Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 12/06/1996Final Avers%'Jj� � P-000rt FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D. =ORT COLLINS, COLORADO A division of The Sear -Brown Group 1 1 1 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO September 30, 1996 Prepared for: Gary Nordic Miramont Associates 309 W. Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Prepared by: 33DINC. Engineering Consultants A division of The Sear -Brown Group 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 482-5922 FAX (970) 482-6368 Denver (303) 458-5526 RBD Job No. 504-016 . n 1 1 Engineering Consultants A division of The Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 970/482-5922 September 30, 1996 Mr. Basil Harridan Mr. Matt Fater City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont Valley P.U.D. ' Dear Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont Valley P.U.D. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. ' All comments made by the Stormwater Utility, to date, have been addressed and responses have been included within this report. ' We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. ' Respectfully, ' RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants Prepared By: Pe E. Cabot ' 4 Proje ngineer cc: Gary Nordic ' Dennis Donovan H:\US ERlcivlprojects\miramont.valldrainage\mmvalley.rpt 1 I Reviewed by: 0 p&[AWIV ���d 8� j ; X, ;Quality lle - e , P`E'g Control Reviewdte%..... Denver303/458-5526 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 ' A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 ' II. DRAINAGE BASINS 1 A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 ' III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 1 A. REGULATIONS 1 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 ' C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2 ' E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 2 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 2 ' A. GENERAL CONCEPT 2 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 3 ' V. STORM WATER QUALITY 4 A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4 ' VI. EROSION CONTROL 5 A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 ' B. SPECIFIC DETAIL 6 VII. CONCLUSIONS 6 A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 6 ' B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT .6 C. STORM WATER QUALITY 6 ' D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 7 REFERENCES 7 ' APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 1 SITE HYDROLOGY 3 ' DESIGN OF INLETS AND SWALES 13 DESIGN OF PIPING SYSTEM 28 RIP RAP CALCULATIONS 42 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS 47 EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS 57 ' DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BACK POCKET 1 n I d 1 n 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location Miramont Valley P.U.D. (approximately 28 acres) is located in the southeast part of Fort Collins, bounded on the north and east by Miramont P.U.D. (previously known as Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing), the proposed Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. and the proposed Miramont Village P.U.D. To the west of the property lies Fossil Creek Meadows, First Filing. Mail Creek bounds the property to the south. The entire P.U.D. is a part of the Oak/Cottonwood Farms Master Plan. The Upper Meadows at Miramont First and Second Filings, and Castleridge are northwest of this area. Miramont Valley can also be further described as being a part of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado. ' B. Description of Propert ' The area described as Miramont Valley P.U.D. is presently undeveloped and is being proposed as a 73 lot single family residential development. The property south of Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is partially developed and ' partially native grassland. Topography south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is generally sloping from north to south at approximately 5%. II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. Major Basin Description The area south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch (see vicinity map) is part of ' the Mail Creek Major Drainage Basin and the Fossil Creek Major Drainage Basin, as shown on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back ' of this report. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations u 1 The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. ' B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farms, prepared by RBD, Inc. May, 1992 criteria and constraints will be used in this Final Drainage Study. This Overall Drainage Study has been updated to reflect all changes made to the areas considered within the scope of that report, and was completed in conjunction with the final design of Miramont P.U.D. ' Miramont Valley P.U.D., located within the Fossil Creek Basin historically drains south to Mail Creek and Fossil Creek. To reach the Fossil Creek ' Conveyance Element, most the Valley area will drain to a water quality pond in the southeast portion of the property, which will then release into Mail Creek, undetained. A small portion of the property (Far West Roma Valley Drive) drains undetained into Mail Creek through a Stormceptor (Registered ' Trademark) water quality manhole. ' C. Hydrological Criteria The rational method was used to determine peak developed runoff from this ' site. The 2 year and 100 year rainfall criteria, obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is used for this study. The rainfall criteria is included in the appendix. ' D. Hydraulic Criteria ' All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. ' E. Variances from Criteria We are requesting one variance to the Stormwater Utility cover requirement ' for storm sewer. The most downstream 54" RCP will have an average cover of 1.0', in order to allow a drainage swale over the top of it. ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept ' Development within Miramont Valley P.U.D. will comply with the concepts ' presented in the Miramont Phase 3 Preliminary Drainage Study, and with the concepts presented in the Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood 2 Drainage Plan. The Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basins allow for undetained storm water runoff directly to Mail Creek and to Fossil Creek, ' although there will, in effect, be some detention in the water quality pond. A bank stabilization study was prepared for the City of Fort Collins for Mail Creek, and the recommendations put forth in that study have been complied ' with when allowing discharge into Mail Creek and Fossil Creek. Taking into account the upstream flows from Miramont P.U.D., the Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D., Miramont Village P.U.D. and Miramont Valley P.U.D., the peak undetained flow is Q415 + Q416 = 223.6 cfs (for the 100-yr storm) and ' Q415 + Q416 = 54.5 cfs (for the 2-yr storm) entering the water quality pond. There is also Q419= 20.3 cfs (for the 100-yr storm) and Q419 = 5.2 cfs (for the 2-yr storm) discharging through a Stormceptor into Mail Creek in the far west ' portion of the property. These discharges, combined with 178 cfs from Mail Creek will give a total well below Mail Creek's maximum capacity of 1055 cfs. u [I B. Specific Details Developed runoff from the areas south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch, and those areas located in the Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basin will be conveyed by curb and gutter, open channels, and storm sewer to Mail Creek. The preliminary plan for Miramont Phase 3 showed five separate points of discharge into Mail Creek/Fossil Creek; we have reduced this to two, with one being from the water quality pond. The future improvements of Lemay Avenue, adjacent to this development have a separate drainage system and do not affect this site. Developed offsite flows from Miramont P.U.D., the Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D., and Miramont Village P.U.D. enter the site from points along the north property line of Miramont Valley P.U.D. The first area, involving Design Points 101 and 403 (at Highcastle Drive) allows upstream developed flows (100 year Q101=10.9 cfs, 100 year Q403 = 31.5 cfs) to pass directly into Miramont Valley, on Highcastle Drive. The second area, involving Design Points 201 and 205 (at Belvedere Place) will allow offsite developed flows (100 year Q107= 16.0 cfs, 100 year4Q = 35.1 cfs) to enter the new Southridge Greens Boulevard and enter the Valley. Finally, the remainder of Miramont P.U.D., the Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. and Miramont Village P.U.D. will also be routed onsite through storm sewers, entering from Design Point 305 (Offsite 100 year Q3.5 = 58.8 cfs). For a more detailed diagram, please see the Drainage and Erosion Control Study in the back of this report. These offsite flows are routed via curb and gutter to various curb inlets within K 1 1 1 1 V. 1 1 Miramont Valley P.U.D. Offsite flows from Highcastle Drive, as well as onsite basins 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 414, 415 and 418 converge at the Design Point 415 curb inlet for a total 100-year flow of 65.8 cfs. Offsite flows from Belvedere Place and the Miramont Village/Ramparts storm sewer system, as well as onsite basins 401, 404, 416 converge at the Design Point 416 curb inlet for a total 100-year flow of 157.8 cfs. The far west portion of Miramont Valley, encompassing Basins 410, 411 and 419 gather at a curb inlet at Design Point 419 for a total combined flow of 20.3 cfs. Other Basins, such as 412, 413 and 417 flow directly to Mail Creek, but none of these possess water quality dangers, as they are not subject to vehicle traffic or developed runoff. Street capacities have been checked regarding these stormwater flows and found to be capable of handling the minor and major storm events at the grades indicated on the plans. During the minor storm, however, Roma Valley Drive will become inundated with stormwater flows as runoff drains south down Highcastle Drive and turns the corner left at Roma Valley Drive towards the inlets at the low points of this street. Vertical curb and gutter has been indicated on the north side of the street in this area between Highcastle Drive and Southridge Greens Boulevard to increase the runoff capacity of this street. During the minor storm, however, some flows will cross the crown of Roma Valley Drive and drain to the south side of the street, which has the additional capacity to handle this transfer. STORM WATER QUALITY A. General Concept Beginning in October of 1992, water quality of storm waterrunoff was required to be addressed on all final design. Miramont Valley P.U.D. is anticipating construction beginning in the fall of 1996. For this study, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the treatment of storm water runoff which could be implemented in the final design process. When Miramont P.U.D. was approved, along with it were approved several erosion control practices dealing with offsite drainage. These erosion control practices, such as the silt berm along Mail Creek, will be applicable to the Valley development during construction. A water quality pond has been designed at the southeast end of Miramont Valley P.U.D. with a 100 year water surface elevation of 4914.00. We have routed as much developed runoff as feasible through this pond. With the Miramont P.U.D. project, a protective siltation berm was installed along the northerly bank of Mail Creek to provide some water quality measure for silt 12 11 and debris to settle out prior to flows entering Mail Creek. This silt berm follows the basic alignment of the silt fence laid out on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. The water quality pond construction must be phased in order to insure its ' correct future operation and aesthetics. The pond shall be excavated and the water quality control outlet pipe shall be installed, but the gravel ' embankment surrounding the pipe shall not be installed immediately. The outlet pipe shall be protected using a filter fabric sock, since it will be exposed to silty water. The pond shall be seeded immediately after construction and the once the vegetation has taken hold, the gravel embankment shall be placed permanently. Experience has shown that these ponds fill up with silt during construction, eliminating any possibility of ' growth at the pond's lower elevations and ruining the gravel embankment by clogging. We are attempting to deal with this problem by allowing some release from the pond, but not constructing the gravel embankment until the ' vegetation has taken hold. It will also be necessary to remove the silt deposits that will build up in the pond as a result of the construction activity and seed the bottom of the pond only after this has occurred. Within the Valley project, all basins with the exception of 410, 411, and 419 will be conveyed via curb and gutter street capacity to appropriate curb ' inlets, discharging into storm sewers, and eventually into the water quality pond. Basins 410, 411, and 419 drain undetained into Mail Creek through a Stormceptor (Registered Trademark) water quality manhole. A detail of this has feature has been provided in the appendix of this report. ' VI. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept tMiramont Valley P.U.D. development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility zone per the City of Fort ' Collins Zone maps. Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, the erosion control performance standard was calculated to be 81.3% (during construction) and 95.6% (after construction). ' The erosion control measures as specified on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control plan will allow for a "during construction" performance standard of 94.64% and an "after construction" performance standard of ' 97.31 %. All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction 1 5 L 7 L activities. A Colorado Department of Health NPDES permit will be required before any construction grading can begin. B. Specific Detail This area is mostly undisturbed, but some of the northern portion was seeded during Miramont P.U.D. construction. Any area stripped of its vegetative cover shall be kept roughened by ripping, plowing, disking or other acceptable means. All lot areas shall have temporary cover crop applied per the city's specifications if they are disturbed from their existing condition, but not before paving occurs. Planting before paving will be useless, since the cover will have to be destroyed when pavement is placed. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement structure. After installation of the curb inlets sidewalk culverts, they should be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, '/2 inch wire screen, and 3/4 inch course gravel. All pipe entrances and swale outlets shall be protected by straw bale barriers as well. The protective existing protective silt berm can remain in place at the ' contractor's discretion, and will be removed in the process of final grading Lots 52-66 and the water quality pond. ' A copy of the Erosion control Security Deposit Obligation letter is included in the appendix of this report. ' Vll. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with ' the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. B. Drainage Conceit ' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this study and shown on the final utility plans adequately provide for the conveyance of developed runoff from Miramont Valley P.U.D. The concepts shown here will also allow for the development to occur and be in compliance with the Fossil Creek Basin Master Plan, and the Mail Creek Basin Master Plan. This site will also be in ' compliance with the Overall Drainage plan for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm. C. Storm Water Quality 1 6 Because Storm Water Quality has become a requirement, this site has catered to the need to address the storm water quality aspect. The open landscaped channels within this project and the addition of the water quality pond and Stormceptor (Registered Trademark) will help enhance the water quality of the developed runoff. D. Erosion Control Concept Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction sites, this project has met the recommended performance standard calculated. All measures taken to control erosion should be maintained as designed until final landscaping has taken hold. 7 REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1991, revised March 1994. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986. 4. Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm and Preliminary Drainage Study for the Upper Meadow at Miramont First Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., May 4, 1992. 5. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont 3rd Phase P.U.D., by RBD, Inc. dated February 4, 1994. 7 1 I APPENDIX 0 i .1 1 VICINITY MAP G/ PROJECT SITE OAKRIDGE DRIVE W z 2 a } a i fr 0 _,eEK`I PORTNER RES m NITY MAP SCALE: 1 "= 2000' el ROAD I r -1 I SITE HYDROLOGY 3 .1 ' RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants ' Weighted Runoff Coefficients 1 Project 504-016 PEC MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D 10/01/96 This sheet calculates the composite "C" values for the Rational Method. 1 1 1 1 1 Design Area Impervious ..C.' Pervious "C" A,total ac. A,imp aC. Percent I erv. Percent Pervious Comp. "C" -7 0.95 0.25 0.67 0.36 53.7 46.3 0.63 101 0.95 0.25 0.98 0.54 55.1 44.9 0.64 102 0.95 0.25 2.94 1.05 35.7 64.3 0.50 103 0.95 0.25 2.37 0.85 35.9 64.1 0.50 1041 0.95 0.251 2.29 0.821 35.8 64.2 0.50 105 0.95 0.25 3.52 1.25 35.5 64.5 0.50 106 0.95 0.25 2.63 0.95 36.1 63.9 0.50 107 0.95 0.25 1.37 0.48 35.0 65.0 0.50 108 0.95 0.25 1.58 0.57 36.1 63.9 0.50 110 0.95 0.25 2.02 0.72 35.6 64.4 0.50 111 0.95 0.25 0.33 0.12 36.4 63.6 0.50 112 0.95 0.25 0.59 0.21 35.6 64.4 0.50 1131 0.95 0.251 1.30 0.471 36.2 63.8 0.50 114 0.95 0.25 3.26 1.15 35.3 64.7 0.50 116 0.95 0.25 0.73 0.26 35.6 64.4 0.50 201 0.95 0.25 1.24 0.30 24.2 75.8 0.42 202 0.95 0.25 5.64 1.60 28.4 71.6 0.45 2031 0.95 0.25 0.65 0.12 18.5 81.5 0.38 205 0.95 0.25 0.96 0.44 45.8 54.2 0.57 301 0.95 0.25 2.15 0.57 26.5 73.5 0.44 302 0.95 0.25 0.83 0.56 67.5 32.5 0.72 303 0.95 0.25 1.27 0.66 52.0 48.0 0.61 304 0.95 0.25 0.81 0.53 65.4 34.6 0.71 305 0.95 0.25 4.30 2.24 52.1 47.9 0.61 3061 0.95 0.25 4.04 1.76 43.6 56.4 0.55 401 0.95 0.25 1.16 0.35 10.0 90.0 0.32 403 0.95 0.25 1.81 0.78 30.0 70.0 0.46 404 0.95 0.25 1.41 0.60 36.0 64.0 0.50 406 0.95 0.25 0.89 0.35 40.0 60.0 0.53 407 0.95 0.25 4.14 0.64 35.0 65.0 0.50 408 0.95 0.25 1.43 0.63 35.0 65.0 0.50 409 0.95 0.25 2.40 0.80 30.0 70.0 0.46 410 0.95 0.25 1.99 0.80 35.0 65.0 0.50 411 0.95 0.25 1.79 0.63 38.0 62.0 0.52 412 0.95 0.25 1.35 0.80 10.0 90.0 0.32 413 0.95 0.25 6.21 2.10 15.0 85.0 0.36 414 0.95 0.25 0.89 0.40 36.0 64.0 0.50 415 0.95 0.25 0.34 0.22 40.0 60.0 0.53 416 0.95 0.25 1.59 0.57 40.0 60.0 0.53 417 0.95 0.25 3.60 0.98 10.0 90.0 0.32 418 0.95 0.25 0.60 0.23 25.0 75.0 0.43 419 0.95 0.25 0.69 0.39 40.0 60.0 0.53 0.25 83.073 SITE 0.95 30.825 0.4 0.6 0.51 ' Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria- 'EV I 1 RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants 504-016 SUBDIVISION: MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D CALCULATED BY. PEC TIME OF CONCENTRATION STORM 2 yr DATE 08/05196 cf= 1.00 ti = 1.870.1 - C x CflDA0.5 SA(1/3) tc=ti+tL SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAUOVERLAND TIME TRAVEL TIME FINAL REMARKS DESIG: AREA C LENGTHI SLOPE ti LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY tL tc (ac) (ft) N (min) (ft) M (fUs) (min) (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7a 8 9 10 11 12 MIRAMONT P.U.D. -7 0.67 0.63 30 1.70 4.1 560 PA 4.40 4.07 2.3 6.4 101 0.98 0.64 80 2.00 6.2 450 PA 3.00 3.35 2.2 8.4 102 2.94 0.50 120 2.00 9.8 600 PA 4.00 3.88 2.6 12.3 103 2.37 0.50 120 2.00 9.7 480 PA 0.70 1.59 5.0 14.8 104 2.29 0.50 110 2.00 9.3 750 GW 0.50 1.09 11.5 20.8 105 3.52 0.50 120 2.00 9.8 550 GW 0.50 1.09 8.4 18.2 106 2.63 0.50 130 3.20 8.6 500 GW 0.50 1.09 7.7 16.3 107 1.37 0.50 125 3.00 8.8 400 PA 2.00 2.72 2.5 11.2 108 1.58 0.50 40 2.00 5.6 850 PA 2.00 2.72 5.2 10.8 110 2.02 0.50 70 2.00 7.5 575 PA 0.50 1.34 7.2 14.6 111 0.33 0.50 40 2.00 5.6 230 PA 0.50 1.34 2.9 8.5 112 0.59 0.50 0 0.00 0.0 430 PA 3.70 3.73 1.9 5.0 113 1.30 0.50 60 2.00 6.9 525 PA 0.50 1.34 6.5 13.4 114 3.26 0.50 105 2.00 9.2 640 PA 0.50 1.34 8.0 17.2 116 1 0.731 0.501 110 2.00 1 9.41 400 GW 1 0.501 1.09 6.11 15.5 THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D. 201 1.24 0.42 100 3.1 8.8 240 PA 4.00 3.88 1.0 9.9 202 5.64 0.45 240 3.00 13.1 820 PA 1.35 2.22 6.1 19.2 203 0.65 0.38 35 2.00 6.3 380 PA 6.67 5.04 1.3 7.6 205 0.96 0.57 140 4.00 7.4 240 PA 4.00 3.88 1.0 8.4 MIRMONT VILLAGE P.U.D. 301 2.15 0.44 45 8.00 4.2 260 PA 1.30 2.18 2.0 6.2 302 0.83 0.72 45 2.00 3.8 430 PA 6.30 4.89 1.5 5.2 303 1.27 0.61 65 10.00 3.4 495 PA 1.75 2.54 3.2 6.7 304 0.81 0.71 45 2.00 3.9 495 PA 1.75 2.54 3.2 7.2 305 4.30 0.61 60 4.00 4.4 845 PA 4.00 3.88 3.6 8.1 306 4.04 0.55 80 2.00 7.2 775 PA 4.00 3.88 3.3 10.6 MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D. 401 1.161 0.321 501 25.001 3.5 150 PA 1.00 1.91 1.3 5.0 403 1.81 0.46 50 2.00 6.7 150 PA 3.20 3.46 0.7 7.4 404 1.41 0.50 40 2.00 5.6 740 PA 1 5.00 4.35 2.8 8.4 406 0.89 0.53 80 2.00 7.6 490 PA 2.50 3.05 2.7 10.2 407 4.14 0.50 100 4.00 7.1 350 PA 5.00 4.35 1.3 8.5 408 1.43 0.50 170 5.00 8.6 40 PA 1.00 1.91 0.3 9.0 409 2.40 0.46 205 3.00 11.9 530 PA 2.00 2.72 3.2 15.1 410 1.99 0.50 130 3.00 8.9 210 PA 2.50 3.05 1.1 10.1 411 1.79 0.52 100 2.00 8.7 270 PA 1.50 2.35 1.9 10.6 412 1.35 0.32 20 2.00 5.2 840 GW 2.00 2.18 6.4 11.6 413 6.21 0.36 120 3.00 10.6 1600 GW 0.60 1.19 22.4 32.9 414 0.89 0.50 30 2.00 4.9 800 PA 1.50 2.35 5.7 10.5 415 0.34 0.53 30 2.00 4.6 320 PA 3.00 3.35 1.6 6.2 416 1.59 0.53 100 2.00 8.5 280 PA 3.33 3.53 1.3 9.8 417 3.60 0.32 200 8.00 10.3 220 PL 1.00 0.66 5.6 15.9 418 0.60 0.43 90 3.00 8.3 300 PA 2.50 3.05 1.6 9.9 419 0.69 0.53 50 3.00 5.2 360 PA 1.50 2.35 2.6 7.8 Note: Column 7a codes the channel type for velocity calculations. PA = Paved Area, PL = Pasture& Lawns, GW = Grassed Waterway, ' Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria 11 1 1 1 f n O Q m O 1 lJ a a > G gg d {@ Y F g {g @@ gg bci �'S� i m3LL 3LL Y�'1 � i Y S 3m ZZ mZ m 2mm f uF N O � N m P P n m m n Oi m n I.1 N S2 N P P N N N Ol N \ W y W i N a0 �mm 00 0mm mnn Ingq o o N mm a m P rod n ��R d N1.1 N1.1 1•!NN fINN IV m1.1 1•l OI I+j �m W IV � N Nd N yam N n IR �JN N1m -M NmP NNO Pmm N-O qqn NNW m 0 P W N 0!.i ON m 1G m N ' ^N -o P 1'1 mm t m o y N q N p N + tl 0 O �Lm �v N N G V! op !9 p .m- 1•! W .. a m nmm �WW e7 Ci WW Pmm CWW m W Nm17 �ml� mmq OI IGW m 'i W m ^ M 01 m N 1m W m1•J WOI m OI ZQJ 4q S V W - U U U U U J J J J U J U J U U U U J J J J J J J , Wmm 088 88 $8$ `s3, 888 8R$ 8 8 g 8 8 9^0, m OXP Pri6 NN Nj PNN N6 N Ni N 0 ' �m N 00000 ^hW NN M mNd NNV OCR JO PIm Ot 1•IJd Omm NNW m W P W N mq WN Vi ' -W ' -1 NNNNW ^ m0 F Z t Om fLL NPt0 mmP NN4 OCR m IQ m�� 0-n NNW m o P W fy mN WN 10 W m N 70 -o Vl W m�Pnm NNriNW MD— Q m ml'a ml� 8nn n� edin'm �i, 'm,� $ 19i a �a }9i v m 0 rmi $ Inn Ri vNi `lam �1 V0 I�� O O '- O N m O P N P n O m O O N ' ^ ^m O0 R N [V m N O m ml'a8 8c`g n��i nm 14i e14i Ynr' °vi o 8 0� $ 8 `� �o V m NNN NI NI NNN N NNN N N N N N N NN -.- N 1 Nvi N N.=.=N.= 2 Ila,$� 8$. 8h8 lain o 0 0 n R St Igi,B 8 8 8si si$8 U m oo0 oo" oo0 00 000 000 000 000 0 0 0 00 00 d 0 0 0 00 0 0 00000 itS n fi d d N Wsdo N Im oN m P CON m m no m N m 'NON m d m oro m mi n W N �u m- Wo m o O mi O m N ow m o R m m N m N O W a�m C d Z m P N m q m m o m N n o o j O�N u v a a a n a a a a a a z o 0 gg 8 0 n 8 0 0 8 8 gg OZ V P v Fi m 11i 7i m J 8m P P P WWW N N o0 - m m 006 m P riN m N m NJ' m d m onN m W m o n o m � Wo N W O mi m o N N oW m o O m m N MN WW $O -^PoC,^OP m NO 1V 0C�m n1O0,pw �o N n• mOn 000 IoR Od 9 00' q ,o � IOPG' � va �OOOo 0 q3! d + P r P+ r^ ^PP 52 Oj� P d m a 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 8 W p a J i m ' ! m c Or w 20 pm U H� a MRi5 Jf sTn �p5g5 55 55 55 Q 3 OIOb ri n 0 N vi m of O ai m m m � b m UU O U N^ m m O O O o m N O 0 m 0 Ci O b O p WiIN ap rl r)n NN A '0 � ri OI ri N ri W ri 17 v b ri Wci—„m NOb NON 01`Y li !Nb b b m ^ NGt ^r•O b O N 1'1 O O ObN � O O f O �Lm �v oo q pXb J NNO N O Ol rl ^ ^ N O O m V f m m O O o m OO O O O O O G N ' N m N b ^ m OI h m m w UF_U Q�� Zg{ZZ tj ^88 J J J J J J J J J U U U J J J U U �o 888 �8 888 8 8 8 888 R�Se 8 OON nv n oov a v v o^v �'d G ro LL` N^ NOb OVI Ol bNb m b 10 mmv mmr 17m m0, ^b O Ot ^OI �LL� JOI NGN ^^ ^Al^ m1 b ^ Ovo NOO 0 N01 JO 1�^ Nwl TLL To �ZLN O� H WON '^ 0 Ntm N ON �� N W bNb -0- b 0 b 0 m ^ mm- GOO mm1t N-O O 0 mb lV 0)ON q. __ BOO ^b A O OI b z p t �� �r''III0 Orl IO NN 9 p ip �p I+1N01 �p m S p a yy ps, �0 VW10 8 NSy p m0 a m R8 N '� p NO G4� NmGN 0^ b ^Iql O NOG G Opp V!0^I^rf Ob bN Nb mO ri N �O'I O r n gcoo Om0 ONM1 m p^ Olb mm 10�,^ ID h =�5}mrl� F_ r4NN NNN 17N ^ N^N N lV^^ '10N ^ N^ NJ N^ N NN p p p ONO: p p m npp m a �rI p rI N p mINOO 00 OOC 00 OO OO OO GO 00 CG O G 00 ob Nb.^. ON q vNqT q R NNN NNN m Nm NO ^et m v mm a Ehb� ^m^ mm Yl br• R mR nH ON IC 0 OI OI n N N ^ N v g'� m O G O G a" W W b m N O N Fl ^ LL a 6 LL a a a a LL 6 6 LL 6 1 U p o p p o p p 111000 ���lll C ON b b q O m ^ O N O m IO b N N N N m b A m N m ^ O b Y m O _ 311M blbV gym^ bOl ' 'gym m O Q -MM woh 0 OIRRI r-R Or�N m mm z=R,O RN iv ?i Ki� Fi l�4 yp� gN r� ki 17i �p�pO0-R{p{ppp .bO- O b _ O^ a�R N^ .O �`'^NR "rpm ^^O Epp^��pp b R I' N1p� SS �{V NIrI p R r)C! RR� fIN I•IR �O� 1p�(yynV (pyN I'I .y 1'Jy IpV 17��17p CI�y ^NON 8 P ID^ 'ea v OJ^ Ip IX rQi yy�j I>i b a t y I � I : � | k 2 � | | ( . ;#n , ■§#; ; M#® K,, ! }k� § ! \§z= ! ))!_ %k ` ® §!! j.! !|| 2■■ ,¥�/ �li. � \� » )k®' - ly.; 2nn " Km■}$■!2� � � i �_ § RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants 504-016 SUBDIVISION: MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D CALCULATED BY: PEC TIME OF CONCENTRATION STORM 100 yr DATE 08/05196 cf= 1.25 ti = 1.87r1.1- c x cnDAo.s SA(1/3) tc=ti+tL '�V SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAL/OVERLAND TIME TRAVEL TIME FINAL tc REMARKS DESIG: AREA C LENGTHI SLOPE ti LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY tL (ac) 1 (ft) (%) (min) 1 (ft) 17a (%) I (fUs) (min) (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIRAMONT P.U.D. -7 0.67 0.63 30 1.70 2.7 560 PA 4.40 4.07 2.3 5.0 101 0.98 0.64 80 2.00 4.1 450 PA 3.00 3.35 2.2 6.3 102 2.94 0.50 120 2,00 7.7 600 PA 4.00 3.88 2.6 10.3 103 2.37 0.50 120 2.00 7.7 480 PA 0.70 1.59 5.0 12.7 104 2.29 0.50 110 2.00 7.4 750 PA 0.50 1.34 9.4 16.7 105 3.52 0.50 120 2.00 7.8 550 PA 0.50 1.34 6.9 14.6 106 2.63 0.50 130 3.20 6.8 500 PA 0.50 1.34 6.2 13.1 107 1.37 0,50 125 3.00 7.0 400 G 2.00 2.18 3.1 10.0 108 1.58 0.50 40 2.00 4.4 850 G 2.00 2.18 6.5 10.9 110 2.02 0.50 70 2.00 5.9 575 PA 0.50 1.34 7.2 13.1 111 0.33 0.50 40 2.00 4.4 230 PA 0.50 1.34 2.9 7.3 112 0.59 0.50 0 0.00 0.0 430 PA 3.70 3.73 1.9 5.0 113 1.30 0.50 60 2.00 5.4 525 PA 0.50 1.34 6.5 12.0 114 3.26 0.50 105 2.00 7.3 640 PA 0.50 1.34 8.0 15.3 116 0.73 0.50 110 2.00 7.4 400 G 0.50 1.091 6.11 13.5 THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D. 201 1.24 0.42 100 3.00 7.5 240 G 4.00 3.08 1.3 8.8 202 5.64 0.45 240 3.00 10.8 820 PA 1.35 2.22 6.1 17.0 203 0.65 0.38 35 2.00 5.5 380 PA 6.67 5.04 1.3 6.8 205 0.96 0.57 140 4.00 5.4 240 PA 4.00 3.88 1.0 6.4 MIRMONT VILLAGE P.U.D. 301 2.15 0.44 45 8.00 3.5 260 PA 1.30 2.18 2.0 5.5 302 0.83 0.72 45 2.00 2.0 430 PA 6.30 4.89 1.5 5.0 303 1.27 0.61 65 10.00 2.3 495 PA 1.75 2.54 3.2 5.6 304 0.81 0.71 45 2.00 2.1 495 PA 1.75 2.54 3.2 5.4 305 4.30 0.61 60 4.00 3.0 845 PA 4.00 3.88 3.6 6.7 306 4.04 0.55 80 2.00 5.4 775 PA 4.00 3.88 3.3 8.7 MIRAMONT VALLEY P.U.D. 401 1.161 0.32 50 25.00 3.2 150 PA 1 1.00 1.911 1.31 5.0 403 1.81 0.46 50 2.00 5.5 150 PA 3.20 3.46 0.7 6.2 404 1.41 0.50 40 2.00 4.4 740 PA 5.00 4.35 2.8 7.3 406 0.89 0.53 80 2.00 5.8 490 PA 2.50 3.05 2.7 8.5 407 4.14 0.50 100 4.00 5.7 350 PA 5.00 4.35 1.3 7.0 408 1.43 0.50 170 5.00 6.9 40 PA 1.00 1.91 0.3 7.2 409 2.40 0.46 205 3.00 9.7 530 PA 2.00 2.72 3.2 13.0 410 1.99 0.50 130 3.00 7.1 210 PA 2.50 3.05 1.1 8.3 411 1.79 0.52 100 2.00 6.8 270 PA 1.50 2.35 1.9 8.7 412 1.35 0.32 20 2.00 4.6 840 PA 2.00 2.72 5.1 9.8 413 6.21 0.36 120 3.00 9.3 1600 PA 0.60 1.47 18.2 27.5 414 0.89 0.50 30 2.00 3.8 800 PA 1.50 2.35 5.7 9.5 415 0.34 0.53 30 2.00 3.6 320 PA 3.00 3.35 1.6 5.2 416 1.59 0.53 100 2.00 6.5 280 PA 3.33 3.53 1.3 7.8 417 3.60 0.32 200 8.00 9.3 220 PA 1.00 1.91 1.9 11.2 418 0.60 0.43 90 3.00 7.0 300 PA 2.50 3.05 1.6 8.6 419 0.69 0.53 50 3.00 4.0 360 PA 1.50 2.35 2.6 6.6 Note: Column 7a codes the channel type for velocity calculations. ' Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria I ID/ F Q Q O V W F c 1 a E QW 2 E O N U o a ruJ m 0 m 4a G Or � mZ g m U $gg > ss d 7lag o >> '9e2 4 B E jc S B b �a b rn ;gptL¢ >9e o g o s s {Ls� �Pbl� {S� ��O �tf'! fjQ �YY 44 z3LL 3w 3�Y Y 4 4 Ya 00 zz O a a 8 VluJ Yzrc� m m f n m N ao inn O NCj o0 rl� onn I�iNN mnn VINN nmo IV 1'1 Ol 0 N o � n lV nn ON n N -m � n N nn fVN n N n J zJ�R G� rom mN mm� mop 7;;r moo mm n n m nm N n F: mb .O04CC f 4 0 N � Q Yi y tO m a yQ�y UV ^r SWri N N m m Sri n am n n r r m n ZL= W (2 e � U U U 00 J J J J U J U J U U U U U J J U U J tea_ S88 88 RR8 8 888 8R8 8 8 8 88 8 8 8 $8 8 �$�53$ FO.�f V17 f1 NN NN NeiN N N N mN N N Ol lV Oo0o0 w n O m m N m q - O R ; r m O N O tl m 17 m wl n m .- O 0 m O m 0 000 O' OIO^ NR �m� mml' N q S N0 0 D IM ON V OI (C'oN 9 8?4 d, o FzL OW rLL nom f00 mry �' mmr 00^ -q Vl0 MWOI mom wag m N e m nm n n m_ �o VN V m m�aum �Za^ lV N S Nld � 1A �� Yfi 10 aOlCI�I 1109 sue` 64 mn`n limn $ 4S m and a n�v hNm ay ON G� IV �p�n O d Cd 0 rz ^ � ^ CpO R IV CI ^ O S r a p�JI'1 m n V S� pJ� V N V T m m n N qOO 0 p<IV R 0 A R , 0 m S R pN pO pO�I m b O O = m F.. of ai nn nnn mn nrn vi aim n e vi .60 vi ec 0 na n rti O w6 mW i z U m ood doo dd � oo0 00 006 dod o o d do 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0000d 0170 mN nnnwoe mN OIOm mN0 m n m 00 m N N m14CiW 0 m IQ �w OwwE N W ^ a�m 0 G `. do ww i z a m n m m n m o o �5m g � E 0 d 6 d 1 O d 6 Z~ v O Qd N Q6 i1{ Q1p�O 06 YI Q �Z �a fV M fj O:J ono vim nnn m- non mNn m m n 00 m N m IQ m m rnm-m a "ieri roe .coo W 00o deco 0 ry n m aih of of Nvi�n."d n Op� y O pp p� O fqp v m O O fq f n y map ^tp o av0_ ff ' v-v a n o..0 O b a O O O O S O IQd t` O O d < a f f f IA f f3s 5 (Ny NpO Li it$it$ {Q{p y£p �OgeteS u NF oG YY 0 -ASS SS SS SS )m OO pV EQg¢g¢UU IN Z S v m W r _ W O N W d ri ri O ri mmN In N Iq ^ �Oy pm LLW ap F N^1 NMM hq h MM '^m OI M m ri q ri 1'! v zR Tn q n b 17 1'1 W_ ^q W- 6 M+ W N N W R N a n MR NO OI 1C J G aG IV N OI Ih ww �mm IP`l N N A P 1N�' 8N$ O X'^ N O O m, N b O O m m b� mV Q' 88F yN� ym� y Amy imp ZQZ JU U 88 ppp ro�p n 888 p p p 0pp 808 -J pJ N pUO my moov vvPO-dbb, N N LL J LL.�. Na P8 .-nN b-m NOl MV O W Pam ONO 7 Iq 10 N O mmN NCR bl�m OWN �0 f4 bN mINII mP mm N8 m ^ N h oz r0: N LL mwo r Zl$ O C HLL NP ��N NI CI O Perm b N mmN O mN P� mpm m 1`Y wON� P1ff 19 W�q N1P IG YINYf N N P N^R OWN N 1"i m� -mO NN t WD— . p w Q V b N W 0 17 b tPH R R �rpl O p W a r$ N m 8 8 N N m m 0 o ai N P NO O— OWW No0 O � ON vW a H^ 88 aRYa 8$ a E$g 0& le S3 S8v ^P 8v 8.T a^a B R = 0 OI V W W m W 1 W W m m' W A O W N N W.Oi W Iff W Yf W YI W W VI W Z_V n< COo NNN p bf 3 88b y� b p N a. y� YfOV q Yn10 O b0 1.8 b8 N p N O G C O G 0 0 O c o o O O O 000 c o o G 00 00 00 O O U a e 6E ON W _MW err6 Om 6.6 P W qq ^0W N .d 1� d n NON IffOm N W W W mN W W PN 0W h0 W W m W n W m b C O N O N O G O G N O N O � v _ J W Z N G m r N O N Id ter. N E O � LL t Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 4p a p6 6 a a ap pa p6 r O oa Y ON>ZZ%CO n 5 � $E m WJ N N � nO r� 0. ow m 6 O M Y Now V W 1� m N m N O O M, N O m 000 N b 7 W W P N uim I� N W0 O W M n N �R- �Roa �' N Rri KI e4i RSS RBN�R �� O z 00 e�b ��O `' �R JO �` 17fN ��R ^O ` 1 �� bNR �R^ N Rr4 N R [V RRR N UNA NCI IV 14RRs NNB�Z RIS � 8P S Ori�'g a nJ I . z•!Q N !|� � |�\ K@9 � h# � §® . §�� -• - , � | 0 c � .00 |y ° §§� � ■ "■ n# w ■ Fk. #. ■ e .�75.# @m&/§§K!$ - !�- | IZ/ | � | | | i I I I I L 11 CLIENT 0 Q= -4 1 J QS, _JOBNO. NO PROJECT —CALCULATIONS FORc)U-r—.=?_ Fkcw Engineering Consultants MADE BY 3d, DATE 7.97- CHECKED BY— DATE —SHEET OF i L 4 _�LUMS It C-P-T-1 d c-9A'M'1UF_ .7"77-77-7 -7- .1 t FR_.C:PW ac!Ic -i w I i 4-7 ---------- T HH cy I L 7 1 L L z 7. L: 77 r 7 4 ...... If: ;i -7- r: T 7-E _977 _-j-_ ...... 7' 7 Ld_' .... .. ........ . .'.5z _77 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i CLIENT a� n= i--OZT C 1r�r t JtiS JOB NO. INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORCSZ r = Engineering Consultants MADEBY DATE?-':�Z. CNECKEDBY —'DATE-SHEET?• OF Z - t..LZ>c1J-Ee�171 -�— _`STZ.Ec'T_C�?�C1Sl it M= O' —N_N=I 17 y1 r• 1 _._.ice_! 1� : cT, : :_,'T • _.Md.S�B�.STD�M.-:a17.Ei-TL4_V1bTE���V1✓13 •� 'C20Lv►J S1 (du . 110 ExGEED___roil Uo �-4' 1J.& �t .L-U.1 �_. iil!ISti lli, l: ii liilil • I 1:, � J .� 1 1, 1 1:, :L�eEGY ONt_SIaE3.�tT5ZP_EELAf.ILY%7eo.so- co•e601 .+. i tX:IZ3.7�5�+3:7SxTo4.-�'''1IG�o.06 1 �%z 39xr• �� 4'ZIC1�.=59J) I A - .�:99,LC�xlb.g3� C16.33X0 _{�btJlJtUbS_.f __ T_.C23►7l(lZ-Z3i1.�X0:035>-_ , - : ^: �.... Lr . ' ' i • . � ' j_. � 1. i^'�..t�+_...�, J m ET.J=1:..]-'E�_.Y7 � I. LI-:. :. 1 _ • i 1 1 i ���: _'� �._ ---_/41 6. Li.:. iii_ : 44.__ . , Egvd�o -��.\ 11ZZI3S'Iz -a1,1�w1r.1Gs __ y - _ F. - 7-71 CV J i alculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. C is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities • Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20A I sq.ft. Minor Storm • Major Storm Slope Red. Minor 0 V Major Q V (X) :Factor : X : (cfs) : (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) 0.40 ; 0.50 : 86:71 : •2.74-e 2.09 : 696.73 : 22.03 2.19 : 0.50 : 0.65 : , 66.71 : 3.99 : 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 : 2.45 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 86.71 : •5.37•: 2.55 : 696.73 : 43.17 : 2.68 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 96.71 : 5.80•:. 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 2.90 : \ 0.80 : 0.80 : 96.71 : 6.20 : . 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.85 3.10 e 0.90 : 0.80 : 66.71 : 6.58 : .3.13 : 696.73 : 52.88 : 3.29 1.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.94 : 3.30 : 696.73 : 55.74 : 3.46 1.25 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 7.76 : 3.69 : -696.73 : 62.32 : 3.87 1.50 :.0.80 : 86.71 : 8.50 : - 4.04 696.73 68.27 s 4.24 1.75 : '0.80 : . 86.71 : ' 9.18 : 4;36 : 696.73 73.73 : 4.58 2.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 9.81 : 4.66 : 696.73 : 78.83 : 4.90 2.25 : .0.78 : 86.71 : 10.15 : - 4.95 : 696.73 : $1.52 : 5.20 2.50 : 0.76 : 86.71.: 10.42 : :5.21 : 696.73 : 83.72 : 5.411 2.75 : 0.74 : 86.71 : 10.64 : 5.47 : 696.73 : 85.50 : 5.75 3.00 : 0.72 86.71 s - 10.81 5.71 : 696.73 : 86.89 : .6.00 i 3.25 : 0.69 : 86.71 10.79 5.94 696.73 : 86.67 : 6.25 3.50 : 0.66 86.71 10.71 6.17 : 696.73 : 86.03 : 6.18 3.75 0.63 86.71 10.58 : 6.38 : 696.73 85.00 : 6.71 4.00 : 0.60 86.71 10.41 6.59 : 696.73 : 83.61 : 6.93 4.25 : 0.58 _ 86.71 : 10.37 : 6.80 : 696.73 : 83.31 : 7.14 : 4.50 : 0.54 86.71 : 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : 79.81 : 7.35 : 4.75 0.52 : 86.71 : 9.83 : 7.19 : 696.73 : 78.96 : 7.55 5.00 : 0.49 : 86.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 : 76.34 : 7.75 5.25 : 0.46 : 86.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 : 73.43 : 7.94 5.50 : 0.44 : 86.71 : 8.95 7.73 : 696.73 : 71.89 : 8.13 5.75 . 0.42 . 86.71 8.73 7.91 . 696.73 : 70.17 : 8.31 . i6.00 0.40 : 86.71 : 8.50: 8.08 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 8.49 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 f- 1 Rows Engineering Consultants CLIENT el Ty dP (=o t=T Qn I MAC, JOB No. PROJECT MADEBY_IEV�DATE 232 CHECKEDBY CALCULATIONS FOR 4 � ICI:Q _ DATE SHEET OF. 1 r�ES� �EwJT1�- W� 6i1 V E�TG.al.r G'1Je,i� j I I r.�• - P�C�►+T_oF._�1.Jd.Y:_�...__:._...:... 36.. Fwtl.tu�1E 'Tb �otar.la>JE PE7z. SE>✓T1o►:1 : 4. 2.2.2. CITY oe= f =ozT-ca..I INS C P+jLP IA I Q g/a wines Q � I'T'i•:EC2E.'T'1G1sL CaUTT'Ee. Crp.7�CLaTY �GFSj ys'7s?ni cP . Ft.ow �� FocE oP` c+urrTBe CFr.) i2olX. +tjegi, CC6PPIcirawr C, usB'C.clb� 5 �..�CSJ-F41.�IJEI. I ;M Apm . FT-r ; eSGI P COL GT= CP�pSS 6LDPE Fr/FT: j `. c1TOTCL 6 i r T T Mlnlo¢� 1z.cc Cc.s eis� C.OIb) d cAz `1 I ' 6 a'`• C o: s� I1 129, a7 I 1 1. ■ �� INC Engineering Consultants CLIENT` ' "^f if!5P ;--' = 1 { � I JOB NO. PROJECT ,,' CALCULATIONS FOR C�Tt�-T MADE BY cDATE f1�•9l CNECKEDSY_DATE SHEET_OF . �... � t= S I � AJ: 161�_ STe_�E['.-.\a./ -.._ __ � .... V �� C1�.lr_�'✓:ti'��-L-�.]TS� Ct..- ------------ f 1 ntjfd ;._�77 �.F r� Ear -ice _. G.wJ�T�.i 73 c— -- - _ 77 ..{ .� J_�,�!G.._.:Sj �•�.ti-rya _ .��_ ^ ,n3nY1l ; 'I1 • i .r E... _..-i.-.4—�.. •I. _i._..i..' ' �' - _. � :' _��.y-.I.t1. _f.��_�S i -;.TJ.••{" - � 1. �_ii••j._ w ___.- �-!_�--- -4Ca�.]'iXz� t�.�L�lsri,� '►QAot I .i1-t-�_S.t_`.i-4. .� -.•..-.{—_:— -ab-D-,SILL-;�:�:.� a - r-1-r i 7— -T:-.,::.r:���l. -+-»--f—!{..i.T-;_..i.�,_._- � { _,.__{1_ ,.�..___..._� - : !_ � __!. .._ i I I ' . -iiy-r --- -•*-1': �-• — ..i.1-i L__ _...-}.;:_i.`.�_�-.i Y•I L La-1- 1 8�._S�_ 1 f I 1 _ 1 I _ _1.:..i..:.y..7.�_-�.. .. �. }._:..r._..i.. .-..... ..d.�_: : {.: - I ..._.Mrf17_.....«'G...-.r --.• + r '. t , t -; -T , Li t�.1'�� �-._- •7 , -j•'t' i _I"_� •�" 1 1 ..a-. G._ T'�.r.7+._..: r. _L.:s ..{-� _ ; j-, i-t i .'. ; -,..:...... ...,.....::1..: .4.1- �..1.Y {..:..+..:. ...... r• i i..° . ___j_L.:.y..a_L. �..+..t_'y_':.'{_t-t... _`TJ: I •,_ 1 _-1.!..' .j .1 _(. —.i-.-_ . t t I . 1. i a . AJ d 4- C18:49s�� o 12�3/ �4- - 33 -- 9 Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities -for and Minor Storms City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria ' RESIDENTIAL w/ 6° Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Q is for one side of the road only November 23, 1993 ' V is based on theoretical capacities Area a 3.37 sq.ft. Area a 18.495 sq.ft. Minor Storm . Major Storm 'Slope Red. . Minor . Q . . V : Major . Q V (%) :Factor : X : (cfs) : (fps) X : (cfs) (fps) '0.40 : 0.50 : 129.87 : 4.11 : 2.31 : 647.33 : 20.47 : 1.41 . 0.50 : 0.65 : 129.87 : 5.97 : 2.59 : 647.33 : 29.75 1.58 : 0.60 : 0.80 . 129.87 : 8.05 : 2.83 : 647.33 : 40.11 : 1.73 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 8.69 : 3.06 : 647.33 : 43.33 : 1.87 : '0.80 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.29 : 3.27 : 647.33 : 46.32 : 2.00 : 0.90 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.86 : 3.47 : 647.33 : 49.13 : 2.12 : 1.00 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 10.39 : 3.66 : 647.33 : 51.79 : 2.24 : '1.25 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 11.62 : 4.09 : 647.33 : 57.90 : 2.50 : 1.50 : 0.80 :. 129.87 : 12.72 : 4.48 : 647.33 : 63.43 : 2.74 : 1.75 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 13.74 : 4.84 : 647.33 : 68.51 : 2.96 : '2.00 : 0.80 : 129.81 : 14.69 : 5.17 : 647.33 : 73.24r, 3.16 2.25 : 0.78 : 129.87 : 15.19 : 5.49 : 647.33 : 75.74 : 3.35 : 2.50 : 0.76 : 129.87 : 15.61 : 5.78 : 647.33 : 77.79 : 3.53 : 2.75 : 0.74 : 129.87 : 15.94 : 6.07 : 647.33 :. 79.44 : 3.71 '. 3.00 : 0.72 : 129.87 : 16.20 : 6.34 : 647.33 80.73 : 3.87 : 1.25 : 0.69 : 129.87 : 16.15 r 6.60 : 647.33 80.52 : 4.03 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 129.87 : 16.04 : 6.54 : 647.33 79.93 : 4.18 : '3.75 : 0.63 : 129.87 : 15.84 : 7.08 : 647.33 78.97 : 4.33 : 4.00 :. 0.60 : 129.87 z 15.58 7.32 : 647.33 T/.68 : 4.47 : 4.25 : 0.58 129.87 : 15.53 : .7.54 : 647.33 : 77.40 : 4.61 : 4.50 : 0.54 : 129.87 : 14.88 :. 7.76 : 647.33 : 74.15 : 4.74 : '4.75 : 0.52 : 129.87 : .14.72 :.' 7.97 : 647.33 : 73.36 : 4.87 : 5.00 : 0.49 : 129.87 : 141.23 : 8.18 : 647.33 : 70.93 : 5.00 : 5.25 : 0.46 : 129.87 : 13.69 : 8.38 : 647.33 : 68.23 : 5.12 : '5.50 : 0.44 129.87 : 13.40 8.58 : 647.33 :- 66.80 : 5.24 : 5.75 : 0.42 : 129.87 : .13.08 :. 8.77 : 647.33 : 65.19 : 5.36 : 6.00 : 0.40 : 129.87 : 12.72 : 8.96 : 647.33 : 63.43 : 5.48 : .1 1 1 1 7 J 0 7 1 DESIGN OF INLETS AND SWALES 13 14/ 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ts-E--R-:-KE--V-I-N--G-I-N-GE--R-Y---R-DB--- N DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:39:20 ** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 411 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 411 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: -' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: _ WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 20.50 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.53 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.99 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 4.32 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 7.74 (cfs)= 17.10 (cfs) = 7.29 (cfs) = 9.81_5P_1L_C5_-f17_. .. (cfs) = 17.10 41`----- (cfs)= 6.97 (cfs)= 10.13 F t5/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD UER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. ON DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:41:57 ** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 419 ***. CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 419 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:. WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 18.63 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.50 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.77 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.59 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 y, CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.98 BY FAA HEC712 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 13.61 IFJ(WDES FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 10. 17 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 3.44 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 13.61 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 9.88 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 3.73 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------------------------------------------------------- - SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. ON DATE 05-03-1996 AT TIME 07:55:44 F** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 408 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 408 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 5.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 ' LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 ' GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: - WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 29.50 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.71 ' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 7.07 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 8.82 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 - INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 28.42 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= ' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 1 flow depth. 25.57 3 6 . 3 3 61.90pT=- 25.57 36.33 IbA/ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. ON DATE 10-03-1996 AT TIME 07:49:56 t** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 408 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 408 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 ' LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.60 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 ' GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 1 1 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 22.56 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.58 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.28 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 5.21 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW to flow depth. 30.34 (cfs)= 17.10 (cfs)= 17.10 (cfs) = 0.00 (cfs) = 17.10 (cfs)= 17.10 (cfs)= 0.00 7/ '------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - s-ER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ............................. ON DATE 05-03-1996 AT TIME 07:57:57 F** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 415 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: tINLET ID NUMBER: 415 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 20.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 5.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (°s) = 2.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 NA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: - n [1 I WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 25.00 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.63 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 6.37 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 6.37 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 35.42 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 40.6KLPCD:icTs__-?-- FLOW INTERCEPTED ( cfs) = 31.88 I WLl vDEca L1sZ24 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 8.75 OAP- FROM 4CYB BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 40.63 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 31.88 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 8.75 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------------------------------------------------------------ - SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. ON DATE 10-03-1996 AT TIME 07:56:16 F** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 415 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 415 ' INLET'.HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 20.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 ' LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.70 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 C i� STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 17.88 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.48 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.08 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.31 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 18.19 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= IS t=1.A" VF_P OF Z Ejt iY�S APPF1JpGLttIJEa It�1LET. 10.15 - 10.15 0.00 10.15 10.15 0.00 1 ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD t;-E-R-:-KE--V-I-N--G-I-N-G-E-R-Y---R-DE INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. N DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:51:31 ** PROJECT TITLE: SOUTHRIDGE TYPE '13' INLET *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: ' *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: r -1 INLET ID NUMBER: 1 (5ee_.%t3ET) INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.20 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 INLET GRATE TYPE =Safety Bar-P-1-7/8-4 NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 6.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 18.63 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.50 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 9.10 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.54 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 1 5.59 3.62 2.79 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. I n/ GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 84.71 ' IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.06 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.06 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 1.80 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= ' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= ' CARRYOVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= 1 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 1 I C 1 28.58 1.62 26.96 29.41 1.62 27.79 32.20 3.62 1.62 5.24 26.96 2.79 1.62 4.41 27.79 - SPiu,S -ro -rym lad .1 C/ 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. N DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:53:37 E ** PROJECT TITLE: SOUTHRIDGE TYPE '13' INLET *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2��v���l "_�[;►_L�%S�--1'I-�9 .r-M�.DDI�E �F.i.LE"Tl- ---- INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.20 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 INLET GRATE TYPE =Safety Bar-P-1-7/8-4 NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 6.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 17.59 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.48 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 8.79 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.17 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs) = 27. 79DC IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.29 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.49 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.65 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. z� i 1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 77.93 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.07 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.06 1 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 1.66 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 24.30 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.49 1 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 22.80 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 25.14 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 1.49 23.65 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= 27.79 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 3.49 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= 1.49 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.99 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: 22.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 2.65 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= 1.49 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.14 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 23.65 SPI l l.h 1b NEXT -TYPE I 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD - ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................... ON DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:55:32 ** PROJECT TITLE: SOUTHRIDGE TYPE '13' INLET *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 3��EE-O"T1L�'C�/-PGA=►9_�_DC7�vCS7Pl� t�A_1:1,CT>_ INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.20 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 INLET GRATE TYPE =Safety Bar-P-1-7/8-4 NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 ' IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 6.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE 00 = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 16.47 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.45 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 8.45 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.79 ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs) = 23 .65=TCQ__ A- =-- IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.00 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.37 ' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.50 ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 3 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. 2J/ GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.00 ' REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 70.98 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.07 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.07 11 11 I I I I .1 11 1 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 1.52 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 20.28 1.37 18.92 21.15 1.37 19.79 23.65 .3.37 1.37 4.73 18.92 2.50 1.37 3.86 19.79 .1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD - ------------------------------- -------------------------------------- SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. ON DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 14:58:02 u 1 1 11 1 ** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 306 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 306 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional 15.00 6.00 45.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 27.22 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 3 5.6 24.50 "T' 4'(0 11.16 35.66 24.50 11.16 11 ---------------------------z�� -------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO............................. ON DATE 06-28-1996 AT TIME 15:00:35 ** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 416 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 416 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 18.53 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 26.06 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 17.04 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 9.02 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 26.06 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.68 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 9.38 1 1 1 1 1 1 2(� RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION SECTION C4 STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 40.00 20.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ----------------------- 0.060 0.0200 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE -(feet)-- (sq ft) ------- --(fps)- (cfs) --------- NO. ------ 15.50 1.0 1.4 1.37 0.48 16.00 4.0 2.2 8.68 0.54 16.50 9.0 2.8 25.58 0.58 . 17.00 16.0 3.4 55.07 0.61 _59 9 GFS 17.50 25.0 4.0 99.83 0.63 18.00 36.0 4.5 162.32 0.65 18.50 49.0 5.0 244.82 0.67 19.00 64.0 5.5 349.50 0.68 19.50 81.0 5.9 478.43 0.69 20.00 100.0 6.3 633.59 0.71 Z 7/ 1 1 1 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION SECTIONS D4 AND E4 E�_Raoo �N �-E�F;I�-�'�EP."'j-1�t�� =C-►.API STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 40.00 20.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ----------------------- 0.035 0.1000 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE -(feet)-- (sq ft) ------- --(fps)- (cfs) --------- NO. ------ 15. 50 1.0 5.2 5.24 1.85 Zb,30 0 ,77 16.00 4.0 8.3 33.26 2.0 16.50 9.0 10.9 98.04 2.22` 17.00 16.0 13.2 211.09 2.32 17.50 25.0 15.3 382.68 2.41 18.00 36.0 17.3 622.20 2.49 18.50 49.0 19.2 938.45 2.55 19.00 64.0 20.9 1339.73 2.61 19.50 81.0 22.6 1833.96 2.66 - 20.00 100.0 24.3 2428.73 2.71 I 1 DESIGN OF PIPING SYSTEM 1 :1- I I I/ 129 E C7Z2 -.3•C<D C-FS, --- 1 7, 8 CF`-.p I I t 1 H REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY .JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 10-07-1996 AT TIME 07:54:07 *** PROJECT TITLE : MIRAMONT MAJOR STORM SEWER SYSTEM *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/NR CFS FEET FEET --------------------- 31.00 ------------------------------------------------------ 156.10 4913.00 4914.00 NO 1.00 156.10 4913.50 4914.15 NO 2.00 156.10 4915.80 4915.31 OK 3.00 156.10 4917.23 4916.56 OK 4.00 145.50 4917.50 4916.56 OK 5.00 47.41 4919.71 4919.33 OK 6.00 47.41 4923.68 4920.23 OK 7.00 43.55 4927.12 4922.75 OK 8.00 39.41 4938.33 4934.40 OK 9.00 35.00 4952.00 4949.67 OK 10.00 35.00 4956.50 4952.80 OK 12.00 40.70 4927.58 4924.29 OK 13.00 36.70 4927.30 4925.47 OK 14.00 31.40 4934.00 4931.55 OK 15.00 10.30 4933.75 4933.20 OK 16.00 10.30 4933.75 4933.34 OK 17.00 19.50 4934.09 4933.15 OK 18.00 19.50 4936.48 4934.28 OK 19.00 19.50 4944.28 4936.79 OK 20.00 19.50 4954.00 4943.94 OK 21.00 14.30 4949.87 4947.23 OK 22.00 14.30 4949.87 4947.48 OK 23.00 2.90 4969.50 4965.69 OK 24.00 2.90 4987.00 4976.19 OK 11.00 58.70 4919.88 4919.36 OK 25.00 2.90 4980.10 4978.22 OK 27.00 2.90 4980.10 4978.29 OK 28.00 35.00 4956.50 4955.19 OK 29.00 35.00 4962.00 4956.62 OK 30.00 35.00 4961.75 4961.38 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 511 I 1 1 0 1 1 1 *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH-70-SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (1N) (FT) (FT) 310.00 1.00 31.00 ROUND 51.62 54.00 54.00 0.00 12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 51.62 54.00 54.00 0.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 46.85 48.00 54.00 0.00 34.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 56.48 60.00 48.00 0.00 45.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 27.31 30.00 33.00 0.00 56.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 26.85 27.00 27.00 0.00 67.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 26.01 27.00 27.00 0.00 78.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 21.95 24.00 24.00 0.00 89.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND 20.07 21.00 24.00 0.00 910.00 10.00 9.00 ROUND 32.74 33.00 30.00 0.00 411.00 11.00 4.00 ROUND 32.91 33.00 33.00 0.00 1112.00 12.00 11.00 ROUND 24.32 27.00 27.00 0.00 1213.00 13.00 12.00 ROUND 23.40 24.00 24.00 0.00 1314.00 14.00 13.00 ROUND 20.14 21.00 24.00 0.00 1415.00 15.00 14.00 ROUND 15.31 18.00 18.00 0.00 1516.00 16.00 15.00 ROUND 15.31 18.00 18.00 0.00 1417.00 17.00 14.00 ROUND 25.69 27.00 24.00 0.00 1718.00 18.00 17.00 ROUND 23.52 24.00 24.00 0.00 1819.00 19.00 18.00 ROUND 23.34 24.00 24.00 0.00 1920.00 20.00 19.00 ROUND 18.00 21.00 18.00 0.00 2021.00 21.00 20.00 ROUND 17.45 18.00 18.00 0.00 2122.00 22.00 21.00 ROUND 17.45 18.00 18.00 0.00 2023.00 23.00 20.00 ROUND 7.58 15.00 15.00 0.00 2324.00 24.00 23.00 ROUND 8.66 15.00 15.00 0.00 1028.00 28.00 10.00 ROUND 32.74 33.00 30.00 0.00 2526.00 25.00 24.00 ROUND 12.65 15.00 15.00 0.00 2627.00 27.00 25.00 ROUND 12.65 15.00 15.00 0.00 2829.00 29.00 28.00 ROUND 24.48 27.00 30.00 0.00 2930.00 30.00 29.00 ROUND 33.10 36.00 30.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH .VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 310.0 156.1 176.6 3.29 12.54 3.65 2.53 9.81 1.25 V-OK 12.0 156.1 176.6 3.29 12.54 3.65 11.30 9.81 1.25 V-OK 23.0 156.1 228.7 2.73 15.48 3.65 11.30 9.81 1.80 V-OK 34.0 145.5 94.6 4.00 11.58 3.52 13.33 11.58 0.00 V-OK 45.0 47.4 78.8 1.54 13.88 2.27 27.78 7.98 2.19 V-OK 56.0 47.4 48.3 1.81 13.83 2.13 12.19 11.92 1.76 V-OK 67.0 43.5 48.3 1.67 13.74 2.09 12.30 10.95 1.91 V-OK 78.0 39.4 50.2 1.34 17.68 1.92 14.06 12.54 2.87 V-OK 89.0 35.0 56.6 1.14 18.97 1.89 12.83 11.14 3.46 V-OK 910.0 35.0 27.8 2.50 7.13 2.01 8.29 7.13 0.00 V-OK 411.0 58.7 59.3 2.23 11.38 2.44 6.28 9.88 1.30 V-OK 1112.0 40.7 53.9 1.46 14.91 2.07 10.65 10.24 2.33 V-OK 1213.0 36.7 39.4 1.53 14.25 1.90 11.91 11.68 2.04 V-OK 1314.0 31.4 50.3 1.14 16.90 1.85 10.35 9.99 3.07 V-OK 1415.0 10.3 15.9 0.88 9.58 1.23 6.64 5.83 1.98 V-OK 1516.0 .10.3 15.9 0.88 9.58 1.23 6.64 5.83 1.98 V-OK 1417.0 19.5 16.3 2.00 6.21 1.59 7.30 6.21 0.00 V-OK 1718.0 19.5 20.6 1.55 7.47 1.59 7.30 6.21 1.05 V-OK 1819.0 19.5 21.1 1.52 7.61 1.59 7.30 6.21 1.10 V-OK 3?/ I 1 11 L 1920.0 19.5 19.6 1.23 12.61 1.44 11.18 11.03 1.93 V-OK 2021.0 14.3 15.6 1.13 10.00 1.37 8.46 8.09 1.68 V-OK 2122.0 14.3 15.6 1.13 10.00 1.37 8.46 8.09 1.68 V-OK 2023.0 2.9 18.0 0.34 10.76 0.69 4.20 2.36 3.85 V-OK 2324.0 2.9 12.6 0.41 8.33 0.69 4.20 2.36 2.69 V-OK 1028.0 35.0 27.8 2.50 7.13 2.01 13.90 7.13 0.00 V-OK 2526.0 2.9 4.6 0.72 3.95 0.69 4.20 2.36 0.90 V-OK 2627.0 2.9 4.6 0.72 3.95 0.69 4.20 2.36 0.90 V-OK 2829.0 35.0 60.4 1.37 12.76 2.01 8.29 7.13 2.14 V-OK 2930.0 35.0 27.0 2.50 7.13 2.01 8.29 7.13 0.00 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM --...----- % (FT) ------------------------------------------------- (FT) (FT) (FT) 310.00 0.93 4908.33 4908.14 0.67 0.36 NO 12.00 0.93 4910.00 4908.33 1.30 0.67 NO 23.00 1.56 4911.23 4910.00 1.50 1.30 OK 34.00 0.50 4912.13 4911.92 1.37 1.31 OK 45.00 2.56 4915.11 4911.83 1.85 2.92 OK 56.00 2.80 4918.11 4915.31 3.32 2.15 OK 67.00 2.80 4920.66 4918.31 4.21 3.12 OK 78.00 5.67 4932.48 4920.91 3.85 4.21 OK 89.00 7.22 4947.78 4932.69 2.22 3.64 OK 910.00 0.53 4949.19 4947.98 4.81 1.52 OK 411.00 1.45 4916.08 4913.63 1.05 1.12 OK 1112.00 3.50 4922.22 4916.59 3.11 1.04 OK 1213.00 3.50 4923.57 4922.42 1.73 3.17 OK 1314.00 5.70 4929.70 4923.77 2.30 1.53 OK 1415.00 2.65 4931.27 4930.40 D.98 2.10 NO 1516.00 2.65 4931.27 4931.27 0.98 0.98 NO 1417.00 0.60 4930.15 4929.90 1.94 2.10 OK 1718.00 0.96 4932.32 4930.34 2.16 1.75 OK 1819.00 1.00 4935.20 4932.52 7.08 1.96 OK 1920.00 4.00 4942.50 4937.74 10.00 5.04 OK 2021.00 2.54 4945.86 4942.71 2.51 9.79 OK 2122.00 2.54 4945.86 4945.86 2.51 2.51 OK 2023.00 5.52 4965.00 4949.99 3.25 2.76 OK 2324.00 2.70 4975.50 4967.00 10.25 1.25 OK 1028.00 0.53 4950.85 4949.39 3.15 4.61 OK 2526.00 0.50 4977.50 4975.56 1.35 10.19 OK 2627.00 0.50 4977.50 4977.50 1.35 1.35 OK 2829.00 2.50 4953.00 4951.00 6.50 3.00 OK 2930.00 0.50 4958.50 4958.00 0.75 1.50 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 310.00 20.00 20.00 4912.83 4912.64 4914.15 4914.00 PRSS'ED 12.00 180.00 149.90 4914.50 4912.83 4915.31 4914.15 JUMP 23.00 79.00 79.00 4915.73 4914.50 4916.56 4915.31 PRSS'ED 34.00 41.00 41.00 4916.13 4915.92 4916.56 4916.56 PRSS'ED 45.00 128.00 128.00 4917.86 4914.58 4919.33 4916.56 PRSS'ED 56.00 100.00 21.40 4920.36 4917.56 4920.23 4919.33 JUMP 67.00 84.00 2.09 4922.91 4920.56 4922.75 4920.23 JUMP 78.00 204.00 0.00 4934.48 4922.91 4934.40 4922.75 JUMP 89.00 209.00 4.43 4949.78 4934.69 4949.67 4934.40 JUMP 910.00 228.00 228.00 4951.69 4950.48 4952.80 4949.67 PRSS'ED 3?/ I 1 u 411.00 169.00 103.75 4918.83 4916.38 4919.36 4916.56 JUMP 1112.00 161.00 14.08 4924.47 4918.84 4924.29 4919.36 JUMP 1213.00 33.00 0.00 4925.57 4924.42 4925.47 4924.29 JUMP 1314.00 104.00 6.02 4931.70 4925.77 4931.55 4925.47 JUMP 1415.00 33.00 .33.00 4932.77 4931.90 4933.20 4931.55 PRSS'ED 1516.00 0.10 0.10 4932.77 4932.77 4933.34 4933.20 PRSS'ED 1417.00 41.00 41.00 4932.15 4931.90 4933.15 4931.55 PRSS'ED 1718.00 206.00 106.91 4934.32 4932.34 4934.28 4933.15 JUMP 1819.00 268.00 0.00 4937.20 4934.52 4936.79 4934.28 JUMP 1920.00 119.00 47.27 4944.00 4939.24 4943.94 4936.79 JUMP 2021.00 124.00 .43.81 4947.36 4944.21 4947.23 4943.94 JUMP 2122.00 0.10 0.10 4947.36 4947.36 4947.48 4947.23 PRSS'ED 2023.00 272.00 0.40 4966.25 4951.24 4965.69 4943.94 JUMP 2324.00 315.00 0.81 4976.75 4968.25 4976.19 4965.69 JUMP 1028.00 276.00 276.00 4953.35 4951.89 4955.19 4952.80 PRSS'ED 2526.00 387.00 0.00 4978.75 4976.81 4978.22 4976.19 SUBCR 2627.00 0.10 0.00 4978.75 4978.75 4978.29 4978.22 SUBCR 2829.00 80.00 80.00 4955.50 4953.50 4956.62 4955.19 PRSS'ED 2930.00 100.00 100.00 4961.00 4960.50 4961.38 4956.62 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 310.0 1.00 4915.64 0.15 1.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 31.00 4914.00 12.0 2.00 4916.81 1.09 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 1.00 4915.64 23.0 3.00 4918.05 0.57 0.45 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00 4916.81 34.0 4.DO 4918.64 0.49 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 3.00 4918.05 45.0 5.00 4920.32 1.19 0.50 0.49 0.00 0.00 4.00 4918.64 56.0 6.00 4922.44 2.08 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 4920.32 67.0 7.00 4924.62 2.14 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.00 4922.44 78.0 8.00 4936.84 12.17 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 4924.62 89.0 9.00 4951.59 14.66 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 8.00 4936.84 910.0 10.00 4953.59 1.91 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 9.00 4951.59 411.0 11.00 4920.87 1.47 0.50 0.76 0.00 0.00 4.00 4918.64 1112.0 12.00 4925.91 4.96 0.05 0:08 0.00 0.00 11.00 4920.87 1213.0 13.00 4927.59 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 12.00 4925.91 1314.0 14.00 4933.10 5.43 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 13.00 4927.59 1415.0 15.00 4933.73 0.37 0.50 0.26 0.00 0.00 14.00 4933.10 1516.0 16.00 4933.86 0.00 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 15.00 4933.73 1417.0 17.00 4933.75 0.35 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00 14.00 4933.10 1718.0 18.00 4934.88 0.92 0.36 0.22 0.00 0.00 17.00 4933.75 1819.0 19.00 4937.38 2.41 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 18.00 4934.88 1920.0 20.00 4945.83, 6.56 1.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 19.00 4937.38 2021.0 21.00 4948.24 1.90 0.50 0.51 0.00 0.00 20.00 4945.83 2122.0 22.00 4948.50 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 21.00 4948.24 2023.0 23.00 4965.77 19.92 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 20.00 4945.83 2324.0 24.00 4976.27 10.48 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 23.00 4965.77 1028.0 28.00 4955.98 2.32 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 10.00 4953.59 2526.0 25.00 4978.31 2.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 4976.27 2627.0 27.00 4978.38 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 25.00 4978.31 2829.0 29.00 4957.41 0.67 0.96 0.76 0.00 0.00 28.00 4955.98 2930.0 30.00 4962.17 4.72 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 29.00 4957.41 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. I � is I F I I I I I I 1 t I 11 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 06-30-1996 AT TIME 15:40:50 *** PROJECT TITLE : 504016S8.DAT ROMA VALLEY DRIVE EAST END PIPES *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD 1S 100 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 65.80 4916.00 4915.67 FES OUT 2.00 65.80 4921.26 4919.67 Cl 3.00 25.57 4921.43 4922.18 Cl 4.00 25.57 4921.43 4922.34 CI MH MEANS MANHOLE Cl MEANS CURB INLET FES OUT MEANS FLARED END SECTION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ID NO. .ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 31.02 33.00 30.00 0.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 22.69 24.00 27.00 0.00 34.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 22.69 24.00 27.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED I 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER -- CFS CFS FEET ___. ---- ---- FPS ----- FEET FPS FPS ---- ---- -----" "---- ----" 12.0 65.8 60.4 2.50 13.40 2.38 13.63 13.40 0.00 V-OK 23.0 25.6 40.8 1.29 10.84 1.77 19.66 6.43 1.85 V-OK 34.0 25.6 40.8 1.29 10.84 1.77 7.64 6.43 1.85 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) __________________________________'___-------------------------------- 12.00 2.50 4916.71 4913.29 2.05 0.21 NO 1 23.00 2.00 4917.68 4916.90 1.50 2.11 NO 34.00 2.00 4917.68 4917.68 1.50 1.50 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW 1D NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 12.00 137.00 0.00 4919.21 4915.79 4919.67 4915.67 PRSSIED 23.00 39.00 39.00 4919.93 4919.15 4922.18 4919.67 PRSSIED 34.00 0.10 0.10 4919.93 4919.93 4922.34 4922.18 PRSSIED PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW 1 1 1 1 *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------"'- 12.0 2.00 4922.46 6.09 0.25 0.70 0.00 0.00 1.00 4915.67 23.0 3.00 4922.83.. 0.31 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 2.00 4922.46 34.0 4.00 4922.99 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 3.00 4922.83 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I , .I NC Engineering Consultants CLIENT -JOB NO..524'C:)1'4_-' F PROJECT Y CALCULATIONS FOR 022 MADEBY PC DATE CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET- OF L L-I'L L _LL 17' A" MIS 1 ---------- C�:= .1 - 7 , r- . _�4iIII rL 7-7-17 ------ --------- ---- L IF" I qZ3 .3 ----------- -- --- L.-L. 4­1­ A-1 7 La ..... . rL if Li 1 1 1 1 t -7- 7 --1-- -7 1 -j- A -A. -IL -- ------- ---------- - 7 L 7- 7- _j T -T-;"- T. T 7 .. . . . . . . . . . 1 J 8/ ' REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY ' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ' DENVER, COLORADO ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 06-30-1996 AT TIME 15:51:55 ' *** PROJECT TITLE : 504016S7.DAT ROMA VALLEY DRIVE WEST END PIPES ' *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS I ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET ELEVATION FEET 25.00 20.30 4926.00 4919.17 OK 26.00 20.30 4921.50 27.00 20.30 4926.02 4919.15 4922.91 OK OK 28.00 7.29 4926.02 4923.49 OK 29.00 7.29 4926.02 4923.51 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION - *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. "ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) -" ----- -' ----- ----- - -'--- ----- 2526.00 26.00 25.00 ROUND 23.70 24.00 (IN) (FT) ............... 24.00 (FT) 0.00 2627.00 27.00 26.00 ROUND 19.29 21.00 24.00 0.00 ' 2728,00 28.00 27.00 ROUND 16.14 18.00 2829.00 29.00 28.00 ROUND 16.14 18.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES ' DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, ' EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED 1 I J 1/ ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------'------ SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS .... CFS ---- FEET ---- FPS ---- .'.-'-- FEET FPS ---- FPS ---- ---- ---- ' 2526.0 20.3 21.1 1.58 7.64 1.61 7.47 6.46 1.05 V-OK 2627.0 20.3 36.5 1.07 11.92 1.61 7.47 6.46 2.28 V-OK 2728.0 7.3 21.1 0.81 6.09 0.99 13.08 2.32 1.38 V-OK ' 2829.0 7.3 21.1 0.81 6.09 0.99 4.70 2.32 1.38 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS 1 ----SE-W-ER----------S--- LOPE----INVERT-------------ELEVATION-"------B..-URIED.-"DEPTH-"'------- COMM-"'--ENTS- ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM 7 (FT) (FT) IFTI (FT) -----------•---------------•--------------..--.-....------- 2526.00 1.00 4917.54 4917.23 1.96 6.77 NO 2627.00 3.00 4921.30 4917.85 2.72 1.65 NO 2728.00 1.00 4921.88 4921.50 2.14 2.52 OK 2829.00 1.00 4921.88 . 4921.88 2.14 2.14 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS -----------------------------•--•---------------•------------------------------ SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ' FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET -------------- ----.---- ---- 2526.00 31.00 0.00 4919.54 4919.23 4919.15 4919.17 JUMP 2627.00 115.00 0.00 4923.30 4919.85 4922.91 4919.15 JUMP 2728.00 38.00 0.00 4923.88 4923.50 4923.49 4922.91 JUMP ' 2829.00 0.10 0.00 4923.88 4923.88 4923.51 4923.49 JUMP PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------•-••..-.-....--......--••------...--...---------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT "' -.-.-----•...........................................•--.....------------------ 2526.0 26.00 4919.80 0.47 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 25.00 4919.17 2627.0 27.00 4923.56 3.11 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 26.00 4919.80 2728.0 28.00 4923.57 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 27.00 4923.56 2829.0 29.00 4923.60 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 28.00 4923.57 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD 1N SEWER. ' LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. .I` yp/ DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA r,asL>: 862c _ I IIVRM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIPM"r (BENDS AT MANHOLES) 1.3 • I I,; I 1Ft o.r I � • Bendel1hribole O �.�7 .. noSpocl&IshapmD °-U ri�•S� r Cvmd CIS? I. I . Bond &IM nholo, I CUM d o t Do Its c lot l v;G Monholts I 041. I 44air I , . 0.2 1 J,/� i ' I c•!•'j I � I I 1 0.0 D' 209 � �0 60 6D' DO' 100' Do INc1lenAngle r.D,Di„j 1' NOTE: Fiend loss opplied of ovllel of monha'e, �' 9 8 8 REFERENCE: -- Modt:rn Scx•er Design, AISI, Woshinglon D,C,, 1980, i' 41/ ORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL. CRITERIA TABLE 803 r- ' MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES �� • • c• MOTE fw •, 2..�H °'. Lhf, . / Pt4 •. USE EQUATION 005 z V� flE EQUATION F� CTi� 00*1 SECTION CASE i INLET ON MAIN LINE fir• P1.0.afa CASE II INLET ON WAIN LINE WITH BRANCH LATERAL 'c EQUATION f -_ - fin•, •----• —_ 005 PLAN � �• •�' :.USE EQUATION 001 • " �VL_K V,_ !! ,, �,';`jr'•` v, 4 SCC71QN sccT�ot Usm z My's CA INRMANHOLE O� ANNHHOLE AT BEGINNING OF LINE u�NHOLFI+NMAINLINE CASE 11I ' WIT?i 9• BRANCN �kTfiiu ;CASE HO. 9. p� K '.' t o.05 2z /Z li 0.25 .45 0.50 I 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 ' No Lateral See Casa I i' NOV 1984. :. REFERENCE:. At'1YA Specfel Report No, 49, 1281 I 11 RIPRAP CALCULATIONS I IM I I I 1 42 I 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 T�l�•..alcr•`�ep�� I •�S' Cf=' t u=1AN1JeL ' IP.` Q ! To '. 0SM: 0Emsl-hi C�j1aeTS '7�JPE . OF 'i=IPP.J�P, P��UiPGT . .__. ....:. '.. . :• ....: . i •._.. .. ��_�J . . . b/I� 1.5 l(0 ,104! z O,S • IcK.PdUStO+J. Fe�CToe.: ? C�/ •Z,S j ' I _ LiEW-56 4 6F= pearEoivi:i.' ..: ; i ' , : ' . , �.cr:E�I �L�D _ . :. _ 7 ..��:rr... _ _ a 4. • Q •C /ZT01J 0 Uj, : ' L = :3:z�i; .CM lug: ��.' �'x--�-�,.�' �►�, ` ��:t�e�' . �� - i L.GOtV► J- 8C•. L.SSS T`f'1oT j' Y M n:X.'tzJ P2bP'�E.Pja•}.' _. `Q Z(ci:so'� :� ••.may ;,':H;'�. �: `:• r:.. CLIENT :0B No. 50� • b1 b PRO:ECTkAIeALAk0IJ7 Vh 5Y CALCULATIONS FOR EA6T plP�c� Engineering Consultants UAOEBY EL DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET_ pi �I��' '�1'PP11P OVTT.�T PP_1,OT"E-CST01J' ' `• .• � SIoPcL�- Z.�D% -9 .- _ 1 .. : » � i1 - ;•. i i t .: ..:. ? ,..j i..t i y i . �.. i..j ,. (..i_� i-i• i - . :. 44 (2,G=)QeorJ..'_.. R7Paoa ^, Dom. _fZ'� I. _ _.. _ •-_ -- -•-- . . DTra ; 7,5` �: t 441 ' CLIENT I/,21�1Ac�N'T L.Ea&OC.11,nF5 50q Olb roe No. PFOJECT M\eA1JDIJT VL4.. CALCUTATtONSFOII •20M�- LVEST Englneering Consultants UADEBY PL DATE CNECKEDBY DATE I SHEET__Of U GISd,4 C-atVET�j s Q 2b. a0 c4P6 Vis(.04b Pee, (IFP0. A. l-Vbt--,�� S�oPe� I,C�% T'a,�wa�er �e�{}� b.771�Srem . r �... UISM OMS.W..' d2Tro 7.18 F;'-cM FiG,��E 5:7. USE TS�o alli� Yy�Kt�FT. 1=ttPnU51o+,1 F.0•C?OP..' ' �/ 2.S � a. � : ., .. s .: I .. . ' 1/crawl t3,. = 3. S. �: FFvAl Ri&;Ieki • 5 -9 1 LIM.lCa'T7 O R P P17TEal g.J ZJSt�Y,l « `• • '' •mil•, , � , � ' • ' �, • �.S.M •._.;.w.- • t• j • _ !. � e•.. i. is , :. ? « i t Lo,7.q t L.L.•N►•:!�-'$�-'�.Es'sT-+-i�T;i';a•�;- c5�•-►.:loet', . _.._.r�•� ._._. . -104 ; M� Q! P2bP • 1'7EP'!i";'' ! o Q { ZC� •60' Q ��•y .�•t t r { T . Vi j_ •T.:-.s1 :-'_t _ i --..._ i i .. ! .-i .: , 3 i ;•;.j j..i..j 1. :Li. i..;. t i t ... ?. • OpOCj/JC�! S •' . _. i .: .::. ! .; : , t :.::.: � i 1 i ; : s: � , ! t»:: t J.•;. F � .i..LL:.�_! �:.L:i: ..t i _ - 1 i� . t { ; .! !. t.l.i.y .. ; .' i. 1.:'i e _ i t.:..i.* i.t•.. :.;.�.1.�..�: ! � .r .. • , ,^ i 7 Y i. °. s � .i .! ! � i .. i •• i i• . = i I..? . ,. L j. ., .1. .! .r � �..1 � ; ! p _ _p. _ f- -- L.... i : _ T r• _: .�., 441-1 r �1 P egn:O \l./•� •C:,T.Z+" . i. .i�j, yD� M 1�•1. ..i ...• �. .r ! . j.1 �... i• ,._...;.:. .. � •.. ••y �..; .... .' .. .. ' .. •... •. i. ...�.�.,. 1. :.1.1.. � i.: i»T. �.�.�.j. .i. 3.� • 11 CIOFJCJLUs,o1.J.. R'IPaoa - 12." ILF� C,=• • — . ' TO UdAW i ! WENT Joe No. `-3J4. OLIO FROJECT�\P-b Q0Q-r CALCMATIONSFOR ' Engineering Consultants MADEBY PG DATE CHECKED BY DATE SKEET- OF �I$!=. • •�I'PE?�P' OVTL�"I' Peo-r�c�O►..I' - _ UT• IDS .•UC1Sr�..J Dpa•I►rw L�O� ' i •_ : :. • � G,ofJi1LGL. n d,TSEJ1a • Calves • Q 1 �7: 8D c-s Va - 12. 55 'P5' (Pt Ji.n T/a11.va4 r cle kk i- 3 3210=2- -6) i. S es �IFe i �L�Z.6 ra ' Cb�•4•�� � � usE� p65.Ir;�..1Gf1d2.TS TYPE . 01= r-I Pz&p. Q o.7� �v Z"s 3,b�I �'�Dl.s... t1o.53 ; ... /D I I EeePav51o+,1 t=na'1�2� :.• : �/ z.S � ? � •. •- • i .: � i .. . O,1o7. -9 Y� ri'la >=� _ ...b'�, �... Cam`. = t 5Z• s L ..C.GN►.� 8;�ESS`; T+Cc►.J.c� ICY _ ~, .4 lv•v/ t.: 11 ��ODIiJC�? 5.• i.� I 1 ^r i T...s_i. .¢ .�., i.T ..r.l.�_ ..�...; . 41 II ; 1• i i A.i-=.j :.s..i..y..i i..i:�•.i: ..i i .. • .. ' � r .i i .j s.s + i.. i j ..j. j.• .i�•i•i {j . 4.14 �IP?_L1P t ll_ I [�Ta-i•,.. -.i ]�j.:�{I�r 1. frc s.i ... .3.. i. :r S .:.t yA.;. . (2j;:�►,1CLusIOI.J. :R•tPR.dP to" `• , - �_ ' ... � •. t I � 1 � I (� I � 1 � - ` ' : 1 : � . • 1. : DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP -4b1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y, 0 No NONE MEN VAA M VAAs OEM- =,PAA I ■_ ■����o��_ as 0 • %V 2 A Y �D .6 .8 1.0 t Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercrilical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. z.s FIGURE 5-7.4 RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT V ay DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL A = Expansion Angle ERA WA VAN EMMONS -A 11 a m WIFAIPIAFAIW�011 FFA IN PANdalm moll m W� NIEMEN TAILWATER bEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Y f / D RIPRAP. FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IM 1 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS 1 1 L 47 11 ' RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants ' Miramont Associates L.L.C. 504-016 Water Quality Pond Rating Curve ' Miramont Valley P.U.D. Cumulative ' Elev (ft) Area Area Storage (ft2) (ac) (ac-ft) ---- ---------------- ------------------------ V = d/6*(A+4ABm+B) 4908.3 0 0 0 ' 4909.0 61048 0.14 0.05 4910.0 81226 0.19 0.21 4911.0 13,087 0.30 0.45 4912.0 19,814 0.45 0.83 4913.0 291255 0.67 1.40 1.10 ac-ft at 4912.479 4914.0 28,794 0.66 2.06 4915.0 40,971 0.94 2.86 H:\USER\civil\projects\miramont.val\drainage\pondrat.wb2 01-Oct-96 4gl RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA OVERFLOW WEIR FROM WATER QUALITY POND WEIR COEF 3.200 0.0 4917.47 20.0 4912.47 52.0 4912.47 72.0 4917.47 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (Cfs) --------- 12.47 --------- 0.00 12.97 37.80 13.47 111.45 53.60 cfs @ 13.97 213.06 221.90 cfs @ 1.53' deep 14.47 340.83 14. oc' 14.97 494.21 15.47 673.18 15.97 877.93 16.47 1108.83 - 16.97 1366.30 - 17.47 1650.83 Peaking times for Southridge Greens and Roma Valley Drive systems are very close Q,00 C° Weir = 65.8 cfs + 156.1 cfs = 221.9 cfs Q,o @ Weir = 18.2 cfs + 35.4 cfs = 53.6 cfs aD/ I I 1 1 I I .1 r_ 1 RWINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT MI�P-1.Ap N'T Asp OG JOB NO. 504'Q�%, PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR �IzD' Y?- bF°C. 1,311�1 MADE BY P�' DATE 03'" CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 1 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) A D a STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 1� Extenc 0•1-10 ed De r Drai entlor i time Basi (Dry) t I 11100 D.,tentic 1 -Hour n Pon Drain Is (W It) tme 0. 10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 BO 90 100 Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed Source: Urbanos. Guo. Tucker (1989) Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall apply to the entire watershed tributary to the BI�AP Facility. FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) WQCV P�'S�D4!: (.4ru) IZ O •Ill IZ (-70) = t.iCD F-T 51/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL so 4C w 30 cc W O ¢ 20 Lu a x 10 RUNOFF C. e CAv 1) l 32 TEST AREA LOCATIONS O ARAPAHOE COUNTY O ❑ LITTLE10N a 0 0 -.LOW-- DENSITY:: -,-; MED1 M'::DENSITY w ' z 3 4 5 HOUSING DENSITY - UNITS PER ACRE FIGURE 2-1. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DENSITY VS. IMPERVIOUS AREA 5 1.84 URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL(V. 3) 10. - ' 6. ' 4. 1 2.i 1 0.6 00.4 co E a 0.2 m E U Q 0.1 0.0 . :. 0.02 1 . 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 E140 0.60 1.0 Q 2.0 4.0 6.0 Required Area per Row (in.2) !P ' Soume: Douglas County Storm Drainage and Technical CMeda, 1986. FIGURE 5-3. WATER QUALITY OUTLET SIZING: DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN WITH A 40-HOUR DRAIN TIME OF THE CAPTURE VOLUME Rev. 3-1-1994 UDFCD STRUCTURALBMPs mom OF 0 No FAJA' PrAl PA mEXAMPLE: DWQ = 4,5 ft ME I Ar PA WOCV = 2.1 acra-fee SOLUTION: Required Area per Row 1.75 in? Vol WA IPA I Mom A FIAAM 'A II VZAi PAPA APAI loll ivA111011 0, Ar PjAr m MAP mmilmol 0111011 moll 1 1 1 1 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA OVERFLOW WEIR FROM WATER QUALITY POND WEIR COEF 3.200 STA ELEV 0.0 4917.47 20.0 4912.47 52.0 4912.47 72.0 4917.47 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (cfs) --------- 12.47 --------- 0.00 12.97 37.80 13.47 111.45 53.60 cfs @ 13.97 213.06 221.90 cfs @ 1.53' deep 14.47 340.83 14.97 494.21 15.47 673.18 15.97 877.93 16.47 1108.83 16.97 1366.30 17.47 1650.83 * Peaking times for Southridge Greens and Roma Valley Drive systems are very close Qioo @ Weir = 65.8 cfs + 156.1 cfs = 221.9 cfs Q10 @ Weir = 18.2 cfs + 35.4 cfs = 53.6 cfs �. File Help 1 ' 3.6 ft ' Inlet L 5.2 ft _1 Maintenance { Access Weir Insert Inlet j Outlet Pipe diameter 24 in 0 utl et ISTC 40Q �k::2 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 um EROSION CONTROL 57 ' RBD, Inc. #504-016 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: Miramont Valley P.U.D. STANDARD FORM CALCULATED BY: PEC DATE: 03/18/96 DEVELOPE ERODIBILIT Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE ac ft % ft 401 moderate 0.98270 1.0 402 moderate 0.25F300 0.6 403 moderate 2.15 360 3.2 404 moderate 1.71 740 5.0 405 moderate 2.06 280 2.2 406 moderate 0.97 490 2.5 407 moderate 1.76 180 5.0 408 moderate 1.74 10 1_.0 409 moderate 2.21 460 2.0 410 moderate 2.21 210 2.5 411 moderate 1.74 320 1.5 412 moderate 2.21 840 2.0 413 moderate 5.78 1600 0.6 414 moderate 1.13 320 1.5 415 moderate 0.61 320 3.0 416 moderate 1.59 280 3.3 417 moderate 2.70 220 1.0 418 moderate 0.63 300 2.5 419 moderate 1.10 360 1.5 Total 33.53 569 2.1 81.3 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS .' Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.98 x 270 +... + 0.25 x 300)/ 33.53 569 ft ' Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.98 x 1.00 +... + 0.25 x 0.60)/ 33.53 2.1 % ' PS (during construction) = 81.3 (from Table 8A) PS (after construction) = 81.3/0.85 = 95.6 ' Engineering Consultants A division of The Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 ' 970/482-5922 ' June 30, 1996 Mr. Basil Hamdan ' City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Matthews Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE:: Miramont Valley P.U.D. Erosion Control Cost Estimate Dear Basil: This portion of the report is to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion control security deposit for Miramont Valley P.U.D. The City of Fort Collins Current Cost Factors will be used in this estimate. There will be approximately 35 acres disturbed within this project. Using the city revegetation criteria of $500.00 per acre for sites greater than 10 acres, and a 150% contingency, the total obligation of the contractor for a security deposit would be: (35.001 x ($500.00 per acre) x (150% contingency) _ $26250.00 A cost breakdown of the erosion control measures that will need to be installed is listed below: Straw Bale check dams (4 @ $150 apiece) _ $ 600 Curb Inlet Filters (7 @ $150 apiece) _ $ 1050 Temporary Vegetation/Mulch (35 ac. @ $500 per acre) = 17500 1 TOTAL x 150% CONTINGENCY = $28725 _I ' 59 ' Denver303/458-5526 Therefore, the larger amount, or the amount of security deposit obligation should be in the amount of $28725.00. Please call with any questions regarding this estimate. Respectfully, RBD Inc., Engineering Consultants Perry E. Cabot Project Engineer • 1 a Engineering Consultants A division of The Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 970/482-5922 ' September 24, 1996 Sherrie Wamhoff Engineering Department _. City of Fort Collins .' 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Miramont Valley - Water Quality Pond Dear Sherrie: ■ I have arrived at some estimates for the costs associated with the Miramont Valley water quality pond construction and maintenance. ■ After speaking with Basil Harridan, I learned that the figure he was specifically looking for was the cost of pond maintenance and construction after the first 25% of building permits ' have been acquired. This request is different from the request you made for the cost of the entire pond construction. Nevertheless, I will give you the costs I have arrived at for the entire water quality feature. _.: The water quality pond wilt be fully constructed at the start of the project, with the -, exception of some seeding and maintenance (described on sheet 5 of the Utility Plans, within the "Pond Outlet Detail". This construction will involve: 888 SY (stripping) at 75¢/SY. .. $666.00 6122 CY (cut) at 95¢/CY ... , •. , .... • • .. • . • . , .. , .... • .. .. $5815.90 - 803 CY (fill) at 55¢/CY...................................... $441.65 One (1) reinforced concrete weir .............................. $1200.00 16.5 CY of gravel at $14.00/CY................................ $231.00 One (1) 6" Drilled Opening PVC Water. Quality Outlet Pipe .......... $200.00 ' 109 LF of 6" PVC ........................................... $654.00 One (1) 6" PVC Elbow ........................................ $25.00 TOTAL Up -Front Cost ...................................... $9233.55 In response to Basil's request, I have compiled the "next phase" costs of that same water ■ ' Denver 303/458-5526 0 ' quality pond, once the project has been built out to an erosion proof condition per the NODES permit standards. These costs reflect the seeding of the pond bottom and the ' removal of silt from it. There also will be some yearly maintenance of this pond, but I am not aware of how this yearly cost can be escrowed. The aforementioned costs are as follows: 1 1 .0 1 2070 SY of Seeding at $1.00/SY .............................. $2070.00 Cleaning of Pond/Silt Removal (Estimate 3000 CY of silt) .......... $3000.00 Reset Water Quality Outlet ................................... $400.00 TOTAL "next phase" costs ................................... $5470.00 Yearly Maintenance (i.e. mowing, cleaning, repairs) ................ $640.00 You had also requested a cost associated with the construction of the Highcastle Drive stub south off Roma Valley Drive. After speaking with Dennis Donovan, I have arrived at a cost of $7000.00 for embankment, compaction, base, paving and curb & gutter for that portion of street. Please use these figures for your development agreement, in whatever fashion you and Basil agree upon. Please call me if you have any question regarding these estimates. Sincerely, RBD, INC. Perry E. Cabot Project Engineer cc: 504-016(A) Correspondence Gary Nordic, Miramont Associates H:\USER\civil\projects\miramont.val\tran.031 1 RBD, Inc. I I I I I EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS Total Site as, one phase #504-016 PROJECT: Miramont Valley P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B CALCULATED BY: PEC DATE: 03/18/96 Erosion Control C-FactoLP-Facto Comment Number Method Value3 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 disturbed areas, minimize wind erosion 6 Gravel Filter 1 placed at curb inlets and culverts 5 Straw Bale Barrier 1 placed at swale outfall and pipe inlet 3 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 0.9 all areas not paved 21 Temporary Vegetation 0.45 1 all areas not paved 39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1.5% slope) 0.06 1 all areas not paved AREA % ac LS 81.3 33.5 MAJORPractice C' A P • A Remarks BASIN BASIN ac SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION 401 0.98 39 0.06 0.98 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 402 0.25 3 0.25 0.23 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 403 2.15 39 0.13 2.15 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 404 1.71 39 0.10 1.71 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 405 2.06 39 0.12 2.06 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 406 0.97 39 0.06 0.97 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 407 1.76 39 0.11 1.76 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 408 1.74 39 0.10 1.74 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 409 2.21 39 0.13 2.21 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 410 2.21 39 0.13 2.21 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1.5% slope) 411 1.74 39 0.10 1.74 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 412 2.21 39 0.13 2.21 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1.5% slope) 413 5.78 39 0.35 5.78 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 414 1.13 39 0.07 1.13 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 415 0.61 39 0.04 0.61 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 416 1.59 39 0.10 1.59 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 417 2.70 39 0.16 2.70 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 418 0.63 39 0.04 0.63 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 419 1.10 39 0.07 1.10 Hay or Strew Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 2.2468 33.505 Cnet = [0.98x0.06+...+1.10x0.06y33.53 = 0.07 Prot = 0.8x[0.98x1.00+.. +1.10x1.00y33.53 = 0.80 EFF = (1-C•P)100 = (1-0.07'0.80)100 = 94.64 > 81.3 (PS) Assume paving not constructed within 6 weeks; use gravel inlet filters at all area inlets & silt fence at swales & downstream perimeters. 11 1 RED, Inc. 1 I I I t EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS Total Site #504-016 PROJECT: Miramont Valley P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B CALCULATED BY: PEC DATE: 03/18/96 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Facto Comment Number Method Value Value 9 AsphalUConcrete Pavement 0.01 1 Paved and constructed 16 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 0.04 1 Lawns and openspace .19 Established Grass Ground Cover -100% 0.02 1 Area not disturbed during construction MAJOR PS AREA BASIN % ac SITE 95.6 33.5 MAJOR SUB AREA Practice C * A P * A Remarks BASIN BASIN ac AFTER CONSTRUCTION 401 0.98 16 0.04 0.98 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 402 0.25 16 0.01 0.25 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 403 2.15 16 0.09 2.15 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 404 1.71 16 0.07 1.71 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 405 2.06 16 0.08 2.06 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 406 0.97 16 0.04 0.97 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 407 1.76 16 0.07 1.76 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 408 1.74 16 0.07 1.74 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 409 2.21 16 0.09 2.21 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 410 2.21 16 0.09 2.21 . Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 411 1.74 16 0.07. 1.74,.- Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 412 2.21 16 0.09 2.21 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 413 5.78 16 0.23 5.78 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 414 1.13 16 0.05 1.13 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 415 0.61 16 0.02 0.61 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 416 1.59 16 0.06 1.59 Established Grass Ground Cover-70% 417 2.70 16 0.11 210 Established Grass Ground Cover-70% 418 0.63 16 0.03 0.63 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 419 1.10 16 0.04 1.10 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% Cnet = [0.98x0.04+...+1.10x0.04Y33.53 = 0.03 Pnet = [0.98x1.00+...+1.10x1.00]/33.53 = 0.82 EFF = (1-C*P)100 = (1-0.03*0.82)100 - 97.31 > 95.6 (PS) EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PHASE 1 Construction IENCE for 1996 and 1997 to by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for ✓al by the City Engineer. STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY itVEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED 1 1 :1 1 1 1 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT.COLLINS ON 97 H 1 I 1 •U 'O a. Cr• 4 1 1 1 . r MARCH 1991 O rdq N N N N W g co W W 0 .alm 1 G1000000 O < r c r N N N N N N r WGco0mmcoWWW O W oc1noO1m C1mm O1m000 0 r r r r C r C 444 r r N N N n WooW W WgcoWmmw=WW O 1": W W O10 t Ot Ot Ot C1 Ct O1 G1 Gl Ct ct cl cl c1 Ot O N W 0 W W W W coW W W W W W W W g coW W W O 0m In D000I—hhh hhhhhhhh W W W W W q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 'PCrrC<C<Crrr CC«<rr««r<v H w g g w q q q 0 q q CJ m 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W co O W Nn<Nm Nt7Q0 V %a%D hI`h h I`I`t`hhh W W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ci n<<r<<<<<r<<<<<<<<<<<<rr<r W q W co co co co co co co W W q co q co co co co W co co co co co co 0 %D0Nn<rNNNN V tD l Q0D D ko O V' t7hhhhh h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . co n r r< r< r< d r r r r «< r r r r r< r r r< q co M W co co co W co co co al W W co co W W co ' co co co co Co W co 0 < Ot ri N n nC r C< to In N N N N N N N tD tD tD tD tD t0 t� h nnevv«r<c<«r«vv«c<rrrd� co co co cD co co g co co g W co co q co co Co = co co co co co co co W O 0%Dco0ri.-INNnnn n«CCr.Cr�C'NNNNV' %D to nMnrr<r<r«rr<rr<rrrrrrrrr co co co co co co C1 W W W co co co co co Co co co co co Co co co co co co r o In N N h co at 00 ri ri ri N N N N.N n n n Cl n rrr Kr Nnnnnnr«rrrrrrrrrrr<rrrrr co co co co cococoW W co cococoW co co co WgggcocoWCoco a in ri co ri n r N to tD tD h h h g q co q co to a% c% a1 0 0 0 0 0. O • . • • . • • • • • ..d. a v N N n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n M n n r r r r ' lA 0. t0InCO 0 riNc'1rrinIntn%0Q%DQtDhhhh CO W O W tC% . • i . . . . . . . .- . . . • . . . • • . • . . . . . %ft ri N N n n n n M n M n n n n n M n n M n n M n n M n W W W W W W W g q q q q ,0 0 W co co co Co. W co co co co W co N r4riInt`co00riNNnMnrrrrrNNNtatDtot- n riNNNNnnnnmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnm e - W CO W CO co, CO CO CO CO co co co W co co co co c0 .co'. co co a co co co c0 `0... MNtO W 010r4NNnnnr.rrrrrinNNN%D%0%D tD O ri ri 'q r( N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N co W co co co co co co co co co co co, co co co co co co co co W co co co c0 N In NM NMrNV I`hh co W`gCIS CtO1C1O1Ct000000 N ON O 0 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r.i ri ri ri r-4 ri ri ri H ri N N N N N N O rNOnNtD W W Qt000rirtririNNNNMnnnM n • • • . . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . • . cV W Q O O O O O O o ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r♦ r{ r i h h W W W W W W W W g W q q W W W W W W W W W W Cp tD to gN0rir0hh000IOOr{rir4HriNNNMMMnn ri tD W W O1 Ct Ct cl Ot Ot cl O1000000000000000 h h h t` t` h h h I` n h co co co co co co W co co co co co co co W O V f'1O�< h Ct, O ri N n n r< N N N N tD l7 t7 to h h%D%D� . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rI r Ur huh h h g W W W W W c1 q W W cJ W W W W W W W W W h h h {h h h h h h h h h h h it h h h h h h h h h h h N c10<IQr, co Whf,htDtDQin -v 7'MMNNG1tDrrim0r .. ..... .... ..... O O NN'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Nriririri00 t-hr;rrrhhrhrrrhrrrhhrrrt�rrr x • 00000000000000000000000000 U E-i 00000000000000000000000000 zN riNn'CNtDhW910riNnCNV' hgOt0In0NONO tW�`-' riririrHr{riririririfVNnn�'v N 8.4 DESIGN CRITERIA [l 1 Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor BARE SOIL Packedand smooth................................................................ 1.00 1.00 Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90 . Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.50111 ' STRAW BALE BARRIER; GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00 SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 0.80 0.50 ' ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A 1.00 1.00 ' SOD GRASS............................................................................... 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.4512) ..1.00 ' HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10131 ....-.1.00 SOIL SEALANT.....................................................................0.01-0.6014; 1.00 ' EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS...............................6......6..... 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately 1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH I After olantino press seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. �glo�% .. -.. 1 . to ..................... 0.06. 1.00 _ 6. to. 10...............................................................................0.06. =: 1.00" 11 to .. 15............................................................................ 0.07 .16., to _ . 20............................................................................. 0.11 21: to.25.............................................................................0.14 1.00 ' 25 to 33.............................................................................0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 1.00 NOTE:. Use of other. C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) : Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. ' (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. 13) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. IJ 1 1 MARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA r ' Table 8-B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page). Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum length refers to the down slope length. ' Basin Maximum Slope Length '%) 'feet 1 to 2 TOW!.........................................................................1.00 0.50 ' 3 to 5 00..................... .1.00 3 0.0 6 to 8 200..........................................................................1.00 0.50 9 to 12 120.........................................................................1.00 ..1.00 0.60 0.70 ' 13 to 16 80................................................................. 0.80 17 to 20 60..........................................................................1.00 > 20 50............................................................6..............1.00 0.90 TERRACING ' Must contain 10-year runoff volumes; without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. ' Basin Slope (%) 1 to - . 2.................................................................................... ..1.00 1.00 0.12 3 to 8........................................ 0.12 ' 13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00 0.14 17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16 ' > 20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18 NOTE- Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. I 11 1 I [J ' MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA LEGEND EASIING SITE HYDROLOGY exr ! OE9 0&]'xh DESIGN ROW �344ch Total Disturbed Area - JJ.SJ r ti�j-a PROPOSED STORM SEWER •/ WIE15 T56' 1 1� d (t OIB 0.56' S •NFL Ratbnd'C' - 0.25 FREEBOARD 1.0' d (100) • 0.33' DRAINAGE BASIN STATISTICS -----����� ELSDNG STORM DRAW - - . �1 1� 1.]J' �1 1� SOUMRIDGE GREENS = able als EMERGENCY FREEBOARD to Not Platted Area - 2&0 amp ELSnNG CCNTWR (V INTERVAL) ,1'•,. AUNOFF OVERFLOW . 8&B cis,,I CUT-OFTTEROSION CONTROL OWRFFLLOW . 20.3 are Al 'C - 0.50 42 PROPOSED CONTaIR I1 / ., 3WALE MSEN Y OWR 1RENCH (TYPICAL) EROSION CONTRA f,l S • 0) FAaRIC FABRIC �� S(� lliM j BASIN DESIGNATION 6 (100) - 200' 3WALE SW ALE 10D M EMERGENCY OVERROW S YR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW OESICN BASIM(5) AAEA •C Oe Get o, ls4AC BASH AREA PUNT .] Oc))aft) J 0.a3 (( ]) 07 101 •] 101 1." M53 a 10.9 �..�...� BASH BWHDART 406 •J101406 z54 am &5 14. EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARYte+� -.1 107 102,107 4.31 0. 4. lull -- SITE BWHDART LINE SCALE 1'=100' y 4403 11 1 100+ 4a141a &30 0.0 &4 31.6 QDESIGN PUNT of ,\ -- 501 •],102.t OJ,10B,101, 10.114 0.51 11.2 40.5 403,1405 FLOW DIRECTION I ® f •tell - 406 •7,10211405i 17.M 0.60 16.0 Bull 406,407,409,418 STRAW BALE SILT BARRIER 40J ♦0 ] 4.14am..5 1.3 O _--_------- _ 405 ,101,102,IO],10&4p3 Men am 17.1 61.9 GRAVEL INLET FILTER ION -_ J40640J 40a b9,i16 ISO YEAR HWL _.... ���'I( - rmvv� EROSION BUFFER LIMITS 415 .7001,102,107.106,403 W." 0.50 18.2 Ball11B ' 406.407,40& 4109.414.415.4141 me, mew me, Met `• 1 q0 L41 1.90 0.50 117. TOO YEAR ROODPLAW UYIIS \ 101 ` / T __ -.... I I 111 NO H1 376 O50 H 1].1 • •\® :; e %`�1- uT Q Q�9 , _- N9 4m1 a9 4.47 1370.51 &2 2as SILT FENCE / V WERNER 103 103 zA Om i 9.6 &I 1. WneM .na . GONTRO and Metal ELEMENTARY \I r n tDJ d tq I F I 1 i 41 1a 229 a32 zl &1 ^� to + 152050 &4 13.4 I on new 1. I Nlet sum bona 4ha1 protpl•d � 401 4M 1.18 0.32 1.2 4.2 r a W YJ•l W �pao l0a 1 + t 1 401 1197 0.489.1 pp• ou lid o led Y straw Od• balrWW 110 110 2.02 0.50 22 fl1 +� MIRAMONT P.U.D. P. m 110111 135 am 2.5 9.2 & slit 1 0 be olled along the spu1N property +r 0 ILA 201 11 111 II 401 4 OM 1.3 16.0 m north r uau _Ipk. ! toe ( - -� _ % MIRAMONT P.U.D. 113 111.3o w 1.5 &1 ♦. Mr or p - f IN va stallM canner Man b kept 'n I g e `' -'��-, -- / 10S 2M 11a111,112,113,114 law a" 93 J&t d Must Nmo b rlppMy, Ialllny,m oU accplNle means ,1 0 - - ,. �- ` I � 201,205,401 5. All diet rb1d areas n t H roadways Nall hero sssa and crYnped mulch a 116 116 all 0.45 O.B 29 I 1 1! _ ® / 1©� ! �. 202 02 &64 0.45 ♦.4 17.0 M. strlisteilF p per eplciRcotion a Neel 5 control disturbed by L % • _ g ® I 302 118.202 2.15 Ol 5.1 0.3 •W Ion dl np b�lk4pt nproi•c(�d-p>-naWn cpntrd m•Nods _ uN sT]& - ... I �.T / • �-,. I{ mm N 6QbYe" �� �'1 302 11820230130 203 10.000.4] &a 3 O -. 40 202.20. use Al ]03 116.1,301, 11.27 0.48 9.9 J).2 _ • O. O uNh- .:.- i 302303 �i � � a site `•` !.. CONSTRUCTION BE - ,9 ,aa •�•All � mw w, t Well R BallInlet were �y aSrtaP/B.MnI Ra silt e Re 4 r \\ � •_ dl "" - ,_ aH •r-]- - 1 - I` �4H - � � I•hew 20111.62,23000.233,02330W,3. 0350,1J�,3 001,2 1208 Cl 10.8 41.1 15 116,202,203,J01,30z 16.30.3 1&9 5&a 6TA 1101101.21122.112354.116.4.25 0.51 3.0 147. I -a. -. 1♦ fn, D AC g O' O.- _ I i' k404 J042. ZIO33,.110 ,♦3,0105. . Illy 105.4401 0.404 , 1.41 051.9 .J t • - 00 416 110,111,112,113,114.116 46.25 0.51 W.3 157.8 •-•'' \\ 102 - O_ _ -*Y� 201.202,2M.205,301, THE RAMPARTS A7 % - 4DZID3.lw.lD&1o6 __• e3� < • '. \ e uH sr3 a \ WHAMONT PUA. ,0 401404416 - b•, _ °1 412 412 1J503z 10 3.9 • ' w`'7 e`\:]. T" - T�.} tlJ 41 413 J.Sfi 0.35 3.6 14.4 W w . •A'- _ . _T6^w _ _ ��\ •r.� ?I - NJ 417 WEW OVF%10W (SEE Shell 5 21' RCP � �� 'mod �+• - - Y - "S i- . •I , .L .� . , 'n -'�� ___ `�! - fl ter - 4;- - ' �• • I \ Cue pralfT xa WowATICk iWE ] �! + �/ tune, OF CaauOG -el �+ 1 8800 92201987 / ��, - - r�s � -870 _ W e.W +e � 1 1s s� . b 4 T N1 V I. _... ! fi3. . -1 .'::- � �. -_. r- �:�.. ; •. '... ,� $. FONT COLLINS - LOWLAND WATER DISTRICT * ;6,l• �.,� 2.811 L.P. SILT FENCE ` wee•wee.wal SW1H FIXii CIXLNS SANITATION DISTRICT UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL M ll Mli@ 7 V144AOE P U 0, � ) \ DATE _� APPROVED 5 FNOIl01 DAM III n City at Fort Collins, Colorado 64 I1SDiTY P APP V1L e/ d' dTr 1NTYPE APPROVED: _ �.... _._. I w ••'�'•'�•. -'�••� CHECKED BY: �Il, weir k ' ter nWilr Date CHECKED BY ,' 6LA.-�td'C l Bn lue Eg _ �nnwe• _ __ __ _____ 5brmpb WWy Orb .ccva e CHECKED BY: ... c.mee.e, We -� .. �I .- _ £ - N R - - STO u := PertekUp Deb W.mreh.aw.ePom T•,.pae,r S..e R.,,ne _ _- - _ "IC - CHECKED BY: 1+aWe,•/ame.W 60 ` PVC WATER MH ST % later WNITY q T PIPE 54e ST W ' CXECNED BY: v ` OW MAW IGICED SHEETS SHEET DEylaa DIEGKrtD Wine MIRAMONT VALLEY, P.U.D. _ AuDATE APPIIONO 8a DALE 5a TN RIPECL NO EpYr9TYp c�a e�bronro W/ Fen wele Wil WlWe Wsa be r, See Qhwem xKa.. All AI, SWI&I eY6l po..,uM meM„ fm/w-bxx Yu/ise-xxe FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 23 4 N0. BY DALE gENyON OESCRWl10N