Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS - FDP - 19-99B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTMMMIYAW I APPENDIX L I Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 10 ' Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 7. REFERENCES ' 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), May 1984. 2. FIRM Panel 080102 001-0031 Revised, March 18, 1996. 3. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980. 4. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria ' Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March 1969, and Volume 3, dated September 1992. 5. Canal importation Basin Master Drainage Plan (Draft Report), Anderson Consulting Engineers, September 21, 2000. ' 6. Colorado State University International House Drainage Protection, Ayres ' Associates, August 1999. ' 7. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Colorado State University, University Village Expansion Southeast Site, RBD, January 10, 1994. Il Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page-9— Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 I I 5.4 Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and ' repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bale dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. 5.5 Permanent Stabilization ' A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-half years on disturbed areas and soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered ' established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather ' conditions. I 11 I Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 8 ' Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 1 I J 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of inlet filters, silt fences, straw bale barriers, gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and furrowed perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along proposed swales. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule are provided in the appendix. 5.2 Dust Abatement During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce dust nuisance, and to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from his operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right -of --way or elsewhere. 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of - way unless so approved by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. A stabilized construction entrance is required per the detail shown in the improvement plans, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7 Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 I r 1 I 1 I L L The detention pond has been sized using the FAA method to detain the entire site to the 2- year historic release rate. By calculating the required detention volume for the entire site, the pond overdetains for Basin 106, which releases directly to Elizabeth Street. The 100-year water surface elevation is 5039.8 FT with a peak discharge of 0.4 CFS. Water quality detention will be provided in the detention pond. Calculations are included in the Appendix. An emergency spillway has been provided in the event the pond outlet plugs. The spillway uses a Cipolleti weir in the retaining wall. In an emergency flow can also spill over the grade break on the south end of Sub -basin 105 onto Elizabeth Street. 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 4.1 Swale Capacity Analysis Swale capacity was calculated using Flow Master, developed by Haestad Methods, Inc. Flow master uses Manning's equation to calculate normal depth for a given cross section. A triangular section was used for the Swale from the detention pond outlet to the International House parking lot. The swale was designed to carry 133% of the 100-year flow. A trickle channel was not provided because the Swale carries 0.4 cfs and has a longitudinal slope of 1%. The Swale is across a grass lined spillway and a concrete pan would detract from the natural look of the area. The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria provides for swales without trickle channels with slopes from 1-2%, provided the swales are certified after construction. Capacity calculations are provided in the Appendix. 4.2 Storm Sewer System Flow Master was used to size pipes on the site. All pipes have uniform slopes and minimal bends so a normal depth analysis is sufficient. Inlets were sized for sumps. Riprap is provided at all pipe outlets. Pipe, inlet, and riprap calculations are provided in the Appendix. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 6 Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 I I 11 11 I where t. is the time of concentration in minutes, t; is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, and t, is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation: t. = [1.87(l.1 - CCr)Lo.5j/(S)0.33 (3) where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cr are as defined previously. All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in the Appendix. A summary of these calculations for the basins is included in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Drainage Summary Design Point Tributary Sub4min Area (ac) C (2) C (100) tc (2) (min) tc (100) (min) Q(2)tot (cfs) Q(100not (cfs) 1 101 0.16 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.4 1.6 2 102 0.31 0.87 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.8 3.1 3 103 0.40 0.86 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.0 3.9 104 0.10 0.10 0.13 10.1 9.9 0.0 0.1 5 105 0.08 0.87 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.8 4 Pond Inflow 1.05 9.5 6 106 0.14 0.21 0.26 6.5 6.2 0.1 0.3 3.5 Detention Pond Sizing A detention pond is proposed at the north edge of the site. The pond will abut the existing International House spillway along the Larimer #2 Canal. The detention pond has been kept out of the 100-yr floodplain for the spillway. Structural retaining walls are proposed to maximize the detention volume. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 5 Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 [1 I 1 Subbasin 104 includes the detention pond and flows will be conveyed via sheet flow to Design Point (DP) 4. The detention pond consists of two vertical walled detention areas connected by a pipe capable of passing the 100-yr peak flow into the pond. Runoff from Subbasin 105 is conveyed via curb and gutter to a sump inlet at Design Point (DP) 5. Flows collected by the inlet are conveyed via storm sewer to the detention pond. Runoff from Subbasin 106 sheet flows undetained to Elizabeth Street. The area tributary to Elizabeth Street was minimized due to the fact that it can not be detained onsite. 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determine both 2-year and 100-year peak runoff values for each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS Manual. The Rational Method is given by: Q = CfCIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100- year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time of concentration tC=t;+t, (2) Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4 ' Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN 3.1 Method ' Since the subbasins are less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used to determine both the 2-year and 100-year runoff rates for the sub -basins indicated in this drainage report. Drainage facilities were designed to convey the 100-year peak flows. A detailed description of the hydrologic analysis is provided in Section 3.4 and the Appendix of this report. 3.2 General Flow Routing Flows within this site will take the form of sheet, gutter, and pipe flow. The existing drainage patterns have been maintained as much as possible. Flows are being detained to the 2-year historic level. Water Quality will be provided for the site. A system of gutters, inlets, ' and pipes has been designed to carry peak 100-yr flows on site. ' 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussions of the detailed design of drainage facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections. ' Subbasin 101 contains a portion of the roof. Flows are in roof drains to the inlet at Design Point (DP) 1. Runoff from Subbasin 102 will be conveyed via sheet and gutter flow to Design Point ' (DP) 2. Flows are collected at DP 2 in a Parking Lot Storm Drain and routed to the detention pond. Runoff from Subbasin 103 will be conveyed via sheet and gutter flow to Design Point ' (DP) 3. Flows are collected at DP 3 in a Parking Lot Storm Drain and routed to the detention pond. I Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3 Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 I I 1 I I 1 i 1 I 1.5 Master Drainage Basin Elizabeth Street Apartments lies in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin. The master plan for the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin requires detaining the 100-year developed release rate to the 2-year historic release rate. Releases from the site must not cause negative impact to downstream drainage facilities and adequate conveyance must be shown from this site. A new development fee of $6,181 per acre is required, which is subject to runoff coefficient reduction. A total of 1.2 acres of the site is being developed. Water quality and detention are being provided. 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE The historic flows from the Elizabeth Street Apartments site consist of overland flow and flow in the Larimer County # 2 canal. The drainage pattern for the property is generally from the center of the site toward the perimeter of the site and toward the canal. The site has an average slope of approximately 2.7 percent. The site has a good ground cover of native grasses and weeds. According to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Index for Fort Collins, the site is located in panel 080102003C, which is not printed and is all in Zone X (Outside the 500-year floodplain. The City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University have defined floodplains around the site. The "Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan" (Draft Report) shows the site as a dry island surrounded by the 100-year floodplain (See map in Appendix). The "Colorado State University International House Drainage Protection" plans define a 100-year floodplain on the west, north, and east sides of the site. The 100-year floodplain defined for the International House is shown on the drainage plans because it is based on detailed analysis of the existing spillway at the northeast corner of the site. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 2 Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 u I7 I� 1 iJ i I 7 I I 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Elizabeth Street Apartments is a proposed development in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is located north of the Elizabeth Street, west of City Park Avenue, and south and east of the Larimer #2 Canal. The site is located in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin and contains 1.9 Acres. The site is zoned MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The project is the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. A vicinity map is provided in the Appendix. 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics According to the "Soil Survey for Larimer County Area, Colorado" (USDA) soils for the site are Nunn clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes (74). Runoff is slow to medium. Wind erosion is slight and water erosion is moderate. A soils map is provided in the Appendix. The site is within the moderate wind erodibility zone according to the Wind Erodibility Map for the City of Fort Collins. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for Elizabeth Street Apartments. The plan includes consideration of all on -site runoff and the design of all drainage facilities required for this development. 1.4 Design Criteria This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments have been utilized. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page I Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001 I I t 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TRANSMITTALLETTER............................................................................................................. i TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................I 1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics...........................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report ..........................................................................................1 1.4 Design Criteria................................................................................................................1 1.5 Master Drainage Basin....................................................................................................2 ' 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE................................................................................2 1 H I 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN...................................................................3 3.1 Method............................................................................................................................3 3.2 General Flow Routing.....................................................................................................3 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................3 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions...........................................4 3.5 Detention Pond Sizing....................................................................................................5 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................6 4.1 Swale Capacity Analysis.................................................................................................6 5. EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................................7 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures........................................................................7 5.2 Dust Abatement...............................................................................................................7 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets.........................................................................................7 5.4 Maintenance....................................................................................................................8 5.5 Permanent Stabilization..................................................................................................8 7. REFERENCES ' Appendix I ..............................................9 0 14, 2001 tJune ' Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility ' 700 Wood Street G Fort Collins, CO 80521 J-R ENGINEERING A Subsidiary of Westrian RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Elizabeth Street Apartments. Dear Basil, We are pleased to submit to you for your approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Elizabeth Street Apartments, zoned MMN (Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood). The site is located in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin. This report addresses Stormwater review comments dated May 7, 2001. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Prepared by, William F. Strand Project Engineer, P.E. ' attachments Reviewed by, Davi Plockeman, .E. Division Manager ' 2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-491-9888 - Fax: 970-491-9984 - w Jrengmeeringxom FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS Prepared for: Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC Mike Marini 320 Golden Shore, Suite 200 Long Beach, California 90802-4217 (562) 256-2051 Prepared by: JR Engineering, LLC 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 February 7, 2001 Revised: April 3, 2001 Revised: June 14, 2001 Job Number 9212.02 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE STANDARD FORM C PROJECT: Elizabeth Street Apartments COMPLETED BY: B. Strand DATE: 02-Apr-01 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. MONTH 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 . 6 7 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 Demolition Grading Wind Erosion Control: Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other Rainfall Erosion Control Structural: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other Vegetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettin gs/Mats/Blankets Other BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: DEVELOPER VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID DATE SUBMITTED: APPROVED BY CITY ON: 9212er.xls,4/3/01 ' JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190. Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 t PROJECT: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: B. STRAND DATE: 02-Apr-01 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 106 0.14 ROADS/WALKS 0.02 Ac. ROUGHENED GK 0.00 Ac- STRAW/MULCH 0.12 Ac. SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.05 NET P-FACTOR 0.50 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 97.3% ' TOTAL AREA = 1.19 ac TOTAL EFF = 96.8% ( E (basin area * eff) / total area REQUIRED PS = 79.2% Since 86.8% > 79.2%, the proposed plan is o.k. ' 9212er.xls ' JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 11 L I 1 I EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: B. STRAND DATE: 02-Apr-01 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR -FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE JP COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (I-C•P)• 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 101 0.16 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.16 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.00 Ac. SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 1.00 NET P-FACTOR 0.45 EFF = (1-C'P)' 100 = 55.0% 102 0.31 ROADS/WALKS 0.20 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.08 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.28 NET P-FACTOR 0.39 EFF = (1-C•P)' 100 = 89.2% 103 0.40 ROADS/WALKS 0.25 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.10 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.04 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.21 NET P-FACTOR 0.39 EFF = (I-C'P)• 100 = 89.6 % 104 0.10 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAWIMULCH 0.10 Ac. SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.50 EFF = (I-C'P)' 100 = 97.00/. 105 0.08 ROADS/WALKS 0.07 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.01 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.05 NET P-FACTOR 0.40 EFF = (1-C• P)' 100 = 98.0% t9212er.xls ' JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 [] 1] C� RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: Elizabeth Street Apartments STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: B. Strand DATE: 02-Apr-OI DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb A! - Li A1' Si Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN(s) ZONE (AC) (FT) (%) (FT) (%) (%) 101 MODERATE 0.16 259 0.9 42.2 0.2 102 MODERATE 0.31 90 2.7 28.1 0.8 103 MODERATE 0.40 197 2.0 78.0 0.8 104 MODERATE 0.10 197 1.2 19.8 0.1 105 MODERATE 0.08 197 1.2 15.3 0.1 106 MODERATE 0.14 110 2.6 14.9 0.4 Total 1.19 198.48 2.35 167 2.0 79.2%. Asb = Sub -basin area ' Lsb = Sub -basin flow path length Ssb = Sub -basin slope Lb = Average flow path length = sum(Ai Li)/sum(Ai) Sb = Average slope = sum(Ai SiySum (Ai) ' PS is taken from Table 8-a (Table 5.1, Erosion Control Reference Manual) by interpolation. An Erosion Control Plan will be developed to contain PS% of the rainfall sedimentation that would normally flow off a bare ground site during a 10-year, or less, precipitation event. 1 11 Erosion.xls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL A = Expansion Anale gloo M, VIA m mm mml Kel .1 .z ..5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D RIPRAP FIGURE `5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 0 0 RIPRAP MEMENWEEM MEN VAJEAPAr 000 ./� ME • I i .�/ OEM PAFM�� Yt/D Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE B FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT c c m D z , o CK) N _D Z D c, m^ r O 0 0 0 0 z 1 0 r 0 N 1 Extend riprop to height of culvert or normal channel depth, whichever is smaller • ARiprap thickness on channel side slopes equal to 1.5d5o 4 1 or flatte' perferred TT 3: 1 maximum Concrete cradle/cut off, or standard headwall 2d50 L/2 -- t- PLAN 1.5d50 L/2 PROFILE Downstream Channel End slope at 1:1 _.� 2d50 lar Bedding z IV M FIGURE 5-6. CONDUIT OUTLET EROSION PROTECTION 4/2/01 LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS ITEM: RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR OVERFLOW SPILLWAYS COMPUTATIONS BY: B. STRAND SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 04/02/01 Riprap requirements for a stable channel lining are based on the equation from Storm Drainage Design Criteria, City of Fort Collins, CO, May 1984 V S°'" = 5.8 (dso) (S: - 1) where: V = mean channel velocity (ft/s) S = longitudinal channel slope (ft/ft) Ss = specific gravity of rock (minimum Ss = 2.50) d5 = rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller Determine if riprap is required using Table 8-2 Longitudinal Specific Class of dso Min. Riprap Velocity Slope Gravity V S°'" Froude Is Riprap Table 8-1 Thickness LOCATION (ft/s) (ft/ft) of Rock (Ss - 1)0'66 Number F < 0.8 7 Table 8-2 (in) (in) Detention Pond Spill 1.59 0.25 2.5 0.96 0.40 TRUE 0 0 0 USE TYPE L RIPRAP ON BACKSIDE OF SPILLWAY 921202riprap.xls I 1 1 1 1 1 LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS ITEM: RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLETS COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 4/2/O1 From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Q = discharge, cls D = diameter of circular conduit, It Yt = tailwater depth, ft V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ff/s = 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils = 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils Figure 5-6 From Riprap Riprap Figure 5-9 Min. L Depth Depth Width Expansion L = (1/(2tanq)) from to U2 U2 to L of Riprap Q Factor At = Q/V •(At/Yt-W) Figure 5-8, L Use W Use L LOCATION (in) (in) (ft) Dos 11(2 tan B) (fe) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pond Outlet 18.0 13.5 3.75 0.2 6.7 0.07 -6.43 3.75 4.00 4.00 Pipe Between Ponds 18.0 13.5 6 1.0 6.7 0.98 -7.47 6.00 4.00 4.00 DP #2 18.0 13.5 3.75 3.1 6.5 0.98 0.99 3.75 4.00 4.00 DP #3 18.0 13.5 3.75 2.2 6.2 0.71 -0.04 3.75 4.00 4.00 J 921202riprap.xls J i 1 LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS ITEM: RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLETS 1 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 4/2/01 ' From Urban Strom Drainage Criteria/ Manual, March 1969 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) 1 Q = discharge, cfs D = diameter of circular conduit, ft Yt = tailwater depth, ft 1 V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ft/s = 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils = 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils 1 From From Design Tailwater Allowable Fig. 5-7 Table 5-1 Type of Flow Diam. Depth Velocity Qt t _YL Riprap d5o 1 LOCATION Pipe Qta, (cfs) D (ft) yt (h) V (ft/s) D'.5 D Type (in) Pond Outlet RCP 0.4 1.25 0.25 5.5 0.29 0.20 Type L 9.0 Pipe Between Ponds RCP 5.4 2 1.11 5.5 1.91 0.56 Type L 9.0 1 DP #2 RCP 5.4 1.25 0.7 5.5 3.86 0.56 Type L 9.0 DP #3 RCP 3.9 1.25 0.57 5.5 2.79 0.46 Type L 9.0 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 921202riprap.xls Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. ' Minimum Width (We..) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack. See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms. Maximum Dia. Width of Trash Rack O nin �. Per Column of Holes as a Function Water ' of Circular of De th H Opening Maximum ' (inches) < 0.25 H=2.0' H=3.0' H=4.0' 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. H=5.0' H=6.0' Number of Columns 3 in. 3 in 14 < 0.50 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.75 3 in. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in 7 ' < 1.00 6 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in 4 < 1.25 9 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. 15 in. 2 < 1.50 12 in. 15 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 2 < 1.75 18 in. 21 in. 21 in. 24 in. 24 in. 1 ' < 2.00 21 in. 24 in. 27 in. 30 in. 30 in. 1 ' Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. US FilterTM Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications. ' Max. Width Screen #93 VEE Support Rod Support Rod, Total Screen Carbon Steel Frame of Opening Wire Slot Opening Type On -Center, Thickness Type ' 9" S acin 0.139 #156 VEE '/." 0.31' '/,'k1.0'lat bar 18" 0.139 TE .074"x.50" 1" 0.655 3/."z 1.0 an le 24" ' 0.139 TE .074"x.75" F, , 1.03" 1.0"x 1 /: anle 27" 0.139 TE .074"x.75" 1" 1.03" 1.0" x I %"anle 30" 0.139 TE.074"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1'/4`k IW'an le 36" 0.139 TE .074"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1 '/; k 1%:"an le ' 42" 0.139 TE .105"x1.0" 1" 1.155" I '/,`k 1%"anle US Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA ' DESIGN EXAMPLE: Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings. Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet. ' Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame. ' Solution: From Table 6a- I with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W ,o,,. = 36 = 18 inches. The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus, Trash rack dimensions within the mounting frame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high ' From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0.139" openings between wires, TE .074" x .50"support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and %" x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame. ' Table 6a e' 4'-0' B. Bolt Down or C808.75 American Standard Lock Down Structural Steel Channel. - Trash Rack Attached By Welding Rack Swivel Hinge Tubular vel Trash Rack On 6 7-- 4' Centers 4 _ Ir 1 r H Optional Varies Flow Control C 2'-0' U.S. Filter* Stainless C Steel Perforated = Orifice Plate to Steel Well —Screen Flow Control , 6'-0' (or equal) Per Tables Plate 6a-1. 6o-2 — — — — — _ j CBxi8.75 American Standard Structural 2'-4' Steel Channel Formed Minimum Into Concrete Bottom Md Sides Of Yam, Trash Rack Att cried By Intertnittant Welds. Outlet Pipe 18' IMin. 3" Minimum — L ' 4' Section A —A �-N From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only Well —Screen Frame Attached To Channel By Intermittant Welds Steel Perforated Flow Control Plate 1 Flow Trash Rack Attached 6' : By Intermittont Min Welding All Around Section B—B — Plan View From Figure 6. Circular Openings Only Limits for this Standardized Design: 1. All outlet plate openings are circular. 2. Maximum diameter of opening = 2 inches. *U.S. Filter, S�. Paul, Minnesota, USA Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Flc Detalcdwg Stainless Steel Support Bars No. 93 Stainless Steel (U.S. Filter* or Equal) Wires t;; � � Flow 0.W 0.' Section C—C From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only R Value = (net open areo)Agross rack area) = 0.60 Figure 6—a Suggested Standardardized Trash Rack and Outlet Design For WQCV Outlets With Circular Openings I I 1 11 1 Note: Vertical WQCV Trash Racks are shown in Figures 6, 6—a, and 6—b for suggested standardized outlet design. Adverse —Slope Trash Rack design may be used for non —standardized designs, but must meet minimum design criteria. Structural Steel Channel Formed Into Concrete. See Figures 6—a, 6—b WQCV Trash Racks: Stainless Steel Baits A �� �� tiguresant Welds, Figures 6—a, 6—b A --W� Elevation H Varies 2'-0" to 6'-0* B 2'-4- (minimum) 1. Well —screen trash racks shall be stainless steel and shall be attached by intermittant welds along the edge of the mounting frame. 2. Bar grate trash racks shall be aluminum and shall be bolted using stainless steel hardware. 3. Trash Rack widths are for specified trash rack material. Finer well —screen or mesh size than specified is acceptable, however, trash rack dimensions need to be adjusted for materials having a different open area/gross area ratio (R Value) 4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero head downstream of the rack. Overflow Trash Racks: 1. All trash racks shall be mounted using stainless steel hardware and provided with hinged and lockable or boltable access panels. 2. Trash racks shall be stainless steel, aluminum, or steel. Steel trash racks shall be hot dip galvanized and may be hot powder painted after galvanizing. 3. Trash Racks shall be designed such that the diagonal dimension of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the outlet pipe. 4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero head downstream of the rack. Urban Drainage and Figure 6 Flood Control District Suggested WQCV Outlet Standardized Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Trash Rack Design Flc Detcds.dwg Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing Circular Perforation Sizing Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet. Hole Dia (In) • Hole Dia (in) Min. So (in) Area per Row (sq In) n=1 n=2 n=3 1 4 0.250 1 0.05 0.10 0.15 5 16 0.313 2 0.08 0.15 0.23 3 8 0.375 2 0.11 0.22 0.33 7 16 0.438 2 0.30 0.45 1 2 0.500 2 0.20 0.39 0.59 9 16 0.563 3 0.25 0.50 0 775 5 8 0.625 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74 1 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 0.88 1 1.33 13 16 0.813 3 0.52 1.04 1.56 7 8 0.875 3 0.60 1.20 1.80 15 16 0.938 3 0.69 1.38 2.07 1 1.000 4 0.79 - 1.57 Z36 1 1 16 1.063 4 0.89 1.77 2.66 1 1 8 1.125 4 0.99 1.99 2.98 1 3 16 1.188 1 4 1.11 2.22 3.32 1 1 4 1.250 4 1.23 2.45 3.68 1 5 16 1.313 4 1.35 2.71 4.06 1 3/8 1.375 4 1.48 2.97 4.45 1 7 16 1.438 4 1.62 3.25 4.87 1 1 2 1.500 4 1.77 3.63 5.30 1 9 16 1.563 4 1.92 3.83 5.75 1 5 8 1.625 4 2.07 4.15 6.22 1 11 16 1.688 4 2.24 4.47 6.71 1 3 4 1.750 4 2.41 4.81 7.22 1 13 16 1.813 4 2.58 5.16 7.74 1 7 8 1.875 4 2.76 5.52 8.28 1 15 16 1.938 4 2.95 5.90 8.84 2 1 2.000 4 3.14 6.28 9.42 n m Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness 1/4 ' S/16 ' 3/8 ' • Designer may Interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area, If desired. Rectangular Perforation Sizing Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed. Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in) 2" Rectangular Hole Width Min. Steel Thickness 5" 1 4 7" 5/32 " 5/16 " 11 323/81/2 E100-- " Urban Drainage and Figure 5 Flood Control District WQCV Outlet Orifice Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Perforation Sizing Flc Oetcls.dwq 11 1 d 1 LJ I Orifice Perforation Details A-0-1 Structural Steel Channel Formed Into Concrete, To Span Width Of Structure. See Figures 6—o, 6—b F Write = Wco„c + 6 inches (minimum) Permanent Water Surface Circular Openings: Wconc Obtained From Table 6a-1 Rectangular Openings: Wc;,,,,. = (Width of Rectangular Perforation W) + 12" Rectangular Openings: Wap ing (see Figure 6—b) Obtained From Table 6b-1 Sc. see So, see figure 5 gure 5 w 0 0 0 00 0 0 ° a g o O O 00 000 O 0 0 0 00 0 0 00000 0 o O O O 000 Cl 0 O O 000 o h o 0 O O 000 � 0 0 0 0 ono- o Example Perforation Patterns Note: The goal in designing the outlet is to minimize the number of columns of perforations that will drain the WQCV in the desired time. Do not, however, increase the diameter of circular perforations or the height of the rectangular perforations beyond 2 inches. Use the allowed perforation shapes and configurations shown above along with Figure 5 to determine the pattern that provides an area per row closest to that required without exceeding it. Urban Drainage and Figure 4 Flood Control District Orifice Details for Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Draining WQCV Flr. 0etare.deg Toe of Slope -1--00 Slope (Varies) Plan View —Straight Wingwall Option Toe of Slope Generally 30` to 60' of Slope (Varies) For either a Vertical or Adverse —Slope Trash Rack a handrail may be required. Plan View —Flared Wingwall Option Urban Drainage and Figure 3 Flood Control District i Typical WQCV Outlet Structure Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) wngwall Configurations Ft« oetal&dwy Note: Size 2— through 100—year overflow trash racks with the aid of figure 7. Overflow Outlet w/ Trash Rack 100—YR or Larger Flood Water Surface WQCV Water Surface Z� _ Orifice Plate Hy�, Permanent Water (See Figure 4� Surface v 3or4 Trash Rack 1 r— (See Figure 6) Overtopping Protection Emergency Spillway for Larger Floods Finished Grade 100—YR Orifice —Control Outlet tlet Pipe = 120% of 100—YR Capacity '--,—Underdrain Around Micro —Pool (Optional) Drop Box Outlet Option Overflow and Emergency Spillway 100—YR or Larger Flood Water Surface WQCV Water Surface_ Orifice Plate H�v (See Figure 4 Permanent Water 3or4 Surface, _ 1 Trash Rack Overtopping Protection 10—YR Orifice /"— Control Outlet Outlet Pipe = 120% of 10—YR Capacity Overtopping Spillway Option Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Fla: Detal4.dwg Around (Optional) Figure 1 Typical WQCV Outlet Structure Profiles Including 100—Year Detention I DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 100 ' 2 ' 1 ' 0.6 m 1 m 0.4 E m 0.2 U CJ ' ? 0.1 ' 0.0 ' ' I�0 Of �+J ' 0.02 ' 0.01 s.0 EXAMPLE: DWQ = 4.5 ft 4.0 WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet SOLUTION: Required Area per Row = 1.75 in 2 .0 EQUATION: WQCV a K 40 0 in which, K 40=0.013D WQ +0.22DWO -0.10 0 X/I O� 0 0 oeQ�r 1b 0 6 4 Qr Q� J� 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 O �Zo Area per Row,a (in.2 ) FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: / Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 O �Zo Area per Row,a (in.2 ) FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: / Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Woonc=W+12") We = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopen;"a = inches from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum (Describe if "other) Other: vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP inches Grating). Describe if "other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 3 (L/W) 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) 0 acre-feet B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (Dwo = 2' minumum) Dv,,o = 0 feet B) Bottom Stage (DBs = D, o + 1.5' min, Dwo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5"Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) D) Total Volume: Vol,,, = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Must be > Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") Storage = acre-feet Des = 1 feet Storage = 0.05 acre-feet Surf. Area = 0.06 acres Depth = 0 feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Volto, = 0.05 acre-feet Z = 0 (horizontal/vertical) Z = 0 (horizontal/vertical) x Native Grass _ Irrigation Turf Grass Other: ' Page 2 [-j ' Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility WATER QUALITY POND Project Name: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS Project Number: 39212.02 Company: JR Engineering ' Designer: B. STRAND Date: 4/2/01 ' 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=la/100) la = 72 % i = 72 B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) A = 1. .1919 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.28 watershed inches (WQCV = 1.0.(0.91 ' i3 - 1.19 ' i2 + 0.78i) ) ' D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12' Area' 1.2 Vol. = 0.03 ac-ft 2. Outlet Works ' A) Outlet Type (Check One) x Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: ' B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowevst Perforations (H) H = 1.5 ft C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) Ao = 0.19 square inches (Figure EDB-3) ' D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR D = 112 inches, OR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width W = inches E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) nc = 1 number F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (AJ Ao = 0.2 square inches ' G) Number of Rows (nr) nr = 4 number H) Total outlet Area (AoJ At = 0.8 square inches ' 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: At = 0.5' (Figure 7 Value)' Aot At = 27.2 square inches ' B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) x < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (Wrong) Ww c = 3 inches from Table 6a-1 ' ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) = H - 2" for flange of top support HTR = 16 inches iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H) x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Describe if "other" Other: iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, x 0.139" (US Filter) ' Describe if "other" Other: v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) 3/4 inches Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2) #156 VEE ' Page 1 280 5 Closed Conduit Flow 1.0 0.9 K 1: 0.7 0.510' 102 103 104 105 Red = 4 ?idv Figure 5-21 Flow coefficient K and Red/K versus the Reynolds number for orifices, nozzles, and venturi meters (20, 23) Red = g d K 10' 102 103 104 105 106 S�Ia111�Nl�Nl�111��1 / and , meters M Oro FINIMI!��� IFMIoil •rifices ,dN , ., am/. h16 rIMam.-- �---,-aw --- Elm MINIMI 106 DETENTION POND 100-yr Event, Outlet Sizing LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS ' PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING ' DATE: 04/02/01 Submerged Orifice Outlet: ' release rate is described by the orifice equation, Qo = COA, sgrt(2g(h-Eo)) where Qo = orifice outflow (cfs) ' Co = orifice discharge coefficient g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 ft/s Ao = effective area of the orifice (ft) Eo = greater of geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft) h = water surface elevation (ft) ' Qo = 0.40 cfs (2-year historic) outlet pipe dia = D = 15.0 in Invert elev. = 5035.30 ft (inv. "D" on outlet structure) E. = 5035.55 ft (downstream HGL for peak 100 yr flow - from FlowMaster) ' h = 5039.8 ft - 100 yr WSEL Co = 0.65 ' solve for effective area of orifice using the orifice equation Ao = 0.037 ft2 = 5.4 in ' orifice dia. = d = 2.62 in Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering ) ' d/ D = 0.17 kinematic viscosity, v = 1.22E-05 ft2/s Reynolds no. = Red = 4Q/(ndv) = 1.91 E+05 ' Co = (K in figure) = 0.6 check Use d = 2.6 in ' Ao = 0.037 ft2 = 5.31 in2 Qmax = 0.4 cfs I ' orifice - 100yr, 9212pond.xis Li '. Carder Lit CO 80125 1K ,on, 791-10 (303) 791-171710 Fax ' M (303) (800) 285-2902 (Colorado Only) %1 CCU 3540 East Lac Vegas 5t. Colorado 5pring5, CO 80931 ,� gvy ,+, bvey+, never look back. (719) 392-0030 (719) 392-3502 Fax g I3l 1 , Date { `� Page of _ 1wer�e✓�Cc.� S�pi �� ono i�l.�� Ile%s{Ycc��- -M �c i�v.lbv�Ip \1 a 1 L 00 �uo,3 1L6A s Sc7 �;Gfk7 :. 1 1 44- 131 B 9 ) i 1 i 1 i i 1 1 1 ©, 20 Z FTZ A—o13C�� = �F1'1 -A-3 'Z OAS FT =l= www.carderconcrece.com � _ Circular Non -Reinforced Concrete Pipe Circular rP.-inforced Concrete Pipe Storm eepft r Elliptical reinforced Concrete Pipe "THE ENGINEERED SOLUTION FOR Precast Kelnforced Concrete Box 5ecrion5 $TORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT" TER MEASUREMENT STRUCTURES Table 5-5 -Discharge of standard Cipolletti weirs in cubic feet per second. Values below and to the left of heavy lines determined experimentally; others computed from . _., n a Z ?A7 1 h312 I n'4.D.1246.1 281 Head Length of weir, L, feet h, feet 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0.20 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.51 1.81 2.11 21 .65 .97 1.30 1.62 1.94 2.27 .22 .32 .35 .70 1.04 1.39 1.74 1.86 2.08 2.23 2.43 2.60 .23 .37 .74 1.11 1.19 1.48 1.58 1.98 2.38 2.77 .24 .25 .40 .42 .79 .84 1.26 1.68 2.10 2.53 2.95 .26 .45 .89 1.34 1.78 2.23 2.36 2.68 2.83 3.12 3.31 .27 .47 .94 1.00 1.42 1.50 1.89 2.00 2.49 2.99 3.49 .28 .29 .50 .53 1.05 1.58 2.10 2.63 3.15 3.32 3.68 3.87 .30 .55 1.11 1.66 2.21 2.77 .31 .58 1.16 1.74 2.32 2.90 3.49 3.66 4.07 4.27 .32 .61 1.22 1.83 1.92 2.44 2.55 3.05 3.19 3.83 4.47 .33 .64 7 1.28 1.34 2.00 2.67 3.34 4.00 4.67 .34 .35 .70 1.39 2.09 2.79 3.49 4.18 4.88 .36 .73 1.45 2.18 2.91 3.64 4.36 5.09 5.30 .37 .76 1.52 2.27 3.03 3.16 3.79 3.94 4.55 4.73 5.52 .38 .79 1.58 1.64 2.37 2.46 3.28 4.10 4.92 5.74 .39 .40 .82 .85 1.70 2.56 3.41 4,26 5.11 5.96 1.77 2.65 3.54 4.42 5.30 6.19 .41 .88 1.83 2.75 3.66 4.58 5.50 6.41 .42 .43 .92 .95 1.90 2.85 3.80 4.75 5.70 5.90 6.65 6.88 .44 .98 1.96 2.03 2.95 3.05 3.93 4.06 4.91 5.08 6.10 7.11 .45 1.02 1.05 2.10 3.15 4.20 5.25 6.30 7.35 7.59 .46 .47 1.08 2.17 3.25 4.34 4.48 5.42 5.60 6.51 6.72 7.94 .48 1.12 1.16 2.24 2.31 3.36 3.46 4.62 5.77 6.93 8.08 .49 .50 1.20 2.38 3.57 4.76 5.95 7.14 8.33 .51 2.45 3.68 4.90 6.13 7.36 8.58 8.84 .52 2.52 3.79 5.05 6.31 6.50 7.57 7.79 9.09 .53 2.60 2.67 3.90 4.01 5.20 5.34 6.68 8.02 9.35 .54 .55 2.75 4.12 5.49 6.87 8.24 9.61 2.82 4.23 5.64 7.05 8.47 9.88 .56 2.90 4.35 5.80 7.24 8.69 10.1 .57 2.97 4.46 5.95 7.44 8.92 10A .58 3.05 4.58 6.10 7.63 9.15 10.7 .59 .60 3.13 4.69 6.26 7.82 9.39 11.0 .61 3.21 4.81 6.42 8.02 9.62 9.86 11.2 11.5 62 3.29 3.29 4.93 6.57 6.73 8.22 8.42 10.1 11.8 .6 3.45 .93 5.17 6.90 8.62 10.3 12.1 .64 .65 3.53 5.29 7.06 8.82 10.6 12.4 3.61 5.42 7.22 9.03 10.8 12.6 12.9 .66 .67 3.69 5.54 7.38 9.23 11.1 11.3 13.2 68 1 3.90 5.66 5.79 7.55 7.72 9.44 9.65 11.6 13.5 .68 70 3.98 5.92 7.89 9.86 11.8 13.8 LVV I I I I -141 I 4-1 1 I 1 I FLOW TI^In This OA MOSW K L 1n fables 5-e. 5-3. and 5-6 1 e Earth transition L> S PLAN Too of bank EL Weer [rest ur Lateral Side slope _.1AA to' Earth transition) (Men J I" I•' 12,15w, see r e loP of eon, 4-1 State L/ B " S �s level th Bw hirer I NrS S 6e SONM pool length•1fhlN.el ><� e ' �PrOtictlon 3i9 HOIeS,CSt for Side }" Zinc coated 6"fJkt rivets. Drive ricers Coed and chip SECTION A -A 6"Fder•e AIz •6plz Conten"s In wads and floor flush on for side Ben° Into Cutoffs SPLICE DETAIL X M �Nm 1y For t0 4' weir blades. 5011ce near the Q. w - Cenfer Of the weer between 1y I - +f / s1lice ne /ts. a thi' tord 1d poi wevr blades. � tel sphCe near the tAIrO pants ', between anchor bolts Z 6 i= v rt Go Steel [, 1• TI N C = C ti �F �p `o � - i i u• v f � 7 +1' •e From w011 it Es tend Cutoff vertically or horizontally /.We$ A B SpacesA—.I with unreenforced concrete as regared remove burrs W.7" 0 SECTION B-B NOTES -JC WEIR DETAILS _ Aftmum allowable drop m water Surface. P. is 3.0 feet far discharges up to m efs. WEIR STRUCTURES a e I.S feet for discharges greater than 10 CIS ti NMlmum drop M water SurfacC F Is equal to the neod. h. on stele. NO. ill O MAX tr, h NIX FR O N/N. OMIX. MAX. J 5.-0' 36 1-66' 1.66' !A S'-0' )6 1.66' 6 6'-O' S7 2.00' 2.—Der 6A 6'-0' J7 2.00' J.00- 7 7'-0' 70 2.07' 2.07' )A 7'-O' 70 2.07' J.00' e 6'-a' to 1.69' 1.69' 64 6'-0' 70 1.69 3.00 9 9'-0' 70 1.75' 1.75' 9A 9'-0' 70 1.75' J. 00' to to'-O' 70 1.6J' 1.63' IOA /0'-O' 70 1.65' J.00' 11 11110' 70 1.75' 1. JJ' IIA W-O' t0 1.5J I.00 I.SO' 1.J0' I. JO' IJ /J'-0'e01. 1.50 1.50' Ie a-O' 67 r,O 1.50' 1.50' S IS.-O 9J1. 1.50 1.50' the Weir for designdischarge [ 16 Machine sq, e 9 bolt with sg. " I' Weer blade to be galvanized by the hot d10 Process of ler fabrication head. her. nut% - X`. ANCHOR BOLT AND WEIR BLADE DATA ('Cut washer If" ,18? z¢" i W HIS, G M A B S C D 5-0' 14' i-10" 6-9 l2" J /d" 2-2 10 f" B" 6 -0" 2-4' J'- 2 '" i -11'" n e" dLVlA" t-6 r07" /0" To- ?-g" !-?'" 0' 11 t" 10" i@1g` ?-6 lot' to' B -0' ? -g' ! - 1 9 -1t " 1e' S /S" 7-6 r 1 1- to- 9-O" 6LQ 15" 2-6 L" 10 1" 10' 10-0" ?I" 2-/O ' /1'-91" 14 If" ?LW 14" ?-2 12 is 10j" B' 11 of 2g' 2-IO /J'-9I" l2 ' 9(d/g" 2-1 10j" B" 24" 2 -/D " II - 9 " I " 10 14' 2-1 -' 10r" B'_ ?4' t-/O'" IS-9 f" toy" I/ /d" 1-2 L" 10" -B" 21' 2-10" 16'-9�' 11" I/ IS" ?-? 10j' e 1g` 2-/0 '" 17'-9" /S' lJ /J` Reinforcement rot shown SECTION C-C Figure 5-18. Cipolletti weir structures-5 feet to 16 feet. 103-D-1238 (Figure enhanced by Water Resources Publications, LLC) TER MEASUREMENT STRUCTURES weir pool should be at least twice the head on the weir and never less than 1 foot for all weirs. The distance between the corners of the weir crest and the sides of the approach channel should also be at least twice the head on the weir and never less than 1 foot for all standard contracted weirs. (d) Head on Weir. —The head on the weir is the difference in elevation between the weir crest and the water surface upstream. The head is measured by: (1) Either a staff gage in the weir pool or a gage in a measuring well located upstream of the weir a distance of four times the maximum head on the weir. 5- 2 0. H e a d- d i s c h a r g e Relationship. —(a) Rectangular and Cipolletti Weirs. —The discharge in cubic feet per second of these standard weirs depends on the crest length and the head on the weir. Knowing the weir length and head on the weir, the free -flow discharge can be read directly from tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6. The minimum head on standard rectangular and Cipolletti weirs is 0.2 foot. At heads less than 0.2 foot the nappe does not spring free of the crest and measurement error results. The maximum head on standard rectangular and Cipolletti weirs is one-third of the crest length. For the weir structure shown in figure -5-18, the maximum head (h max.) on the weir should not exceed the values given in the table because in unlined canals excessive channel erosion may occur immediately downstream of the structure. If this structure is used in a hard surface lined canal where erosion is not a problem, the head on the weir can be one-third the crest length and the discharge computed from the appropriate weir formula. (b) V-notch Weirs. —The discharge in cubic feet per second of a standard 900 V-notch weir is determined only by the head on the bottom of the V-notch. Table 5-7 gives the discharges for various heads. The V-notch weirs are usually limited to flows of 10 cfs or less. More head is required in V-notch weirs to pass a given discharge than in rectangular and Cipolletti weirs but for flows up to 1 cfs they are generally more accurate. The reason for this is that the nappe springs free from the V-shaped section even for small heads, whereas the nappe 273 clings to the crest of other weirs. The minimum head on a V-notch weir should be 0.2 foot. 5-21. Design Example of 'Selecting and Setting a Weir. —(a) Requirements. —Select and set a Cipolletti weir structure to measure a maximum flow of 40 cfs. The weir structure is to be constructed in a trapezoidal earth canal which has the following hydraulic properties: Q = 40 cfs; bottom width = 6.0 feet; side slopes 1-1/2 to 1; normal water depth upstream (d, ) and downstream (d,) of weir = 2.0 feet; velocity = 2.22 feet per second; and canal bank freeboard = 1.5 feet. Assume a 3-foot drop (F) between upstream and downstream normal water surfaces has been provided in the canal profile. (b) Weir Selection. —The table of weir structures in figure 5-18 gives some standard weir lengths with their corresponding maximum discharges, Q max., and minimum and maximum drops, F, between upstream and downstream water surfaces. Select the structure having the least weir length for a design discharge of 40 cfs and F = 3.0 feet. Structure No. 6A (from table on fig. 5-18), has a crest length, W, of 6 feet which meets this criteria. The maximum design capacity of this structure is 57 cfs and a maximum allowable F = 3 feet. Table 5-5 shows that for a 6-foot weir and a discharge of 40.1 cfs, the head, h, equals 1.58 feet. (c) Weir Setting. —Set the weir pool invert so that elevation B shown in figure 5-18 is 3h below the upstream normal water surface (NWS) elevation. Assume the upstream canal invert elevation is 100.00 feet. Then El. B = Canal invert elevation + d, — 3h El. B = 100.00 + 2.00 — 3(1.58) 97.26 feet Since 2h = 3.16 feet is greater than the 12-inch minimum, El. B is satisfactory. The. elevation of the top of weir wall (El. T) is given by the following equation: El. T= El. B+2h-2if+G El. T=97.26+3.16-2.5 +3.21 12 El. T = 103.42 feet In the above calculation, 2120 is the weir blade ),V LEf WMU I I If W1. L2PLAN RCC�,ANC!)C.AR Technology Pertaining tsL FT 7 1 off INLET OUTLEIr pip UNITED`; TMENT 01 BEAU OF R 'VfSON "AT /A i s,ein I re y, s H4 1 5' vfem H. J Warfe6 D. L. ffrir5,e't 'PW"f , If R B �Y&:U-n A0 f f f; el�,' tit, SC ff A, 411 if L En hanced Version f, ,I T H IN I'" WfTN511'pucrThis Pubfication%�41LC available from Wq1tprRes1 ources R I Detention Pond Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 04/02/01 tpp of berm Equation for flow over a broad crested weir Q = CLH32 where C = weir coefficient = 3.367 H = overflow height L = length of the weir H + spill elevation The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged. Q (100) = Spill elev = 10 5039.8 cfs (peak flow into pond) ft = 100-year WSEL Min top of berm elev.= 5040.8 Weir length required: L= 8 ft Use L = 8 ft I v = 1.59 ft/s spillway, 9212pond.xls I DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand DATE: 4/2/01 Equations: Area trib. to pond = 1.19 Developed flow = Qp = CIA C (100) = 0.93 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qp Developed C A = 1.1 Vol. Out = Vo =K QPo T Release rate, QPo = 0.4 storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67") rainfall JR Engineering acre -ZAc-1 L& �e � oc acre cfs (from fig 2.1) Storm Duration, T (min) Rainfall Intensity, 1 (in/hr) Qo (cfs) Vol. In Vi (ft) Vol. Out Vo (ft) Storage S (ft) Storage S (ac-ft) 5 9.95 11.0 3286 108 3178 0.07 10 7.77 8.5 5129 216 4913 0.11 20 1 5.62 6.2 7424 432 6992- 0.16 30 4.47 4.9 8853 648 8205 0.19 40 3.74 4.1 9880 864 9016 0.21 50 3.23 3.6 10679 1080 9599 0.22 60 2.86 3.1 11332 1296, 10036 0.23 70 2.57 2.8 11885 1512 10373 0.24 80 2.34 2.6 12366 1728 10638 0.24 90 2.15 2.4 12790 1944 10846 0.25 100 1.99 2.2 13171 2160 11011 0.25 110 1.86 2.0 13517 2376 11141 0.26 120 1.75 1.9 13834 2592 11242 0.26 130 1.65 1.8 14127 2808 11319 0.26 140 1.56 1.7 14399 3024 11375 0.26 150 1.48 1.6 14653 3240 11413 0.26 160 1.41 1.6 14893 3456 11437 0.26 170 1.35 1.5 15118 3672 11446 0.26 44 180 1.29 1.4 15332 3888 11444 026 Required Storage Volume: 11446 ft3 0.26 acre-ft 9212pond.xls,FAA-100yr Trib Qvzrde V -�� gas ��0.S 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 4/2/01 Invert. WQ WSEL- 100-yr WSEL- top of wall - V = 1 /3 d (A + B + s4rt(A*B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour POND NAME Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 5035.5 0 5036 1122 0.00 0.00 5037 2660 0.04 0.05 5038 4389 0.08 0.08 5039 4389 0.10 0.18 5039.8 4389 0.08 0.26 5040 4389 0.10 0.28 5041 4389 0.10 0.38 5041.9 4389 0.09 0.47 5042 4389 0.01 0.39 5043 4389 0.10 0.57 5043.15 4389 0.02 0.41 5044 4389 0.09 0.66 1 9212pond.xis ' /1�17 01 03.15p r-C Supply 13 286 0051 p.2 B Hun A A HUH 000ao HouB GRATE TOP VIEW ' 1 1/411 r I r 7/8' z��� GRATE (- SECTION A — A 1 1 ' 42 FRAME TIP VIEW ICAST IRON to conform to ASTM A-48, CLASS 35B H-20 Wheel Loading Single Unit with Curb Bois as 3 jej o F epw A"A o0000 HMO 6 E HHUH UU UU - GRATE SECTION B — B GRATE BOTTOM VIEW 11 /�• IA4' L 3/e•r 11-ma's• � �1 5 4' 3/4J __ 1 � 4• CURB MOOD FRONT, BACK, AND SECTION VIEWS I r/4' 5 I/' 2• �� D&L No. 1-3516 Est. Weight 530 Ibs ' 1 1-3516 1 MAY 1994 1 , DSL FRAME SECTION ERM D&L Foundry Phone: Fax' TV P.0.8" 1319 Moses Lake. WA 98837 TOW 765.7952 75 .r srw.IMni.r r wVaeb 1' = 16 1/4' 1 1 ®n 280 5 Closed Conduit Flow 10' 0 K 0 0. 0. 0. W Rea . V2g—Ah If K 10' W 10' k16 Rea 4Q i dv Figure 5-21 Flow coefficient K and Rea/K versus the Reynolds number for orifices, nozzles, and venturi meters (20, 23) . top scale with the slanted lines to determine K for given values of d, D, Ah and v. With K, we can then solve for Q from Eq. (5-31). The literature on orifice flow contains many discussions concerning the optimum placement of pressure taps on both the upstream and downstream side of the orifice. The data given in Fig..5-21 are for "corner taps." That is, on the upstream side, the pressure readings were taken immediately upstream of the plate orifice (at the corner of the orifice plate and the pipe wall), and the downstream tap wps at a similar downstream location. However, pressure data from flange taps (I in. upstream and 1 in. downstream) and from the taps shown in Fig. 5-19 all yield virtually the same values for K—the differences are no greater than the deviations involved in reading Fig. 5-21.• • For more precise values of K with specific types of taps, see the ASME report on fluid meters (20). I 1 t l Elizabeth Street Apartments 100-yr Event, Inlet Capacity LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apartments PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand SUBMITTED BY: JR Engineering DATE: 4/3/01 Inlet Grate Capacity: release rate is described by the orifice equation, Qo = Ck sgrt( 2g(h-E.)) where Qo = orifice outflow (cfs) Co = orifice discharge coefficient g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 ft/s Ao = effective area of the orifice (ft) Eu = geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft) h = water surface elevation (ft) IN THIS CASE: 0.5' of ponding allowed over inlets giving (h-Eo) = 0.5' Ao = Open area of one inlet grate = 1.76 square feet Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering) Co = 0.6 Qo = 6.0 cfs per inlet In parking lots, 80% of theoretical capacity due to clogging (FTC Stormwater Design Manual; 5-9) Qo (80%) = 4.8 cfs per inlet DP # Q100 (cfs) Q1001 Qo (80•/) INLETS REQUIRED 2 2.80 0.6 1 3 3.90 0.6 1 5 1.00 0.1 1 orifice - 100 yr, inlet capacity.xls �I u 11 Sidewalk Culvert Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Sidewalk Culvert Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft ' Bottom Width Discharge 2.00 ft 0.40 cfs 1 t LI 11 1 Results Depth 0.09 ft Flow Area 0.18 ft' Wetted Perimeter 2.18 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 0.11 ft Critical Slope 0.005934 ft/ft Velocity 2.19 ft/s Velocity Head 0.07 ft Specific Energy 0.17 ft Froude Number 1.28 Flow is supercritical. '04/03/01 FlowMaster v5.15 02:36:36 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Sidewalk Culvert Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Sidewalk Culvert Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.010000 fuft Depth 0.09 ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 0.40 cfs 2.00 ft 0.09 ft 1 V L H 1 NTS '04/03/01 FlowMaster v5.15 02:36:44 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I l _J, 1 Roof Collection System Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Roof Collection System Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth ' Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.60 cfs Results Depth 0.50 ft Flow Area 0.28 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.40 ft Top Width 0.57 ft Critical Depth 0.59 ft Percent Full 75.34 Critical Slope 0.007560 ft/ft Velocity 5.67 ft/s Velocity Head 0.50 ft Specific Energy 1.00 ft Froude Number 1.43 Maximum Discharge 1.88 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.75 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.008403 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. '114/04101 FlowMaster v5.15 07:35,40 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Roof Collection System Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Roof Collection System Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.60 cfs 0.50 ft 8.00 in ' 1 VD H 1 ' NITS ' 04/04/01 07:36:06:06 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 I 1 DP #5 Pipe Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #5 Pipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge t 2.40 cfs Results Depth 0.64 ft Flow Area 0.64 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 2.00 ft Top Width 1.25 ft Critical Depth 0.62 ft Percent Full 51.49 Critical Slope 0.005680 ft/ft Velocity 3.77 ft/s Velocity Head 0.22 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 0.93 Maximum Discharge 4.91 cfs Full Flow Capacity 4.57 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.001380 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 1 '04/10/01 FlowMaster v5.15 03:33:43 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I DP #5 Pipe Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #5 Pipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.64 ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 2.40 cfs 1 04/10/01 03:33:46 PM 0.64 ft 1 V L H 1 NTS 15.00 in FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I 1 DP #3 Pipe Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #3 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Diameter Discharge 15.00 in 3.90 cfs 1 I H Results Depth 0.57 ft Flow Area 0.55 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.85 ft Top Width 1.25 ft Critical Depth 0.80 ft Percent Full 45.63 Critical Slope 0.006691 ft/ft Velocity 7.15 ft/s Velocity Head 0.79 ft Specific Energy 1.36 ft Froude Number 1.90 Maximum Discharge 9.83 cfs Full Flow Capacity 9.14 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.003645 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 04/03/01 FlowMaster v5.15 09:58:05 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP #3 Pipe Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #3 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth 0.57 ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 3.90 cfs 7ft 15.00 in ' 1 VD H 1 ' NTS 04/03/01 09:58:15 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 I� DP #2 Pipe Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #2 Pipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft ' Diameter Discharge 15.00 in 5.50 cfs 1 Results Depth 0.70 ft Flow Area 0.71 ft' Wetted Perimeter 2.11 ft Top Width 1.24 ft Critical Depth 0.95 ft Percent Full 55.95 Critical Slope 0.008450 ft/ft Velocity 7.79 ft/s Velocity Head 0.94 ft Specific Energy 1.64 ft Froude Number 1.82 Maximum Discharge 9.83 cfs Full Flow Capacity 9.14 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.007250 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. '04/10/01 FlowMaster v5.15 03:34:47 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP #2 Pipe Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet DP #2 Pipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth 0.70 ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 5.50 cfs 0.70 ft 1 V L H 1 NTS 15.00 in '0ai10i01 03:34:50 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pipe Between Ponds Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Between Ponds Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 1.11 ft Diameter 24.00 in Discharge 9.50 cfs 1.11 ft 24.00 in ' 1 VD H 1 ' NTS '04102101 04:42:0:06 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Pipe Between Ponds Worksheet for Circular Channel ' Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Between Ponds ' Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Diameter Discharge 24.00 in 9.50 cfs ' Results Depth 1.11 ft Flow Area 1.79 ft2 ' Wetted Perimeter 3.36 ft Top Width 1.99 ft Critical Depth 1.10 ft ' Percent Full 55.48 Critical Slope 0.005116 ft/ft Velocity 5.31 ft/s Velocity Head 0.44 ft ' Specific Energy 1.55 ft Froude Number 0.99 Maximum Discharge 17.21 cfs Full Flow Capacity 16.00 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.001764 ft/ft ' Flow is subcritical. 1 1 '04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15 04:42:03 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 LJI ' Pond Outlet Swale Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pond Outlet Swale ' Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Discharge 0.53 cfs Results t 1 [1 1 Depth 0.40 ft Flow Area 0.64 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.30 ft Top Width 3.20 ft Critical Depth 0.26 ft Critical Slope 0.108438 ft/ft Velocity 0.83 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 0.41 ft Froude Number 0.33 Flow is subcritical. '06/14/01 FlowMaster v5.15 03:04:57 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pond Outlet Swale Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.alIX3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pond Outlet Swale Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.40 ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Discharge 0.53 cfs 1 ' 06/14/01 03:04:43:5 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 0.40 ft 1 V L H 1 NTS FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 ' Pond Outlet Pipe Worksheet for Circular Channel ' Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pond Outlet Pipe ' Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft ' Diameter Discharge 15.00 in 0.40 cfs ' Results Depth 0.25 ft Flow Area 0.17 ft' ' Wetted Perimeter 1.16 ft Top Width 1.00 ft Critical Depth 0.25 ft ' Percent Full 20.00 Critical Slope 0.005377 ft/ft Velocity 2.29 fus Velocity Head 0.08 ft ' Specific Energy 0.33 ft Froude Number 0.97 Maximum Discharge 4.91 cfs ' Full Flow Capacity 4.57 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.000038 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 1 1 '04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15 04:40:05 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pond Outlet Pipe Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2 Worksheet Pond Outlet Pipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft ' Diameter 15.00 in Discharae 0.40 cfs LJ 0.25 ft 15.00 in ' 1 VD H 1 ' NTS '04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15 04:40:10 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts. PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand DATE: 4/2/01 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER ITOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (inlhr) Q (100) (ds) from Design Point Q (100) (ds) Q(100)tot (cfs) 1 101 0.16 1.00 5.0 9.95 1.62 1.6 2 102 0.31 1.00 5.0 9.95 3.11 3.1 103 0.40 1.00 5.0 9.95 3.94 1 3.9 104 0.10 0.13 9.9 7.80 0.10 0.1 5 105 0.08 1.00 5.0 9.95 0.77 0.8 6 106 0.14 0.26 6.2 9.20 0.32 0.3 Q=CiA 9212flow.xis Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 84.682 i (10+ tc)"'s JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 2-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts. PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand DATE: 4/2/01 2 yr storm, C(= 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF ICARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) Q (2) (cfs) from Design Point Q (2) (CIS) Q(2)tot (cfs) 1 101 0.16 0.95 5.0 2.85 0.44 0.44 2 102 0.31 0.87 5.0 2.85 0.78 0.78 103 0.40 0.86 5.0 2.85 0.97 1 0.97 104 0.10 0.10 10.1 2.21 0.02 0.02 5 105 0.08 0.87 5.0 2.85 0.19 0.19 6 106 0.14 0.21 6.5 2.59 0.07 0.07 Q=gCiA 92128ow.xls Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 24.221 / (10+ tc)°'B68 LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY DATE: 100-yr storm Elizabeth Street Apts. 39212.02 B.Strand 4/2/01 Cir= 1.25 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION -100 YR JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAL /OVERLAND TIME (tl) TRAVEL TIME / GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASIN) FINAL to REMARKS DESIGN PONIT SUBBASIN(s) (1) Area (ac) (2) C (3) C'Cf Length (ft) (4) Slope (M) (5) ti (min) 1 (6) Length (it) (7) Slope (%) (8) n Manning 1 rough. Vel. (ft/s) (9) tt (min) (10) tc= tl+It (11) Total (ft) (12) tc=(V180)+10 (min) (13) (min) (14) 1 101 0.16 0.95 1.00 35 0.5 1.4 224 1.0 0.016 2.0 1.86 3.3 259 11.4 5.0 2 102 0.31 0.87 1.00 13 2A 0.5 77 2.8 0.016 3.4 0.38 0.9 90 10.5 5.0 103 0.40 0.86 1.00 35 2.0 0.9 162 2.0 0.016 2.8 0.95 1.8 197 11.1 5.0 104 0.10 0.10 0.13 35 2.0 8.6 162 1.0 0.016 2.0 1.34 99 197 11.1 9.9 5 105 0.08 0.87 1.00 10 2.0 -0.51 601 1.0 0.0161 2.0 0.50 It 70 10.4 5.0 6 106 0.14 0.2110.26 21 2.0 5.71 891 2.8 0.016 3.4 0.44 6.2 1101 10.6 6.2 EQUATIONS: tc=ti+tt tl=(1.87(1.1-CCf)L05)/S1/3 It = L/Vel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 (corresponds to Figure 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Manual) final tc = minimum of ti + It and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of OF curves 9212flow.xls LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: DATE: 2-yr storm Elizabeth Street Apts. 39212.02 B.Strand 4/2/01 Cf = 1.00 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 2 YR JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins. CO 80525 SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAL IOVERLAND TIME (ti) TRAVEL TIME I GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASIN) FINAL to REMARKS DESIGN PONIT SUBBASIN(s) (1) Area (ac) (2) C (3) Length (8) (4) Slope (%) (5) ti (min) (8) Length (It) (7) Slope (%) (8) n Manning rough. Vel. (lt/s) (9) It (min) (10) tc = tl + It (11) Total (a) (12) tc=(V180)+10 (min) (13) (min) (14) 1 101 0.16 0.95 35 0.6 2.1 224 1.0 0.013 2.5 1.51 3.6 259 11.4 5.0 2 102 0.31 0.87 13 2.0 1.21 77 2.8 0.016 3.4 0.38 1.6 90 10.5 5.0 3 103 0.40 0.86 35 2.0 2.1 162 2.0 0.016 2.8 0.95 3.1 197 11.1 5.0 104 0.10 0.10 35 2.0 8.8 162 1.0 0.016 2.0 1.34 10.1 197 11.1 10.1 5 105 0.08 0.87 10 2.0 1.1 80 1.0 0.018 2.0 0.50 1.6 70 1514 5.0 6 1106 1 0.14 0.211 211 201 6.11 891 2.81 0.0161 3.41 0.441 6.5 1101 10.61 6.5 EQUATIONS: tc; =ti+tt ti=[1.87(1.1-CCI)L05]/S113 ft = Wel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 (corresponds to Figure 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Manual) final tc = minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of OF curves 9212flow.xls RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts. PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand DATE: 4/2/01 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Streets, parking lots (asphalt) Sidewalks (concrete) Roofs Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil). Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.10 0 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq-ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious 101 0.16 7,104 7,104 0 0 0 0.95 90 102 0.31 13,619 3,598 8,059 712 1,250 0.87 88 103 0.40 17,255 4,384 9,882 1,082 1,907 0.86 86 104 0.10 4,389 0 0 0 4,389 0.10 0 105 0.08 3,382 118 Z380 549 335 0.87 89 106 0.14 5,910 0 332 411 5,167 0.21 12 101-106 1.19 51,659 15,204 20,653 2,754 13,048 0.74 72 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 92128ow.xls SUMMARY DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Design Point Tributary Sub -basin Area (ac) C (2) C (100) tc (2) (min) tc (100) (min) 0(2)tot (cfs) Q(100)tot (cfs) 1 101 0.16 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.4 1.6 2 102 0.31 0.87 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.8 3.1 3 103 0.40 0.86 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.0 3.9 104 0.10 0.10 0.13 10.1 9.9 0.0 0.1 5 105 0.08 0.87 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.8 4 Pond Inflow 1.05 9.5 6 106 F 0.14 0.21 0.26 6.5 6.2 0.1 0.3 Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOWS LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts. PROJECT NO: 39212.02 COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand DATE: 4/2/01 Recommended Runoff Coefficient from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil) Lawns (average, 2-7%, sandy soil) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.10 0 0.15 0 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 DESIGN POINT SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) Length (ft) (4) Slope (%) (5) ti (min) (6) i (in/hr) Q (2) Ids) 1 Ht 1.19 51,659 154 2.7 15.2 2.10 0.4 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's Q=CtCIA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Ct = frequency adjustment factor I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve A = drainage area (acres) ti=[1.87(1.1-CCt)Lo'sI/S1ra I = 26 / (10+ tif" 1 9212flow.xls IAA -4 w ga °,jw - rl . t, " r ,Im~ W-4 40 Ar 77 WN A* 11 LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO 43 'Capability units IIe-1, irrigated, and IIIe-6, dryland; Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suitability group 1. 75—Nunn clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This gently sloping soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as rep- resentative of the series, but the combined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 24 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer of light clay. Also included are a few small areas of Satanta 'and Ulm soils. Runoff is medium. The hazard of water erosion is moderate, and the hazard of wind erosion is slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, alfalfa, and wheat and, to a lesser extent, corn, sugar beets, and beans. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-2, irrigated, and IIIe-7, dryland; Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suit- ability group 1. 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is on low terraces and alluvial fans, commonly adjacent to drainageways. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but a seasonal high water table is at a depth of 20 to 30 inches during 'part of the growing season. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that have a strongly alkaline surface layer and a few small areas of soils that are moderately well drained. Also included are a few areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam or clay and a few areas of soils that are less sloping. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. This soil is suited to pasture and hay. If the water table is lowered by management practices, corn, sugar beets, wheat, and barley can be grown. Capability unit IIIw-1, irrigated; Wet Meadow range site; windbreak 'suitability group 5. Otero Series The Otero series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium and wind -deposited material. These soils are on alluvial fans and terraces. Elevation ranges from 4,1100 to 5,600 feet. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. The native vegetation is mainly blue grama, needlegrass, bluestems, and some forbs and shrubs. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 15 inches, mean annual air temperature ranges from 48' to 50' F, and the frost -free season ranges from 135 to 150 days. In a representative profile the surface layer is brown sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying material is pale brown sandy loam about 13 inches thick over light brownish gray sandy loam. Permeability is rapid, and the available water ca- pacity is medium. Reaction is mildly alkaline above a depth of about 4 inches and moderately alkaline below that depth. These soils are used mainly for native grasses and for dryfarmed crops. A few areas are used for ir- rigated crops. Representative profile of Otero sandy loam in an area of Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes, in native grass, about 300 feet south and 1,420 feet west of the northeast corner of sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 68 W. : A1-0 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, dark brown (10YR 3/3) moist; weak very fine granular structure; soft, very friable; calcareous; mildly alka- line; clear smooth boundary. Clca-4 to 17 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, brown. (10YR 5/3) moist; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; hard very friable; cal- careous; visible calcium carbonate as few soft spots; moderately alkaline; gradual smooth boundary. C2ca-17 to 60 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; massive; hard, very friable; calcareous; visible calcium carbonate as few soft spots; moderately alkaline. The A horizon is sandy loam or fine sandy loam 8 to 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The C horizon is sandy loam or fine sandy loam. The soil is generally calcareous throughout, but the surface layer is leached in places. Distribution of lime in the profile is erratic. Soft sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches in some profiles. 77—Otero sandy loam, 0 to .3 percent slopes. This nearly level soil is on uplands and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the surface layer is about 10 to 12 inches thick. Included with this soil in mapping are some small areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam or fine sandy loam. Also included are some areas of soils that are redder and a few small areas of Ascalon, Nelson, and Kim soils. Runoff is slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight, and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, barley, sugar beets, wheat, and beans. Under dryland management it is suited to pasture and native grasses and, to a lesser extent, wheat and barley. Capability units IIIe-5, irrigated, and IVe-5, dryland; Sandy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group2. 78—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This gently sloping soil is on uplands and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representa- tive of the series, but the surface layer is about 8 inches thick. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping. Also included are some small areas of soils in which sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches and a few small areas of Ascalon, Nelson, and Kim soils. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, wheat. alfalfa, and pasture and, to a lesser extent, corn and beans. Under dryland management it is well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-4, irrigated, and VIe-2, dryland; Sandy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 2. 1 42 1 I 1 SOIL SURVEY 4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate medium subangular blocky; very hard, firm, very sticky and very plastic; thin nearly continuous clay films on peds ; noncalcareous ; mildly alkaline; clear smooth boundary. B3ca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) clay loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist; weak medium subangular blocky struc- ture; very hard, firm, very plastic; few thin patchy films. on ped faces; visible calcium carbonate occurring as small nodules; calcareous; moderately alka- line; gradual smooth boundary. Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; visible calcium carbonate occurring as nodules, thin seams, and streaks; calcareous; moderately alkaline; gradual smooth boundary. C2ca-47 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) moist; massive; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; some visible calcium carbonate but less than in the Clca horizon; calcareous; moderately alkaline. The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick- ness of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40 inches. The B2t horizon is heavy clay loam or light clay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 10 to 30 inches. Sand and gravel are below a depth of 4( inches in some profiles. Some profiles have substrata with a redder hue. 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent elopes. This level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the combined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 35 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small area: of soils that are more sloping. Also included are a fev small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils an( a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer anc subsoil of silty clay loam. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. Under drylanc management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is als( suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability unit: Its-1, irrigated, and IIIc-1, dryland; Clayey Foothil range site; windbreak suitability group 1. 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. Thi: nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soi has the profile described as representative of th( series. Included with this soil in mapping are a few smal areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping an( a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer anc subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small area, of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils. Runoff is slow to medium, the hazard of wind erosion is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets beans, barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under drylan( management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is als( well suited to pasture or native grasses (fig. 10) 11 Figure 10. Alfalfa bales on Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. 73 � r3' 1 5 1r • , - � i Jr. •7•i: _ p -42 1iEs .;73f ' tl if' �. �,1`q. i �[t{l'yA.�• '`+: y �..:�.�.Y :l4ir .. 87r ��' v _� 1 IY W� • � Z ���t_. aai�l' �Iy}�1 itt i� Z� i 4 � ,n i a4►l.: _ ,� �•FZ. pJ / •S • • 94.- y, ' 64 t . �-'N '+� ''��-'"�7r'�G�•+'��F: � � � t,t L� t�.tKz , S.. • � ' • !, .s " .�"l'�5'ti yL Vw-tK'.uE4!/SON 1 • 4 ♦ ..e..4 - -,•,' ISM. t�57�►3""� '�'_.. r /'•7 :tr, it Y : p.+r4f P i� ` n rr,4yj r+ .• r<S1 74 .' 1 ps .. ii`�J"iSM~.fir t41cr `36 _y'li ,.,.� a � ' -"' 3" \ >Mr ✓ r�"��"" 76';� 94. v iry �-, ... 76 A /1 � ^ - 81 d�;aJ6 Y" � YJ ys r.., • r .p 3 22 Y 4 •... ., - etfLWt �4 3 &4 vti. ,•,H.A 75 r n ,� '� 1iF7 .,'." k� `� �,t� 1'fS R�rt � 74• 74 73 35 f 0 73 ; • ' I\ 63 m a 35 z 36 � 74 n I .� \ 14 73 c.4�,9 y