Analysis of Buried Arch Structures; Performance

Versus Prediction

D.A. Jenkins: Reinforced Earth Pty Ltd, Somersby, NSW, Australia

Synopsis: The Reinforced Earth Group introduced the TechSpan™ arch system in 1986. Since then over 500
buried precast concrete arches have been completed to site specific designs using a design method based on finite
element analysis.

In order to verify the design results the finite element analysis results have been compared with alternative
analysis methods and with measurements of actual structures during construction. In this paper the results of the
alternative design methods are discussed, and their predictions are compared with site measurements.

The alternative analysis procedures are found to give widely varying results, with the more refined procedures
giving results closer to the finite element results. Simple analysis methods appear to greatly overestimate the
effect of surcharge loading and high fills. Calculated moments and shear forces are usually much higher than
those found using finite element analysis, yet they may be unconservative.

The finite element results are in excellent agreement with site measurements of deflections. Measured steel
strains suggest much lower bending moments than those predicted by any of the analysis methods. The apparent
discrepancy is believed to be because the concrete remained substantially uncracked during loading.
1.0 INTRODUCTION • A beam and spring model with compression only
springs and soil loads and springs applied in stages
1.1 The TechSpan™ Arch System reflecting the sequence of filling employed on site.

The TechSpan™ system consists of a two piece, three pin,

buried precast concrete arch, usually constructed with 1.4 Site Measurements
Reinforced Earth™ head walls and wing walls (Figure
1). Arch dimensions are typically in the range of 5 to Measurements of deflections, soil pressures, and steel
20 metres span, and 3 to 8 metres height. Typical stresses have been taken at four sites in Japan. This
applications are road and rail crossings and tunnels paper compares in detail the measurements taken at
and creek and small river crossings and diversions. the Oita TechSpan Project site with predicted values.

2.0 THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

2.1 Finite Element Model

The finite element model for a typical arch is shown

in Figure 2. Eight noded plain strain plate elements
are used for both soil and concrete elements. Thin
friction elements are provided around the arch, and
hinge elements at the base and crown allow rotation.

The model is built up in stages reflecting the actual

Figure 1; Typical Cross Section backfill sequence; starting with the arch and
foundation alone, then adding soil elements to each
side of the arch alternately. For each stage a
Each arch is designed on a site specific basis, the arch
compaction load is applied then removed, so that only
profile being optimised to suit the needs of the client
“locked in” compaction stresses and strains are added
and to minimize forces in the completed structure.
in to the next stage of the analysis.
1.2 The Finite Element Analysis Method
2.2 Materials Properties
A finite element analysis is carried out on each arch. The
The soil model is based on the hyperbolic model
essential features embodied in the analysis are:
developed by Duncan and Chang (Ref. 1). The soil
stiffness (Young’s Modulus, E) and Poisson’s Ratio,
• An elasto-plastic soil model with soil stiffness and
µ, are related to the confining pressure, σ3, by the four
Poisson’s ratio related to confining pressure.
“Duncan constants”: K, n, Kb, and m:
• Soil loads are applied in stages reflecting the
Young's Modulus E/ Pa = K(σ3/ Pa)n
sequence of filling employed on site.
Poisson's Ratio µ = 0.5 - E/6B
Where B/ Pa = Kb(σ3/Pa)m
• A layer of “friction elements” is placed between the
arch and the soil, allowing the soil to slip relative to
The value of these constants may be determined from
the arch.
triaxial testing, or typical values for compacted select
fill may be assumed.
• A compaction load is applied to each backfill layer.
The soil parameters used in a standard TechSpan
• The concrete is modeled as a linear elastic material. analysis for a typical select fill material are:
1.3 Alternative Analysis Methods K = 500, Kb = 300, m = 0.2, n = 0.4
Alternative analysis methods considered in this paper
Hence for σ3 = Pa = 100 kPa, E = 50 Mpa and
are:
µ = 0.22
• A simple elastic analysis, applying horizontal soil
The soil failure stress is based on the Mohr - Coulomb
loads as a fixed proportion of the vertical stress.
criterion, using a friction angle of 30 degrees and no
cohesion.
 Figure 2: Finite Element Mesh

The concrete elements are assumed to be linear paper three alternative assumptions have been made
elastic in the standard analysis, with an E value of 20 for the horizontal pressure coefficient, K:
GPa.
• Active pressure conditions, with a backfill friction
In this paper the finite element analysis was repeated angle of 36º, resulting in a constant K value of 0.26
using modified concrete E values of 35 GPa, and soil
cohesion of 20 kPa. The values were selected to • “At rest” conditions, with a backfill friction angle of
improve the correlation with the deflections measured 30º, resulting in a constant K value of 0.5
on site.
• Assumed maximum and minimum K values of 0.6 and
0.2 on opposite sides of the arch (Figure 3). This is
3.0 THE SIMPLE ELASTIC ANALYSIS an extremely conservative assumption, giving rise to a
pressure distribution that could not arise in practice on
3.1 The Arch Model a relatively flexible structure such as a three pinned
arch. Nonetheless this sort of pressure distribution is
The arch is modeled as a linear elastic member pinned commonly applied to rigid buried structures (such as
at the base and at the crown. Soil loads are applied as box culverts) and some authorities have imposed
a series of horizontal and vertical point loads, similar requirements for the analysis of buried arches.
dependent on the depth of fill and the specified
horizontal pressure coefficient, K. No attempt is
made to model the interaction of the arch and the 4.0 THE BEAM AND SPRING MODEL
surrounding soil or the effect of foundation
settlement. Because the arch is statically determinate 4.1 The Arch and Soil Model
it is possible to carry out this analysis quickly and
easily with a spreadsheet. In the beam and spring model the interaction between
the arch and the surrounding soil is modeled by means
of a series of springs around the arch (Figure 4). In
this model horizontal and vertical linear elastic
Pv = DH Pv = DH
H
springs are placed at each node, and are only active in
compression.
Ph = KlPv D = Soil Density; 20 kN/m2 Ph = KrPv
Kl = Soil Pressure Coefficient, left 4.2 Spring Properties
Kr = Soil Pressure Coefficient, right

The spring stiffness values used in this paper are

based on recommendations given by Bowles for use
in the analysis of foundations on elastic soils - (Ref
Figure 3: Simple Elastic Analysis 2). Recommended values in this text lie between
about 4000 kN/m3 and 130000 kN/m3. This range
has been reduced by comparison of the results of
3.2 Soil Loads analyis to the measured values to:

The vertical soil stress is taken to be the weight of soil • A value of 4000 kN/m3 based on an equation
plus surcharge over the point in question. In this attributed to Vesic - (Ref 3), treating the arch height
 as being equivalent to the width of a footing, and DY3
assuming a soil E value of 30 MPa.

• A value of 20 000 kN/m3 being the lower end of the

DX3
range recommended for silty medium dense sand.
DX2
A spring stiffness value of 50 000 kN/m3 was also
considered, but was not used because the predicted DX1
deflections did not compare well with the values measured DY1 DY2
on site.

Figure 5: Location of Deflection Measurements

H
Pv = DH

6.0 RESULTS OF THE ARCH ANALYSIS

Pv = KsDelta y
Ph = KrPv
For each set of analyses graphs have been plotted of:

Ph = KsDelta x • the vertical (DY3) and horizontal (DX4) deflection of

the arch crown against fill height (e.g. Figure 8)

• the change in arch width (DX1 to DX3) against fill

Figure 4: Beam and Spring Analysis
height (e.g. Figure 9)

4.3 Soil Loads • the envelope of maximum and minimum moments

around the arch, over all fill heights together with the
The vertical soil stress is taken to be the weight of soil bending moment at maximum fill height (e.g. Figure
plus surcharge over the point in question, as for the 10)
simple elastic model. Since the effect of arch
movements is modeled by the springs the horizontal The measured relative vertical deflection at the
pressure coefficient is taken to be equal to the crown, and change in arch width are also plotted.
Rankine active pressure coefficient, with a backfill Measured horizontal deflections at the crown are not
friction angle of 36º, resulting in a K value of 0.26. available for this project; based on observations at
other projects horizontal deflections are expected to
5.0 SITE MEASUREMENT RESULTS be less than 5 mm during backfill and negligible under
live load.
5.1 The Oita TechSpan
6.1 The Simple Elastic Analysis
Deflection measurements were taken at the locations
shown in Figure 5 at 7 cross sections. The average Graphs have been plotted for each of the three
deflections from all seven sections are plotted in assumptions for the value of the horizontal soil
Figures 6 and 7. The horizontal deflections, DX1 to pressure coefficient, K. These graphs are shown in
DX3, are the change in width at the indicated levels. Figures 8 to 10 for K = 0.26, Figures 11 to 13 for K =
The vertical deflections, DY1 and DY2, are the 0.5, and Figures 14 to 16 for K left = 0.2, K right =
absolute change in level at the base of the arch, and 0.6.
the DY3 value is the vertical crown deflection relative
to the base. 6.2 Simple Elastic Results

Reinforcement strains were also measured at each The important features of the results of the arch
section. The derived bending moments were much analysis are summarised below:
less than those found in any of the analyses. Reasons
for this apparent anomaly are discussed later in this For K = 0.26
paper.
• Vertical deflections of the crown during initial
backfill are upwards and close to but less than the
measured values (Figure 8).

• When the fill reaches the arch crown the arch starts to
deflect downward at a much greater rate than the
 measured values, finishing with a downward
deflection of 30 mm. • A very large maximum moment (700 kNm) occurs in
one half of the arch when the backfill is at the arch
• Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill are crown. A negative moment of similar magnitude is
consistent with experience, but the deflection under found at completion of backfill in the other segment.
live load surcharge (8 mm) is much greater than is Surcharge loading increases the magnitude of the
found in practice. moment in both arch segments by over 100 kNm
(Figure 16).
• The change in arch width follows the pattern of the
vertical deflection, being in the same direction as the 6.3 The Beam and Spring Model
measured values, but slightly smaller during initial
backfill and much greater during the later stages Graphs have been plotted for each of the two
(Figure 9). assumptions for the value of the spring stiffness
coefficient, Ks. These graphs are shown in Figures 17
• The calculated maximum positive moment (tension to 19 for Ks = 4 000 kN/m3, and Figures 20 to 22 for
inner face) of about 100 kNm occurs when the Ks = 20 000 kN/m3.
backfill is at the arch crown. This value is the least
found in any of the analyses. A very large negative 6.4 Beam and Spring Results
moment (tension outer face) of -300 kNm is found at
completion of backfill, and surcharge loading For Ks = 4 000 kN/m3
increases this moment to -400 kNm (Figure 10).
• Vertical deflections of the crown are very close to the
For K = 0.5 measured values at the start and end of the backfill
sequence, but are about 50% greater when the backfill
• Vertical deflections of the crown are close to the is at the arch crown (Figure 17).
measured values throughout the backfill sequence
(Figure 11). • Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill
and the deflection under live load surcharge (2 mm)
• Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill are are of the expected magnitude.
slightly higher than expected and the deflection under
live load surcharge (12 mm) is much greater than • The change in arch width follows the pattern of the
found in practice. vertical deflection, being close to the measured values
at the start and end of the backfill sequence, but about
• The change in arch width follows the pattern of the 50% greater during the middle phase (Figure 18).
vertical deflection, being close to the measured values
throughout the backfill sequence (Figure 12). • The calculated maximum moment (130 kNm) occurs
when the backfill is at the arch crown. The moment at
• The calculated maximum moment (200 kNm) occurs completion of backfill is a low negative moment (-60
when the backfill is at the arch crown, and is almost kNm), and surcharge loading generates a
double the magnitude found for K = 0.26. The comparatively small moment (Figure 19).
moment at completion of backfill is very low
(maximum 15 kNm), but surcharge loading generates
a negative moment of over -100 kNm (Figure 13). For Ks = 20 000 kN/m3

For K Left = 0.2, K Right = 0.6 • Vertical deflections of the crown are very close to the
measured values at the start of the backfill sequence,
• Vertical deflections of the crown are close to the but are about 75% greater when the backfill is at the
measured values throughout the backfill sequence arch crown, and downward deflection in the later
(Figure 14). stages of backfill are only about 50 % of the measured
values (Figure 20).
• Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill
and under live load surcharge are very much greater • Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill
than found in practice. The final horizontal deflection and the deflection under live load surcharge (1 mm)
of 90 mm to the left is clearly incompatible with are of the expected magnitude, and smaller than for Ks
observations of completed structures, and with the = 4000 kN/m3.
development of the assumed horizontal loads.
• The change in arch width follows the pattern of the
• The change in arch width is in the same direction as vertical deflection, being close to the measured values
the measured values, but slightly smaller during initial at the start of the backfill sequence, but about 50%
backfill and much greater during the later stages greater during the middle phase, with a smaller
(Figure 15). relative change in the final stages (Figure 21).
 • The calculated maximum moment (120 kNm) occurs
• The calculated maximum moment (150 kNm) occurs when the backfill is at the arch crown, and is about
when the backfill is at the arch crown. The moment at 35% lower than the moment found using standard soil
completion of backfill remains positive, and is about properties. The maximum moment at completion of
33% less than the maximum value. Surcharge loading backfill remains positive, and is almost 60% less than
generates only a small moment (Figure 22). the maximum value. As for the standard soil
properties the final moment around the arch is not
6.5 The Finite Element Model symmetrical, and a negative moment of about 60 kNm
has developed on the left hand side. Surcharge
Graphs have been plotted for each of the two loading generates only a small moment (Figure 28).
assumptions for the soil parameters. These graphs are
shown in Figures 23 to 25 for standard properties, and 7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Figures 26 to 28 for modified properties.
7.1 Simple Elastic Model
6.6 Finite Element Results
The deflections predicted by the linear elastic model vary
For standard properties: over a wide range, with final crown deflections varying
between +3 mm and -30 mm vertically and between 0 mm
• Vertical deflections of the crown follow a similar path and -90 mm horizontally. The results derived using a K
to the measured values, but are up to 75% greater value of 0.5 are at first sight remarkably close to the
when the backfill is at the arch crown (Figure 23). measured values, however the close fit is related to the
way in which this particular arch shape was defined, and
• Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill cannot be taken as evidence of accuracy of the analysis
and the deflection under live load surcharge (1 mm) method for general application. This point is discussed
are of the expected magnitude. further below.

• The change in arch width follows the pattern of the Although measurements of the absolute horizontal crown
vertical deflection, being about 70% greater than the deflection were not available it is clear that the calculated
measured deflections during the middle phase. The horizontal displacement under surcharge loading of about
final deflections are very close to the measured value 10 mm is much greater than occurs in practice. Where
(Figure 24). unequal K values have been used a horizontal
displacement of up to 90 mm is found. It is clearly
• The calculated maximum moment (100 kNm) occurs impossible for the assumed pressure distribution to
when the backfill is at the arch crown. The maximum develop since such a large displacement will develop
moment at completion of backfill remains positive, active and passive pressures in the opposite direction to
and is about 35% less than the maximum value. Due the assumed loading.
to the use of non-linear soil properties and asymmetric
loading the final moment around the arch is not The range of calculated moments is even more extreme
symmetrical, and a negative moment of -50 kNm has than the deflections, with maximum moments ranging
developed on the left hand side. Surcharge loading between 100 kNm and 850 kNm. It cannot even be
generates only a small moment (Figure 25). assumed that the results are conservative, since the
calculated maximum moment at completion of backfill
varies between +10 kNm and -750 kNm.
For modified properties:
The reason for the very low calculated moment when K =
• Vertical deflections of the crown follow the measured 0.5 is related to the arch shape. TechSpan arches are
values very closely for fill heights up to the arch designed using funicular curve theory so that under one
crown. For increasing fill heights the slope of the specified loading condition the moments around the arch
calculated and measured deflection curves are very due to soil loads will be zero. The Oita arch was designed
similar but offset by about 2 mm (Figure 26). for a fill height of 17.5 metres and a K value of 0.5. It is
therefore no accident that when this particular load is
• Horizontal deflections at the crown during backfill applied to the arch the resulting moments are indeed close
and the deflection under live load surcharge (1 mm) to zero. For the same reason the final deflection of the
are of the expected magnitude. arch will also be close to zero, both in theory and (if the
actual final pressure distribution is reasonably close to that
• The change in arch width follows the pattern of the assumed in the design) in practice.
vertical deflection, being close to the measured values
during filling up to the arch crown, and having a In summary the simple elastic method cannot be
similar slope to the measured values in the final phase considered a suitable basis for arch design. Calculated
of filling (Figure 27). moments assuming a single K value may be unsafe, but the
results of using unequal K values are grossly over The measured deflections would appear to indicate that the
conservative. concrete E value of 20 GPa used in the standard design
procedure should be increased to about 35 GPa. However
7.2 The Beam and Spring Model the purpose of the analysis, in the design context, is to
check that the loads in the arch under ultimate conditions
The results of the beam and spring model analysis are do not exceed the capacity of the section. It is clearly
markedly superior to the simple analysis. Using the lower unrealistic to assume that the concrete will remain
bound spring stiffness the calculated deflections are in uncracked at the ultimate capacity of the section, except
excellent agreement with the measured values, and the under very high axial loads. The assumption of an E value
calculated moments are in reasonable agreement with the of 20 GPa can therefore be seen as conservative, since the
finite element results. effective E value of a typically reinforced cracked
However change in the assumed spring stiffness has a concrete section would be in the range of 5 - 10 GPa.
marked effect on the calculated deflections and moments,
particularly for the final moments. Since the range of 8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
stiffness values used in this paper (4 000 kN/m3 to 20 000
kN/m3) is much smaller than the range of commonly used The author wishes to thank the Kawasho Corporation for
values (up to 130 000 kN/m3) the selection of a suitable their permission to publish the results of their site
spring stiffness may be difficult to justify. Trial analyses monitoring and measurements.
using a stiffness of 50 000 kN/m3 (which is within the
range commonly used in similar applications) for instance
gave very poor results compared with the measured
deflections. Since the appropriate spring stiffness is 9.0 REFERENCES
related to the height of the structure the results reported in
this paper may not be reliably extrapolated to other 1. DUNCAN, J.M. AND CHANG, C-Y. “Nonlinear
structures. Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils” Journal, Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96,
7.3 The Finite Element Analysis No. SM5, Proc. Paper 7513, September 1970.

The standard properties for the finite element analysis use 2. BOWLES, E.J. “Foundation Analysis and Design”
a concrete stiffness of 20 GPa for reasons discussed Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
below. This value is lower than used in the other analyses, York, 1988
which used a more typical value for a Grade 40 concrete
of 35 GPa. For this reason the standard finite element 3. VESIC A.S. “Bending of Beams Resting on Isotropic
analysis resulted in higher deflections than the measured Elastic Solids” Journal Engineering Mech. Division
values, particularly when the arch was mostly unrestrained ASCE vol 87 EM 2 April 1961 pp. 35-53
by the surrounding soil. When the concrete stiffness was
increased to 35 GPa, and the soil cohesion increased from
0 to 20 Kpa, the calculated deflections were in excellent
agreement with the measured values.

The bending moments found in the two finite element runs

are in good agreement, with the modified soil properties
and higher concrete E value giving slightly higher
moments.

7.4 Measured Moments

The maximum measured moments with fill to the top of

the arch was 30 kNm, which is much lower than any of the
analysis results, even though several of the analyses gave
very close agreement with the measured deflections. The
discrepancy is probably due to the concrete remaining
substantially uncracked under loading, so that most of the
tensile bending stress is carried by the concrete. Based on
the assumption that the concrete was uncracked the total
maximum moment consistent with the measured steel
strain would be approximately 110 kNm, which is in good
agreement with the finite element results.

7.5 Standard Design Concrete E values

 Oita TechSpan Moment Envelope
Measured Horizontal Deflections Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.26

10 200

5
0

Bending Moment, kNm

Change in Width, mm

0 DX1 Final Mom

DX2 -200 Max Mom Env
-5 DX3 Min Mom Env

-400
-10

-15 -600
0.95 1.75 2.55 3.35 4.15 4.95 5.75 6.55 8.3 11.3 14.3 17.4 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Distance Along CL, m

Figure 6: Measured Horizontal Deflections Figure 10: Moment Envelope; K = 0.26

Crown Deflections
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.5
Oita TechSpan
Measured Vertical Deflections 20

20

10
10

Deflection, mm
Vertical Def lection, mm

Actual DY3
0
0 Calculated DY3
DY1
Calc DX4
-10 DY2
DY3 -10
-20

-30
-20
0 5 10 15 20
-40 Fill Height, m
0.95 1.75 2.55 3.35 4.15 4.95 5.75 6.55 8.3 11.3 14.3 17.4
Fill Height, m

Figure 11; Crown Deflections, K = 0.5

Figure 7; Measured Vertical Deflections

Change in Width
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.5
Crown Deflections
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.26 10

20
5
Actual DX1
10
0 Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

0 Actual DX3
Deflection, mm

-5
Actual DY3 Calc DX1
-10 Calculated DY3 -10 Calc DX2
Calc DX4 Calc DX3
-20
-15

-30
-20
0 5 10 15 20
-40 Fill Height, m
0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m

Figure 12: Change in Width; K = 0.5

Figure 8: Crown Deflections; K = 0.26

Moment Envelope
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.5
Change in Width
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.26 300

40
200
Bending Moment, kNm

Actual DX1 100 Final Mom

20 Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

Max Mom Env

Actual DX3 0 Min Mom Env
Calc DX1

0 Calc DX2 -100

Calc DX3

-200
0 5 10 15 20
-20 Fill Height, m
0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m

Figure 13; Moment Envelope, K = 0.5

Figure 9: Change in Width, K = 0.26
 Crown Deflections Change in Width
Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.2 - 0.6 Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 4000

20 10

0
0 Actual DX1
-20 Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

Deflection, mm
Actual DY3
Actual DX3
-40 Calculated DY3 -10
Calc DX1
Calc DX4
-60 Calc DX2
-20 Calc DX3
-80

-100 -30
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 14: Crown Deflection, K = 0.2 & 0.6 Figure 18; Change in Width, Ks = 4000

Change in Width Moment Envelope

Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.2 - 0.6 Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 4000

20 150

100
10 Actual DX1

Bending Moment, kNm

Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

50 Final Mom
Actual DX3
0 Max Mom Env
Calc DX1
0 Min Mom Env
Calc DX2
-10 Calc DX3
-50

-20 -100
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 15: Change in Width, K = 0.2 & 0.6 Figure 19; Moment Envelope; Ks = 4000

Moment Envelope Crown Deflections

Simple Elastic Analysis, K = 0.2 - 0.6 Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 20000

1000 30

500 20
Bending Moment, kNm

Deflection, mm

Final Mom Actual DY3

0 Max Mom Env 10 Calculated DY3
Min Mom Env Calc DX4

-500 0

-1000 -10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 16: Moment Envelope: K = 0.2 & 0.6 Figure 20; Crown Deflection, Ks = 20000

Crown Deflections Change in Width

Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 4000 Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 20000

20 10

15
0 Actual DX1
Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

Deflection, mm

10 Actual DY3
Actual DX3
Calculated DY3 -10
Calc DX1
5 Calc DX4
Calc DX2
-20 Calc DX3
0

-5 -30
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 17: Crown Deflection, Ks = 4000 Figure 21: Change in Width, Ks = 20000
 Moment Envelope Crown Deflections
Beam and Spring Model; Ks = 20000 Finite Element Model; C = 20 kPa

200 15

150 10
Bending Moment, kNm

Deflection, mm
100 Final Mom 5 Actual DY3
Max Mom Env Calculated DY3
50 Min Mom Env 0 Calc DX4

0 -5

-50 -10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 22: Moment Envelope, Ks = 20000 Figure 26: Crown Deflections, FEA 2

Crown Deflections Change in Width

Finite Element Model; Standard Properties Finite Element Model; C = 20 kPa

30 20

20 10 Actual DX1
Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

Deflection, mm
Actual DY3
Actual DX3
10 Calculated DY3 0
Calc DX1
Calc DX4
Calc DX2
0 -10 Calc DX3

-10 -20
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 23: Crown Deflections, FEA 1 Figure 27: Change in Width, FEA 2

Change in Width Moment Envelope

Finite Element Model; Standard Properties Finite Element Model; C = 20 kPa

10 150

100
0 Actual DX1
Bending Moment, kNm

Actual DX2
Deflection, mm

50 Final Mom
Actual DX3
-10 Max Mom Env
Calc DX1
0 Min Mom Env
Calc DX2
-20 Calc DX3
-50

-30 -100
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Fill Height, m Fill Height, m

Figure 24: Change in Width, FEA 1 Figure 28: Moment Envelope, FEA2

Moment Envelope
Finite Element Model; Standard Properties

150

100
Bending Moment, kNm

Final Mom
50 Max Mom Env
Min Mom Env

-50
0 5 10 15 20
Distance Along Arch CL, m

Figure 25: Moment Envelope, FEA 1