HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 10/08/1998FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY MEDICINE P.U.D.
-�Lp 2 31998
Submitted to:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
September 17, 1998
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY MEDICINE P.U.D.
Submitted to:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
September 17, 1998
11
1
September 17, 1998
1
1
Mr. Basil Hamden
' City of Fort Collins Utilities
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
1
Re: Associates in Family Medicine P. U.D.
1 Project No. 10-899-000
Dear Mr. Hamden:
1 We are pleased to resubmit this Final Drainage Report for the Associates in Family
Medicine P.U.D. The report includes our evaluation of the proposed storm runoff
1 interception and conveyance facilities, detention analysis, and erosion control plan. This
submittal includes revisions based on the City's previous comments.
1 We believe this report meets the requirements for a final submittal and we look forward
to your review and comments. If you should have any questions please feel free to
contact us.
1 Sincerely,
1 TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS _
Gam" `w
Eric M. Fuhrman David B. Lindsay, P.E.
f:019
TSTINC.748
!
Consulting Engineers
Whalers Way — BuildingD
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 226-0557
102 Inverness Terrace East
Suite 105
Englewood, CO 80112
Metro Denver (303) 595-9103
(303) 792-0557
Fax (970) 226-0204
Fax (303) 792-9489
r�
u
1.0 Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pare
'
1.1 Scope and Purpose...............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location and Description.........................................................................
I
1.3 Previous Studies...................................................................................................1
2.0 Historic Conditions.........................................................................................................
3
3.0 Developed Conditions Plan............................................................................................
4
'
3.1 Design Criteria.....................................................................................................4
3.2 Drainage Plan Development.................................................................................
5
3.2.1 Street Capacity.........................................................................................
6
'
3.2.2 Inlet Analysis............................................................................................6
3.2.3 Storm Sewer Analysis...............................................................................
6
3.2.4 Swale Analysis and Design........................................................................
9
3.2.5 Detention Analysis and Design..................................................................
3.3 Erosion Control...................................................................................................
9
9
Fi ures
Figure1 - Vicinity Map............................................................................................................... 2
Tables
' Table 1 - Hydrologic Calculations Worksheet.............................................................................. 7
Table 2 - Summary of Attenuated Runoff.................................................................................... 8
Table 3 - Summary of Detention Analysis..................................................................................10
' Technical Appendices
Appendix A - Rational Method Analysis
Appendix B - Street Capacity Analysis
Appendix C - Inlet, Culvert, and Swale Analysis and Design
Appendix D - Detention Pond Analysis and Design
Appendix E - Riprap Design
Appendix F - Erosion Control
Appendix G - Seven Oaks P.U.D. Drainage Documentation
Sheets
Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
1 1.0
Introduction
1.1 Scone and Purpose
' This report presents the results of a final drainage evaluation for the Associates in Family
Medicine P.U.D. A hydrologic analysis of the proposed development plan was completed to
' determine the location and magnitude of the storm runoff. The hydrologic data was then used to
evaluate conveyance and detention facilities based on master planned release rates.
1.2 Proiect Location and Description
The Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D. is a proposed business site with three parking areas
and a detention pond. The site lies in the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The site is located
near the corner of Shields Street and Horsetooth Road. Specifically, the site is bounded to the
west by Richmond Drive, to the north by Seven Oaks Academy, to the east by Schrader's
Country Store and to the south by Horsetooth Road. A vicinity map illustrating the project
location is provided in Figure 1.
The Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D. consists of approximately 1.32 acres. The building is
' 8,230 square feet with no basement. Parking will be provided in the form of three separately
accessed parking areas. The access road to the north is private and will be maintained privately.
A proposed detention pond on the East Side of the property covers 0.17 acres.
' 1.3 Previous Studies
The "Final Drainage Report for the Seven Oaks P.U.D." (Water, Waste & Land, Inc., December
15, 1994 was reviewed prior to the preparation of this report. Pertinent information from that
report is referenced in this report.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
■MUMME
s e
ROAD
IIHARMONY
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1" = 2000'
2
zo
' Historic Conditions
The site currently is being used for the stockpiling of excess material from the development of the
lots in the Seven Oaks P.U.D. This excess material will be used as fill material on this project or
removed from the site as required. The runoff from the site currently sheet flows from west to
east, discharges onto the street and is then conveyed to an existing detention facility in the Seven
Oaks P.U.D. north of the private road. Runoff is then conveyed to an existing 36" storm pipe on
the western side of Shields Street and then east, all within the Foothills Basin.
3
10
Developed Conditions Plan
3.1 Desian Criteria
The drainage system presented in this report has been developed in accordance with the criteria
established by the City of Fort Collins. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction
Standards Manual (SDDC) dated May 1984 and revised in January 1991. Where applicable,
design guidelines and information were also obtained from the Denver Regional Council of
Government Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM).
Developed condition hydrology was evaluated based on the 2-year and 100-year storm
frequencies as dictated by Table 3-1 of the SDDC manual. Detention of developed flows from
this site is required by the Basin Master Plan. Historic runoff computations were not necessary,
as a release rate of the 2-yr historic had been previously calculated as part of the Seven Oaks
P.U.D. drainage report.
Because of the limited size of the subbasins on the site, the Rational Method was selected to
calculate runoff. The Rational Method utilizes the SDDC manual equation:
Q = CCfIA
where Q is the flow in cfs, C is the runoff coefficient, Cf is the storm frequency coefficient, I is the
rainfall intensity in inches per hour, and A is the total area of the basin in acres. The runoff
coefficient, C, was calculated from Table 3-3 of the SDDC manual based on the proposed
developed condition land use. A composite runoff coefficient was calculated for each sub -basin
based on the percentage of impervious surface (C = 0.95) and pervious surface (C = 0.25). Cf
was taken from Table 34 of the SDDC manual and was determined to be 1.0 for the 10-year
storm and 1.25 for the 100-year storm. The appropriate rainfall intensity was taken from the
rainfall intensity duration curve in Figure 3-1 of the SDDC manual. To obtain the rainfall
intensity, the time of concentration had to be determined. The following equation was utilized to
determine the time of concentration:
tc= ti+ tt
where t� is the time of concentration in minutes, t; is the initial or overland flow time in minutes,
' and t, is the travel time in the gutter in minutes. The initial or overland flow time was calculated
with the SDDC manual equation:
4
Iti = [1.87(1.1 - CC&O3i/(S)0.33
' where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average
basin slope in percent, C is the composite runoff coefficient, and G is the storm frequency
coefficient. The formula limits the product of CG to 1.0 and when the product exceeds this value
' 1.0 is used in its place. Gutter (or channel) travel times were determined by calculating the flow
velocity within the conveyance element assuming a flow depth equivalent to a minor storm. The
' travel time was then determined by dividing the gutter flow length by the velocity. This procedure
for computing time of concentration allows for overland flow as well as travel time for runoff
collected in streets, gutters, channels, or ditches. After the peak runoff was calculated, attenuated
runoff was calculated. This was done by combining all contributing areas upstream of a given
design point. The time of concentration for the design point was taken as the greatest time of all
the contributing subbasins.
3.2 Drainage Plan Development
' The proposed drainage plan consists of a combination of overland flow and gutter flow. The
runoff will sheet flow across landscaped areas, common areas and parking lots, then concentrate
at gutters and in the detention pond. Gutter flow in streets will be collected via an ongrade inlet
and a curb opening at the low point, then conveyed to the pond via a storm sewer or swale.
Subbasins were delineated based on the proposed grading to determine the flow through various
design points. Final grading and basin delineation are shown on the Final Grading and Drainage
' Plan sheets which can be found in the back of this report.
Subbasin Al, on the southeast portion of the site, is graded to accommodate a detention pond,
with most of the site runoff being directed through this pond prior to discharge to the existing
detention pond in the Seven Oaks P.U.D. Flow in Subbasin Al will sheet flow across the
detention pond to the orifice outlet with a 100-yr peak discharge of 0.39 cfs.
Subbasin A2 includes the main parking lot in the center of the site. Flow will sheet flow across
the parking area to the gutter on the east side and then through a curb cut discharging into the
' detention pond (Subbasin Al). The 100-yr peak attenuated discharge for this subbasin is 4.31 cfs.
' Subbasin A3 includes the area in the southwest portion of the site. It was delineated to determine
the flow through the 6" PVC sidewalk culvert. A small grass lined swale will convey flow around
the building, through the culvert, and onto Subbasin A2. The flow then discharges into the south
gutter of the main parking area through a curb cut. The 100-yr peak discharge for this basin is
0.95 cfs.
' Subbasin A4 includes the northwest parking lot and area of the site. The flow from the parking
lot enters the south gutter of the private drive and flows to the ongrade inlet at DP4. The inlet
discharges via a 12" storm sewer into the detention pond. The 100-yr peak discharge for this
basin is 2.56 cfs, with the inlet intercepting 1.92 cfs. The remaining 0.64 cfs sheet flows through
the drive access into Subbasin A2 and through the curb cut into the detention pond.
5
' Subbasin OS 1 includes the parking lot in the northeast portion of the site. This subbasin releases
undetained to the existing Seven Oaks P.U.D. detention pond with a 100-yr peak discharge of
0.42 cfs. To allow for this undetained release, an equivalent area from a Seven Oaks P.U.D.
drainage basin is being redirected into the Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D. detention pond.
This area is a portion of Subbasins A2 & A4 (from the crown of the private drive to the south
' flowline) that overlaps Basin D of the Seven Oaks P.U.D. drainage report. The overlap area, with
a 100-yr peak discharge of 0.42 cfs, is being redirected into the onsite pond as part of Subbasins
A2&A4.
' The results of the Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis can be found in Table 1 with the
' methodology of calculations shown in Appendix A. Table 2 shows the results of the runoff
attenuation described previously.
3.2.1 Street Capacity
Street encroachment criteria for the streets was taken from Table 4-1 (minor storm) and Table 4-2
(major storm) of the SDDC. On the private street, the crown is not located in the center of the
drive, but more toward the Associates in Family Medicine site. The private drive 100-year flow
depth was restricted to the crown to keep the runoff onsite. Due to this restriction, the 10-year
' and 100-year capacities are the same. The street meets these requirements and will function
below the allowable capacities. The results of the Street Capacity Analysis with supporting
calculations are presented in Appendix B.
3.2.2 Inlet Design
Curb openings, an ongrade inlet, and a sidewalk culvert were used to convey 100-yr. runoff to the
detention pond. A 1' curb opening was used at the southwest corner of the main parking lot to
release runoff from the small grass swale south of the building onto the south gutter of the
' parking lot. A second 4' curb opening was needed to release the runoff from the main parking lot
to the detention pond. A 6" PVC culvert at Design Point 3 was used to convey runoff under the
sidewalk. A 10' ongrade inlet was used at Design Point 4 to intercept 75% of the flow on the
private drive. The results of the Inlet & Culvert Analysis with supporting calculations are
presented in Appendix C.
3.2.3 Storm Sewer Design
' An existing 8" PVC storm sewer line currently extends from an existing pond north of the private
drive to the project site. The proposed design calls for the extension of this 8" storm line to a
headwall at the detention pond. This storm line was to designed to carry the 2-year historic rate
' of 0.39cfs per the Seven Oaks P.U.D. drainage report. A 12" RCP storm sewer line will run from
the 10' inlet at Design Point 4 into the onsite detention pond. Maintenance of the storm sewers is
the responsibility of the property owners. Supporting documentation is provided in Appendix C,
' with Seven Oaks P.U.D. drainage documentation in Appendix G.
0
ERN ME
O
O
C
P
N
C
1111'1"
Immlimm'
11111111
�17
61-r4 fVI IOICI I
O
O
r
dInINIHI inl�l
tlInO1-I-AN.;I 1r_ In
N
ri j �OINI INI ININ
U {i
W
c `$
Q
_
P
Q
4
`
O
O
O 8
Sri
v,
vi d
--
NEM
r
a
v;
a
-
oA^�
Ua
g
ssa
M A b
h
r b
n u
n n n
30pO0
q�
M E
ppp777
ME
22 O
0
0
U
�4
y O
CQ�
_0.
a
t:R1
I
1 3.2.4 Swale Design and Analysis
Swales were needed to convey runoff from the parking area to the detention pond at Design Point
2 and around the south side of the building in Subbasin A3. At Design Point 2, a swale with a 3'
bottom and 4H:1 V side slopes was calculated with the analysis. Resulting velocities for this swale
' show a need for riprap from the curb cut to the pan in the bottom of the detention pond. For
Subbasin A3, a vee-notched swale with 4H:1 V side slopes was calculated. The results of the
Swale Analysis with supporting calculations are presented in Appendix C, with the riprap
' calculations in Appendix E.
' 3.2.5 Detention Pond Analysis
The analysis for the onsite detention pond.yielded a required capacity of 6307 cubic feet. An
' elevation of 5081.00 was needed for the 100-year water surface from the existing detention pond
to the north that our site will outlet into. Using 8:1 and 4:1 side slopes and a depth of 1.3 feet,
the necessary storage volume was obtained, making the 100-year water surface elevation 5082.30.
' 0.7 feet of freeboard remain in the pond. Table 3 shows the mass balance values and required
detention volumes. To release at the 2-year historic 0.9 cfs rate determined by the Seven Oaks
P.U.D. Drainage Report, an orifice plate with a 4" diameter opening was calculated_. Appendix D
' contains calculations supporting the acquired detention volumes and orifice size.
3.3 Erosion Control
During construction sediment will be contained on site with gravel filters over the pond outlet
pipes and with silt fence adjacent to areas that drain offsite without passing through the ponds.
' Additional measures will be used upstream in the basins by installing gravel filters over all of the
curb openings and straw bale check dams will be installed in the swale to the south. It is
anticipated that once the building is complete, an irrigation system will be installed and the
common areas sodded. If there is to be a delay in the construction of the building, the disturbed
areas will be reseeded and mulched. Erosion of soils in the onsite channels and swales are not a
concern. Riprap needs to be placed in the area where the curb opening conveys runoff into the
' detention pond. Appendix E & F provide supporting calculations for the riprap protection and
erosion control methods.
1
9
1
A
O
1
1
1
1
(y C.
00
M
�O
00
M
►7 �.
N
N
000
�
-
m
a
r
N
��+
O'AO:
9
lrnrrn
rnrr
OM
p�333
y�
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.W.t.--.....:.'..........':
M
fV
M
0%
O
M
M
O
O
M
r
T
00
O
00
-t
M
'C
7
00
cG a'
7
r
00
00
(2
O�
C,
O�
A_
0 W 0^q
%0
00
O
tV
M-Rr
V'1
r
r.-
00
00
O
^�
a
v1
N
O
00
h
M
a
W
A
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
i/1
O
O
O
%O
O
M
O
�--.
O
O\
O
r
v)
�/1
O
[-
%M
to
et
m
M
N
c l
N
�.:
•:
. .:
.
o�
g.
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
V1
�o
r
00
0%
10
APPENDIX A
Rational Method Analysis
�
�
�
�
�
.. .
�
§
§
�
2
\
§
�
\
�
god
2
�
§
\
�
�
�
�
�
§l31/1§
ƒ2<<<
.
/\
[�§
C 3
�
& t
ƒ
\
§2
k
,
\
/
2
.
i
\\
2f �
�!
ƒs
2�
�J \
eJ
§k
�
))
$%
!>
q«
7%
!;
}�
|'
})
\�
7(
�§
k(\
§\)
z
No Text
No Text
TST, INC.
Cons ulting Engineers
.
CLIENT
-100
JOB NO.
PROJECT 550C 1 A or6S
CA111 Ky Plutckfac CALCULATIONS FOR ?
LL-4
MADE BY DATE
v CHECKED BY -DATE-
SHEET
OF
TC77
T -'.
N
-L, j,
r
f
8-1
T
11 1 1 1 1
T71
if 1,141
1 1 If
1 i
it 1-14
H
H
11
I I it I I I
fill
I III I I
1 1 1!!!! fill
It I I
z 71
SY
if I i
If I
I if! I i
F t-7 f tilt T
I r
.44'
ilII
I i 1 1
14 1 i I if
I I I 1 11 i
ill
ill
111111111 J!Ilil 11
1 fill i!ll IIIIIII
i1j;.111!
c7!l 11, 1 1 1 1
qp�
-T I I if
if I
if
i I it i 1 11 P
if I
-j L
I
T-1 7
—7-1
14
-7,
L
)it
f I if
It
--7
IT
H
11
G0507/3.84
DRAINAGE' CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
50
30
I•- 20
Z
W
U
oC
W `
a 10
Z
W
a
O 5
W
arc 3
O
U 2
W
Q
3 1
.5
ME
A
ON
- ��■
ear
�■■■■�
• / r
�■r�■�■���,■tri�
��■■r����■tom,
�I�o/I
III
■I.��/I
����■■■■®
I ���i�ri■�■■�ia����■■■■ems,
2 .3 .5 - 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING"UNDEVELOPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5-1-84
URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
TST, INC. ✓
Consulting Engineers p
CLIENT JOB NO. �O- 8/%—oOo
PROJECT / 1 SSDCrA S �'V �/!(�L� �YIF�• CALCULATIONS FOR
Ivl� 7 1? 9S?
MADE BY — DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET 4 OFOL
i
1 1 I
(�irxPosJrE 1 �u"A)vF,Jc��Jo'E/��ueNT
�I
.
,��'"
1 1 1
I
WAA t�4i��uvsy-•97`�
I ! ! I i I i 1
l
i I -/ I j
rr�ov"S.if
[ 1 '
_
I 1
r 1 I
i
L..L'
! ! I if
liffilli
by
i ', 1 ;
1 i' 1! It'll
I
f'
I i J
y%j-�
.�'
""�-•
i ! Iw 1 C . �'�3
� 9S .t._�Z,S =Z,7 ,;�/ %-�--
; O.-7b ' ,
!
!
: ! ! ! ! ! # r
_
e
�'
• -
i� 7 i i 1!
! t '! I 1!# !
1 I#
i !
i i i t �
���)
'U �S/�1i- I, ly��
e
,��C�i/,�i(7-$�">�',jS� j�G i2 ✓!O'(i"S i 1 -
I
1 I
I .i 1 1 ! !
,v,
I t I ! '
!
i If
I i
!
1"Ill!! fit it
!#
3 i! I
1!' i! i I I[
+ �y/,! Q�/�� ',J!, /fe,
/ ! tp' �/ I ! I ! ! iy �,' ' •', ! I .
(�G'FYIO�
f
I t
it
1 ! 1 i I
i
l 'r�
I
�
1, 1 i 1 I 7 #!! I!#!!
I 11 , I i I ! 1' !
;1
f S
It i
1
r! 1 '
'_ter•
I ; : ;
w�--e—• ,,{�--��!RS-'
!'!
,+ �G�Iz)C Z's-,-/;-i-ci-p.--8�
�
! !
, I .
_
t 1 !! !-+ ! !:
1
1,�������',
���
!;'I ;:
�,+
t I
I it
1111 I I it 11
}
I!r'.1
!
+ •; ' 1.1'
i
I �i/r�P��N?-�•�,r7/'�
l�PeRi�/Ud5-r
r-Z�- o #
!�E`R✓(�JS I !
�
I -_-
�__,.1--LL
'
�! '
_��Zsj � f� !
�,�s ! 1
'
1
1 >•--=
_(,7r�'
-
1!
it
I
';! I
I i
!
I
I! 1 ! i
1
fill
i l
i l
!! i! I t!
I I
if! !!
+ i
' 'r i t
, l l; i l
�I '
it I i l l
I I
if I
! I I i
I i
I
- 1
!
3
i'-
!_
1- -
I
T-»
I Iif
I I
i
,�t-J-1. - i -r-•' r.^ _ '_,
' ��'y'-
! 4 �I
1
1 1 t l 1
1 1 �I �""
!
,
1 ..-__.-L_. -
1_ 1��_
I a— I- _ T
1 1
'_ ' t 11.
-t -.
11 1 -
�__. _ .. - _
1
G050713.84
APPENDIX B
Street Capacity Analysis
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT —
PROJECT /�
MADE BY 421 F-
-7/,, /9,?
JOB NO. /� �y 0 ta
wiii -CALCULATIONS FOR FriCj4PAcrry
CHECKED BY —DATE SHEET OF -
1 it it I fit I I III 111 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 i
11 If I[
I
I
I I I
It
I
I I I It
i 1
..Iilli
I
1111
i
it
i I 1 7`1
lit if IIII 1! 11
I;It
Jill 51111ill
L 11 T 1 i I
I
I7 1
I
I t
7-1 1
Iif
I
it
Jill III
I I I
I 11 j
341
Jill
7Z-Z
If
+L, IIIIIIiii
III
till I
I�
1 11
111,'
T-I
it
fit:! III it I It
I
I I
mi
(I I I 1 11 1
P40 1 Z, I
. . - _
A I I ; 1
"_ — CTy
.1 1
-T; r
71 ; I
If
7T7
11 If
It I I
I H-T
I
Flni`�JH it I
,till It if
IIIIIIIII
fit fill Ilill 111
!till I If
1. 11
III!
+ '7
11 if I
PRI
L)
lt7z
I I
-T
- ii� v 6 - I I I-
7 —, , T
T -7 —1T I
I I ; I
! I i I I I . 1 1 1 1
tit
7-- 1 7.
if
!I
I.
Ili it IiiiIIIII
I I it 1:
Jill �Ii
Hill;
JF, -
1 If I I
f
fill
IIIIIi!Ji !I I I I !I
it it!.! 1�
it I it I fit!
III Illit
i�i
fill
I;il
I I I . I I I I I I I
111illilli I I [it; 1. fit it
!it if it 'I
It fit I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I if
11
1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1; 1 1
if t I ;I 1 11 lll',
!it it I
it
If!
72 T
i: It if I;i 1!-ii itilf I
Ir
J_
I, iI 1111i
It
17L
j
_L
it I
T7 T I LH-4-
it
T
7
L
1
1
[I
1
1
i
APPENDIX C
Inlet, Culvert, and Swale Analysis and Design
1
U]
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
11
CvR3 C07
IA7-b Per. rb Q p
1.0
12
5
I1
10
4
.9
8
3 -
.8
10
F.. 6
t-
9
0 4
U.
\
, 2
7
8
0: 3
���L .
/
z
1.5
a
��� -
..
6
7
�
/�
L
z
L .
l/' I L
1.0
•5
/
z
9
0
85.5
~
w
5
N
w
.'0
6
0
z
o
.7
W
.4
z_
z .4
w
_
z
—
4.5
z.
ao ,3
O
w
.6
_
r
LL
0 2
��l�rz CQ,�'3i L`
.5
z
4
r
SyrD'
W
.3
3.5
z
W
W
�.
.4
a
O
a
O
-, I
�
w
U.
O
rL
O
0 .08
F-
.25
3
o .06
(
3
x
co
x
co
U
z
w_
w
z .04
25.
25
°' .03
a
.2
�-
3
a .02
u.
0
2
2
a
x
t-
15
.01
a
�
15
L
O
o
--- --
-
-
-- --
Yo
1.5
It
'
a=2
.10
h
I
1.2
Figure 5-2
NOMOGRPAH FOR
CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS
IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads
Nomograph
MAY 19154
5-10
DESIGN CRITERIA
1.0 12
Cy.O.$ C vT
SW 69e1jr iR
'Pi4RKiNG c o 7-
5
11 10 4
9 8
3 -
10. ~ 6
o w 2
9 O 4
U. ILL
8 w 3 ���� z
vi 2' l -
6 7 \e P%��, �cwi
' .5----- _ — I.0
e=Part a J z
5.5 -- o
w z
6 w
w 5 U o
� .4 z z .4 f-
- _ W _
z 4.5 z o .3 w
L z o 95 c{s
4 ,� 2
z O F^
z z
z .3 z r7PcN� .
w 3.5 z z
w w
ao a I w
O W
W U- � .08
O
_ .25 3 = o .06 7 0
U z
w w m .04
29143
.2 °' .03 a
} 3 f..
.�`
Q o
02
2 a
a
15 .01 U-
�
O
Yo
1.5 M
a:2
1 1.2
1.5
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
V,
.4
.3
.25
2
15
am
. Figure 5-2
NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
11
I
I
I
CURRENT DATE: 07-13-1998
CURRENT TIME: 12:08:56
FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS
HY-8, VERSION 4.0
G/�fc ✓ERT UNI7c�
PJAcKw,4y /
FILE DATE: 07-13-1998
FILE NAME: MISC
C
SITE DATA
CULVERT
SHAPE,
MATERIAL,
INLET
U
L
INLET
OUTLET CULVERT
BARRELS
_.
V
ELEV.
ELEV. LENGTH
SHAPE
SPAN
RISE
MANNING
INLET
(FT)
(FT) (FT)
MATERIAL
(FT)
(FT)
n
TYPE
1
85.93
85.83 6.00
1-Rep ?✓c-
0.50
0.50
.011
CONVENTIONAL
2
3
4
5
6
FILE: MISC
CULVERT HEADWATER
ELEVATION (FT)
DATE: 07-13-1998
DISCHARGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
ROADWAY
0
85.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.70
0
86.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.74
JICAu -:> 0
86.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.76
195 1
86.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.77
1
86.92.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.79
1
87.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.80
1
87.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.82
1
88.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.83
2
88.93
0.00
0.00
�' 0.00
0.00
0.00
86.84
2
89.80
0:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.85
2
91.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.87
2
91.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The above
Q and
HW are for
a point
above the roadway.
2
■
CURRENT
DATE: 07-13-1998
FILE DATE: 07-13-1998
CURRENT
TIME: 12:08:56
FILE NAME: MISC
PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR
CULVERT # 1 -
1 ( .5
BY .5
) RCP
DIS-
HEAD-
INLET
OUTLET
CHARGE
WATER CONTROL
CONTROL
FLOW
NORMAL
CRITICAL
OUTLET
TAILWATER
FLOW
ELEV.
DEPTH
DEPTH
TYPE
DEPTH
DEPTH
VEL.
DEPTH
VEL. DEPTH
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
<F4>
(ft)
(ft)
(fps)
(ft)
(fps)
(ft)
'
0
85.93
0.00
0.00
0-NF
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
86.25
0.32
0.32
1-S2n
0.16
0.22
3.34
0.17
1.16
0.21
.-=-5p0
86.43
0.50
0.50
1-S2n
0.24
0.32
3.92
0.26
1.38
0.27
1
86.63
0.70
0.70
5-S2n
0.31
0.39
4.35
0.33
1.53
0.31
1
86.92
0.99
0.99
5-S2n
0.38
0.44
4.68
0.41
1.64
0.35
1
87.19
1.26
1.06
6-FFn
0.50
0.48
4.84
0.50
1.71
0.37
1
87.75
1.82
1.47
6-FFn
0.50
0.50
6.11
7.13
0.50
0.50
1.82
1.89
0.41
0.43
1
88.28
2.35
1.85
6-FFn
0.50
0.50
2
88.93
3.00
2.29
6-FFn
0.50
0.50
8.15
0.50
1.95
0.45
2
89.80
3.87
2.80
6-FFn
0.50
0.50
9.17
0.50
2.01
0.47
2
91.08
5.15
3.36
6-FFn
0.50
0.50
10.19
0.50
2.07
0.49
El. inlet face
invert
85.93 ft
El. outlet
invert
85.83
ft
El. inlet throat invert
0.00 ft
El. inlet crest
0.00
ft
***** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT INVERT **************
INLET STATION (FT)
6.00
INLET ELEVATION (FT)
85.93
OUTLET STATION (FT)
0.00
OUTLET ELEVATION (FT)
85.83
NUMBER OF BARRELS
1
SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT)
0.0167
CULVERT LENGTH ALONG
SLOPE (FT)
6.00
***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY
************************
BARREL SHAPE
CIRCULAR
BARREL DIAMETER
0.50 FT
BARREL MATERIAL
comeREqEff }plii
BARREL MANNING'S N
0.011
INLET TYPE
CONVENTIONAL
INLET EDGE AND WALL
SQUARE EDGE WITH
HEADWALL
_ INLET DEPRESSION
NONE
I
3
VCURRENT DATE: 07-13-1998
CURRENT TIME: 12:08:56
TAILWATER
FILE DATE: 07-13-1998
FILE NAME: MISC
*******
REGULAR
CHANNEL CROSS SECTION ****************
SIDE SLOPE H/V (X:1)
4.0 _
CHANNEL
SLOPE V/H (FT/FT)
0.016
'
MANNING'S N (.01-0.1)
0.035
CHANNEL
INVERT ELEVATION (FT)
85.83
CULVERT
NO.1 OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION
85.83 FT
*******
UNIFORM
FLOW RATING CURVE FOR DOWNSTREAM
CHANNEL
FLOW
W.S.E.
FROUDE
DEPTH
VEL.
SHEAR
'
(CFS)
(FT)
NUMBER
(FT)
(FPS)
(PSF)
0.00
85.83
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
86.04
0.449
0.21
1.16
0.21
0.40
86.10
0.469
0.27
1.38
0.27
0.60
86.14
0.481
0.31
1.53
0.31
0.80
86.18
0.490
0.35
1.64
0.35
0.95
86.20
0.495
0.37
1.71
0.37
1.20
86.24
.0.503
0.41
1.82
0.41
1.40
86.26
0.507
0.43
1.89
0.43
1.60
86.28
0.512
0.45
1.95
0.45
�.
1.80
86.30
0.515
0.47
2.01
0.47
2.00
86.32
0.519
0.49
2.07
0.49
ROADWAY OVERTOPPING DATA
ROADWAY SURFACE
EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH (FT)
' CREST LENGTH (FT)
OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION (FT)
PAVED
6.00
10.00
86.70
ST-z
aP- H
'
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
USER:TST Inc Consulting Engineers ............................................
ON DATA 09-16-1998 AT TIME 16:21:12 VERSION=07-17-1995
*** PROJECT TITLE :Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D.
i***
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 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 5082.30 5082.30
OK
2.00 27.54 3214.35 0.07 1.92 5083.40 5082.41
OK
3.00 13.77 1324.91 0.14 1.92 5083.40 5082.43
OK
'
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85
------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING_
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
I---- ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
(FT)
------------------------- -------------
12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND B.82 15.00 12.00
0.00
23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 8.82 15.00 12.00
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 Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 1.9 4.4 0.46 5.39 0.59 3.99 2.44 1.59
V-OK
23.0 1.9 4.4 0.46 5.39 0.59 3.99 2.44 1.59
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 1.50 5081.03 5080.00 1.37 1.30 OK
23.00 1.50 5081.03 5081.01 1.37 1.39 OK
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00 68.84
68.84 5082.03 5081.00 5082.41 5082.30
PRSS'ED
23.00 1.00
1.00 5082.03 5082.01 5082.43 5082.41
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
FACTION 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 5082.50
0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
5082.30
23.0 3.00 5082.52
0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00
5082.50
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.
No Text
Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D.
Swale - Subbasin A3
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE = 6.100000E-01 CFS Quo
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED SLOPE = 1.250000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02 -
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH = 3.300631E-01 FT
FLOW VELOCITY = 1.399169 FPSt--p0
HYDR. DEPTH = 1.651097E-01 FT
TOP WIDTH = 2.640505 FT
FROUDE NUMBER = 6.068146E-01
SPECIFIC ENERGY= 3.604617E-01 FT
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE = 9.500000E-01 CFS `` �oo
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED _SLOPE = 1.250000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH = 3.897194E-01 FT
FLOW VELOCITY = 1.563196 FPS -�- Pk> RiP;ZAP
HYDR. DEPTH = 1.949252E-01 FT
TOP WIDTH = 3.117755 FT`
FROUDE NUMBER. = 6.239524E-01 Q 33
SPECIFIC ENERGY= 4.276632E-01 FT /
v .n
•� n�uo
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE = 1.260000 CFS E-- /.33tc �ioo
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED SLOPE = 1.250000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH = 4.332599E-01 FT
FLOW VELOCITY = 1.677637 FPS F0o RiPXAP
HYDR. DEPTH = 2.166877E-01 FT
TOP WIDTH = 3.466079 FT
FROUDE NUMBER 6.351157E-01
SPECIFIC ENERGY= 4.769627E-01 FT
Associates in Family Medicine P.U.D.
Swale from curb cut at DP2
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE =
2.270000
CFS --(,-- Q,p
BOTTOM WIDTH =
3.000000
FT
BED SLOPE =
2.500000E-01
FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE =
4.000000
MANNINGS N =
3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
1.302496E-01
FT
FLOW VELOCITY =
4.948568
FPS
HYDR. DEPTH =
1.134881E-01
FT
TOP WIDTH =
4.041997
FT
FROUDE NUMBER =
2.588668
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
5.105031E-01
FT
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE =
4.310000
.CFS4-- CQjoo
BOTTOM WIDTH =
3.000000
FT
BED SLOPE
2.500000E-01
FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE =
4.000000
MANNINGS N =
3.500000E-02
RESULTS: .
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
=
_
=
1.877183E-01 FT
6.120149 FPS
APPENDIX D
Detention Pond Analysis and Design
MI2IC°IIISOIMlol�112-II�IMISOI_
raiI C., 1.0 l %C N %C r- t, 11 r l %D 'r C
N I MIS ICI OBI O I 0.I� 100
OIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO
�I�I�I�I�I�IaIaI�I60% 0%
C r- O� 00 O 00 O to � O P
„I�I�If.,ININININII_I..hI...
O O 7 O% %n eV O = %O fn
rI!III0IrIfn1NININI_IrI_I^
SInIcIOMIiIFISIR I ^
u
y F yy
q � y
j;z0
F uu w
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
- CLIENT JOB NO. /f) -s5p,9-000
PROJECT r'YCALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
t_E3p1--
l
5I��7
I4A4l OiWAR4
I
_ZY171
I I
. _1 *
I i1r-T7 7F'
1 — it
I I I I T1 I 177
1
01 lilt I I I
d
-i
it I
if
111111
lilt
f
f 1
11
-77-i I
I
If
T I
1 1 1 1
III
lit I I
11 f 1 it it it I
4! !fit it
it
it I T
:if
1.1
it
1, 1 1, 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 i;
it
1 1
f
it I
! I it
If I I i i I
I i M
It !;it
F1 T
I If I I I
1111 it it I ifl..11
I I7lillill!i1i
IiIii I I
if fill!l l?!
If
I.illi! I
fit Ii 1
11 1111,1
[it
it
1 11!111 ;1
I It if. ill
Ili I III
I illil Ill
lilti+
If I if lilill
I I
I if
I
I
I I I I I I lilt
I I I I !
Ili]
If Ili) If If! 11 1 ii!I
I I If I I
Ill 11r
ilt
till
It
Y,
TF!
Ilitil it .11
1;I_ 'tit
Ili 11
1
11 it l"iii
if
I lilt
I I I I I fit 1
I I !!if lilt
liflill! Ill( "I�� if[ I
fill A
I-1,EJ
1 11 L
I I
J
[I it ' i
-TF ii
I it
z
4j-
-4- -T
it _T77-1
L
-7/; /Z 1' 3
-"j
j_
T_
G0507/3-84
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
- CLIENT -
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
-71P
MADE BY 1, 1�.
DATE CHECKED BY
JOB NO, 14-
2
R'l P-7eF 1-9
,z.4 7fr
E_ SHEET -OF
1 A
I I lilt I
I I
J
I
cj%
I
ok
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 if I
T I
I I
I
I I I I
Ill If
t 1111111
lit Ililil I
fill
I, ;Ilii
'fill
i uz—1
fill
I Ti
I 17 i i I
fill; ilt!l
it 11
It
1 lifli I
T_rT
till; III
s.
H
I it
I
i
+ 711-71 �H
I �1/,, I j- _L LI
L�_,4_f/ I fYr
IT
ff I
it I I I I I
ill if
till
Ill
IIIIIIIIIII
"IfIll
I
till
If;
!till
It
if 1 —1
1
I
lit
Im,
t
liffit
t I
I lilt
I I
I If
I
I
I
iltill
Of
!I
I'lit
I till 11
!Iilil
it
I
I
fill If 11111.11i
I lilt
j;
it;
if I it
It I
I if
I I I I
;I
fill 11111
if 3:
fill,
lit
lilt ItIllilitill
ill
I
llilil
I
lilt! ill�
f:,l
if
Ifillif
Ill
Ill
I I
I lilt
it
I
I
Ill
If:
11
it i:
_/A �wt
I
it iti.vl
11!;:�
iilltli 11
fill
till
11 1 till
11 litilli ff is
it
it I I
I fill
11
it —I
I I I
I I I
I
[till
lilt
_4
it If.-4-
it
Yi -4-4-4
I
If I
_44;
-IL 4,
T 7
it
I
L
I T,
I
G0507/3 84
APPENDIX E
Riprap Design
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT
JOB NO. / 0' lJ / / OD 0
PROJECT e4S5 G- I,� /�i (%��:�y l/.rOeiliC CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY"DATE 5� / "7U CHECKED BY
jr -I
DATE
SHEET / OF�
�' _�-
fit
�Tr,
r I
fill
' I
f
I !
lilt
1 i
lilt
I
Hi
i if
_!J IU IfTHM
6:1
+I I
.—�NE..P' a^t'i_i_
�_ �f
t
III
I t I A
I I
i If
!
II
ti+it
!i! I
S#
I
I
? =
+ i f��• i i I
C zinl ed
!
!
11
, it !
Ililt
1(
P
!
!% /�(_ �T_;_,•/U6!C
l�+ll'L
_.lt.I�l.�l
l
I I
I• I
I ! 1 1!
it 1!
! 1 i i
f
i!
i 1 f#!
i
I
T
i yr ;
lilt
I !
I I it I '
-{
0.',1J!
, s !
I ; ill
1
I
+ I
�i I
! ' i , !
i'I L i� r+�
'3/ •-;--..-� 1111
I ! J I
II�{
1 I I 1
'
—MI
I f ! 1
(Om
+!
I, t k I 7 fit
.
� (
I
:PrA-
';
!+I
#I
! 1 ! !
I;1
! !
,II �!�t
+ 1 1 f 1
J
�l
i ! Ill
��N�c�'n��S�•',�%5X;/2�!+�;Z�I
+ I t 1
-�--�
•
��
_ ,
i!
i 11
1
I i :' i+
1 ,! i i!
1
I i I
I i I
I lilt
I I , I''!
i! i ,' i! �_,
i' I
1 f 1�
1 t- I i I
, i !! ! I I
! ' I'
hI ' # „__!_ j
I Y it I' e
1_ Ili_I
i
1 1 1 7 1
1
I I I
t +
I i
+, ! 1,{
•' i i 7'
' f�i ;;
11111
lill—illf
fill
!ill
i t
I
!
I !, !
1 t! {
+ I
{
I
_+ -!
fill ' i i
1
1
1
! j
it
lilt
_j_._ i
, I i
li!!IIII
1 1i f 1!
! 1 1 i 1
i !
fill
, i i! I
I
I i 1! -7 , 1 1 7 ! ! liltI I I
1
r-M
It
it
1
1
! t
1 T�
I, 1! I +
i i t I 4 i
_ i : 1 1 + , —? i���7----i��—'!}—�-}--i—i' + + —+—Jr—j -'�—•—"
it
-Y (
If
t
rat _ . .. _
Jill
if
I
G0507f3.84
Table 8-1 lists several gradations of riprap. The minimum average size designation for loose riprap
shall be 12 inches. Smaller sizes of riprap shall be either buried on slopes which can be easily
maintained (4 to 1 minimum side slopes) or grouted if slopes are steeper. Grouted riprap should meet
' all the requirements for regular riprap except that the smallest rock fraction (smaller than the 10 per-
cent size) should be eliminated from the gradation. A reduction of riprap size by one size designation
(from 18 inches to 12 inches or from 24 inches to 18 inches) is permitted for grouted riprap.
' Table 8-1
CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP
% of Total Weight
Smaller than the Stone Size dsot
Riprap Designation Given Sae (in pounds) (inches)
70-100 85
Class 6 tt 50-70 35
35-50 10 6
2-10 <1
'
70-100 440
Class 12 50-70 275
35-50 85 12
2-10 3
100 1275
Class 18 50-70 655
35-50 275 18
2-10 10
100 3500
Class 24 50-70 1700
35 50 655 24
2-10 35 '7
t dso = Mean Particle Size. At least 50 percent of the mass shall be stones equal to or larger than this dimension.
tt Bury on 4 to 1 side slopes or grout rock i1 slopes are steeper.
'
Table 8-2 summarizes riprap requirements for a stable channel lining based on the following
relationship:
VS0.n
(d5o)0' (S�69 = 5.8
in which, V = Mean channel velocity in feet per second
S = Longitudinal channel slope in feet per foot
Ss =Specific gravity of rock (minimum SS=2.50)
dso = Rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller. .
The rock sizing requirements in Table 8-2 are based on the rock having a specific gravity of 2.5 or
more. Also, the rock size does not need to be increased for steeper channel side slopes, provided the
side slopes are no steeper than 2h:1v. Rock lined side slopes steeper than 2h:1v are not
recommended.
Table 8-2
RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL LININGS tt
'
vgo.is/(S'- 1)o.ee t Rock Type tt
0 to 1.4 No Riprap Required
1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 Riprap
4.1 to 5.8 Class 12 Riprap
5.9 to 7.1 Class 18 Riprap
7.2 to 8.2 Class 24 Riprap
t Use S, = 2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design.
tt Table valid only for Froude number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no steeper than 2h:1 v.
MAY 1964 8-18 DESIGN CRITERIA
APPENDIX F
Erosion Control
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: A5s-ociwae-s & 10,51,nic/ 1';Wo'cwc STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: 0-A DATE: 7-
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBA§IN.
ZONE
(ac)
(ft)
(%)
(feet)
M
M
0,46
.77-3
60,1
i-A SN
C--
MARCH 1991 B-14 DESIGN CRITERIA
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: AJS46I,4,re5 /� r�,1lcy/ i'"(EOtLI/�E STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: DATE:
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
go -.
SILT rrEn�cE 1. �o p,5o
?RV6W c1vT
�ESEE�/j✓IJCCN D.vG / OO
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
�{)7a PAu� I� � �/P SCd� . I ZSa1• �E$YE'D
97
/o(.)-y0 5'LT FNCE
MARCH 1991
B•15
DESIGN CRITERIA
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT
JOB NO. /0 000
PROJECT 450C-11 A TES I Pi 160 UNN-f CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY DN DATE CHECKED ByDATESHEET --/—OF
11
7- -T-1— -r-
1 i F i 77717
J—' L
it
-44
CA
I Ati-,
11 1 1 It
it I i i T
#
79A
bur
Z
Li
11
i I I j r
1
t
ji 111 Ill I- 1 1
ililll
It ti it lj 11 1 1': 1
1
M-7
t1TI
A-efr=
-17
_H'
I I it I -�
R1111 Ill f
till;
Ili
I I I I I I
4t
tom„ 7--c-
FT
t
I I I it i I
;t It I It
Ill! ll� it
it i I I
T
I I -I —I,
I T I
-e
I I i i 17 I! T
4- 4'
-F Wi -tiaF- 71-7 - -
-4-
-T —77
5 14 1 1 �T- �iFll T
ti-T
77 ------- T--r-, T-- -,-FF
L--LL 11
l4
; - ; -4
:4-4 1 117 1
4�
Ij
-4 1 I 1111HI 1-711
L _I
ff i
1 1
T
7]' T
4 F7
!il3ll L
t
-J ---- — f
4
7
F7
A—L
it
it-
1-4
T
m G0507/3-84
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 5-3. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT: ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY MEDICINE P.U.D. STANDARD FORM C
SEQUENCE FOR: 1998 COMPLETED BY: SAS DATE: May 7, 1998
Indicate by use of bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major
modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the
City Engineer.
YEAR
1998
MONTH
1
2
3
4
5
6
OVERLOT GRADING
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughing
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Sift Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temp. Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/M ats/B la nkets
Other
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: CONTRACTOR
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DECIDED BY BID
DATE SUBMITTED: 5/7/98 APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX G
' Seven Oaks P. U.D. Drainage Documentation
II
11
1
I
F
L
FINAL
DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT
17
FOR
SEVEN OAKS P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
`
Prepared for:
Mr. Larry Neal
Seven Oaks Academy of Fort Collins
1600 Specht Point Drive
i
Fort Collins, CO 80525
1
Prepared by:
'
Water, Waste & Land, Inc.
2629 Redwing Road, Suite 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526,,,,,
sT
•��QJ•,t��1' ••
��4
• •
REVISED: ,oNA` •• �E�:•'0���
q••....
December 15, 1994
TF
�F CO��q•�°r
1..
I
-- — - - -- — - — - — - — - — -�P
, I
C'M'021 .000 133Yus scmu5 winos;
1 1
1 I
I
-- — — — --
I
z I
I , I o o}
`..•' I � I P ' i
co
0
1
I
1
a
II
,I
I
,
0
--
`�
�/
m
`I
N
Q
Q
C
m
a
I
Q
Z
Q
Z
(A
II I I
I
C
C
Z i 1
1
I
I
I
1
I 1
I
,
I
I
_�I 1
IF
II
I
1
I
I
I 1
1
,
1
I
I I
1
1
1
,
I
1 I
1
I
1
,
1
,
I i
i
n
I
00 N
O N � �-+ N
O
r-: t-: N cV vi
11,
w
`cn
enC140000 N
a
y,
N N N N N
t-: t-: t-: t-: t-:
O
.y
r..
(V
C
In In Nq
N
c�
ca
O O O O O
`
O O O O O
O
r
U
C
O
U
en o 0 0 0
Q
N
N N N N N
E
E"
F
00 0 0 0
U
C
H r- CA N �
C C
`r
U
U
U
�-
N N N N N
=
N
G O C C O
'U
cn 00
ei0i �O
enn� r
Q
t�
72
c ..
p C
.� •c
Q Ca = ;
�Q
The required capacity for Detention Ponds A and B were established based on a mass
' balance for each pond using the post -development runoff coefficients for Basins A and
B-C with the 100-year storm event and the allowable release rates for each basin as
detailed in the paragraph above. Tabular representations of the mass balances are
I' presented in Appendix I. Based on these estimates the maximum storage required in
Detention Pond A and Pond B is 8,125 and 12,500 cubic feet, respectively. The
storage volume provided in ponds A and B is 8,200 and 12,929 cubic feet.
respectively.
'
A mass balance of the tributary areas to Detention Pond B (Basins B, D and E) for the
100-year was used to establish the allowable release rate at the primary
storm event
spillway from Pond B (Design Point B). Based on the criteria that the water from these
-
basins (the historic 2-year discharge from Basin E and undetained from Basin D) will
replace the storm drainage from Basin C. A release rate of 0.9 cfs will pond
approximately 4.5 feet of water equal to an average volume stored of 12,600 cubic
-
feet over 45 minutes exceeding the require storage of 12,450 cubic feet.
The primary spillway structures for both detention ponds will consist of an orifice plate
-
constriction bolted to a PVC pipe which will convey the released flows to the south
gutter of Richmond Drive or to the curb inlet and 15" RCP pipe. The capacity of the
6 and 8 inch PVC pipes in ponds A and B, respectively, were evaluated and found to
carry flows greater than the allowable discharge. Thus, an orifice was necessary to
y:
constrict flows to the allowable discharge rate. The diameter of the orifice openings
were established using conventional methods with the elevation head set at the height
of the emergency spillway. Calculations for the discharge estimates are detailed in
Appendix I. The emergency spillway for Pond A will be the east parking lot entrance
ramp at elevation 5081.75. The emergency spillway for Pond B will be the low area
on the pond berm to the east of the primary soillwav at elevation 5080.S. Emergency
1
overflows from Pond B will flow into the existing 4 foot curb inlet and t e 1 RCP
pipe outlet.
_
The swale along the southwest property lie of Lot 3A was designed to convey the
'
100-year storm event from undeveloped Basin E and developed Lot 3A. Future
development in Basin E will reduce the flows from these areas to the 2-year historic
event. A time of concentration 25.0 minutes was estimated for flows from the
southwest corner of Lot 4 to the point of analysis at the curb cut of the south parking
entrance. A runoff coefficient of 0.236 was used for the contributing areas. Based
on this time of concentrations the peak flow to the Swale for the 100-year storm event
is estimated at 1.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). This peak flow was used with Manning
equation and a Manning's "n" of 0.035 for short grass to design a triangular swale
with a 1.9 percent slope and a 1 foot depth. Details of this analysis are provided in
Appendix I.
/
I
O
L
tr
LUTIER7
I
�
I 6
1
1
' S.
11 6561
Q I
1
1
Q
A
Kzp
`l
pp�
LEGEND
sAREA
We
rero SUE-SASIN
Qj
=3 mrvT
mmmmm
N9-BISIx rlXsAMr
—su l
xrrEne'F
y
new AMtlw
gmY18V
AsIRIW
BLLF BNMFA
H
/ ♦♦,\
r
41128 ♦
1 ,
1.90 ♦
lb ♦\
' pP.1/NKCE�PA BS _-55e?\ \
4..6:
51 }}
'$Q'/A'�LL CURB
5� S GUJI£R � B49
tA
CO
ox A.
PlA7PI BU2AStCi AI - _ _
FF m SWIM AI
I
I
W
W
A
I
\ O
A 6A
TLP . wpLL A
so6B.50 A
A3
�♦
\
ACADEMY I\
11\
REVOYE EX/SANG CURB, i
GUTTER All ASPhKlT
\ CON5TRUCT NEW CURB, CLT1£R
, \ ASPHALT AS SHOWN
11 ♦,;
•, ICONC
70 q
.� r r �, I NYvYBEg£ 9W
EXISTING Cf2N]KM' iTF40
Per Sewn bear P.U.A Chawags RMarf
loom WS - M81,09
Sell Y Dev - 5080.80
10p yr Discharge = O90 CtS
ATlowaae Re/ease Rafe = 0.90 CF5
Required ✓alums f1,500 CF
Into) Volume - 11919 CF
.SLI qC,7
LAM LT.
MLf I M 2. Rap 1 I.lar
e
PC
�y
Men
m w
RkA..L
Aew f6e1
soeo
_. ... -
:.. auo
,tlMSa
. _ _
yR
R
p8
a
99 dOM._.
�t
CMG
y Mad
to- ;rsT_1.642 A"+ ST-2 !1 mil. , PAN- ui ezi'�� �'. bf" s�♦♦
OT TFML CURB S A
GUTTER y 1 I
- -w BbO jla .y B2ff/L� _ _ rw� 190®1 I
x8585 T A LSE CUT' I
aer ( 1S5 S T
BOB - - avlK lb ' EXTEND EXESI/NG Alff P12' slrsbiSEIYFR
8475 aT 65 � �-rl.q. / I I 1JJB'O E115TNG CBIAOt'=.501
1 aTA2 Be
1 U ExrsApn 1NL6'NT = sol6so
_.- 2 uss 1 PRIR aI 16r Pan 1 � N /RIERT s NEADwAL[ +./ aRrR/cE
x BS 11 1
y F/[IER A( 1 J UmxeB ) 1 ran =Sole lO
T 84..54 .w q) 1 1 oW/FKf OETALL SHEFT 6
® 6' l4RlIGA6 - _. 1 an.l• I 1
$pj Cl✓rr£R
85ll SLOMP CURB tr '- i OErENTON PoNO
100-X WS - SOBT JO I 1
656r 1UK1-yr Discharge OJ9 CFS I 1
Al/omWe Release Bata = Big CFS 1 1
1 Requires ✓dome ]9ll CF
BJ16 I , Total ✓dome - 11916 CF i '`
CUT \ Active Volume B117 CF 1
' TEefmr lof PmdYT
N_ I W elal
_ 1-1
6 P.r (sEE DEruL I L, . 1 \\rzo - - �
CLRYERF SHEET 6l _
E
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JryN PROFVSEO 5- IKILK f0 X/S11NC
— f.. _ r � _. : r 3' WIGKW/ACCESS RAMP
WEST HORSETOOTH ROAD
LcKA b V
BASH AJ 0' 0 J9
0 J I FROM OURS J' 0.19'
CUT
�L� I
swAIE'aeTus
,f3
••:5x 4
r,•R
�qr
IE.y.
'PA
ee
� `ate
ee
�ww
eeresaff
rneanru wrwrmuewdes.
��$ BNISHM nCPP EIE T?Bll'S SIu(L BE A AWWW w AS SH bKV
CN THE GRADING PLAN.
1 INLET ih/EFS, SILT R ES, A SPAIM14IES Sl4LL BE WINTAINfp
BY WE OEYELMER A REGULAR INTERVALS TO EMURE THEY VF
for pli) D THEY ARE r0 RELury of MACE Lolm THE
REVEGETAaCK, NLS ESZQk/SNEO /15ELF 0.q AAS BEEN LANBSGVCB
J ALL STW✓ MY)£R FACL/TIES A9E hl BE ANINTA#dD 9Y PRBPERTY
1 BIO cry of Fort Canessfwmrorer Onde Armen Irv/ spscr must
be notified at least 14M1 prior to Y construction be the syAr.
1 A// eq 'rod pamsener sit faceing shall he msbOee hear to y land
dist,divnir octioey (stalkanhuht, slopping, grading, etc) A// older r de fired
vrovion mob -al troll be installed at the adonconate time in the
construction Sequence 05 indrafed In the opraved amorect schwatule.
constmcloor plans one emblem central report
J Pre-enalunlonce wg tanon shad be protectors and rueenhat whenever
possible. RemaYal or of existing ordenothave shall be limited to
therated / mee f f fi f e / the shortest
eq ap o
praGr / perearl of ones
4. All, sets vrowmer' hulled land dir rbinp octI (r ap' g grading, utary
installations, fcckp Virg fiding, etc.) head he kept in a multi rind camellias
by ldMnv o, renewal along brie countolum unfil bounce, Yewlation or other
pennaswl Awasive control'sfaller' No hear in owhers caftioe,prolaset
streetgle / Way shall Levels exposed by Arid assuming 8 fY for
ones Mon tiny (M) a ys before radrce r eateryor permanent erasion
Control (.g. sederloulch, /ondsc O g t % Is insolAre usleas otherense
,gpMwe by the Shommeter booty
5 9ro property shall be watered and maintained at do dead, eamg
constlmar actAwties so as to pervert " d ee envaon. As land
disfurbing bloodier shall be crues6dent, O f ed when felEffine dust
port dja f proprtn; as eef M el the C v of F rr Cell'
fledireanng Deportment
6 A# leddomev (stmeturo/) abobson control measures shall be inspected and
pa>M or mconstpudeel as necessary alter each rumor avent m order to
assure continued peN once or their r see function AL retained
shertmenbs. a rt'ulWy those on POMO rnaderev suffaces. shall be over'
d disposed Of el o manner one location so as to cause their Meese .old
any dionagewar
N l staclpla searl exceed rm (10) fear to h qnt An l stochynted
IwY be protected frown sediment transport be sueace roughening, wafering,
and nonmetall, Of feencop Any sal SWJav/e romolning after M do shall
be seeded one mulched
8 ify Oremans s prohibits the frocxing, dropping or depositing o/ setts or ony
other material onto My of fs by or from any whr[b. Any moewrten!
deposited Selenat shall be cleaned immeeatMy of the contractor.
9 Alston gmvN /Mar fifers be an aMfs.
10 iSid fence shall be Mnir Envirtence IOBX or oppmwe equa/.
II. Straw bolo dormers, ow to be insraded immedlatelY /dewing the grading
11 Al/ areas dseverd by construction shall be landscaped accu biN to me
lonrkmp pher, If (hero is a delay /n building construction, the pad is to be
Les.4eee and mulched
lJ The developer shall he eloassibAr for mmmamml, oL erosion romml
feckless, including reseeded areasuntil a nmlrny stand of regerohen, has
been semblance.
efpm SAS
KDA.
= Q'b D9Nl
W DO
Z Z
0
U�
0
cW U
L F
J_ 0
W
Go
LL 0
Z
CO
f
Q Cr
Um
0
Q
OM
City of
Pt. Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
TS I INC.
JNPPRO ED.
.'
w.nw. n1 ennneWq
0.Y
CHECKED BY:
w 10-899-LqD
web k wuleeely unwit1
U U,
CHECKED BY
YCNX tax. r•�A•
9mmeelee VWLLJ
dw
Mf: I . S'
CHECKED By,
We
Pert k aen,eeunn
ve1A
Spr f6. r998
30 6 30
ea
CHECKED BY,
_
0.r
m
seat I'.W
Mt
CHECKED BY
0.r
1