Erratum for “Development Formulation for Structural Design of Concrete Box Culverts” by Alia Osman Mohamed Ahmed and ElHussein Alarabi

During the composition process for this paper, errors were introduced into some of the figure citations in the text. An additional figure, which was to be added to the paper during composition, was also left out of the final, published article. That figure, referred to as Fig. 7, and the corrected citations, appear in this erratum.

ASCE regrets these errors.

On p. 49, in the section “Permanent Loads,” the citation of Fig. 1 should have indicated Fig. 7: “The maximum superimposed dead load intensity shall be taken as $\beta \gamma Hs$ where $\gamma$ = average nominal bulk density of the fill and surfacing and $\beta$ is taken from Fig. 7 or from Eq. (1) when $Hs$ is greater than 8 m.”

On p. 50, the caption of Fig. 1 should read, “Comparison between manual solution and PROKON software results for Case 1.”

On p. 51, in the section “Load Combinations and Partial Safety Factors,” the citations to Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) should have indicated Figs. 6(a) and 6(b): “The loads applied simultaneously for checking the foundation against sliding are as in BD31/01 [see Fig. 6(a)]. The bearing pressures and settlements under the foundation are calculated for the following nominal loads, as shown in Fig. 6(b).”

On p. 51, in the section “Load Cases to Be Considered,” the citations to Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) should have indicated Figs. 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c): “For Combination 1, the load cases applied for the design of the structural elements are shown diagrammatically in Figs. 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c), as in Highways Agency (2001).”

On p. 54, in the first paragraph of the section “Results and Discussion,” the citation to Figs. 4 and 5 should have indicated Figs. 1 and 2: “Results obtained by the formulation were compared with those obtained by the commercially available software (PROKON 2004) in Figs. 1 and 2.”

On p. 54, in the second paragraph of the section “Results and Discussion,” the citation to Fig. 4 should have indicated Fig. 1: “Fig. 1 shows that the results of the formulation are identical to the values of the commercially available software (PROKON 2004) with the same trend line.”