HY8

HY8 is a computer program that uses the FHWA culvert hydraulic approaches and
protocols as documented in the publication "Hydraulic Design Series 5: Hydraulic Design
of Highway Culverts" (HDS-5). See 8.5 reference (13). HY8 can perform hydraulic
computations for circular, rectangular, elliptical, metal box, high and low profile arch, as
well as user defined geometry culverts. FHWA recently released a new Windows based
version of the HY-8 culvert program. The methodology used by HY8 is discussed in
8.4.2.4. This program can be downloaded from the FHWA web site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/software.cfm.

SCS Unit Hydrograph

A unit hydrograph is a hydrograph resulting from 1 inch of rainfall excess on a watershed
over a given time interval. It is not the final runoff hydrograph but reflects the watershed
characteristics. Once a unit hydrograph of a particular watershed is known, any design
storm can be applied to it for computing the final runoff hydrograph. Many practicing civil
engineers use the SCS 24-hour storms but keep in mind that any storm of any duration
can be used with the unit hydrograph method

b. Safety Barriers and Grates. Additional traffic safety can be achieved by the installation
of safety barriers and grates. Safety barriers should be considered in the form of
guardrails along the roadside near a culvert when adequate recovery distance cannot be
achieved, or for abnormally steep fill slopes (Figure 2.9). Traversable grates placed over
culvert openings will reduce vehicle impact forces and the likelihood of overturning (Figure
2.10).
Safety grates promote debris buildup and the subsequent reduction of hydraulic
performance. Thorough analysis of this potential should be undertaken prior to the
selection of this safety alternative. Bar grates placed vertically directly against the
entrance of the culvert are unacceptable. Good design practice provides an open area
between bars of 1.5 to 3.0 times the area of the culvert entrance depending on the
anticipated volume and size of debris (Figure 2.11). Research on head loss due to a bar
grate resulted in the formula (Davis 1952):
Dynamic Load Allowance—An increase in the applied static force effects to account for the dynamic
interaction between
the bridge and moving vehicles.

FIG. 53 - Shear Planes in Soil Adjacent

to Culvert Subject to Compaction

32kipsonCenterline

ft
 2 ft

. · · · ·• · o .· - o. o . Q. : ·. 0 . · · 0. o·o. · a . · ti :d
c o.0. · ·().
.o· ·0o. o Q " ••• () • . .e> • .o · .I() • • a . a .. 9.5
·a tJ • 0
:o 9 in. slab and walls
o··
Q·
. o.
..
0·
.'o :o
o:
cr.
0
-:. :.'o
o·
0·
'.

:. :0
.0 .. 8 ft .
0. ·.
. .o
{} .:
o:
.0
. o.
Q.
.. ·.0
0· 8 ft o·
·. 0 0

0: ·o·.
0 .0 .. ':' c.-o ·. - ·. · · ... · ·.· . ·0· o · C?:o· o. ·. ¢.·o
w •• o... o .. o.. .. r::J •• • • •. c:>. . • a .. ·

9.5 ft

FIG. 57 - Gea:netry for .AASHID Example

(1 in. = 2.54 an, 1 ft = 0.305 m,

1 lbf = 4.45 N)

Example
Assume: v = 70 mph (Highway Design Speed)
f = 4/3 (Strength I Load combination)
Reaction of one lane of HL-93 truck at Bent 2 = 71.6 kips
Reaction of one lane of HL-93 tandem at Bent 2 = 50.0 kips
R = 400 ft
Convert v to feet per second:
miles 1 hr 5280ft. 70 102.7ft/sec hr 3600sec 1mile v

2 4 102.7 1.092 3 (32.2)(400) C

Total shear for 4 lanes over Bent 2 simultaneously:
Shear = 1.092(71.6)(4)(0.65) = 203.3 kips
 Tire width = P/0.8

Tire length = 6.4γ(1 + IM/100)

he dynamic interaction between a moving truck and a long span reinforced concrete culvert is
studied for different truck velocities. The numerical simulation method presented in this paper
is based on discretizing the culvert, surrounding soil, and roadway, using a plane strain finite
element model (FEM) along with a seven-degrees-of-freedom FEM mass-spring-damper
model for the truck. The time-variable coupled dynamic system is solved in a step-by-step
manner using Newmark's integration scheme. Results are presented for different parameters,
including truck velocity, truck-culvert frequency ratio, damping ratio, road surface roughness,
and roadway material. For the culvert under consideration, the results indicate that the road
surface roughness has a significant influence on the dynamic impact factor relative to the
displacement at the crown of the culvert. This influence is further magnified by variations in
truck frequency, culvert damping coefficient, and truck velocity.
32 ki ps

2 ft J I
2 ft
.
r

'N' I"':' '/)('\.'\.

i

.E... r

·o. o .o . . v . o ..
0· .0 • • t:J· ·(J· o ·o ·· ··O ·a · o ·o
D (} 0 o : o. .• o· .o . 0 · ·

..
·
a
.o 0
2
ft
0,
F

·0
:

0• . 0.
0
.o. 2 ft

- - ..
D·..
o· G

0 ·0

.0
 0 li''

2.75 ft
D
0
V. .0

....
'() H
p 0

a
/)

0.
0 2.75 ft
·.o
.0

8 ft

8 ft

·-o ·o
a. a • t!>

.o
·a ·o.· ·. o .. 0 . ·o· a. .Q .
t1o. I

:a ·o

.. 0 .. 0. ·o. 0
9.5 ft

.0 . Q

•... .,

FIG. 64- Geometry for Proposed Method's

Horizontal Live Load Example (1ft = 0.305
m, 1 lb = 4.45 N)

32 ki ps

2 ft J I
2 ft
.
r

'N' I"':' '/)('\.'\.

i
 .E... r

·o. o .o . . v . o ..
0· .0 • • t:J· ·(J· o ·o ·· ··O ·a · o ·o
D (} 0 o : o. .• o· .o . 0 · ·

..
·
a
.o 0
2
ft
0,
F

·0
:

0• . 0.
0
.o. 2 ft

- - ..
D·..
o· G

0 ·0

.0
0 li''

2.75 ft
D
0
V. .0

....
'() H
p 0
 0

a
/)

0.
0 2.75 ft
.0 ·.o

8 ft

8 ft

·-o ·o
a. a • t!>

.o
·a ·o.· ·. o .. 0 . ·o· a. .Q .
t1o. I

:a ·o

.. 0 .. 0. ·o. 0

9.5 ft

.0 . Q

•... .,
FIG. 64- Geometry for Proposed Method's
Horizontal Live Load Example (1ft = 0.305
m, 1 lb = 4.45 N)
Figure 3.14. Outlet velocity - outlet control.
 Figure 3.15. Performance curves and equations for weirs and orifices.

3.19
Crest Width
Length of weir crest at the top of the depression slope. Designing the crest width becomes an iterative process
in HY-8 as the user must select a crest width wide enough so that it does not control the headwater
calculations. If the selected crest width is not wide enough the crest section will produce a higher headwater
elevation than the culvert throat. The user must continue to increase the crest width and run the analysis until
the headwater depth ceases to change with increasing crest width. Once this occurs the crest section no longer
controls and may be used in analysis and construction.
Figure 3.18. Major steps in defining an acceptable alternativ

EL t − EL o
S=
L a − L1

S = Approximate barrel slope, ft/ft

ELt = (m/m)
Invert elevation at the throat, ft
=
EL (m) Invert elevation at the outlet,
=
o
= ft (m) Approximate length of the
La
culvert, ft (m) Overall length of
L1
the tapered-inlet, ft (m)
the barrel flows partly full over its length, and the flow approaches normal depth at the outlet
end. In Figure 3.1C, submergence of the outlet end of the culvert does not assure outlet control.
In this case, the flow just downstream of the inlet is supercritical and a hydraulic jump forms in
the culvert barrel.

To develop a water surface profile (WSP) through the culvert using Gradually Varied
Flow calculations one or more boundary condition must be defined. A boundary
condition is a section of the channel where the depth of flow is known at a given flow
rate. For culverts, these boundary conditions occur at or near the inlet and outlet.
For backwater calculations (WSP calculated from downstream to upstream) a downstream
boundary condition is necessary. When performing frontwater calculations WSP
calculated going downstream) an upstream boundary condition is required. Determining
the type of boundary condition and calculation (backwater verses frontwater) needed is a
function of the hydraulic slope and tailwater depth. In FishXing the tailwater depth is
defined by one of the available Tailwater Methods.
Boundary Conditions used by FishXing for Gradually Varied Flow Calculations are
illustrated below.
Where:
yTW = Tailwater depth, measured from outlet bottom (negative below bottom,
positive above bottom)
yc = Critical depth
yn = Normal depth
yfs = Free surface depth, a function of (0.71*Ac)
Ac = Cross sectional area at critical depth
HL = Inlet headloss
GVF = Gradually Varied Flow (arrow shows the direction of calculation)
RVF = Rapidly Varied Flow (arrow shows the direction of calculation)

Inlet Boundary Conditions Used in FishXing

In FishXing, inlet boundary conditions are only required for hydraulically Steep sloping
culverts (yc > yn).

Steep Slopes
GVF Boundary Conditions = Critical Depth at inlet.
 Frontwater GVF Calculations begin at critical depth at inlet and end at outlet

Outlet Boundary Conditions Used in FishXing

Outlet boundary conditions required on non-Steep slopes or on Steep slopes with tailwater
depth > critical depth (yTW > yc ).

Mild, Horizontal, Adverse, Critical Slopes

Type 1: GVF Boundary Condition = Tailwater Depth

When the Tailwater Depth (yTW) is greater than Critical Depth (yc ) the culvert is
controlled by the downstream water surface. Backwater GVF calculations begin at the
outlet and proceed upstream to the inlet.

Type 2: GVF Boundary Condition = Critical Depth

When Tailwater Depth (yTW) is less than the Free Surface Depth (yfs) the flow is passing
through Critical Depth (yc ) and entering a zone of Rapidly Varied Flow. RVF is
approximated linearly by drawing the flow profile from critical depth at a distance of
4yc from the outlet through yfs at the outlet. When yTW is negative, an outlet plunge
exists.

Type 3: GVF Boundary Condition = Critical Depth

When Tailwater Depth (yTW) is less than the Critical Depth (yc ) and greater than Free
Surface Depth (yfs) the flow is passing through critical and entering a zone of Rapidly
Varied Flow. The water surface within the RVF zone is approximated by drawing the
flow profile from the tailwater elevation at the outlet to critical depth at a distance of
4yc upstream from the outlet.

Steep Slopes
For Steep slope culverts, a downstream boundary condition is only needed if a backwater
calculation is required.
 In this case the Tailwater Depth (yTW) is below critical depth, so no backwater calculation
is required.

Type 4: Steep Slope with GVF Boundary Condition = Tailwater Depth

For hydraulically Steep slopes, if the Tailwater Depth (yTW) is greater than the Critical
Depth (yc ) then the downstream boundary condition is yTW and a backwater calculation is
performed. In addition, for all Steep sloping culverts a frontwater calculation is also
performed. Determine the extent the flow profile is influenced by the tailwater depth
requires comparing the frontwater and backwater generated profiles and identifying the
location of a hydraulic jump, if one exists.

a=d-sqrt(d^2-(2.Mu/0.765.fc.b))

fy

As