ETL 1110-2-344
31 Dec 93
stress profiles of the no-culvert case (Figure B-2)
as opposed to 440.56 kips for the traditional analy-
and the actual case (Figure A-11 of Appendix A)
sis technique. The line of action for the resultant
shows the effect of the culvert on the normal stress
force from the finite element analysis was 8.58 ft to
profile. The variation of normal stresses to near
the right of the toe as opposed to 8.57 ft from the
zero values between 15.0 and 25.0 ft in Figure A-11
traditional analysis technique.
of Appendix A does not exist in the stress profile of
c. Shear stress profile. The shear stress pro-
Figure B-2. The normal stress profile of Fig-
ure B-2 exhibits a near linear response from a loca-
file along the base of the monolith for a crack
tion near the monolith toe to the crack tip. This
length of 16.65 ft is shown in Figure B-3. The
response is more closely approximated using the
distance along the base of the monolith is measured
from the toe of the monolith to the heel of the
traditional method of analysis. This provides fur-
ther validity to the argument that the proximity of
monolith. The effect of the culvert is shown further
the culvert to the base of the monolith has a sub-
by comparison of results of the no culvert case
(Figure B-3) and the case considering the culvert
stantial effect on the transfer of normal stresses in
(Figure A-12 of Appendix A). The shear stress
that region.
profile of Figure B-3 is relatively constant except
for the edge effects. However, the variation in
(2) The resultant force in the vertical direction
shear stresses of Figure A-12 of Appendix A is
and the line of action for the resultant force were
computed for the finite element solution (as
more significant. The resultant horizontal force was
described in paragraph 3d(4) of Appendix A) and
computed for the finite element solution by integra-
for the traditional analysis technique. An equivalent
tion of the stress along the base of the monolith and
force system with a crack length of 16.65 ft rather
the traditional analysis technique. The resultant
than the final crack length of 19.62 ft was used in
force from the finite element analysis was
the computations using assumptions of the tradi-
247.45 kips as opposed to 249.78 kips from the
tional analysis technique. The calculated resultant
traditional analysis technique.
force for the finite element analysis was 447.97 kips
Figure B-3. Shear stress profile at the base of monolith for a = 16.65 ft: no culvert
B-3
Previous Page
