REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

CULVERT AS FISHWAYS

For a fish on an upstream migration to successfully negotiate a culvert road crossing, it must be
able to enter the culvert barrel, traverse the length of the barrel, exit the barrel at the upstream end,
and proceed upstream to the first resting area. Fish entrance to the culvert may be restricted by
obstructions at the entrance, excessive outlet velocity, or perch height. Passage through the culvert
barrel may be restricted by excessive barrel velocity or inadequate water depth. Successful exit of the
culvert may be restricted by excessive inlet velocity. Excessive velocity is a common factor in each
instance.

Water velocity within a culvert is a function of the cross-sectional area, slope, and roughness of
the culvert, as well as stream discharge. Culvert roughness is the most readily manipulated factor that
influences velocity. A variety of methods for increasing culvert roughness have been investigated,
including baffles, corrugations, and the placement of bedload material. Each of these methods has the
common objective of producing a region lower velocity within the culvert that fish would be able to
utilize the velocity in the reminder of the culvert exceeded the fishes’ swimming ability.

CULVERT HYDRAULICS

Besides the primary focus of this literature review--the movement patterns of salmonids
literature on culvert hydraulics was also searched. A review of the literature on culvert design
specifications for juvenile fish passage showed a general similarity of specifications for slope, minimum
depth, and maximum velocity for fish passage design flows. Given this agreement within the literature,
the attention of the review was directed toward finding studies that presented information that was
substantially different from the majority of the studies or offered new insights into culvert hydraulics.

The observation that fish apparently utilize the boundary layer when passing through culverts
has resulted in efforts to model the velocity distribution within roughened pipes. Barber and Downs
(1996) tested the abilities of two different equations to predict the widths of relative velocity contours
within any size circular pipe with annular corrugations (relative velocity = the velocity at any position
within the cross-section divided by the maximum velocity within the culvert). One of the equations
satisfactorily predicted the contour widths, and a computer program called Juvenile Fish Passage
Program (JUFIPP) was developed using this equation to predict the size of the “migration area,” the area
of the culvert that fish were observed in during passage.

White (1996) developed a regression equation for determining the extent of low velocity zones
suitable for juvenile fish passage in countersunk culverts. The equation generally underestimated the
amount of low velocity area present. Consequently, the equation would be useful for culvert design
because it provides a conservative estimate of the amount of low velocity area available for fish
utilization. Additionally, White (1996) found the countersunk culverts that he investigated to be
resistant to erosion and capable of conveying high discharges. Several high gradient (2 to 7.6 percent)
culverts were investigated, and all retained their bedload during 5-year to 10-year flood events.
Unfortunately for the analysis of bedload stability, the steepest culverts were not subjected to flows
greater than 5-year floods.
 Browning (1990) also investigated the performance of countersunk culverts. The study
determined that pipes and pipe arches with natural stream beds provided better fish passage conditions
than pipes with or without features designed to aid fish passage. Browning (1990) also found that the
barrel velocity to channel velocity ratio is negatively proportional to fish passage ability. Browning
(1990) recommended that as a design criteria, a headwater-to-rise ratio that does not exceed 1.0 during
a 50-year flood event should be used to determine the culvert dimensions.

A series of studies of the hydraulics of various baffle systems in culverts was completed by
Canadian researchers (Rajaratnam et al. 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991; Rajaratnam and Katopodis 1990). They
developed equations to describe the relationship between relative water depth and the dimensionless
discharge value, as well as equations to predict the barrier velocities at the baffles for spoiler baffles,
offset baffles, Alberta fish weirs and baffles, weir baffles, and slotted weir baffles. They reported similar
hydraulic performance for all baffle designs with the exception of the Alberta fish baffles, which
performed poorly.

Finally, Behlke (1987) reported that under certain fishway conditions, fish must contend with
buoyant forces and weight in addition to the forces typically encountered in a fishway. These forces
become important in culverts with slopes equal to or exceeding 10 percent, or where pressure gradients
exist such as in culvert inlets and perched outlets. Including the buoyant force and weight of the fish in
the analysis of forces that the fish must overcome to successfully negotiate the fishway will ensure more
accurate predictions of passability.

Source: http://wvvvv.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_wadot_kahleretal_1998_culverts.pdf
ANALYSIS AND COST COMPARISON OF BOX CULVERT FOR DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIO OF CELL

Vinod and Chava [17] had found out stresses such as bending moment and shear force of the
structure under railway loading and those stresses were computed by computational methods and also
compared with conventional method. Design parameters are also computed based on Indian Railway
Standards. They studied study about design of box culvert and comparative study of reinforcement
details. They had done analysis on box culvert using STAAD Pro and SAP200 and find out B.M, S.F. and
stresses. Size of the box culvert was 3mx3m. Area of reinforcement for top and bottom slab was also
calculated.

Pavan D. Tikate and S.N. Tande [12] had studied the effect of the variation of cushion depth,
coefficient of earth pressure, width or angle of dispersion on the structural behaviour of the
threedimensional box culvert and to examine the accuracy of FEM by comparing the FEM results with IS
Code methods. The calculated bending moments, shear forces from the FEM were compared with those
from the current theoretical methods. They concluded that for safer design the co-efficient of earth
pressure can be taken 0.5 which gives higher results than 0.33.

Abhijeet and Vidya [8] had done analyse of box culvert using STAAD Pro software and find out
B.M. and S.F. at support and mid span. They had presented analysis of a Reinforced concrete box culvert
using finite element method. Threedimensional configuration of the space has been considered and
computer code has been developed for finding the bending moments, member forces and support
reactions due to equivalent traffic load, lateral soil pressures.

M.G. Kalyanshetti and S.A. Gosavi [9] prepared model of single, double, triple cell box culvert in
STAAD Pro and developed C language program which gives quantity of steel and total cost of culvert. IRC
class AA tracked live load was considered. The analysis was done by using stiffness matrix method and a
computer program in C language was developed for the cost evaluation. Study has carried out related to
variation in bending moment; subsequently cost comparison was made for different aspect ratios. 12m
channel length was fixed and 2 to 6m height variation was taken in size of box culvert. They concluded
that for different cells and different heights the optimized thickness of box culverts was to be obtained
by the different formulas which will a cost-effective design of the box.

Feirusha S. H. [5] had studied Finite element analysis for find out the value and location of
maximum and minimum principal stresses and compare the value and location of principal stresses
between three loading condition of analysed box culvert. COMSOL software was used for analysis.
Dimension of box culvert = 3.6m x 3.6m.

Neha et al. [10] considered the parameter like angle of dispersion, depth of cushion, co-efficient
of earth pressure for analysis of box culvert. Size of culvert was taken as 3m x 3m with and without
cushion of 5m. they concluded that Small variation in co-efficient of earth pressure has little influence
on the design of box particularly without cushion. For box without cushion braking force is required to
be considered particularly for smaller span culverts.
 Osama Abuhajar et al. [11] carried out study on soil culvert interaction(SCI). Small scale
centrifuge physical model tests were conducted to investigate SCI considering the height and density of
soil above the culvert and the geometry of the culvert. The results of those centrifuge tests were used to
calibrate and verify a numerical model that was used to further investigate the response of box culverts
to static Loads.

Sujata and R. Shreedhar [16] had carried out the work to evaluate the design coefficients for
shear force, bending moment and normal thrust for single cell, two celled and three celled box culvert
subject to various loading cases. The study showed that the maximum positive moment develops at the
centre of top and bottom slab for the condition that the sides of the culvert not carrying the live load
and the culvert is running full of water and the maximum negative moments develop at the support
sections of the bottom slab for the condition that the culvert is empty and the top slab carries the dead
load and live load.

Anil K. Garg and Ali [3] presented the development of an analytical program to investigate the
shear capacity of precast reinforced concrete box culverts. They were prepared three-dimensional finite-
element models (FEMs) and analysed using ABAQUS software. Three-dimensional shell and solid
elements were used to model the culvert systems. The load was placed at a distance d from the tip of
the haunch of the box culvert, where d is the effective depth of tension reinforcement at mid span, in
the top slab of the box culvert. To simulate the wheel, load a 25.4 cm x 51 cm plate is used
experimentally as well as in finite-element modelling, which is used by AASHTO to model the wheel load
of a HS20 truck. The load-deflection plots obtained from the FEM analyses were compared with the
experimental test results, which showed close correlation.

Ping Zhu et al. [13] had found an optimal design with the best combinations of sidewalls, floor,
and roof thickness of the box-culvert structure. Finite element method was used for analysis of the
stress and deformation of the box-culvert structure. As a result, an optimal design was obtained, which
not only reduces the use of concrete, but also reduces the demands on the bearing capacity of the
foundation soil.

BA.D. Patil et al. [1] had discussed the behaviour of box culvert with cushion and without
cushion load for different aspect ratios and also studied the effect of different load combinations which
will produces worst effect for safe structural design. They concluded that the load combination with
empty box was found to be the critical combination for all values of aspect ratios under consideration.
They used SAP2000 for analysis of box culvert.

Ali Abolmaali et al. [2] experimented on six fullscale 2.4 m span box culverts. Box culvert were
tested to failure by subjecting each culvert to the AASHTO HS-20 wheel load. The location of the wheel
load was varied in order to identify the critical shear location. Size of the box culvert was 2.4m x 1.2m x
1.2m.

Raju Acharya et al. [14] had measured Deflections under the culvert roof and pressures on the
culvert measured at field during loading. A threedimensional (3D) numerical model of the culvert was
developed using a finite-difference program. The numerical model with material properties was verified
with the field test results. They used FLAC3D software for analysis. Size of box culvert was 3m (H) x
6.75m (L) and span (varies).
 Sarah L. Orton et al. [15] had determined the effects of live load (truck loads) on RC box culverts
under soil fills of different thicknesses. The study considered the field testing of 10 existing reinforced
concrete box culverts with fill depths ranging from 0.76 m (2.5 ft) to 4.1 m (13.5 ft).

Source: http://www.ijettjournal.org/2017/volume-44/number-3/IJETT-V44P223.pdf