HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD, PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY - 55-87B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTPRELIMINARY
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
ARAPAHOE FARM
FIRST FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
APRIL 1, 1991
PREPARED FOR:
WOODCRAFT HOMES
PREPARED BY:
RBD, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
2900 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525
INC.
Engineering Consultants
2900 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
303/226-4955
FAX: 303/226-4971
April 1, 1991
Ms. Susan Duba Hayes
Stormwater Utility Department
City of Fort Collins
235 Matthews Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: ARAPAHOE FARM, FIRST FILING, PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY
Dear Susan:
RBD Inc. is pleased to submit to you the Preliminary Drainage Study for the First. Filing
of the Arapahoe Farm development. This study incorporates the analysis which was
completed for the Revised Master Drainage Study for this site.
Please call me if you should have any questions concerning this revised report.
Sincerely,
' J nelle K. Ohms, P.E.
roject Engineer
cc: Gary Berger
John Hutchinson
434-001
h:\.\jko05l\arapfarm\drainrep.lst
CD
Stan A. Myers, P.E.
Project Manager
IOther offices: Denver 303/778-7338 • Vail 303/476-6340 • Colorado Springs 719/598-4107 • Longmont 303/678-9584
1-1
IINTRODUCTION
The results of a preliminary drainage design for the First Filing of the Arapahoe Farm
development are presented in this report. A comprehensive plan for the management of
stormwater is proposed for use in the design of facilities within the First Filing, as well as
>� other on -site facilities which will not used to their ultimate design capacity until the
Arapahoe Farm site is fully developed. Construction of these latter facilities is
necessitated by the proximity to the First Filing construction.
■ The Arapahoe Farm development is located in the southwest part of Fort Collins, and at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road. Arapahoe
Farm, consisting of approximately 155 acres, occupies most of the southwest quarter of
Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian. The site is
also bounded on the north by Imperial Estates, and on the east by Regency Park P.U.D.,
Webber Junior High School, and Johnson Elementary School.
The First Filing of the Arapahoe Farm development consists of approximately 17.5 acres,
and lies within the southeast corner of the quarter section. (See the Preliminary Drainage
Plan provided in the plan pocket at the back of this report.)
' PREVIOUS REPORTS
This drainage report conforms to the analysis conducted for the Master Drainage Studer
for Arapahoe Farm, by RBD, Inc.
Numerous drainage reports have incorporated flows from this area into their studies,
since this site is near the upper end of the McClellands and Mail Creek Basin, and
upstream of some existing developments. The McClellands and Mail Creek Major
' Drainageway Plan, prepared by Cornell Consulting Company, December, 1980, includes
a hydrological analysis of the four main historical drainage basins within the site. Each
of these basins, 75, 77, 79, and 80, originate within this quarter section. (See Exhibit 1
' for the location of these basins.)
For the First Filing, the contributing historical basins are basins 75 and 80. The
' developed sub -basins, shown on the Preliminary Drainage Plan, provide for consistent
direction of flow between the developed and historical states. The following information
from previous drainage studies explains the proposed method of stormwater management.
for basin 75 and for basin 80.
H_
Basin 75.
1 The .Final Drainage Report for Regency Park P U D , by Parsons and Associates
Consulting Engineers, dated March 30, 1987, states that 100-year developed runoff from
basin 75 will be routed through Regency Park in an open channel along the north side
of Harmony Road.
As described in the drainage report for Regency Park, 2nd Filing, prepared by Shear
Engineering; there had been plans to install a manhole at the east end of the 42 inch
culvert under Regency Drive, and extend an 18 inch pipe to the north, where the water
would be released into the Regional Detention Pond No. 1. These improvements,
however, are not currently in place.
Basin 80
Based on the Preliminary Drainage Report for the 1990 Junior High School, dated
February 5, 1988, and prepared by RBD, Inc., provisions for the developed flows from
basins 79 and 80 were made in the design of the improvements at the junior high site.
1 According to the Final Drainage Report for Poudre School District R 1 Elementary School,
dated April 1987, by Engineering Professionals, Inc., the channel along the north side of
Seneca Street and the east side of Regency Drive was sized for undetained on -site as
well as undetained off -site developed runoff from Basins 79, 80, and 85.
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing site is covered with native grasses, with little vegetation otherwise. Except
for a district waterline through the site, there are no improvements, save for several field
roads crossing through the area. Most of the site drains naturally to the east, with most
slopes averaging from less than one percent to over three percent. A natural drainage
Swale through the center of the quarter section intercepts much of the stormwater flows,
and transports the same toward the east boundary of the site.
At the east side of the Arapahoe Farm area, the stormwaters eventually flow toward the
west end of constructed Seneca Street, and then to the Webber Junior High School
- property, where they are routed through the school site. Through three separate
segments of double 42 inch culverts and various types of open channels, the flows off -site
and on -site to the junior high are transported from the junior high school to the Regional
Detention Pond No. 1. This pond is located south of Wakerobin Lane, east of Regency
Drive, and west of Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Regional Detention Pond No. 1 is
designed for flows from basins 75, 79, 80, and 85.
2
The southeast portion of the Arapahoe Farm area drains toward an existing swale running
along the north side of Harmony Road, adjacent to the Regency Park development. A
42" culvert carries the flows under Regency Drive, but the outlet invert is a couple of feet
Lower than the surrounding ground. With enough flows in the pipe, the water would
continue to flow to the east, toward the Regional Detention Pond No. 1.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Arapahoe Farm area is planned as a single-family residential housing development,
with ultimately 432 lots. The First Filing consists of 55 lots. Harmony Road will be
realigned to pass through the center of the site, and connect with West Horsetooth Road
(County Road 38E) at Taft Hill Road. Seneca Street, which currently stops at the east
boundary of Arapahoe Farm, will be extended across the southeast corner of the site.
The existing drainage swale through the center of the site will be used as the primary
means of stormwater conveyance through the site and for delivery of flows to the existing
drainage improvements at Webber Junior High School.
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Since the Rational Method is applicable for basins up to 200 acres, the Arapahoe Farm
site, totaling about 130 acres, was analyzed by the Rational Method. The accompanying
drainage map shows the boundaries of the developed basins, based on proposed street
layout and consistency with historical basins. The times of concentration were based on
approximate design slopes for the proposed streets, or else on velocities derived from a
channel rating computer program for sub -basins through the primary drainage swale.
DESIGN CRITERIA
With Arapahoe Farms designated as a residential development, the design storm
0 frequencies used were 2-year as the initial storm, and 100-year as the major storm.
The appropriate street encroachment criteria was used for the various types of streets
through the site. The arterial standards were used for Harmony Road, collector standards
for Seneca Street, and local street standards for all other streets in the development.
Where the developed runoff exceeds the standards for street encroachment for the initial
and/or major storm, a storm sewer system has been defined. Inlets were located where
the street capacity was exceeded, and outlet pipes were sized by Manning's equation.
The calculations
a ons in the appendix show flow quantities generated for the various design
points as shown on the Preliminary Drainage Plan.
3
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The required portions of storm drain system, i.e., crosspans, inlets and pipe systems, are
shown on the Preliminary Drainage Plan.
For the First Filing, a temporary drainage swale within the future Harmony Road right-of-
way will take stormwater flows from sub -basins 7A, 9, 11, and 14 to the north and
eventually join with the primary drainage channel through the center of the quarter
section. From that point, this existing channel, improved as necessary, will convey the
flows toward the existing culverts at the southwest corner of the Junior High site. The
inlet ends of the existing culverts will be modified with 90 degree bends to convert the
orientation of the inlet ends to conform to the proposed street and lot configuration at this
juncture between the existing and proposed developments. During the construction of
the First Filing, these improvements will be designed and constructed for the ultimate
peak flow rate from all contributing on -site sub -basins.
The Rational Method calculations performed for the Master Drainage Study for Arapahoe
Farm show that the 100=year peak discharge, via the primary drainage channel, 252 cfs,
exceeds the previous design flow rate for the existing culverts and open channels on the
Junior High site, downstream of basin 80. The existing culverts under the service drive
at the west side of the Junior High were designed to carry 57 cfs each, with 120 cfs weir
flowing into the street, for a total of 234 cfs. This information was taken from the June
7, 1988 letter from RBD, Inc. to the City of Fort Collins, relating to the 100 Year
Developed and Historic Flows through the Proposed 1990 Junior High Site."
The existing culverts and the downstream open channel within the Junior High site were
re -analyzed with use of HEC2 and with calculations for the inlet and outlet control
conditions. The preliminary design is based on the same amount of water, 120 cfs, that
would weir flow into Seneca Street, and 66 cfs per pipe. The street capacity is controlled
aby the top of berm elevation between the Junior High open channel and Seneca Street.
Assuming a top of berm elevation of 5113.0, the street capacity is 130 cfs. An overflow
weir near the new inlet end of the culverts will limit what water does spill into Seneca
Street during the major storm. The necessary grading would be designed to protect
adjacent improvements.
Near the existing alignment of Harmony Road, within developed sub -basins 7B and 17,
a culvert. and two manholes will be constructed as a part of the First Filing improvements.
( See Drainage Plan in report pocket.) The proposed First Filing drainage conditions do
anot necessitate the installation of this culvert, since the historical drainage patterns are not
significantly affected. However, the extent of paving in the new alignment of Harmony
Road will necessitate the manhole and pipeinstallation. With the construction of the First
a Filing, these sub -basins, 7B and 17, will be left in the historical condition, except for the
construction of a small portion of the new Harmony Road alignment in sub -basin 7B. The
n downstream impacts of the construction of this small segment of Harmony Road will not
necessitate the provision of any on -site detention in sub -basin 17. After construction of
the First Filing, but prior to the development of sub -basins 7B and 17, the 100-year peak
discharge rate is 20.7 cfs. This rate is still under the 100-year design capacity for the
channel adjacent to Regency Park P.U,D., i.e., 42 cfs.
If the intended improvements at Regency Drive and Harmony Road, downstream of basin
75 have not been completed prior to the development of sub -basins 7B and 17, the
developer has the option to provide, temporarily, the necessary detention in sub -basin 17,
aor install the manhole and 18 inch pipe, as described in the Shear Engineering report for
Regency Park, 2nd Filing. Either of these options would be subject to a re -pay to the
developer by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility.
It should pointed out, when these basins are full developed, the developed Y P ped peak
discharge rate, 70 cfs, exceeds the capacity of the existing downstream channel, adjacent
to Regency Park P.U.D. The developed peak discharge rate also exceeds the undetained
flow rates from the Major Drainageway Plan. Since the original concept from the Major
Drainageway Plan was for developed flows from Basin 75 to flow undetained to the
Regional Detention Pond #1, improvements will be required to upgrade the channel
capacity in the future.
The updated analysis in the Master Drainage Study for Arapahoe Farm of the 100-year
peak discharge rate for the developed condition reveals a greater volume of stormwater
which will be conveyed undetained to the Regional Detention Pond #'1. It is expected that
athe City Stormwater Utility will analyze the impact of the increased flows to the Regional
Detention Pond #1 and to its downstream facilities.
SUMMARY
aThe outlined methods of analysis are consistent with the storm drainage criteria used by
the City of Fort Collins, and with the Master. Drainage Study for Arapahoe Farm. The
proposed design will allow for the safe conveyance of stormwater through the site and
into existing drainage facilities. Most of the existing downstream facilities have been
designed to accommodate developed flow rates from the developed basins in the.
Arapahoe Farm area. Where they are not designed for such, on -site improvements, either
temporary or permanent, will be provided to accommodate the capacity of the
downstream improvements.
1
J
5
1
No Text
ARAPAHOE FARM MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY
MINOR STORM - RECURRENCE INTERVAL = 2 YEAR
Cf=1
2 YR
AREA
D
Tc
TOTAL
I
COMP.
0
BASIN
(ACRES)
C
(FEET)
S
(MIN)
Tc
(IN/HR)
C
(CFS)
1
2.54
0.95
770
0.008
8.4
8.4
2.65
0.5
3.4
2
3.61
0.85
800
0.012
12.4
2.3
0.85
7.1
4.75
0.95
350
0.006
6.2
3
0.58
8.3
3
11.15
0.25
130
0.01
18.1
27..9
1.55
0.5
8.6
0.95
1300
0.011
9.8
4
4.71
0.25
250
0.012
23.7
31.7
1.4
0.5
3.3
0.95
1020
0.014
8.0
5
10.16
0.25
170
0.02
16.5
43.5
1.15
0.5
5.8
0.95
110
0.01.2
2.8
0.25
110
0.012
15.7
980
0.03
8.6
(based
on V = 1.9
fps)
6
4.87
0.95
1800
0.017
10.0
10.0
2.5
0.5
6.1
7A
3.55
0.95
1540
0.016
9.4
9.4
2.65
0.5
4.7
7B
4.23
830
0.008
9.2
9.2
2.6
0.85
9.3
(based
on V =
1.5 fps)
8
5.65
(no design
reg6d)
9
9.29
0.25
100
0.02
12.6
20.4
1.85
0.5
8.6
0.95
1.200
0.019
7.8
10
11.27
0.25
130
0.02
14.4
23.7
1.7
0.5
9.6
0.95
1500
0.016
9.3
11
3.89
0.95
1300
0.006
12.0
12.0
2.35
0.53
4.8
12
1.53
0..95
600
0.005
8.7
8.7
2.7
0.6
2.5
13
6.29
0.25
180
0.011
20.7
33.2
1_35
0.5
4.2
0.95
1250
0.005
12.5
14
2.24
0.95
1300
0.006
12.0
12.0
2.35
0.77
4.1
15
9.65
M5
1220
0.017
8.2
8.2
2.7
0.5
13.0
16
4.67
0.85
930
0.015
12.5
12.5
2.3
0.87
93
17
5.79
0.85
710
0.02
9.9
9.9
2.55
0.86
12.7
STREET NEED
STREET STREET ocap STORM
S CLASS. (CFS) DRAIN 7
0.008 A 7.6 NO
0.006 A 6.6 YES
0.017 L 12 NO
0.012 L 10.1 NO
(channel) N0.
0.019
L
12.6
NO
0.013
L
10.4
NO
(culvert)
YES
NO
0.019
L
12.6
90
0.019
L
12.6
NO
0.006
A
6.6
YES
0.006
A
6.6
YES
0.006
A
6.6
YES
0.006
A
6.6
NO
0.01.7
C
13.8
YES
0.017
C
13.8
YES
(scale)
NO
AREA
D
Tc TOTAL I COMP.
2 YR
0
STREET
NEED
BASIN (ACRES) C
(FEET)
S
(MIN) Tc (IN/HR) C
STREET STREET Ocap
STORM
..... ---
(CFS)
S CLASS. (CFS)
DRAIN
18 10.18 0.25
200
0.01
22.5 30.6 1.45 0.5
7.4
0.013
0.95
1000
0.013
8.1
L 10.5
NO
19 2.22
580
0.008
4.0 4.0
(based on V = 2.4 fps)
(channel)
NO
20 13.86
20A
5.33
0.25
150
0.01
19.5 38.5 1.25
0.5
33
0.005
0.95
1300
0.006
12.0
L
5.3
20B
5.4
0.25
300
0.01
27.5 38.5 1.25
0:5
3+4
0.005
0.95
1100
0.006
11.0
L
5,3
6.7
YES
20C
3.13
0.95
500
0.006
7.4 38.5 1.25
0.5
2.0
0.005
L
5.3
NO
21
5.93
0.95
580
0.011
6.5 6.5 3
0.5
8.9
0.011
L
9.6
NO
22
11.08
0.25
240
0.01
24.6 35.3 1.35
0.5
7.5
0.007
0.95
1150
0.007
10.7
L
7 7
NO
23
1.49
440
0.008
3.1 3.1
(based on V = 2.4 fps)
(channel)
NO
24
3.84
410
0.008
2.8 2.8
(based on V = 2.4 fps)
(channel)
NO
NOTES:
1) COMPOSITE C IS BASED ON: 0.95 FOR PAVED AREAS
0.20 FOR NON -PAVED AREAS
2) STREET CAPACITY IS BASED ON: LOCAL - 114.7 x S**1/2 x REDUCTION FACTOR
(ONE SIDE ONLY)
ARTERIAL _ 106.4 x S**1/2 x REDUCTION FACTOR
3) NEED FOR STORM DRAIN IS BASED ON STREET CAPACITY OR LOCATION OF
SUMP POINT IN VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
4) Tc = (1.87 * (1.1 - C*Cf) * D**1/2)/S**1/3
OR
Tc 1S BASED ON VELOCITY FROM CHANNEL RATING PROGRAM
COMBINED 2 YEAR FLOWS FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL:
BASIN
.....
AREA
(ACRES)
------
BASINS WHICH CONTROL
Tc VALUE
Tc
(MIN)
TOTAL
Tc
I
(IN/HR)
COMP.
G
2 YR
q
(CFS)
1
3
4
5
6
7A
9
10
11
12,
13
14
SUM.-
73.7
5
43.5
43.5
1.15
0.5
42.4
ADD:
18
26.26
4
19
20
SUM:
99.96
- 5 & 19
47.5
1.1
0.5
55.0
ADD:
22
12.57
-
3.1
23
Sum:
109.0 -
5,19, & 23
50.6
1.05
0.5
57.2
ADD:
24
3.84
SUM:
112.8
5,19,23, & 24
-53.4
1.00
0.5
56.4
I
L
1
1-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARAPAHOE FARM MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY
MAJOR
STORM -
RECURRENCE INTERVAL =
100 YEAR
Cf =
1.25
BASIN
AREA
(ACRES)
C
D
(FEET)
S
Tc
(MI.N)
...
TOTAL
Tc
.....
I
(IN/HR)
COMP.
C
100 YR
O
(CFS)
STREET
S
STREET
CLASS.
STREET
Ocap
(CFS)
NEED
STORM
DRAIN
1
2.54
0.95
770
0.008
5.6
5.6
......•
7.3
•••..
0.5
11.6
0.008
A
407
NO
(2 sides)
2
3.61
4.75
0.85
0.95
800
350
0.012
0.006
5.0
4.1
7.3
7.3
0.85
0.58
28.0
25.1
0.006
A
176
NO
3
11.15
0:25
0.95
130
1300
0.01
0.011
16.8
6.5
23.3
4.85
0.5
33.8
0.017
L
122
NO
4
4.71
0.25
0..95.
250
1020
0.012
0.014
21.9
5.3
27.3
4.45
0.5
13.1
0.012
L
103
NO
5
10.16
0.25
0.95
170
110
0.02
0.012
15.2
1.8
36.9
3.7
0.5
23.5
(channel)
NO
0.25
110
0.012
14.5
980
0.03
5.3
(based on V = 3.1
fps)
6
4.87
0.95
1800
0.017
6.6
6.6
7.3
0.5
22.2
0.019
L
129
NO
7A
3.55
0.95
1540
0.016
6.3
6.3
7.3
0.5
16.2
0.013
L
107
NO
7B
4.23
830
0.008
6.9 6.9
(based on V =
7.3
2 fps)
0.85
32.8
(culvert)
YES
8
5.65
(no design req,d)
NO
9
9.29
0.25
0.95
100
1200
0.02
0.019
11.7
5.2
16.9
5.65
0.5
32.8
0.019
L
129
NO
10
11.27
0.25
0.95
130
1500
0.02
0.016
13.3
6.2
19.5
5.25
0.5
37.0
0.019
L
129
NO
11
3.89
0.95
1300
0.006
8.0
8.0
7.3
0.53
18.8
0.006
A
176
NO
12
1.53
0.95
600
0.065
5.8
5.8
7.3
0.6
8.4
0.006
A
176
NO
13
6.29
0.25
0.95
180
1250
0.011
0.005
19.1
8.3
27.5
4.35
0.5
17.1
0.006
A
176
NO
14
2.24
0.95
1300
0.006
8.0
8.0
7.3
0.77
15.1
0.006
A
176
NO
15
9.65
0.95
1220
0.017
5.5
5.5
7.3
0.5
44.0
0.017
C
183
NO
16
4.67
0.85
930
0.015
5.0
5.0
7.3
0.87
37.1
0.017
C
183
NO
17
5.79
0.85
710
0.02
4.0
4.0
7.3
0.86
45.4
(scale)
NO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AREA
D
Tc
TOTAL
I COMP.
100 YR
0
STREET
NEED
BASIN (ACRES) C
(FEET)
S
(MIN)
Tc
(IN/HR) C
(CFS)
STREET STREET ocap
STORM
----
-----
S CLASS. (CFS)
DRAIN ?
18 10.18 0.25
200
0.01
20.8
27.8
------- -----
4.35 0.5
27.7
0.013 L
0.95
1000
0.013
5.4
107
NO
19 2.22
580
0.008
1.9
1.9
NO
(based
on V =
5.1 fps)
,(channel.)
20 13.86
20A
5.33
0.25
150
0.01
18.0 34.8 3.85
0.5
12.8
0.005
L
0.95
1300
0.006
8.0
54
20B
5.4
0.25
300
0.01
25.5 34.8 3.85
0.5
13.0
0.005
L
0.95
1100
0.006
7.4
......
54
25.8
NO
20C
3.13
0.95
500
0.006
5.0 34.8 3.85
0.5
7.5
0.005
L
54
NO
21
5.93
0.05
580
0.011
4.4 4.4 7.3
0.59
31.9
0.011
L
98
NO
22
11.08
0.2.5
240
0..01
22.8 31.7 4.05
0.5
28.0
0.007
L
0.95
1150
0.007
7.1
78
NO
23
1.49
440
0.008
1.4 1.4
(channel)
NO
(based on V = 5.1 fps)
24
3.84
410
0.008
1.3 1.3
(channel)
NO
(based on V = 5.3 fps)
NOTES:
1) COMPOSITE C IS BASED ON: 0.95 FOR PAVED AREAS
0.25 FOR NON -PAVED AREAS
2) STREET CAPACITY IS BASED ON: LOCAL - 1170 x S**1/2 x REDUCTION FACTOR
(ONLY SIDE ONLY) COLLECTOR - 1750 x S**1/2 x. REDUCTION FACTOR
ARTERIAL - 2847 x S**1/2 x REDUCTION FACTOR
3') NEED FOR STORM DRAIN IS BASED ON STREET CAPACITY OR LOCATION OF
SUMP POINT IN VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
4) Tc = (% 87 * (1.1 - C*Cf) * D**1/2)/S**1/3
OR
Tc IS BASED ON VELOCITY FROM CHANNEL RATING PROGRAM
COMBINED 100 YEAR FLOWS FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL:
AREA
BASINS WHICH CONTROL
Tc
TOTAL
I
COMP.
1000 YR
BASIN
(ACRES)
Tc VALUE
(MIN)
Tc
---
2
.
-----
.
.......
.....
......
3
4
5
6
7A
9
10
11
12
13
14
SUM:
73.7
5
36.9
36.9
3.7
0.5
170.4
ADD:
26.26
1.9
'-----
18
19
20
SUM:
99.96
- 5 & 19
38.8
3.55
0.5
221.8
ADD:
12.57
1.4
22
23
SU14:
112.5
5,19, & 23
40.2
3.5
0.5
246.2
ADD:
3.84
1.3
24
SUM:
116.37
5,19,23, & 24
41.5
3,45
0.5
250.9
1
CLIENT �p�K ftt' I ��fl 5 1 _ JOB NO. 43¢�
PROJECT A g Ply 00 E F-
tAM CALCULATIONS FOR -+ �! l
Engineering Consultants MADEBY� DATE`S CHECKED BY DATE SHEET -/-OF /
No Text
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
ARAPAHOE FARM FIRST FILING BASIN 80 TEMP. CHANNEL
STA ELEV
0.00
4.00
16:00
0.00
32.00
4..00
IN' VALUE
SLOPE(ft/ft)
-
0.035
.0.0120
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
(sq ft)
(fps)
(cfs)
NO.
0.20
0.2
1.0
0.16
0.55
0.40
0.6
1.6
1.00
0.62
0.60
1.4
2.0
2.95
0.66
0.80
2.6
2.5
6.36
0.69
1.00
4.0
2.9
11.52
0.72
1.20
5.8
3.3
18.73
0.74
1.40
7.8
3.6
28.25
0.76
1.60
10.2
3.9
40.34oL
0.78 _ it
�2. Qllf➢ `-
1.80
13.0
4.3
55.22
0.79
2.00
16.0
4_6
73.12
0.81
2.20
19.4
4.9
94.28
0.82
2.40
23.0
5.2
118.89
0.83
2.60
27.0
5.4
147.18
0.84
2_80
31.4
5.7
179.32
0.85
3.00
36.0
6.0
215.54
0.86
3.20
41.0
6.3
256.00
0.87
3.40
46.2
6.5
300.91
0.88
3.60
51.8
6.8
350.44
0.89
3.80
57.8
7.0
404.78
0.90
z13
.3/3
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
ARAPAHOE FARM FIRST FILING BASIN 80 TEMP. CHANNEL
STA ELEV
0.00
4.00
16.00
0.00
32.00
4.00
'N' VALUE
SLOPE
(ft/ft)
0.060
0.0120
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
(sq ft)
(fps)
(cfs)
NO.
0.20
0.2
0.6
0.09
0.32
0.40
0.6
0.9
0.58
0.36
0.60
1.4
1.2
1.72
0.38
0.80
2.6
1.4
3_71
0.40
1.00
4.0
1.7
6.72
0.42
1.20
1.40
5.8
7.8
1.9
2.1
10.93�
16.48'
0.43
0.44
1.60
10.2
2.3
23.53
0.45
1.80
13.0
2.5
32.21
0.46
2.00
16.0
2.7
42.66
0.47
2.20
19.4
2.8
55.00
0.48
2.40
23.0
3.0
69.35
0.48
2.60
27.0
3.2
85.85
0.49
2.80
31.4
3.3
104.61
0.50
3.00
36.0
3.5
12-5.73
0.50
3.20
41..0
3.6
14934
0.51
3.40
46.2
3.8
175.53
0.51
3.60
51.8
3.9
204.43
0.52
3.80
57.8
4.1
236.12
0.52
mffmCLIENT 110 lUleTntAtP-6 JOB NO. '0O
-IMANC . PROJECT ArAPA i 10 E✓ FARM CALCULATIONSFOR�
Engineering Consultants MADE BY '-_0 DATE-4/1—CHECKED BY— DATE SHEET / OF
[1
u
E
1
1
1
1
1
h
s
O
IX
2
cn w w
W H f-
0 C ¢
C
z
ii IL w O
W z 3 f.
> O w
J y > W
J
V p W
Q
Q
3� K
Q
�h� r
z —I
w C
Q w J
F- = w
V1 y
N ?
z
I�
w
J
{
~
w
o
s
o �
J
w
v
A 113 013A
J1311f10
NOIIVA3 13
a31VMOV3H
Q�
J
10HIN00
'� !
I
tQ
M
N I
I
J
J
W O
J
W
C
F 0
FI
p u "v
C
NI
w y J
O
:
Iq
Z
W
O C
W`
O GI
O
J
J
i
o
cr
N
o
13:-
•L)
l ` `�
J W
\�
O
W
0 J M
¢U.
O
w 3:
a
Z
II
J= 1�, C
o�
_ � a
h 0: 3 T-A
w, OJ O..-.��- '`
N
O
H
,_
❑
❑
Q
3
of
3
p
N
O
lL
J
O
z
Q
a ..
O
2
Q
Q
=
W
^
V7
0
O
Q
y)
J
W
O
Z
K
w W
2
2
Z
>
w
a
a
cx
U
0
2
-
C
❑
❑
❑
❑
'SINS'1,OOV
33S
240
V
N '�
N
II
Fl:
a \
WN
G
W
�
W
W
y
J
W
JW
O
J
W
" . W 2 Q
a W C
N Q z
= M)
J
611
N t
C.
. o
tL
x W j.
i11`-1
7
n
J=
o �z
_
z
?
J;
p 86,
L
z`� v
p
V
y O
O O J
NOW
Z
a x z
Q A
Qa
W Z �0U
y W
W��N N
F
0Z�� i
U
¢
z
c� 0
N W
W N
O y
O J
m W
y >w �_ a
w '-1 ; J
..
z 0 w
0 F Z a
H V x W Z
F Z U.
z O O cy
? �Wo W
F
O y w
O 0
W tW-i�w
w W = 1
W U O== O Q
Q 2 • = K
O O
4. 4�., W. yWj, W¢
'1Fx m It
U
J
F-W
J
= N
U O S W
y 0:>414Q W
m ILMIL-AOW
xx_oy
wWZ��4
EXIST► Nl1 q-2''F-&f5 3/S
�k1/ V-Ed 16LD I W LT
AND
CHART 10
180
10,000
168
8,000
EXAMPLE (2) (3)
136
0•42 inches (3.5 foot) 6.
6.
144
5,000
0.120 cfs 5.
132
4,000
hew 6• 5.
D fact
3,000
(t) 2.5 8.e 4,
5' 4.
120
(2) 2.1 7.4
108
2,000
(3) 2.2 7.7 4.
3.
on in feet 3.
96
1,000
3.
800
84
600
-`
500
72
- 400
2.
W
300
pvP`� x
1.5 1.5
/
Z
60
0
200
/ 1.5
Z
W
_
0
5.4
O
Q
I00
Z i.13
W
48
cc
80
_
1.0 1.0
0
Ln
0
50
W
HW SCALE ENTRANCE C 1.0W
40
0 TYPE Dr
W
w
}.
W
36
3Q
.9
9
(1) Square edge with 3
33
headwall 0 9
Q
G
20
(2) Groove end with Q
30
haadvall = .8 .8
(3) Groove end •8
27
projecting
10
24
8
.7 T T
6
To use scale (2) or (3) project
21
5
horizontally to scale (1),then
4
use stralght Inclined line through
{
D and 0 scales, or reverse as .6
3
illustrated. 6 .6
-
2
15
1.0
.5
12
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS
HEADWATER
SCALES 2&3
REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL
BUREAU
Of PUBLIC ROADS JAIL Iga3
•� 181
Preceding page blank
03-31-91
4/o
20.16.57 Or G �, tN�� PAGE 1
DEW t4 &i 5 W FGA 5T2C E�T
AT .BIZ. N'l6-9H t IooL-
D/S r THIS RUN EXECUTED 03-31-91
HEC:2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,06
MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56
IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
****,r*r,►,r,r**w,r*r,r+r,r****ww,t,r*+r,rrr***w*****rr*r,►**,rrr,r
FR
'
T1
100 YEAR DEVELOPED FLONSD FOR THE JUNIOR HIGH
T2
CHANNEL NORTH OF SENECA STREET
T3
100 YEAR STORM
J1
ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT
METRIC
HVINS
0
WSEL FD
0. 0. 0. 0. .010000
.00
.0
132.
8.000 .000
J2
NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH
FN
ALLDC
IBN
CHN1M ITRACE
1.000 1.000 .000 .000 .000
.000
-1.060
.000
.000 .000
J3
VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT
1
150.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
.000 .000
NC
.035 .035 .035 .000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
X1
1.000 4.000 .000 75.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0o0
GR
12.420 .000 4.700 40.000
4.700
55.000
12.420
75.000
.000
AD
X1
2.000 4.000 .000 155.000
117.000
117.0.00
117.000
.000
.000
.000
GR
12.420 .000 8.000 45.000
6.000
125.000
12.420
155.000
.000
X1
.000
3.000 4.000 .000 75.000
115.000
115.000
115.000
.000
.000
.000
GR
12.420 .000 7.250 42.000
7.250
55.000
12.420
75.000
.000
.000
'
EJ
.000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1
1
r 1j �j
03.31-91 20:16457 PAGE 2
SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV
0 GLOB QCH OROB ALOB ACH ARDS VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT
TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST
*PROF 1
CRITICAL DEPTH TO BE CALCULATED AT ALL CROSS SECTIONS
*SECNO 1.000
1.00 1.42 6.12 5.90 8.00 6.44 .32 .00 .00 12.42
132. 0. 132. 0. 6. 29. 0.. 0. 0. 12.42
.00 .00 4.52 .00 .035 .035 .035 .000 4.70 32.63
.009949 0. 0. 0. 0 18 4 .00 26.05 58.68
r
*SECNO 2.000
2.00 1.38 7.38 7.16 .00 7.53 .15 1.09 .00 12.42
132. 0. 132. 0. 0. 43. 0. 0: 0. 12.42.
.01 .00 3.09 .00 .635 .035 .035 .000 6.00 69.69
.008700 117. 117. 117. 2 15 0 .00 .61.77 131.46
*SECNO 3.000
' 36 0 1.23 8.48 8.46 .00 8.91 .43 1_39 .00 12.42
132. 0. 0. 0. 25. 0. 0. 12.42
. 2 .00 5.26 .00 .035 .035 .0.35 .000 7.25 32.00
017776 115. 115. 115. 1 11 0 .00 27.76 59.76
VEI-4;6IT`( AT
(n(19as 6E6INNiNti °F i-IcEN�Ia✓t_ CHw4LL. I rV T
r FErg co M PL)T(- D AT ou-r t, E-' W a
FIFE & TF-rm of �I PE
1 I�L VAPoH
AT PI p E
r ovT LET
r
r
r
r
CLIENT Z. V I K
_JOB NO, _Qc-i-0U__
Eld"WINC _ PROJECT % a ..I - /-% �. CALCULATIONS FOR
Engineering Consultants MADEBY—? DATE bl CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Q
—OF S
4-10 4j h e+ eT
G
ra�,r�
el -3w•'/! C;nr�, G. $ G �r Pet /3 G ' l ei� •� APe (Y
�;x�_
.,: �• ly �?o - � 9 o c �s c<.� // 6 e G�r/i'p � �� �'—S�c, A-�1
1 !�•'/-� �wo `/.2 "�2.G✓� i't�� air+A4/aw
—290
cT0.
..............
...........
i
1 U K,oz (� t 6,`/5. ?C L o f �2 (o:v5.it y•S)f
+ a.o+ 3, z_o:0s x G 3
41
�V
Y9"/ 0,�3:.: /z.y3. 0,73
0.01x 0,73 K 0.U9r X Y3.S -. (3356 S Ii2.)
P.
1
f)J /a,G o..on:a: x 68 + '' .(e.33 x 3.3)
a
' �_ /•/3G x o.G2 x 36,i x o_ �o / c�S V.1= S,V �PJ
Z'71C.
CLIENT W000Cl2Q FT �6 M-r _ r JOB NO.
3 -DD I
INC PROJECT �� \ PAS-I�%� FA2M CALCULATIONS FOR
Engineering Consultants MADE BVDATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET-7-OF CUB
28. � 2.
_..... ......
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA
ARAPAHOE FARM WEIR FLOW INTO SENECA STREET
WEIR COEF.
3.000
STA ELEV
0.0 5116.30
16.0 5112.30
32.0 5112.36
48.0 5116.30
Dim=1.5'
it I 4
i
ELEVATION
DISCHARGE
(feet)
(cfs)
5112.3
0.0
5112.5
4.5
5112.7
13.0
5112.9
24.7
5113.1
39.3
5113.3
56.6
5113.5
76.6
511M
1
99.4 - l JqG S TL SI2�EN GA S
5113.9
124.8 r T
5114.1
153.1
5114.3
184.1
5114.5
217.9
5114.1
254.6
5114.9
294.2
5115.1
336.8
5115.3
382.4
5115.5
431.0
5115.7
482.7
5115_9
537.5
5116.1
595.5
5116.3
0.0
1
1
CLIENT ApppD^I;y��AFT HornE6 1 JOBNO._� -oO
N.MdR� + PROJECT �`Ar K' Id� FAK-M CALCULATIONSFOR_Te FFI ILI
Engineering Consultants MADE BY\-Tp— DATE CHECKED BY— DATE SHEET ! OF 5
�NC
Engineering Consultants
f-'
1-1
CLIENT v\_j-Vyc.Ic_Hr-I tVN6 tS JOBNO.4 4_0�I
PROJECT A�( VIA PA,-HaL rA 2.M CALCULATIONS FOR .�St �- I N 5)
MADE By "70 DATE ='� CHECKED BY DATE SHEET 2 OF
C
1-1
1
I
1-1
Z
W
N
U
c
W
N
Z
1110013A
11
J
V.
1311110
C�1�
Ix
W
Hw
i
NOIIVA313
IX
Q
p
N3IVMOV3H
O
i I v
lOM1NO3
H
�
S O:
Z
Tn
-
>
a z a-
�.
ui
W W
z 3
O N J p
I j J JJ
G m
J
t(l
0r-�
R.
J
w W Q
N Q
0W
Q WI W
W-
TO
U
to �Y) 2 W
jy
j
W
W
J I
Cy -%n
W �� Z
V
W
N
I it ° no
¢ y y J
2 r-
W
u
In
�,
y
3
9
_
3 \ o
ILI
O "
Q
N S Ll
O I zl
p
F
J lO
m
m
oi
J
La
y
Q H
_T!
—L
W
W
.
F' W
L ",�
W
O
yKW� V M.- W
> N ZO
-..
H S
41
f" J..
w
W Z
SO
O
1- —
W 3
1Q^
LL 1
O
# O 00 J
y
y
J =
z
2 O N O W
F Q cc Z
7
t)
....
G
L W m )-. C
J
y
3-�
J ?+ O S
W Z
O
Z
W d
O
W
OW H.
N
p
c .
F W 3
J C1�
r w
N
¢
a
U
Q 72
W
_
o
N
_I ❑ ❑ V)
w
O
o 0
y W
O\
0 N
U o
za
W N
o
J O
U.
K
O
Z
¢ 6
J
W
F W W W
y
a y
Z
W
41
w
= a C)
N
F W
K
o J a
a Q
l V
\ALL•
= x O 9
m t�
2 V W O m
a
_ = W = r
U y
0 tr a W
S+F
W < =:0
..
w Q 7
W
W 3 1
O
u o. = z.t{ a
1-
a _
cc. S O
O U K
0
(��
I/
..J m =
w
F- 1- Q -C 0:
W
W
2
Q
Q Z
U O \ + W
�'„=F-HW
❑❑ 0
W
W
^
1.1...
J
U OWu';;�WQ3
R>NW
IL
'S1HS'1,OOV'33S
a
= En
C> m _
y
m 0.�oxi=.om
Qp
U i
V V
w d._e �■
240
4-
AT
C HART
1 0
180
168
10,000,
0,000
8,600
EXAMPLE (�)
(2)
(3)
"
186
6, 000
D•42 inches (3Z feet)
6'
6
144
5,000
(1.120 cts
S.
132
4,000
bx ,x Mw
6•
5.
3,000
D feot
S 4'
120
- 2,000
(1) 2.5 8.8
(2) 2.1 7.4
4
108
(3) 2.2 7.7
4.
3.
ND in feet
3.
96
1,000
3.
800
84
600-
500
---► ---�
.
/
72
- 400
2.
un
300
f:) /
1.5
Z
N
N
/
I.S
z
60
L
200
W
1.3
o
S4
W48
W�
100
j
� �
80
� � Z
/
�2
Q
_
F—
I
N
go
W
I:0
1.0
o
4
SCALE ENTRANCE c
D cc
Lo
36
TYPE
W
30
(I,) Square edge with 3
.9
.9
a
33
hoodsall
.9
0
30
20
(2) GrootWio end with
hoodaall S
.8
8
(3) Groove and
.8
27
projecting
24
to
s
LJ��J /� s��
7—
.7-
.7
To use o (2) or (3) project
'
21
S
4
horizontally ola (1),thAn
use straight incline through
D and 0 %cults, or reverse
6
3
illustrated.
6
6
(8
f
2
IS
1
1..0
.S 'S
.5
1
i
i
12
HEADWATER DEPTH
CONCRETE
FOR
SCALES
PIPE CULVERTS
HEADWATER
2a3
REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL
BUREAU
OF PUBLIC
ROADS JAN. 1983
181
Preceding page blank
515
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
HARMONY ROAD CHANNEL THROUGH BASIN 17
STA ELEV
0.00
4.00
16.00
0.00
32.00
4.00
'N' VALUE
SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.060
0.0200
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY DISCHARGE.
FROUDE
(feet)
(sq ft)
(fps) WO
NO.
0.20
0.2
0.7 0.12
i ��SQIG
0.41
0.40
0.6
1.2 0.75
0.46
0.60
0.80
1.4
2.6
15 (�2.=3•��fS 2.22
1-9 (76) -T79
0.50
0.52
r
-1 V �D FLOW,
1.00
4.0
2.2 8.68
QL
8
0.5
4
_ q
(%13 C��'l drl-)
1.20
1.40
5.8
7,8
2.4 (17) 14.1 0.5'�2 �'3
QZ (/� Cla�iA/lliEL)
2.7 21.28
6.57
1.60
10.2
3.OQ1Ov t1,6 30.38
0.58
�/� r'���NEL)
1.80
13.0
3.2 (713) 41.58
0.60
`lob-32•�%C�5
2.00
2.20
16.0
19.4
3.4 55.074
3.7 Q00 71.00
Ml
/� � 7�• l L�S l � 7 i'i f � /4 l�llV E%�
(Clop
0.62
2.40
23.0
3.9 Q0.7s 89.54
0.63
2.60
27.0
4.1 (17) 110.83
0.63
2.80
31.4
4.3 135.05
0.64
3.00
36.0
4.5 162.32
0.65
3.20
41.0
4.7 192.79
0.66
3.40
46.2
4.9 226.61
0.66
3.60
51.8
5.1 263.91
0.67
3.80
57.8
5.3 304.83
0.67