferdos Road drain is designed to come out with an area of
(1*1.9) m² after applying factor of safety (1.2) to the discharge.
Structurally, AASHTO” American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials”, LRFD” Load and Resistance Factor

II
 Design” Bridge Design Specifications was used as a standard in
design of the box drains. On Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road,
the designed drain is reinforced with 6 bars with diameter of 12
mm in top, bottom and side-walls slabs (inside and outside, for
Alazhariy University Road, the reinforcement was 6 bars with
diameter of 12 mm in top and bottom (inside and outside). For
side-walls slabs 6 bars with 12 mm diameter (outside) and 9 bars
with diameter of 12 mm (inside) and Alferdos Road, the designed
drain is reinforced 6 bars with diameter of 12 mm in top slab
(inside and outside). For Alferdos Road the existing drainage
system has been redesigned whereas for the other two streets new
design has been adopted to meet the requirements.

III
 ‫المستخلص‪:‬‬
‫األهداف من هذه الدراسة هي إنشاء نظام تصريف يلبي كل متطلبات التصميم الجيد وذلك‬
‫بتوضيح خطوات منهجية إلنشاء مصرف كجزء ال يتجزأ من تصميم الطرق‪ ,‬معتمدا‬
‫على الدراسات الحديثة و التجارب العملية السابقة لتفادي مشاكل التصريف و تقليل‬
‫تكاليف الصيانة فيما بعد‪ ,‬و ذلك للمحافظة على األرواح البشرية و الممتلكات‬
‫الخاصة‪...‬ألخ‪.‬ثالثة طرق تم اختيارهاعشوائيا و هم الشهيد أسامة المقبول (لفة جنوب)‪,‬‬
‫جامعة الزعيم األزهري و الفردوس بناءا على حركة المرور الكثيفة و تأثرها الكبير‬
‫بمياه األمطار‪ .‬تم تصميم نظام التصريف هيدرولوجيا‪ ,‬هندسيا و إنشائيا‪.‬هندسيا دونت‬
‫لتوجيه المياه قبالة الطريق‬ ‫مستويات األرض عرضيا وطوليا وتعديلها‬
‫بسالسة‪.‬هيدرولوجيااعتمدت الطريقة العقالنية (‪ )Rational Method‬للتنبؤ بكمية‬
‫التصريف إليجاد مساحة المصرفلمساحةتجمعات المياه المحددة (باستخدام برنامجنظام‬
‫المعلومات الجغرافية"‪ " GIS‬وبرنامج )‪ .)Google Earth‬معامل الجريان السطحي تم‬
‫إيجاده على أساس طبيعة المنطقة المحيطة و استخدامها‪.‬النتائج كانت مصرف بمساحة‬
‫(‪ )6.0*1‬متر‪²‬لطريق الشهيد أسامة المقبول‪ )1.1*1( ,‬متر‪ ²‬لطريق جامعة األزهري‬
‫أما بالنسبة لطريق الفردوس المصرف صمم بمساحة (‪ )1.1*1‬متر‪ ²‬و ذلك بعد تطبيق‬
‫معامل أمان (‪ )1.1‬على التصريف‪.‬إنشائياتم استخدامالجمعية األمريكية لمسؤولي الطرق‬
‫والمواصالت"‪ ," AASHTO‬معامل تصميم الحمل و المقاومة "‪" LRFD‬مواصفة‬
‫تصميم الجسور كمعيار أو مرجع لتصميم نظام التصريف‪.‬على طريق الشهيد أسامة‬
‫المقبول و طريق الفردوس المصرفين سلحا بعدد ‪ 0‬سيخات بقطر ‪11‬ملم في البالطة‬
‫العلوية والسفلية و البالطتين الجانبيتين من الداخل و الخارج‪ ,‬لطريق جامعة األزهري‬
‫التسليح عدد ‪ 0‬سيخات بقطر ‪ 11‬ملم في البالطة العلوية و السفلية من الداخل و الخارج‬
‫أما البالطتين الجانبيتين فسلحت ب ‪ 0‬سيخات من الخارج و ‪ 9‬سيخات من الداخل بقطر‬
‫‪ 11‬ملم‪.‬‬
‫بالنسبة لطريق الفردوس تم إعادة تصميم نظام التصريف الموجود أما الطريقين اآلخرين‬
‫تم تصميم أنظمة جديدة لتلبية متطلبات التصميم المتكامل‪.‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬
 ABBREVIATIONS:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials

ARI: Average Recurrence Interval

DC: Self-Weight

EH: Earth Horizontal Pressure

EV: Earth Vertical Pressure

FB: Free Board

GIS: Geographic Information System

IM: Dynamic Load Allowance

LL: Design Vehicular Live Load

LLD: Live Load Distribution

LLDF: Live Load Distribution Factor.

LRFD: Load and Resistance Factor Design

LS: Live Load Surcharge

LT: Length of Tire Contact Area

Mn/DOT: Minnesota Department of Transportation

MPF: Multiple Presence Factor

WA: Water Pressure

V
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure ‎1-1 Properties Damage .........................................................................3

Figure ‎1-2 Transportation Problems ................................................................3

Figure ‎2-1 Road cross section grading patterns used to control surface drainage
.......................................................................................................................7

Figure ‎2-2 Bridge ............................................................................................9

Figure ‎2-3 Culvert ...........................................................................................9

Figure ‎2-4 Flood way ......................................................................................9

Figure ‎2-5Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (Less than 2 feet of fill) ............ 25

Figure ‎2-6 Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (2 feet of fill or greater) ........... 26

Figure ‎2-7 Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (2 feet of fill or greater showing
load projection overlap) ................................................................................ 27

Figure ‎2-8 Live Load Surcharge .................................................................... 28

Figure ‎3-1Alkalakla- Khartoum .................................................................... 32

Figure ‎3-2 Bant- Omdurman ......................................................................... 32

Figure ‎3-3 Elshheed Osama Almagbool Road Plan ....................................... 33

Figure ‎3-4 Elshaheed Osama Almagboul Road “Catchment Areas” ............... 35

Figure ‎3-5 Serious Damage on The Road Pavement ...................................... 36

Figure ‎3-6 Longitudinal Profile for Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road ........ 37

Figure ‎3-7Alazhari University Road “Catchment Areas” ............................... 38

Figure ‎3-8 Pavement distress and failure in some parts ..................................39

Figure ‎3-9Longitudinal Profile for Alazhari University Road ........................ 40

Figure ‎3-10Alferdos Road “Catchment Areas” .............................................. 41

Figure ‎3-11 Pavement Distress ...................................................................... 42

VI
Figure ‎3-12Longitudinal Profile for Elferdos Road........................................ 43

Figure ‎3-13Modified Longitudinal Slope Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

..................................................................................................................... 45

Figure ‎3-14 Drain Dimensions ofElshaheed Osama Almagbool Road ........... 47

Figure ‎3-15 Modified Longitudinal Slope Alazhariy University Road ........... 48

Figure ‎3-16 Drain Dimensions Alazhariy University Road ............................ 50

Figure ‎3-17 Modified Longitudinal Slope Elferdos Road .............................. 51

Figure ‎3-18 Drain Dimensions Elferdos Road ............................................... 53

Figure 4-1 Cracking and Non uniformityy of Levels Elshaheed Osama

Elmagboul Road ........................................................................................... 54

Figure ‎4-2 Edge Cracking“Alazhariy University Road”................................. 55

Figure 4-3 The Existing Culvert and Road Surface DestressAlferdos Road ... 55

Figure ‎4-4 The Existing Drainage systemAlferdos Road ............................... 56

Figure ‎4-5 Drain's Reinforcement..................................................................57

Figure ‎4-6 Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul’s Drain........................................... 57

Figure ‎4-7 Alazhariy University's Drain ........................................................ 58

Figure ‎4-8 Alferdos's Drain ........................................................................... 58

Figure ‎5-1 Execution of workElshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road ................. 61

Figure ‎5-2 Execution of work Alazhariy University Road ............................. 61

Figure ‎5-3 Execution of work Alferdos Road ................................................ 62

Figure ‎5-4 Gully at the side of a road ........................................................... 62

Figure ‎5-5 Gully at the middle of a road ........................................................ 62

VII
LIST OF TABLES:
Table ‎2-1 General selection factors ............................................................... 10

Table ‎2-2 Run-off Coefficient Values............................................................ 17

Table ‎2-3 Recommended Standard Inlet Times ............................................. 18

Table ‎2-4 Manning's Roughness Coefficient Values ...................................... 20

Table ‎3-1 Design Data and water flow calculations Elshaheed Osama
Almagbool Road ........................................................................................... 46

Table ‎3-2 Manning equation trials Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road ......... 46

Table ‎3-3 Drain Structural Design Results Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road
..................................................................................................................... 47

Table ‎3-4 Design Data and Water Flow Calculations Alazhariy University
Road ............................................................................................................. 49

Table ‎3-5 Manning Equation Trials Alazhariy University Road..................... 49

Table ‎3-6 Drain Structural Design Results Alazhariy University Road .......... 50

Table ‎3-7 Design Data and Water Flow Calculations Elferdos Road.............. 52

Table ‎3-8 Manning Equation Trials Elferdos Road ........................................ 52

Table ‎3-9 Drain Structural Design Results Elferdos Road.............................. 53

VII
I
TABLE OF CONTENT :

Acknowledgement ...................................................................... I

Abstract ...................................................................................... II

‫………………………………………………………المستخلص‬..………...………….…IV

ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………..….………V

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………….……………….……………..………VI

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….….VIII

1 Introduction: ......................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement: ........................................................................ 2
1.3 Scope: ............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Objectives: ...................................................................................... 4

2 Literature Review: ................................................................ 5

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 5
2.2 Drainage Considerations ................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Geometric Considerations: ...................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Geographic Considerations: ..................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Environmental Considerations: ................................................................ 8
2.2.4 Selection of Drainage Infrastructure: ....................................................... 8
2.2.5 Maintenance Considerations: ................................................................ 12
2.2.6 Safety Considerations: ........................................................................... 13
2.2.7 Staged Construction of roads: ................................................................ 13

2.3 Design criteria: .............................................................................. 13

IX
2.3.1 Introduction: .......................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Hydrology Design ................................................................................... 14
 Runoff Coefficient ....................................................................................................... 16
 Rainfall intensity.......................................................................................................... 18
 Time of concentration ................................................................................................. 18
2.3.3 Permissible Velocities ............................................................................ 20
2.3.4 Structural and Configuration Requirements of Drains ............................ 20

3 Work Done and Results ...................................................... 32

3.1 Case study: .................................................................................... 32
3.1.1 Introduction: .......................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road: ....................................................... 32
3.1.3 Alazhariy University Road: ..................................................................... 33
3.1.4 AlferdosRoad: ........................................................................................ 33

3.2 Data Collection: ............................................................................ 34

3.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 34
3.2.2 Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road: ....................................................... 35
3.2.3 Alazhariy University Road: ..................................................................... 38
3.2.4 AlferdosRoad: ........................................................................................ 41

3.3 Study Results ................................................................................. 44

3.3.1 Elshaheed Osama AlmagboolRoad: ........................................................ 45
3.3.2 Alazhariy University Road: ..................................................................... 48
3.3.3 AlferdosRoad: ........................................................................................ 51

4 Discussion: .......................................................................... 54

5 Conclusion and Recommendations: .................................... 60

5.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 60
5.2 Recommendations ........................................................................ 62

References………….……………………………………………………….…………63
APPENDICES:

X
APPENDIX (A): Cross sections profile along the Road.

APPENDIX (B): Modified Cross-Sectional Slope.

APPENDIX (C): Structural Design Details.

XI
Chapter One Introduction

1 Introduction:
1.1 Background
Drainage is the natural or artificial removal of surface and sub-surface
water from an area. The most important part in infrastructure is the

adequate drainage system. Lack or improper drainage design shall

result in continuous difficulties in human daily life. A rainwater
drainage system should be designed to collect and convey run-off
generated within a catchment area during and after rainfall events, for
safe discharge into a receiving watercourse or the sea. The magnitude
of peak flows that have to be accommodated will depend primarily on
the intensity of rainfall and the size, topography, soil type,
configuration and land use of the catchment. (COLLIER 2000)
Road drainage is an important element of the road environment and
therefore must be considered in all planning, design, construction and
maintenance projects. The appropriate management of rainwater about
the road environment is vital to user safety, longevity of the road asset
and protection of the environment. This demands a holistic and multi-
disciplined to the road drainage planning and design activity in order
to satisfy both hydraulic and environmental requirements in
determining an appropriate drainage solution at a cost acceptable to
the community. (Reeves 2010)
Provision for adequate drainage is of paramount importance in road
design and cannot be overemphasized. The presence of excess water
or moisture within the roadway will adversely affect the engineering
properties of the materials with which it was constructed. Cut or fill
failures, road surface erosion, and weakened sub-grades followed by a

1
Chapter One Introduction

mass failure are all products of inadequate or poorly designed

drainage. As has been stated previously, many drainage problems can
be avoided in the location and design of the road: Drainage design is
most appropriately included in alignment and gradient planning.
(M.P. 1986)
Roads will affect the natural surface and subsurface drainage pattern
of a watershed or individual hill slope. Road drainage design has as its
basic objective the reduction and/or elimination of energy generated
by flowing water. The destructive power of flowing water increases
exponentially as its velocity increases. Therefore, water must not be
allowed to develop sufficient volume or velocity so as to cause
excessive wear along ditches, below culverts, or along exposed
running surfaces, cuts, or fills. (M.P. 1986)
Control of water flow is our target as its accumulation threatens the
nearby structures. Prior studies should be carried out to form the
readiness versus changing water flow directions that might be caused
by development of surrounded areas.

1.2 Problem Statement:

Considerable drainage problem was faced Khartoum state within the
last rainy seasons. Recently in 2014 more than 2,000 homes have been
destroyed in the Khartoum region alone according Sudan News
Agency (SUNA). Heavy rain caused potential and clear cut on many
roads and streets. Consequently damage of properties as well as
inhabitants’ injuries occurred. Moreover usual people transportation to
and from work premises were being ceased for a period due to
inaccessible roads.

2
Chapter One Introduction

The main reason of all those problems is the poor water drainage
system design which is mainly due to inadequate drainage capacity
(geometric) or weak drainage structure (structural). Both geometric
and structural problems will be investigated in this study.

Figure ‎1-1 Properties Damage

Figure ‎1-2 Transportation Problems

1.3 Scope:
Describe the procedure recommended for the selection and design of
drainage system components in order to direct rainwater off the road.
Guidelines contained in this research have been developed from a
comprehensive review of basic design technology as contained in

3
Chapter One Introduction

various engineering publications, and through the experience of

individual engineers who have contributed to the content. This
research addresses rainwater drainage situations which are generally
relative to Khartoum state and its immediate geographical area.
Present basic principles and theories concerning the removal of excess
water from road and areas around. In various branches of science,
certain laws of flow have been discovered that apply to the movement
of water on the road surface, within channels. Also, much empirical
information providing a basis for the empirical methods of drainage
design has accumulated over the years. Review of these fundamentals
as they apply to drainage should be helpful to the engineer in correctly
appraising drainage problems in the early stages of their investigation
and working out their practical solution.
Knowledge of drainage principles is necessary in developing local
standards for drainage design. Existing drains need to be evaluated.
Where local information for design criteria is lacking, experience from
other places may need to be adapted for local use.

1.4 Objectives:
1. To develop sustainable rainwater drainage system.
2. To present planning and design guideline for roads drainage
system (case study).
3. To emphasize the ability of comprehensive and enlightened
planning, design, and review practices to minimize and facilitate
rainwater drainage system maintenance.
4. To limit flooding of public and private property, both within the
catchment and downstream, to acceptable levels.

4
Chapter Two Literature Review

2 Literature Review:
2.1 Introduction
The planning and design of road drainage infrastructure can be quite
complicated and involves the consideration of a diverse set of data in
order to develop the most appropriate drainage solution for a project.
Collaborative planning by a group of professionals with
complementary skills is often a productive way to identify all aspects,
issues, functional requirements, expectations, demands, constraints,
risks and possible costs to be considered in a project.(Reeves 2010)

2.2 Drainage Considerations

In order to develop the most appropriate drainage solution, the project
team for each project must select applicable drainage considerations
from following categories. (Reeves 2010)

 Geometric
 Geographic
 Environmental
 Crossing type
 Maintenance
 Safety
 Staged construction of road
2.2.1 Geometric Considerations:
There are two aspects of geometric that must be considered in the
drainage design for a road project. Some parts or components of these
aspects may in turn become design controls. The first aspect deals with
geometry of the stream and the second aspect deals with the geometry
of the road-stream crossing.(Reeves 2010)

5
Chapter Two Literature Review

2.2.1.1 Stream Geometrics

It is important to determine the geometry of the stream or flow path, in
particular:

Stream longitudinal alignment;

Stream gradient; and

channel shape.

Stream alignment refers to the natural meanders of the stream or creek

channel. While most streams have only one alignment for all flows, it
is possible to have the situation where the alignment for a low flow
differs from the alignment for a high flow in the same stream.

Stream gradient refers to the vertical alignment of the stream or creek

and changes to gradient will also affect flow parameters. Gradient has
a significant influence on flow velocity and velocity in turn has a
significant effect on sediment and scour potential.

Channel shape needs to be considered as it will tend to dictate the size

and configuration of drainage structures. Altering the channel shape to
accommodate a drainage structure will affect flow parameters and
could increase the risk of erosion. It is preferable to maintain or
preserve the existing channel shape as close as possible and culvert
structures should be designed to ‘fit’ the shape of the stream.(Reeves
2010)

6
Chapter Two Literature Review

2.2.1.2 Road Geometrics

Drainage is an integral component of road infrastructure and therefore
drainage design cannot be undertaken in isolation from the geometric
design of the road.

Important aspect related to the geometric design of roads is rainwater

runoff from the road surface. This aspect is critical as water flow (and
depth) on the road surface relates to aquaplaning. Surface flows are as
a result of the geometric road design (combination of horizontal,
vertical, cross section, cross fall and super elevation elements) and
therefore any identified problems should be solved and mitigated
through amended geometric road design.(Reeves 2010)

Water moves across the road surface laterally or longitudinally.

Lateral drainage is achieved by crowning or by in- or out- sloping of
road surfaces.(M.P. 1986)

Figure ‎2-1 Road cross section grading patterns used to control surface drainage

2.2.2 Geographic Considerations:

Geographic conditions play a significant role in the determination of
what type of drainage structure and/or controls may be adopted at
given location. Structures and controls that are appropriate in one part

7
Chapter Two Literature Review

of the state may not be suitable in other areas. This is also true for
prevention of erosion.(Reeves 2010)

2.2.3 Environmental Considerations:

Drainage has the potential of causing environmental harm. Therefore it
is important that environmental impacts are assessed and mitigated as
a part of the development and operation of a road drainage system.
(Reeves 2010)

2.2.4 Selection of Drainage Infrastructure:

Determining the type of structure for any crossing is an important
consideration and there are a number of factors that need to be
addressed in this process. It may be necessary to asses several options
of different crossing type and size, in order to appropriately meet the
design requirements and objectives. There are three main types of
cross drainage structures used on roads and each has particular
advantages and disadvantages.

Those types are:

 Bridges

 Culverts

 Floodways

8
Chapter Two Literature Review

Figure ‎2-2 Bridge Figure ‎2-3 Culvert

Figure ‎2-4 Flood way

There is a relevant factors that need to be considered in selecting

infrastructure are grouped into hydraulic and other factors.(Reeves
2010)

The hydraulic factors include:

 Flood discharge
 Stream channel conditions and topography
 Afflux constraints
 Debris properties
 Scour risk

Other relevant factors that need to be considered include:

 Road alignment
 Level of serviceability

9
Chapter Two Literature Review

 Navigation
 Soil conditions

Culvert types:

 Pipes (any material type)

 Box culverts including slab deck culverts
 Multi-plate arches (are not common)

Box culverts and slab deck culverts provide for a greater waterway
area at shallow depths, while pipes need to flow at a greater depth
before the maximum flow capacity is reached. The use of pipes
however does tend to spread the flow to a greater extent, which is
often desirable for consideration of concentration of flow and risk of
scour. (Reeves 2010)

Table ‎2-1 General selection factors

structure advantages Disadvantages

bridges  Waterway area generally
increases with increased
deck height.
 Provides greatest flood
immunity.
 Larges flow capacity.
 Fewer problems with
debris.
 Deck widening does not
affect capacity.
 Fewer disturbances to
riparian environment
about waterway.
 Less impact on fauna/fish
passage.
 Higher design,
construction and
maintenance costs.
 More structural
maintenance required.
 Spill slopes can be
affected by erosion
(potential for costly
batter protection
requirements particularly
for higher / exposed
approach embankments).
 Pier and abutment can
be affected by scour.
 Increased buoyancy,
drag and impact risks.
 Susceptible to stream /
channel migration.

10
Chapter Two Literature Review

culverts  Simplest structure to  Generally require higher

design / construct levels of maintenance
 Generally most cost  Most susceptible to
effective option failure
 Can accommodate future  Higher siltation / debris
changes to road geometry risk (blockage)
 Less structural  Increased environmental
maintenance impacts (fauna / fish
 Can spread flows passage)
 Potential for scour at
outlet
 Subject to abrasion
 Future extension may
reduce capacity
 Potential for separation
at joints
 Potential for failure by
piping (leading to failure
of embankment)
floodways  Generally, simple to  Allow water flow over
design road –immunity and
 May offer safety issues
environmentaladvantages  Increased disruption to
over culverts andbridges, traffic dueto overtopping
since they will tend  Can have higher
tospread flows more constructioncosts than
widely culverts
 Typically have  Batter slopes can be
lowembankments affected byerosion /
 Risk of scour to waterway scour (particularly
andsurrounding land is forhigher embankments)
reduced  Generally have costly
batterprotection
requirements
 Susceptible to stream /
channelmigration
 Can have environmental
impacts(fauna / fish
passage)
 Potential for failure
ofembankment
(depending onprovided
protection)

11
Chapter Two Literature Review

A further consideration for pipe culverts is material type. There are

several material types available:

 Reinforced concrete

Are the most type common used. This is primarily due to products
availability, strength, serviceability, durability and overall cost
(design, construction and operation).

 Corrugated steel (plate or rolled)

Generally quicker and easier to construct as well as easy to handle and

transport. Traditional steel culverts are no longer used as they do not
meet the required 100 years design life. To achieve this requirement,
steel culverts must have added protective coatings.

 Polyethylene and polypropylene

Limited to smaller diameter sizes, but can provide acceptable

alternative in some circumstances.

 Fibre reinforced

Limited to smaller diameter sizes, have some flexibility within the

walls of the culvert and tolerate construction loads and low cover
installation better than reinforced concrete pipes.(Reeves 2010)

2.2.5 Maintenance Considerations:

The provision for maintenance is an integral component of the
planning and design phases of road drainage. Adequate maintenance is
necessary for the proper operation of the drainage system. The lack of
maintenance is one of the most common causes of failure of drainage
systems. (Reeves 2010)

12
Chapter Two Literature Review

2.2.6 Safety Considerations:

An integral aspect of the detailed design of all road drainage systems
is the underlying consideration of safety.

 Maintenance access – safe access needs to be provided to all

drainage structures that require either ongoing or occasional
maintenance.
 Human safety– where long culverts potentially provide a
hazard to human safety, preventative measures should be
considered.
 Traffic safety- projecting culvert ends have the potential to act
as obstructions to "out of control" vehicles.
 Floodway safety-the main issue associated with safety at flood
ways is adequate sight distance for drivers to ensure vehicles
can stop before entering the floodwaters.
 Energy dissipaters- energy dissipation is necessary due to high
flow velocities.(Reeves 2010)

2.2.7 Staged Construction of roads:

Whole of life considerations dictate that the design of a road takes
proper account of both expected and potential changes that will or may
occur as traffic grows and the surrounding land use develops or
changes(Reeves 2010)

2.3 Design criteria:

2.3.1 Introduction:
Drainage infrastructure for a road project is planned and designed to
provide a standard or level of drainage immunity that conforms to
good engineering practice and that also meets community

13
Chapter Two Literature Review

expectations. It is conventionally specified based on an Average

Recurrence Interval (ARI).

This is defined as the average interval in years between exceedances

of a specified event (i.e. rainfall or discharge) and is written as ‘ARI x
years’. The ARI is really a probability rather than an actual period
between occurrences.

Within a project, the design criteria will vary in accordance with road
type and whether the design relates to cross drainage, surface drainage,
urban drainage, or construction phase drainage, including erosion and
sediment control.

Culverts must be designed to convey the flow in an acceptable way,

considering the hydraulic conditions and the required performance
(level of flood immunity) of the road.

The design of a culvert commences with assembling the data related to

the drainage site including detailed survey of the site, cases site
inspection data, and other site specific information including
environmental and geotechnical reports. (Reeves 2010)

2.3.2 Hydrology Design

2.3.2.1 Design Discharge

The design discharge is the flow rate of the defined probability (or
Average Recurrence Interval) for the required drainage works.

Usually the design discharge is used to provide the size of the drainage
structure and the level of the road. The design discharge is expressed
as a flow rate, usually as cubic meters per second (m3/s), and is

14
Chapter Two Literature Review

calculated directly by a hydrology procedure, such as the Rational

Method for the drainage structure and this discharge is used
directly.(Reeves 2010)

 Calculation method (Rational method):

The Rational Method dates back to the mid-nineteenth century.

Despite valid criticisms, it is still the most widely used method for
rainwater drainage design because of its simplicity. Once the layout
and preliminary sizing of a system has been determined by the
Rational Method, the design can be refined by dynamic routing of the
flow hydrographs through the system. Details on the application of the
Rational Method are described below.

 Basic Formulations:

The idea behind the Rational Method is that for a spatially and
temporally uniform rainfall intensity i which continues indefinitely,
the runoff at the outlet of a catchment will increase until the time of
concentration tc, when the whole catchment is contributing flows to
the outlet. The peak runoff is given by the following expression:

Q= k *C* I* A

Where:

Q = flow rate, Q (m3/s) for an ARI of y years;

k = a conversion factor. k = 0.278 when A is km2 and 0.00278 when

A is hectares (ha);

C = runoff coefficient, C (dimensionless) for an ARI of y years;

15
Chapter Two Literature Review

I = average rainfall intensity, I (mm/h) for design duration of tc and

ARI of y years; and

A = area of catchment (either hectares or km2).

Runoff coefficient is measured by determining the soil type, gradient,

permeability and land use. The values are taken from the table below
(Table ‎2-2). The larger values correspond to higher runoff and lower

infiltration.

For a catchment consisting of m sub-catchments of areas Aj (km2)

each with different runoff coefficients Cj, the peak runoff at the
drainage outlet is given by the following expression:

Q= k * I * j* A j

Due to the assumptions of homogeneity of rainfall and equilibrium

conditions at the time of peak flow, the Rational Method should not be
used on areas larger than 1.5 km2 without subdividing the overall
catchment into smaller catchments and including the effect of routing
through drainage channels. The same consideration shall also be
applied when ground gradients vary greatly within the
catchment.(Reeves 2010)

 Runoff Coefficient

C is the least precisely known variable in the Rational Method. Proper

selection of the runoff coefficient requires judgment and experience on
the part of the designer. The value of C depends on the
impermeability, slope and retention characteristics of the ground
surface. It also depends on the characteristics and conditions of the

16
Chapter Two Literature Review

soil, vegetation cover, the duration and intensity of rainfall, and the
antecedent moisture conditions, etc.

Particular care should be taken when choosing a C value for unpaved

surface as the uncertainties and variability of surface characteristics
associated with this type of ground are known to be large.

It is important for designer to investigate and ascertain the ground

conditions before adopting an appropriate runoff coefficient. Table 2-3
shows values of the Run-off Coefficient.(Reeves 2010)

Table ‎2-2 Run-off Coefficient Values

Land Use C Land Use C

Lawns:
Sandy Soil, flat, 2% 0.05 – 0.10
Business: Sandy Soil, avg., 2-7% 0.10 – 0.15
Downtown Areas 0.7 – 0.95 Sandy Soil, steep, 7% 0.15 – 0.20
Neighborhood Areas 0.5 – 0.70 Heavy Soil, flat, 2% 0.13 – 0.17
Heavy Soil, avg., 2-7% 0.18 – 0.22
Heavy Soil, steep, 7% 0.25 – 0.35
Agricultural Land:
Bare Packed soil
*Smooth 0.30 – 0.60
*Rough 0.20 – 0.50
Residential: Cultivated rows
Single-family areas 0.30 – * Heavy Soil, no crop 0.30 – 0.60
Multi units, detached 0.50 * Heavy Soil, with 0.20 – 0.50
Multi units, attached 0.40 – crop 0.20 – 0.40
Suburban 0.60 * Sandy Soil, no crop 0.10 – 0.25
0.60 – * Sandy Soil, with crop
0.75 Pasture 0.15 – 0.45
0.25 – * Heavy Soil 0.05 – 0.25
0.40 * Sandy Soil 0.05 – 0.25
Woodlands

17
Chapter Two Literature Review

 Rainfall intensity

It is the average rainfall intensity selected on the basis of the design

rainfall duration and return period. The design rainfall duration is
taken as the time of concentration, tc.
 Time of concentration

tc is the time for a drop of water to flow from the remotest point in the
catchment to its outlet. For an urban drainage system,
tc = to + tf

tf=
Where: to = inlet time (time taken for flow from the remotest point to
reach the most upstream point of the urban drainage system) Table
below shows the Recommended Standard Inlet Times. (Reevs, 2010)
Table ‎2-3 Recommended Standard Inlet Times

location Inlet Time

(minutes)
Road surfaces and paved areas 5
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at 5
top of catchment is greater than 15%.
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at 8
top of catchment is greater than 10% and up to 15%.
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at 10
top of catchment is greater than 6%and up to 10%.
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at 13
top of catchment is greater than 3% and up to 6%.
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at 15
top of catchment is up to 3%.
Note: The average slopes referred to are the slopes along the predominant flow path for the
catchment in its developed state.

tf = flow time
Lj = length of jth reach of drain
Vj = flow velocity in jth reach of drain

18
Chapter Two Literature Review

2.3.2.2 Flow Velocities

It is the velocity of the flow of the water in the flow Path. The flow
velocity can be calculated for a particular location in a stream cross
section or it can be an average over a portion or the whole of the cross
section.

Flow velocity can be calculated using Manning’s Equation, by a

hydraulic model or it can be measured during an actual flood event.
(Reevs, 2010)

Manning’s Equation:

Where:
V = velocity in pipe (m/s);
R = hydraulic radius of pipe flowing full (m);
S = slope of energy line or hydraulic gradient (m/m);
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient for pipe. Table 2-5 shows “n”
Values.

19
Chapter Two Literature Review

Table ‎2-4 Manning's Roughness Coefficient Values

Surface Material Manning's Roughness

Coefficient
-n-
Asbestos cement 0.011

Asphalt 0.016

Brass 0.011
Brick 0.015

Canvas 0.012

Cast-iron, new 0.012

Clay tile 0.014

Concrete - steel forms 0.011

Concrete (Cement) - finished 0.012

Concrete - wooden forms 0.015

Concrete - centrifugally spun 0.013

2.3.3 Permissible Velocities
When designing a drainage structure or channel, the flow velocity is
an important input to the design process. This is because excessive
flow velocities will cause scour. The permissible velocities depend on
the material of the channel bed as well as the type of soil, channel
gradient and shapes as well as vegetation cover.

2.3.4 Structural and Configuration Requirements of Drains

Various methods can be used to model drains. Based on past
experience, MnDOT prefers a 2-Dimensional (2D) plane frame model
be used to analyze culverts. The model is assumed to be externally

20
Chapter Two Literature Review

supported by a pinned support on one bottom corner and roller support

on the other bottom corner. The stiffness of the haunch is included in
the model. The model is assumed to be in equilibrium so external
reactions to loads applied to the structure are assumed to act equal and
opposite. This section will assume a 2D plane frame model when
referring to modeling, applied loads, and self-weight. (LRFD Bridge
Design Manual 2013)

2.3.4.1 Loads
 Self-Weight (DC)

The self-weight of the top slab must be resisted by the top slab. The
benefit of axial compression from the self-weight of the top slab
and walls is not included in the analysis. The top slab, wall, and all
haunch weights are applied to the bottom slab as an upward reaction
from the soil in an equivalent uniform pressure. The bottom slab
weight is not applied in the model because its load is assumed to be
directly resisted by the soil. (LRFD Bridge Design Manual 2013)

 Earth Vertical (EV)

The design fill height is measured from the top surface of the top slab
to the top of the roadway or fills. The design fill height is denoted by
the abbreviations of H or DE depending on the equation used. Earth
vertical loads refer to soil and pavement loads above the culvert and in
adjacent regions slightly outside the span of the culvert based on the
soil-structure interaction factor. Culvert walls are assumed to be
frictionless, so no vertical component of the earth horizontal resultant
force is considered. (LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

21
Chapter Two Literature Review

The soil-structure interaction factor (Fe) is used to adjust the vertical

earth load carried by the culvert. It is intended to approximate the
arching effects of some of the overburden soil to adjacent regions
slightly outside the span of the culvert and account for installation
conditions. (LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

Culverts placed in trench conditions need to carry less vertical load

than those constructed in embankment conditions, because the
consolidated material in the adjacent trench walls is typically
stiffer than new embankment material. Conservatively assume
culverts are installed in embankment conditions.

The factor is:

Fe = 1+0.20*

Where:

H = Depth of backfill (ft)

Bc = Outside width of culvert (2*sidewall thickness + span) (ft)

 Earth Horizontal (EH)

For design and analysis purposes, the equivalent fluid method is used.
The maximum for lateral earth pressure on the walls based on at rest
pressure.

For minimum force effects, the condition of submerged soil pressure

acting on the walls is taken as one-half of the earth weight acting on
the outside walls.

22
Chapter Two Literature Review

 Water (WA)

Designers need to consider two loading conditions:

1) The culvert is full of water, and

2) The culvert is empty.

 Design Vehicular Live Load (LL)

The approximate strip method is used for design with the 1 foot wide
design strip oriented parallel to the span. The design live loads applied
to the top slabs of box culverts include the HL-93 truck and tandem
loads for box culverts of any span length.

Design Lane Loads:

The design lane load consists of a load of 0.64 klf uniformly

distributed over an area of 1 foot (parallel to the culvert span)
by 10 feet perpendicular to the culvert span.

Tire Contact Area:

The tire contact area of a wheel consisting of one or two tires is

assumed to be a single rectangle, whose width is 20 inches and whose
length is 10 inches. The tire pressure is assumed to be uniformly
distributed over the rectangular contact area on continuous surfaces.
(LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

One or Two Lane Loading and Multiple Presence Factor (MPF):

Design box culverts for a single loaded lane with a multiple presence
factor of 1.2. MnDOT investigated several live load cases with
several box culvert spans at different fill heights and found the live
load intensity of 2 lanes with a MPF of 1.0 controlled over a single

23
Chapter Two Literature Review

lane with a multiple presence factor of 1.2 at fill heights of 6.5 feet and
greater. However, the maximum live load intensity increase as a
percentage of the total load is very small. Based on these findings and
the commentary in AASHTO Article C12.11.2.1, multiple loaded
lanes are not considered in box culvert design. (AASHTO LRFD
BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIOPNS, 2012)

Dynamic Load Allowance (IM):

The dynamic load allowance (IM) for culverts and other buried
structures reduced based on the depth of fill over the culvert.
AASHTO LRFD requires that IM be considered for fill heights of up
to 8 ft. The equation to calculate the dynamic load allowance is as
follows:

IM = 33 (1.0 – 0.125 DE) ≥ 0% (for strength and service limit states)

Where:

DE = the minimum depth of earth cover above the structure (ft)

 Live Load Influence Depth:

Live Load Distribution with Less Than 2 Feet of Fill:

Most box culverts are designed assuming traffic travels parallel

to the span. In that scenario, when the depth of fill measured from the
top of the roadway or fill to the top of the top slab is less than 2 feet,
distribute the design truck or design tandem loads according to
AASHTO

Figure 2-5 (Case 1: Traffic Travels Parallel to Span). If traffic

travels perpendicular to the span, design according to AASHTO

24
Chapter Two Literature Review

4.6.2.1. (AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIOPNS,

2012)

Figure ‎2-5Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (Less than 2 feet of fill)

The truck axle loads are considered to be uniformly distributed

over a rectangular area equal to E*E span, as shown in Figure above
where:

E = 96 + 1.44 S

E span = LT + LLDF (H)

Where:

E = equivalent distribution width perpendicular to span (in)

S = clear span (ft)

E span = equivalent distribution length parallel to span (in)

LT = length of tire contact area parallel to span (in)

LLDF = 1.15, factor for distribution of live load through depth of fill

H = depth of fill from top of culvert to top of pavement (in)

Box culverts with fill heights less than 2 feet require a

distribution slab. No structural benefit from the distribution slab is

25
Chapter Two Literature Review

considered during design, other than satisfying AASHTO

requirements for shear transfer across joints. (LRFD Bridge Design
Manual, 2013)

Live Load Distribution with 2 Feet of Fill or Greater:

Where the depth of fill exceeds 2 feet, wheel loads may be

considered to be uniformly distributed over a rectangular area with
sides equal to the dimension of the tire contact area and increased by
either 1.15 times the depth of the fill in select granular backfill, or the
depth of the fill in all other cases. Note that the tables in the MnDOT
standard plans use 1.15. MnDOT has not adopted the LLD ’s as
revised in the AASHTO 2013 Interim Revisions, Article 3.6.1.2.6.
(LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

The load distribution is shown in cases Figure 2-6 where the

distributed load from each wheel is separate. Figure 2-7 shows the
areas overlapping. In those cases, the total load will be uniformly
distributed over the entire area.

Figure ‎2-6 Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (2 feet of fill or greater)

26
Chapter Two Literature Review

Figure ‎2-7 Traffic Traveling Parallel to Span (2 feet of fill or greater showing load
projection overlap)

 Live Load Surcharge (Approaching Vehicle Load)

AASHTO requires that a live load surcharge be applied where

vehicular load is expected to act on the surface of the backfill within a
distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the back face
of the wall. MnDOT uses a modified form of AASHTO Article
3.11.6.4 to compute the approaching vehicle load. A trapezoidal
pressure distribution is assumed with the maximum pressure Pmax at
the top of the box culvert and the minimum pressure Pmin at the
bottom of the box culvert. The live load surcharge is only to be
applied to one wall of the culvert. For simplification of the
analysis, MnDOT applies an equal and opposite reaction to the other
wall.

27
Chapter Two Literature Review

Figure ‎2-8 Live Load Surcharge

This methodology more closely approximates a Boussinesq load

distribution than assuming a rectangular distribution with an at rest
coefficient of lateral earth pressure. Use AASHTO, Equation 3.11.6.4-
1 to compute the horizontal earth pressures (Pmax and Pmin)
assuming an active coefficient of lateral earth pressure. (LRFD Bridge
Design Manual, 2013)

2.3.4.2 Limit States and Load Combinations

Design for the Strength I and Service I limit states. Evaluation of
extreme event and fatigue limit states is unnecessary because culvert
design is not governed by these limit states.

 Load Combinations

The following load combinations were developed by varying the

Strength I and Service I load factors in order to maximize moments
and shears for the various box culvert members. At a minimum,
consider the following load cases:

 Strength Limit States:

Ia. Maximum vertical load and maximum horizontal load:

28
Chapter Two Literature Review

1.25DC + (1.30)(1.05)EV + 1.75(LL+IM) + (1.35)(1.05)EHmax+

1.75LS

Ib. Maximum vertical load and minimum horizontal load:

1.25DC + (1.30)(1.05)EV + 1.75(LL+IM) + 1.00WA +

(0.9/1.05)EHmin

Ic. Minimum vertical load and maximum horizontal load:

0.90DC + (0.90/1.05)EV + (1.35)(1.05)EHmax + 1.75LS

 Service Limit States:

Ia. Maximum vertical load and maximum horizontal load:

1.00DC + 1.00EV + 1.00(LL+IM) + 1.00EHmax + 1.00LS

Ib. Maximum vertical load and minimum horizontal load:

1.00DC + 1.00EV + 1.0(LL+IM) + 1.00WA + 1.00EHmin

Ic. Minimum vertical load and maximum horizontal load:

1.00DC + 1.00EV + 1.00EHmax + 1.00LS

 Use a value of 1.0 for all load modifiers (η) for box culvert
design, except for earth EV and EH loads, EV & EH where η R =
1.05 is used due to the lack of redundancy. (AASHTO LRFD
BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIOPNS, 2012)

2.3.4.3 Axial Thrust

Do not consider the benefit of axial thrust in the design of box
culverts for the strength limit state. It may be used in the service limit
state crack control check.

29
Chapter Two Literature Review

2.3.4.4 Flexure
Flexural reinforcement is designed for positive and negative
moment at all design locations. The flexural resistance factor, f, is 1.0
for precast concrete.

2.3.4.5 Crack Control

Restrict the stress in the reinforcement to 60% of the yield
strength. For welded wire fabric, assume a maximum spacing of 4
inches. Check crack control using the Class II exposure condition
(e=0.75). Compute the tensile stress in the steel reinforcement at the
service limit state using the benefits of axial thrust as shown in
AASHTO equation C12.11.3-1 (5). Fabricators have discretion in
choosing wire spacing, but the spacing cannot exceed 4 inches.

2.3.4.6 Maximum Reinforcement

The standards and typical designs use a resistance factor of 1.0
with a section that is tension-controlled. Special designs may require a
reduced resistance factor.

Reinforcement is limited to 0.6ρb. This ensures that the

reinforcement is not too congested, allowing for easier and more
efficient fabrication. (LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

2.3.4.7 Minimum Reinforcement

MnDOT requires reinforcement in all slabs and walls in both
directions on both faces regardless of fill height. In top and bottom
slabs for all fill heights, use 0.002 x b x h as the minimum
primary reinforcement. Distribution reinforcement is not needed,
since a distribution slab is required for all boxes with less than 2.0 feet
of fill.

30
Chapter Two Literature Review

A minimum amount of reinforcement is required to be placed in

each face in each direction in the top and bottom slabs and walls
for all box sections regardless of cover. The MnDOT minimum
value for this reinforcement is 0.06 in /ft, which is greater than the
AASHTO minimum. (LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2013)

2.3.4.8 Shear Critical Section

Because of the 1:1 slope of the haunch, the critical section for
shear may be taken at dv past the tip of the haunch.

 Shear in Slabs of Box Culverts with Less Than 2 Feet of Fill and
Walls of Box Culverts at All Fill Heights

For top slabs of boxes with less than 2 feet of fill and walls of
boxes at all fill heights calculate the shear resistance using the
greater of that computed using the “Simplified Procedure for Non-
pre-stressed Sections” given in AASHTO LRFD Article 5.8.3.4.1
and the “General Procedure ” given in AASHTO Article 5.8.3.4.2.
(AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIOPNS, 2012)

 Shear in Slabs of Box Culverts with 2 Feet of Fill or Greater

For top and bottom slabs of boxes with 2 feet of fill or greater
calculate the shear resistance using the shear provisions specific to
slabs of box culverts.

For slabs of boxes with thicknesses greater than 12 inches,

contact the MnDOT Bridge Standards Unit for shear provisions.

2.3.4.9 Fatigue
Fatigue is not considered in the design of buried structures.

31
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3 Work Done and Results

3.1 Case study:
3.1.1 Introduction:
Generally all roads in Khartoum state were affected by the recent
heavy rain. Significant water pools were found on the pavements.

Figure ‎3-1Alkalakla- Khartoum Figure ‎3-2 Bant- Omdurman

Three roads were randomly selected based on heavy traffic and severe
water effect.
3.1.2 Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road:
Connecting Elengaz and Almaoona main Roads- Khartoum North.

32
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-3 Elshheed Osama Almagbool Road Plan

3.1.3 Alazhariy University Road:

Connecting Almaoona and Alsaid Ali main Roads - Khartoum
North.

Figure‎3-4 Alazhriy University Road Plan

3.1.4 AlferdosRoad:
Connecting Alseteen and EbaidKhatim main Roads- Khartoum.

33
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure‎3-5 Alferdos Road Plan

3.2 Data Collection:

3.2.1 Introduction
Using Google Earth and Geographic Information System (GIS)
programs the natural drains and catchment areas were obtained for
each street. To be used in the hydrological design.

The selected sites were visited, to record the road existing levels
readings using Theodolite Device.

Each Road was divided into sections were located at which five points
were defined, distributed across the road section in arrangement: one
in the middle, two at the side edges and two outside the road width.

The longitudinal profile obtained from the points at the middle in each
section along the Road. The first middle point was recorded as a
benchmark for the other points.

34
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.2.2 Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road:

Figure ‎3-4 Elshaheed Osama Almagboul Road “Catchment Areas”

35
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

The site visit shows serious damage on the street’s pavements and
irregular levels.

Figure ‎3-5 Serious Damage on The Road Pavement

Street length was divided into 60 meter intervals starting from

Elengaz to Almaoona Road. At the street terminal joining the main
road one point at the middle with 25 meter distance from the last
section was recorded. (Appendix (1))

36
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

longitudinal Profile Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

3
Ground Level
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Figure ‎3-6 Longitudinal Profile for Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

37
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results
3.2.3 Alazhariy University Road:

Figure ‎3-7Alazhari University Road “Catchment Areas”

38
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-8 Pavement distress and failure in some parts

1.0 Km length was divided into 50 meter intervals for the first 5
sections, and 60 meter for the rest starting from Almaoona to Alsaid
Ali Road. At the Road terminal joining the main road two points at the
middle with 20 meter distance from the last section was recorded.
(Appendix (1))

39
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Longitudinal Profile Alazhariy University Road

2

Ground Level
1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

Figure ‎3-9Longitudinal Profile for Alazhari University Road

40
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results
3.2.4 AlferdosRoad:

Figure ‎3-10Alferdos Road “Catchment Areas”

41
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-11 Pavement Distress

1.8 Km length was divided into 60 meter intervals starts from

Ebaid-Khatim to Alseteen Road. At the Street terminal joining the
main road two points at the middle with 21 meter distance from the
last section was recorded. (Appendix (1))

42
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3
Longitudinal Profile Level Elferdos Road
Ground Level
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Figure ‎3-12Longitudinal Profile for Elferdos Road

43
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3 Study Results

In geometric design the road levels longitudinally and transversely
have been changed in such a manner that the accumulated water is
easily discharged; longitudinally (1:2000) and transversely (1: 33.3).
(Appendix (2)) (Geyik, 1986)

As per recommendation in hydrological design, based on two years

retaining period, the rainfall intensity was obtained. The water
discharge flow (Q) has been calculated in terms of rainfall intensity
and catchment area established from GIS program.

In order to have an optimum design a factor of safety is taken as 1.2 to

get a new design discharge and hence larger area to design the culvert
structurally. (Appendix (3))

44
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.1 Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road:

3.3.1.1 Geometric Design For The longitudinal slope Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road:

Existing and Suggested Longitudinal Profile Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

3
Ground Level surface
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Figure ‎3-13Modified Longitudinal Slope Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

45
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.1.2 Hydrology design

Table ‎3-1 Design Data and water flow calculations Elshaheed Osama Almagbool
Road

to(5- L(m v(m/S v(m/ tf(L/v)mi tc=to+ I

A(km²) C=0.5 Q(m³/s)
10)min ) ) min) n tf (mm/hr) K
8 1400 0.70 42.00 33.33 41.33 7.50 0.3104 0.5 0.278 0.3236
8 1400 0.78 47.01 29.78 37.78 8.00 0.3104 0.5 0.278 0.3452

Table ‎3-2 Manning equation trials Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

B d a p R S Qcal Qact Vo
1 0.413 0.413 1.826 0.2261774 0.001 0.3232151 0.3236 0.783516
1 0.44 0.441 1.96 0.225 0.001 0.3522827 0.3452 0.784465

3.3.1.3 Structural design

Design discharge = 1.2*0.35 =0.42 m³/s

A = Q/V=0.42/0.78 =0.53 m²

1*0.53 Area

Total depth = d + FB

Where FB is the free board = 0.15d

So total depth = 1.15*0.53=0.6 m

The culvert area = 1*0.6 m

46
Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-14 Drain Dimensions ofElshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

Table ‎3-3 Drain Structural Design Results Elshaheed Osama Almagbool Road

DESIGN SUMMARY Side wall Top slab Bottom slab

Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside
Moment(KN.m) 1.46 15.54 18.53 13.64 20.00 15.54
Strength Assumed d (mm) 244 244 244 244 244 244
Req. steel area
(mm²/m) 16.62 177.77 212.2 155.95 229.23 177.77
Moment(KN.m) 9.4 10.73 11.911
Axial Thrust (KN) 29.37 4.50 5.79
Assumed d (mm) 244 244 244
Service Assumed dc (mm) 56 56 56
fss(N/mm²) 191.3 191.3 191.3
fs(N/mm²) 42.29 81.44 84.88

Req. steel area for fs<fss

crack control
(mm²/m)
min.
check 0.002Ag (mm²/m) 600 600 600 600 600 600
Area of steel provided
678.6 678.6 678.6 678.6 678.6 678.6

47
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.2 Alazhariy University Road:

3.3.2.1 Geometric Design For The Longitudinal Slope Alazhariy University Road:

Existing and Suggested Longitudinal Profile Alazhariy University Road

2

Ground Level surface

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

Figure ‎3-15 Modified Longitudinal Slope Alazhariy University Road

48
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.2.2 Hydrology design

Table ‎3-4 Design Data and Water Flow Calculations Alazhariy University Road

to(5- tc=to+ I C=
L(m) v(m/S) v(m/min) tf(min) A(km²) Q(m³/s)
10)min tf (mm/hr) 0.5 K
8 1000 0.70 42.00 23.81 31.81 8.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 0.8693
8 1000 0.87 52.16 19.17 27.17 9.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 0.9779
8 1000 0.65 39.12 25.56 33.56 8.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 0.8693
8 1000 0.98 59.07 16.93 24.93 10.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 1.0866
8 1000 1.03 61.57 16.24 24.24 11.50 0.7817 0.5 0.278 1.2495
8 1000 1.18 70.81 14.12 22.12 13.50 0.7817 0.5 0.278 1.4669
8 1000 1.08 64.68 15.46 23.46 12.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 1.3039
8 1000 1.06 63.50 15.75 23.75 11.00 0.7817 0.5 0.278 1.1952

Table ‎3-5 Manning Equation Trials Alazhariy University Road

B d a p R S Qcal Qact Vo
1 1 1 3 0.333333 0.001 1.013 0.8693 0.86925
1 1.5 1.5 4 0.375 0.001 1.64 0.9779 0.65193
1 0.883 0.883 2.766 0.319233 0.001 0.87 0.8693 0.98442
1 1.0588 1.0588 3.1176 0.339620 0.001 1.087 1.0866 1.02622
1 1.0588 1.0588 3.1176 0.339620 0.001 1.087 1.2495 1.18015
1 1.3608 1.3608 3.7216 0.365649 0.001 1.467 1.4669 1.07793
1 1.232 1.232 3.464 0.355658 0.001 1.30 1.3039 1.06
1 1.146 1.146 3.292 0.34 0.001 1.196 1.1952 1.04

3.3.2.3 Structural design

Design discharge = 1.2*1.2 =1.44 m³/s

A = Q/V=1.44/1.04 =1.38 m²

1*1.38 Area

Total depth = d + FB

Where FB is the free board = 0.15d

So total depth = 1.15*1.38=1.6 m

The culvert area = 1*1.6 m

49
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-16 Drain Dimensions Alazhariy University Road

Table ‎3-6 Drain Structural Design Results Alazhariy University Road

DESIGN SUMMRY Side wall Top slab Bottom slab

Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside
Moment(KN.m) 18.93 22.93 18.7 19.1 21.51 22.93
Strength Assumed d (mm) 244 244 244 244 244 244
Req. steel area (mm²/m) 278.97 338.36 275.9 281.1 317.2 338.4
Moment(KN.m) -14.453 -11.6 -14.453
Axial Thrust (KN) 84.25 65.2 84.25
Assumed d (mm) 244 244 244
Service Assumed dc (mm) 56 56 56
fss(N/mm²) 191.3 191.3 191.3
fs(N/mm²) 70.1 155.3 70.1

Req. steel area for fs<fss

crack control (mm²/m)
min.
check 0.002Ag (mm²/m) 600 600 600 600 600 600
Area of steel provided 1018 679 679 679 679 679

50
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.3 AlferdosRoad:

3.3.3.1 Geometric Design For The Longitudinal Slope Elferdos Road:

Existing and Suggested Longitudinal Profile Level Elferdos Road

3
Ground Level
2.5 surface

1.5

0.5

0
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Figure ‎3-17 Modified Longitudinal Slope Elferdos Road

51
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

3.3.3.2 Hydrology design

Table ‎3-7 Design Data and Water Flow Calculations Elferdos Road

to(5-
tf(min I ∑A(
10)mi L(m) v(m/S) v(m/min) tc=to+tf C Q(m³/s)
) (mm/hr) Km²)
n K
8 1800 0.70 42.00 42.86 50.86 6.00 1.259 0.5 0.278 1.0500
8 1800 1.02 61.17 29.43 37.43 8.00 1.259 0.5 0.278 1.4000
8 1800 1.07 64.37 27.96 35.96 8.50 1.259 0.5 0.278 1.4875

Table ‎3-8 Manning Equation Trials Elferdos Road

B d a p R S Qcal Qact Vo
1 1.03 1.03 3.06 0.33660131 0.001 1.050726852 1.0500 1.0194233
1 1.305 1.305 3.61 0.36149584 0.001 1.396115855 1.4000 1.0728031
1 1.377 1.377 3.754 0.36680874 0.001 1.487541632 1.4875 1.0802531

3.3.3.3 Structural design

Design discharge = 1.2*1.5 =1.8 m³/s

A = Q/V=1.8/1.08 =1.67 m²

(1*1.67) Area

Total depth = d + FB

Where FB is the free board = 0.15d

So total depth = 1.15*1.67=1.9m

The culvert area = 1*1.9 m

52
 Chapter Three Work Done and Results

Figure ‎3-18 Drain Dimensions Elferdos Road

Table ‎3-9 Drain Structural Design Results Elferdos Road

DESIGN SUMMRY Side wall Top slab Bottom slab

Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside
Moment(KN.m) 27.76 32.92 23.40 27.24 26.98 32.92
Strength Assumed d (mm) 294 294 294 294 294 294
Req. steel area (mm²/m) 339.54 403.13 285.9 333.1 329.98 403.13
Moment(KN.m) -20.7361 -16.6435 -20.7361
Axial Thrust (KN) 105.35 78.37 105.35
Assumed d (mm) 294 294 294
Service Assumed dc (mm) 56 56 56
fss(N/mm²) 199.68 199.68 199.68
fs(N/mm²) 49.86 141.91 62.33

Req. steel area for fs<fss

crack control (mm²/m)
min.
check 0.002Ag (mm²/m) 600 600 600 600 600 600
Area of steel provided 1131 679 679 679 792 679

53
Chapter Four Discussion

4 Discussion:
Generally, most of Khartoum State roads faced rain water drainage
problems in the past rainy seasons. This study is about to analyze
some of these problems to come out with the proper solution by taking
three streets as a case study (present planning and design guideline for
road drainage system).

By recording the existing cross-sectional and longitudinal

levels, non-uniformity of leveling is observed.

Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road has a length of 1.2 Km

and 7m width. On the sides; levels are higher than the pavement that
leads to significant water pools on the road. Alligator cracking have
been seen on the surface probably because the sub base/sub grade is
soaked (and has been for a long time).

Figure 4-1 Cracking and Non uniformityy of Levels Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul
Road

Alazhariy University Road has a length of 1.0 Km and 7.5 m width.

Edge cracking has been seen on the surface probably because the road
too narrow, no shoulders, and no edge support.

54
Chapter Four Discussion

Figure ‎4-2 Edge Cracking“Alazhariy University Road”

Alferdos Road has a length of 1.8 Km and 7 m width. There is no

obvious damage has been seen on the surface, but it faced difficulty in
draining the rain water in spite of the drainage system (culvert).

Figure 4-3 The Existing Culvert and Road Surface DestressAlferdos Road

In this study the roads levels are transversely and longitudinally

modified on purpose to avoid accumulating water on the surface. One
side drainage system is adopted due to the narrow width of the roads
and the small catchment area.

In hydrological manner Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road and

Alazhariy University Road have no drainage system. Therefore rain-

55
Chapter Four Discussion

fall intensity is obtained for two years retaining period from previous
study and experience of engineers. The rational method is used to
predict the rain-fall flow. Outcome of the Hydrological design is
culvert with an area of (1*0.6) m² and (1*1.6) m² respectively after
applying factor of safety (1.2) to the discharge. For Alferdos Road
culvert is designed to come out with an area of (1*1.9) m² whereas the
existing area (from east to west, at Ebaid-Khatim, the culvert starts
with two boxes of areas (0.77*1.31 m² and 0.77*1.21), then one box
(1.64*0.81) and ends to khor at Alseteen Road).

Figure ‎4-4 The Existing Drainage systemAlferdos Road

The culverts have been designed according to AASHTO LRFD

BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. It is considered as resting on
the original soil which is a clayey.
In Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road, the designed culvert with an
area of (1*0.6) m² is reinforced with steel of 678.6 mm² area; 6 bars
with diameter of 12 mm in top, bottom and side-walls slabs (inside
and outside). Figures 4-5 and 4-6 below show the Reinforcement
details and the culvert after execution.

56
Chapter Four Discussion

Figure ‎4-5 Drain's Reinforcement

Figure ‎4-6 Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul’s Drain

In Alazhariy University Road, the designed culvert with an area of

(1*1.6) m² is reinforced with steel of 678.6 mm² area; 6 bars with
diameter of 12 mm in top and bottom (inside and outside). For side-
walls slabs the steel area provided is 678.6 mm²; 6 bars with 12 mm
diameter (outside) and 1018 mm² area; 9 bars with diameter of 12
mm (inside).

57
Chapter Four Discussion

Figure ‎4-7 Alazhariy University's Drain

In Alferdos Road, the designed culvert with an area of (1*1.9) m² is

reinforced with steel of 678.6 mm² area; 6 bars with diameter of 12
mm in top slab (inside and outside).

Figure ‎4-8 Alferdos's Drain

58
Chapter Four Discussion

For bottom slab the steel area provided is 792 mm²; 7 bars with 12
mm diameter (inside) and 678.6 mm² area; 6 bars with diameter of 12
mm (outside).
For side-walls slabs the steel area provided is 1131mm²; 10 bars with
12 mm diameter (inside) and 678.6 mm² area; 6 bars with diameter of
12 mm (outside).

59
Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations

5 Conclusion and Recommendations:

5.1 Conclusion
In order to develop sustainable rainwater drainage system of the
selected roads has been designed according to American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications.
On priority basis planning and design guideline steps (geometry,
hydrology and structure) have been successfully followed. Referring
to chapter 3, the pre-mentioned has been explained.
For Elferdos Road the existing drainage system has been
redesigned whereas the other two streets new design has been adopted
to meet the requirements. On geometrical view the roads are properly
designed on purpose to convey the accumulating water to the culverts.
Well execution of this study design will result in limit flooding
of public and private property, both within the catchment and
downstream, to acceptable levels.

60
Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations

Figure ‎5-1 Execution of work Elshaheed Osama Elmagboul Road

Figure ‎5-2 Execution of work Alazhariy University Road

61
Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations

Figure ‎5-3 Execution of work Alferdos Road

5.2 Recommendations
1. Due to by-time accumulated soil, embankment at the road two
sides’ terminal, the rainwater is stored on the pavement surface. In
such case Gullies are recommended to take rainwater away from the
road into the drainage system.

Figure ‎5-4 Gully at the side of a road Figure ‎5-5 Gully at the middle of a road

2. To extend the road life-time and safeguard of the surrounding

catchment area, attention is recommended to be drawn in the design

62
 Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations

of a drainage system as it is considered an integrated part of the

road whole structure.

3. Modified designs specifications are to be drawn from up to date

references. Hydraulic aspects are to be included for further design of
the drainage system. Drainage system network should be established.

4. More future studies are expected in order to present a full model of a

road optimum design matrix (geometric, hydrology, hydraulic and
structure) and hence application is necessarily recommended.

63
Refrences:n.d.

AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. United States: American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North
Capitol Street, NW Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001, 2012.

COLLIER, J. STORMWATER DRAINAGE MANUAL. Wanchi, Hong Kong:

Drainage Services Department, 43/F Revenue Tower, Sgloucester Road,
2000.

"LRFD Bridge Design Manual."

www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/pdf/lrfdmanual/section12.pdf. 2013. (accessed
October 2014).

M.P., Geyik. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT FEILD MANUAL. ROME: Food

And Agriculture Organization of the United States, 1986.

Reeves, Ian. ROAD DRAINAGE MANUAL A guide to Planning, Design,

Operation and Maintenance of Road Drainge Infrastructure. Queensland,
Australia: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2010.

64
 Appendix (A)

Cross sections profile along the Road

Elshaheed Osama:
Original Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)
 x1 x2
0.25
x1 0.25
x2
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35
.

At 0 m At 60 m

0.25
x3 x3 x4 x4
0.25
0.05
0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 120 m At 180 m
 x5 x6
x5 x6
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 240 m At 300 m

x7 x7 x8 x8

0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35
-1.35

At 360 m At 420 m
 x9 x9 x10 x10
0.25 0.25

0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 480 m At 540 m

x11 x11 x12 x12

0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 600 m At 660 m
 x13
x13 x14 x14
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 720 m At 780 m

x15 x15 x16 x16

0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 840 m At 900 m
 x17 x18
x17 x18
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 960 m At 1020m

x19 x19
x20 x20
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 1080 m At 1140 m
 x22
x22 x21 x21

0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 1200 m
At 1260 m

x23 x23
0.25
0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35
-0.55
-0.75
-0.95
-1.15
-1.35

At 1320 m

Cross sections profile along the Street

 Alazhariy University Road:
Original Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)

‎ 1x
X1 x2 x2
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
0.5- -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
1.5- -1.5
2.5- -2.5
3.5- -3.5
4.5- -4.5
5.5- -5.5
6.5- -6.5

At 0 m At 50 m
 x3 x4
x3 x4
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 100 m At 150 m

x5 x5
x6 x6

4 4
2.5 2.5
1 1
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-2 -2

-3.5 -3.5

-5 -5

-6.5 -6.5

At 200 m At 260 m
 x7 x7 x8 x8
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 320 m At 380 m

x10
x9 x9 x10
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 440 m At 500 m
 x11
x11 x12 x12
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 560 m At 620 m
x14
x13 x13 x14
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 680 m At 740 m
 x15
x15 x16 x16
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 800 m At 860 m

x17
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5
-2.5 x17
-3.5
-4.5
-5.5
-6.5

At 920 m
 Cross sections profile along the Street

Alferdos Road:
Original Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)

x1
0
x1 x2 x2
0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 0 m At 60 m
 x4
x3 x3 x4
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 120 m At 180 m

0
x5 x5
x6 x6
0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6
-1.6

At 240 m At 300 m
 x7 x7
x8 x8
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 360 m At 420 m

x9 x9 x10 x10
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 480 m At 540 m
 x11
0
x11 x12 x12
0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 600 m At 660 m

x13 x13
0
x14 x14

0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.2
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 720 m At 780 m
 x16
x15 x15 x16
0
0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 840 m At 900 m

x17
x17 x18 x18
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 960 m At 1020 m
 x20
x19 x19
x20
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1080 m At 1140 m

x21 x21 x22 x22

0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1200 m At 1260 m
 0
x23 x23 x24 x24
0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1320 m At 1380 m

x25 x25
x26 x26
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6
-1.6

At 1440 m At 1500
 x27 x27 x28 x28
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1560 m At 1620 m

x29 x29 x30 x30

0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1680 m At 1740 m
 Cross sections profile along the Street

Appendix (B)
Modified Cross-Sectional Slope
Elshaheed Osama AlmagboolRoad:
Geometric design For the Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)

Modified Cross-Sectional Slope (Based On 3% side slope)

‎ 1x ‎ 1new x2 new 2
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
0.15- 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.35- -0.35
0.55- -0.55
0.75- -0.75
0.95- -0.95
1.15- -1.15
1.35- -1.35

At 0 m At 60 m
 x4 new 4
x3 new 3
0.25 0.25

0.05 0.05

-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.35 -0.35

-0.55 -0.55

-0.75 -0.75

-0.95 -0.95

-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 120 m At 180 m
x5 new 5 x6 new 6
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 240 m At 300 m
 x7 new 7 x8 new 8
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 360 m At 420 m
x9 new 9
x10 new 10
0.25
0.25
0.05
0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 480 m At 540 m
 x11 new 11 x12 new 12
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 600 m At 660 m
x13 new 13 x14 new 14
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35
 At 720 m At 780 m

x15 new 15 x16 new 16

0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 840 m At 900 m
x18
x17 new 17 new 18
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35
 At 960 m At 1020 m

x19 new 19 x20 new 20

0.25 0.25

0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35

At 1080 m At 1140 m
x21 new 21 x22 new 22
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35 -0.35
-0.55 -0.55
-0.75 -0.75
-0.95 -0.95
-1.15 -1.15
-1.35 -1.35
At 1200 m At 1260 m

x23 new 23
0.25
0.05
-0.15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.35
-0.55
-0.75
-0.95
-1.15
-1.35

At 1320 m

Modified cross sectional slope

Alazhariy University Road:
Geometric design For the Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)

Modified Cross-Sectional Slope (Based On 3% side slope)

x1 new 1 x2 new 2
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 0 m At 50 m
 x3 new 3 x4 new 4
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 100 m At 150 m
x5 new 5 x6 new 6
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 200 m At 260 m
 x7 new 7 x8 new 8
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 320 m At 380 m
x9 new 9 x10 new 10
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 440 m At 500 m
 x12 new 12
x11 new 11
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 560 m At 620 m
x13 new 13 x14 new 14
4.5 4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 680 m At 740 m
 x15 x16
new 15 4.5
4.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-4.5 -4.5
-5.5 -5.5
-6.5 -6.5

At 800 m At 860 m
x17 new 17
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-1.5
-2.5
-3.5
-4.5
-5.5
-6.5

At 920 m

Modified Cross Sectional Slope

 Alferdos Road:
Geometric design For the Cross-Sectional Levels:
Existing Road Levels (Based on site survey)

Modified Cross-Sectional Slope (Based On 3% side slope)

x1 new 1 x2 new 2
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-1
-1
-1.2
-1.2
-1.4
-1.4
-1.6
-1.6

At 0 m At 60 m
 x3 new 3 x4 new 4
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 120 m At 180 m
x5 new 5 x6 new 6
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 240 m At 300 m
 x7 x8 new 8
new 7
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 360 m At 420 m
x9 new 9 x10 new 10
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 480 m At 540 m
 x11 new 11 x12 new 12
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 600 m At 660 m
x13 new 13 x14 new 14
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 720 m At 780 m
 x15 new 15 x16 new 16
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 840 m At 900 m
x17 new 17 x18 new 18
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 960 m At 1020 m
 x19 new 19 x20 new 20
0
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1080 m At 1140 m
x21 new 21 x22 new 22
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8

-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1200 m At 1260 m
 x23 new 23 x24 new 24
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1320 m At 1380 m
x25 new 25 x26
0 new 26
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2

-1.4 -1.4

-1.6 -1.6

At 1440 m At 1500 m
 x27 new 27 x28 new 28
0 0
-0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1560 m At 1620 m
 x29 new 29 x30 new 30
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-0.2 -0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6

At 1680 m At 1740 m

Modified Cross Sectional Slope

 Appendix (C)
Structural Design Details
Elshaheed Osama AlmagboolRoad
 rise 0.6 m
span 1 m
outside width of the culvert, Bc 1.6 m
angle of internal friction Ø 12
cohesion C 0 KN/m²
Fill hight, H 0.3 m
Reinforced concrete γc 25 KN/m³
Water γw 9.81 KN/m³
Soil γs 26.98 KN/m³
Asphalt γa 22 KN/m³
Compressive strength, fc 28 N/mm²
Top slab thickness, Tt 0.3 m
Bottom slab thickness, Tb 0.3 m
Side wall thickness, TS 0.3 m
Haunch thickness, Th 0.3 m
Reinforcement clear cover 0.05 m
Modulus of elasticity, Es 200*10³ N/mm²
SFL1 1.2
SFL2 1.75
β 1.15
Yield strength, fy 360 N/mm²
A DEAD LOAD
the self weight of the culvert top slab is
DCtop= Tt*w* γc= 7.5 KN/m
the total self weight of the culvert top slab is
DCtop= Tt*w* γc*(Span+Ts)= 9.75 KN
the self weight of one culvert side wall is
DCside= Ts*w*γc*(Rise+Tt/2+Tb/2)= 6.75 KN
the self weight of one haunch is
DChaunch= 0.5*Th*Th*w* γc= 1.125 KN
the self weight of the culvert bottom slab is
DCbottom=( DC top +4DC haunch +2DC side )*(1/(span+Ts))= 21.34615385 KN/m
B MAXIMUM SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD
γav.=(γs+γa)/1= 24.49 KN/m³
SP=β*γav.*H*W= 8.44905 KN/m
C EARTH PRESSURE
 the interaction factor for embankment conditions is
Fe = 1+0.2*(H/Bc)= 1.0375
the design vertical earth pressure at the top of the
culvert
EV = Fe* γs*H*w= 8.397525 KN/m
Top culvert
EH max = γmax*H*w=
γmax=K0*γs= 21.3557519 KN/m³
k0=1-sinØ= 0.7915401
EH max= 6.406725571 KN/m
EH min=γmin*H*w= 5.301562403 KN/m
γmin=0.5*γmax= 10.67787595 KN/m³
EH min= 3.203362785 KN/m
Bottom culvert
EH max = γmax*(H+Tt+rise+Tb)*w= 32.03362785 KN/m
EH min=γmin*(H+Tt+rise+Tb)*w= 16.01681393 KN/m
D LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE
Ka=(1-sin Ø)/(1+sin Ø)= 0.654999061
lateral live load surchage on the top if the culvert
LStop =Ka*γs*Heq*w= 21.55968711 KN/m
Heq=1.22(equivalent fill height AASHTO table 3.11.64-
1= 1.22 m
the hieght for the live load surcharge at the bottom
H2=H+Tt+Rise+Tb= 1.5 m
LSbottom=Ka*γs*H1*w= 26.50781202 KN/m
E WATER LOAD
WA top= 0 KN/m
WAbotoom=γw*Rise*w= 5.886 KN/m
the upward reaction from the soil
WA bottom reaction=WA bottom *Span/(Span+Ts)= 4.527692308 KN/m
F LIVE LOAD
Dynamic load allowance
IM=33*(1-0.125*DE)= 28.941 %
live load distribution
a single truck axle configuration produces alive load
* intensity of:
WLL+IM =2*Pw*MPF*(1+IM)/(W*L1)=
Pw=load in each contact area 71.2 KN
W=Axle spacing+Wtire+1.15*H=
W=1.8288+0.509+1.15*H= 2.6828 m
L1= Ltire+1.15*H
L1=0.253+1.15*H= 0.598 m
MPF=1.2 1.2
 WLL+IM = 137.3386543 KN/m²
a tandem truck axle configuration produces a live load
** intensity of:
WLL+IM= 4*Pw*MPF*(1+IM)/(W*L2)
L2= Axle spacing + L1= 1.8172 m
WLL+IM= 90.39017751 KN/m²

LOAD SUMMARY
WEIGHT OF THE WALLS 21.34615 KN/m
EARTH PRESSURE ON WALLS
TOP MAXIMUM 6.406726 KN/m
MINIMUM 3.203363 KN/m
BOTTOM MAXIMUM 32.03363 KN/m
MINIMUM 16.01681 KN/m
LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE
TOP 21.55969 KN/m
BOTTOM 26.50781 KN/m
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE 4.527692 KN/m
UNIFORM LOAD ON ROOF EV 8.397525 KN/m
LIVE
LOAD 137.3387 KN/m

K=rise/span*(Tt/Ts)³= 0.6
K1=K+1= 1.6
K2=K+2= 2.6
K3=K+3= 3.6
K4=4*K+9= 11.4
K5=2*K+3= 4.2
K6=K+6= 6.6
K7=2*K+7= 8.2
K8=3*K+8= 9.8

ANALYSIS
WEIGHT OF THE WALLS
MOMENTS
Ma=Mab=w*span²*k/(12*k1*k3)= 0.185296 KN.m
Mc=-(k5/k)*Ma= -1.29708 KN.m
Mcd=w*span²/8-Mc= 1.371194 KN.m
Mac=(Ma+Mc)/2= -0.55589 KN.m
 HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE
Ma=w*rise²*k*k7/(60*k1*k3)= 0.023204 KN.m
Mc=(k8/k7)*Ma= 0.027732 KN.m
Mac=(Ma+Mc)/2-(w*rise²/16)= -0.0764 KN.m
UNIFORM LOAD ON ROOF EV
Ma=Mc=-w*span²/(12*k1)= -0.43737 KN.m
Mab=Mcd=(w*span²/8)-Ma= 0.61232 KN.m
LIVE LOAD
Ma=Mc=-w*span²/(12*k1)= -7.15305 KN.m
Mab=Mcd=(w*span²/8)-Ma= 10.01428 KN.m
EARTH PRESSURE ON WALLS
MAXIMUM
RECTANGULAR
Ma=Mc=-w*rise²*k/(12*k1)= -0.07208 KN.m
Mac=w*rise²/8 – Ma= 0.216227 KN.m
TRIANGULAR
Ma=-w*rise²*k*k7/(60*k1*k3)= -0.13134 KN.m
Mc=(k8/k7)*Ma= -0.15696 KN.m
Mac=(1/16)*rise²*w-(Ma+Mc)/2= 0.432454 KN.m
MINIMUM
RECTANGULAR
Ma=Mc=-w*rise²*k/(12*k1)= -0.03604 KN.m
Mac=w*rise²/8 – Ma= 0.108113 KN.m
TRIANGULAR
Ma=-w*rise²*k*k7/(60*k1*k3)= -0.06567 KN.m
Mc=(k8/k7)*Ma= -0.07848 KN.m
Mac=(1/16)*rise²*w-(Ma+Mc)/2= 0.216227 KN.m
LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE
RECTANGULAR
Ma=Mc=-w*rise²*k/(12*k1)= -0.24255 KN.m
Mac=w*rise²/8 – Ma= 0.727639 KN.m
TRIANGULAR
Ma=-w*rise²*k*k7/(60*k1*k3)= -0.02536 KN.m
Mc=(k8/k7)*Ma= -0.03031 KN.m
Mac=(1/16)*rise²*w-(Ma+Mc)/2= 0.0835 KN.m

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS RESULTS : MOMENTS(UNFACTORED

KN.m)
self EH
Position weight hydrostatic max EH min LS EV LL+IM
- -
A&B 0.185 0.0232 -0.203 -0.102 0.268 0.437 -7.15
- -
C&D -1.297 0.0277 -0.229 -0.114 0.273 0.437 -7.15
 -
Roof(mid span) 0.185 0.023 -0.203 -0.102 0.267 0.612 10.01
Base(mid - -
span) 1.371 0.028 -0.229 0.11452 0.273 0.612 10.01
Walls(mid -
span) -0.556 -0.0766 0.649 0.324 0.811 0.437 -7.15

Moment load combinations

strength service
Position Ia Ib Ic Ia Ib Ic
A&B -13.640 -12.947 -0.965 -7.876 -7.484 -0.723
C&D -15.538 -14.807 -2.344 -9.389 -8.974 -2.236
Roof(mid span) 17.835 18.528 -0.065 10.340 10.733 0.326
Base(mid
span) 19.273 20.004 0.9567 11.496 11.911 1.481
Walls(mid
span) -11.470 -13.608 1.4638 -6.686 -7.898 0.4665

DESIGN
Determine the required area of flexural
reinforcement
the resistance force ɸ, for flexure is 1.0 for precast box
culverts

Mu=ɸ*Mn=ɸ*As*fy+(d-a/2)
the depth of the compression
block is
a=As*fy/(0.85*fc'*b)
substituting for "a" in the 1st
equation
Mu=ɸ*Mn=ɸ*As*fy+(d-As*fy/(0.85*2*fc'*b))
ɸ=1 fy=280N/mm² b=1m fc=28N/mm²
Mu=1*As*280+(d-As*280/(1.7*28*1000))

1.647*As²-
280*As*d+Mu=0

As=(280*d-√(78400*d²-6.588*Mu))/3.294

Sidewall
d=thickness-cover-ø/2
ø=bar diameter=12mm
d 244 mm
Referring to table 2 the peak moment for tension on the outside face
is 21.845KN.m (top strength Ia).
-
M peak 15.53836067 KN.m
As 228.6958684 mm²/m 339.3 As PROVIDED
The peak moment for tension on the inside face is 1.46 KN.m
As 21.38104398 mm²/m 113.1 As PROVIDED

Top slab
d 244 mm
peak moment for tension on the outside -13.6404 KN.m
As 200.6250438 mm²/m 339.3 As PROVIDED
peak moment for tension on the intside 18.52845 KN.m
As 272.9975934 mm²/m 452.4 As PROVIDED

Bottom
slab
D= 244 mm
peak moment for tension on the outside -15.5384 KN.m
As= 228.6958684 mm²/m 339.3 As PROVIDED
peak moment for tension on the intside 20.00437 KN.m
As= 294.9004459 mm²/m 452.4 As PROVIDED

CHECK CRACK CONTROL

wire spacing's' must
satisfy:

s≤(700* γe/(βs*fss))-2*dc
γe= 0.75 (exposure factor)

fss≤ 700* γe/(βs*(s+2*dc))≤ 0.6*fy

the ratio βs is defined as:

βs=1+(dc/(0.7*(h-dc)))

Top slab:
for the top slab the governing service limit state moment is 15.8 KN.m .
take s 250 mm 9.84 inch
dc= cover +dw/2 56 mm 2.2 inch
βs 1.327868852
fss 27.7647732 ksi 191.2993 N/mm²
0.6*fy 216
fss≤ 0.1*fy use 191.3 N/mm²

find the actual stress provided in the steel:

e=Ms/Ns+d-h/2 2600.9161 mm

j=0.74|+0.1*(e/d) 1.8059492
take 'j' = 0.9

i=1/(1-
(j*d/e)) 1.0922179

fs=(Ms+Ns*(d-h/2))/(As*j*i*d) 108.0121 N/mm² < 191.3 N/mm²

GOOD

Bottom slab :
for the top slab the governing service limit state moment is 15.8 KN.m .
take s 250 mm 9.84 inch
dc= cover +dw/2 56 mm 2.2 inch
βs 1.327868852
fss 27.7647732 ksi 191.2993 N/mm²
0.6*fy 216
fss≤ 0.1*fy use 191.3 N/mm²

find the actual stress provided in the steel:

e=Ms/Ns+d-h/2 2152.0405 mm

j=0.74+0.1*(e/d) 1.6219838
take 'j' = 0.9

i=1/(1-
(j*d/e)) 1.1136387

fs=(Ms+Ns*(d-
h/2))/(As*j*i*d) 112.5759 N/mm² <191.3 N/mm²
Good

Side wall
for the top slab the governing service limit state moment is 15.8 KN.m .
take s 250 mm 9.84 inch
dc= cover +dw/2 56 mm 2.2 inch
βs 1.327868852
fss 27.7647732 ksi 191.2993 N/mm²
0.6*fy 216
fss≤ 0.1*fy use 191.3 N/mm²
 find the actual stress provided in the steel:
e=Ms/Ns+d-h/2 413.61975 mm

j=0.74+0.1*(e/d) 0.9095163 <0.9

take 'j' = 0.909516292

i=1/(1-
(j*d/e)) 2.1576659

fs=(Ms+Ns*(d-
h/2))/(As*j*i*d) 74.78886 N/mm² <191.3 N/mm²
Good

CHECK MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT

Minimum sidewall flexural reinforcement
As=0.002*w*Ts 600 mm²/m

Minimum top slab flexural reinforcement

As=0.002*w*Tt 600

Minimum bottom slab flexural reinforcement

As=0.002*w*Tb 600

CHECK MAXIMUM REINFORCEMENT

c/d<0.375

where:
c=As*fy/(0.85*fc*β1*b)
fc 28 N/mm² 4.061 ksi
β1=0.85-0.05*(fc-4.0) 0.84695

Sidewall
Outside
face
c 6.0597071 mm
c/d 0.0248349 OK

Top slab
Outside
face
c 8.0796094 mm
c/d 0.0331132 OK

Bottom slab
Outside
face
c 8.0796094 mm
c/d 0.0331132 OK
**ρ=As/Ac <0.018
Sidewall
Ac=b*d 1000*244= 244000 mm²
ρ 0.001390574 OK
Top slab
ρ 0.001854098 OK
Bottom
slab
ρ 0.001854098 OK

CHECK SHEAR
Sidewall

Vu= 39.57249656 KN
with assosiated moment
Mu= 15.53836 KN.m
the nominal shear resistance without the presence of shear reinforcement is given by:
Vr=ɸ*Vn
where:
Vn=Lesser
of 0.25*fc*bv*dv

or
Vc= 0.0316*β*√fc*bv*dv
bv is the assumed member width
dv is the effective shear depth calculated as:
a=As*fy/(0.85*fc*b) 9.07563 mm
dv=max(0.72h,0.9d,d-a/2)
0.72h 216 mm
0.9d 219.6 mm
max d-a/2 239.46218 mm √

crack spacing parameter

sxe=sx*(1.38/(ag+0.63))
sx=dv
ag=maximum aggregate size =0.75 in =19.05 mm

Sxe=239.4622 mm
ɛs=(Mu/dv+0.5Nu+Vu)/(Es*As)= 0.0008707

where the magnitude of the moment 'Mu' is not to be less than:

Mu≥Vu*dv= 9.476116488 KN.m

Because‎there‎is‎no‎shear‎reinforcement‎the‎value‎of‎β‎is‎taken‎as:
39.37
β=(4.8/(1+750*ɛs))*(51/(39+sxe))
β= 3.057994553
Vc= 122.4446309 KN
Vn= 1676.235294 KN

The lesser is Vc= 122.4 KN< Vu

OK

Top slab

Vu= 30.72537722 KN
with assosiated moment Mu= 2.344416 KN.m
the nominal shear resistance without the presence of shear reinforcement is given
by:
Vr=ɸ*Vn
where:
Vn=Lesser of 0.25*fc*bv*dv

or
Vc= 0.0316*β*√fc*bv*dv
bv is the assumed member width
dv is the effective shear depth calculated as:
a=As*fy/(0.85*fc*b) 9.07563 mm
dv=max(0.72h,0.9d,d-a/2)
0.72h= 15522.975 mm
0.9d= 219.6 mm
max d-a/2= 239.46218 mm √

crack spacing parameter

sxe=sx*(1.38/(ag+0.63))
sx=dv
ag=maximum aggregate size 0.75 in 19.05 mm

Sxe=239.462 mm

ɛs=(Mu/dv+0.5Nu+Vu)/(Es*As)= 0.0005121
where the magnitude of the moment 'Mu' is not to be less than:

Mu≥Vu*dv= 7.357565961 KN.m

Because‎there‎is‎no‎shear‎reinforcement‎the‎value‎of‎β‎is‎taken‎as:

β=(4.8/(1+750*ɛs))*(51/(39+sxe))
β= 3.652253224
Vc= 146.2392396 KN
Vn= 1676.235294 KN

The lesser is Vc= 146.24 KN< Vu

OK

Bottom slab

Vu= 39.57249656 KN
with assosiated moment Mu= 15.53836 KN.m
the nominal shear resistance without the presence of shear reinforcement is given
by:
Vr=ɸ*Vn
where:
Vn=Lesser of 0.25*fc*bv*dv

or
Vc= 0.0316*β*√fc*bv*dv
bv is the assumed member width
dv is the effective shear depth calculated as:
a=As*fy/(0.85*fc*b) 9.07563 mm
dv=max(0.72h,0.9d,d-a/2)
0.72h= 216 mm
0.9d= 219.6 mm
max d-a/2= 239.46218 mm √

crack spacing parameter

sxe=sx*(1.38/(ag+0.63))
sx=dv
ag=maximum aggregate size 0.75 in 19.05 mm

Sxe=239.4622 mm

ɛs=(Mu/dv+0.5Nu+Vu)/(Es*As)= 0.0008705

where the magnitude of the moment 'Mu' is not to be less than:

Mu≥Vu*dv= 9.476116488 KN.m
Because‎there‎is‎no‎shear‎reinforcement‎the‎value‎of‎β‎is‎taken‎as:

β=(4.8/(1+750*ɛs))*(51/(39+sxe))
β= 3.058273257
Vc= 122.4557905 KN
Vn= 1676.235294 KN

The lesser is Vc= 122.5 KN< Vu

OK