Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 11/21/2000F.nal App uiad Report. FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE P.U.D. J J R ENGINEERING 1 1 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE P.U.D. Prepared for: Dial Companies 11506 Nicholas St., #200 Omaha, Nebraska 68154 (402)493-2800 Prepared by: JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 October 20, 2000 Job Number 9168.00 I 1 t t 1 October 20, 2000 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 J•R ENGINEERING A Subsidiary of Westrian RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Harmony Road at Harmony Village, P.U.D. Dear Basil: We are pleased to submit for your review and approval this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Harmony Road at Harmony Village, P.U.D. This report includes final design of the stormwater drainage facilities required to meet the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Uv David W. Klockeman, PE Division Manager Attachment p 0 REG/ T .......... S _J Lowl-29110 Z: �• ONALE• � 12301 N. Grant Street, Suite 110, Thornton CO{80241 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Suite 190, Ft. Collins, CO 80525 720-872-9850 • F= 720-872-9853,a www.jrengineering.com 970-491-9888 Fax 970-491-9984 www.jrengineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TRANSMITTALLETTER.............................................................................................................. i ' TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii VICINITYMAP............................................................................................................................ iv ' 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................I 1.1 Project Description.................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics................................................................................... 1 ' 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report .................................................................................. 1.4 Design Criteria........................................................................................................ 1 1 1.5 Master Drainage Basin............................................................................................ 2 ' 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE.............................................................................. 2 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN................................................................. 3 ' 3.1 Method.................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 General Flow Routing............................................................................................. 3 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan .......................................................................................... 3 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions ................................... 4 3.5 Allowable Street Flow Capacities........................................................................... 5 ' 4. 3.6 Storm Drainage Structures...................................................................................... REGIONAL DRAINAGE EVALUATION........................................................................ 5 6 4.1 Detention Pond Design........................................................................................... 6 4.2 Variances.................................................................................................................6 5. EROSION CONTROL........................................................................................................ 6 ' 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures................................................................ 5.2 Dust Abatement....................................................................................................... 6 6 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets................................................................................. 7 1 5.4 Maintenance............................................................................................................ 5.5 Permanent Stabilization.......................................................................................... 7 7 5.6 Variances Requested............................................................................................... 8 6. MISCELLANEOUS........................................................................................................... 8 6.1 Irrigation Ditches.................................................................................................... 8 ' 7. 6.2 Maintenance Agreements........................................................................................ REFERENCES....................................................................................................................8 8 1 1 ii APPENDIX A - HYDROLOGIC & STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B - INLET CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C - STORM PIPE & RIP RAP CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D - EROSION CONTROL iii r I r I r r VICINITY MAP APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 2000' I 1. INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Project Description Harmony Road at Harmony Village P.U.D. is the proposed widening of Harmony Road from the Union Pacific Railroad Crossing east to Timberline Road. The site lies in the Northeast ' One -Quarter of Section 6, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City Fort Collins, of Larimer County, Colorado. A location map is located after the Table of Contents. ' 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics tThe site primarily consists of an existing section of Harmony Road. Currently, the existing ' median consists of a paved area from the railroad tracks to the edge of the property immediately Harmony west of Village. The area to the south of harmony road consists of native grass sloping to the south. ' The soil on the site is Nunn clay loam as shown on the soil map included in Appendix A ' (USDA SCS, 1980). Nunn clay loam consists of nearly level soils on high terraces and fans. Pertinent characteristics of this soil include slow to medium runoff, a slight hazard of wind ' erosion, and a moderate hazard of water erosion. Nunn clay loam is categorized in Hydrologic Group C. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report ' This report defines the proposed final drainage and erosion control plan for Harmony Road at Harmony Village P.U.D. The plan includes consideration of all on -site and tributary off - site runoff and the design of all drainage facilities required for this project. 1.4 Design Criteria This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage ' Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments has been utilized. 01 Local drainage facilities were designed to convey peak flows from the 100-year storm event calculated using the Rational Method. Regional hydrology was evaluated using UDSWM2- PC Rainfall/Runoff Prediction and Watershed Simulations Program (SWMM) endorsed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1.5 Master Drainage Basin Harmony Road at Harmony Village P.U.D. is included in the McClellands Drainage Basin. The master study for this area is the "McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan" by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc., 1986. Harmony Village is sub -basin 301 and the detention pond associated with the overall development of Harmony Village P.U.D. is conveyance element 301 of the most recent SWM model for the McClellands Basin, dated July 1997. This site was also included in the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Harmony Village P.U.D.", JR Engineering, Ltd., November 6, 1998, Revised January 6, 1999, February 6, 1999, and April 7, 1999, and approved by the City of Fort Collins on April 16, 1999 (Harmony Village Report). Harmony Road was included as portions of Subbasins 101 and 104 in the Harmony Village Report. 1 ' 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE Historically, the flows from this portion of Harmony Road either flowed north or south as the road enters a super -elevated section just east of the existing Union Pacific Railroad ' crossing. The first section, just east of said railroad tracks, flowed southerly in sheet flow onto the existing property west of Harmony Village. ' The next section, from the described first section to approximately 200 feet west of Timberline Road, is the super -elevated section of the roadway. Runoff from this section flowed northerly to the existing sump condition, grass -covered median. The existing outlet from this area is plugged (an existing CMP pipe that would have conveyed the flows south to the Harmony Village site), so this area would eventually overtop with the runoff being conveyed northerly in sheet flow across the north half of Harmony Road. ' The flows from the easterly section of Harmony Road adjacent to Harmony Village were conveyed southerly via sheet flow onto the Harmony Village site. ' 2 t [1 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN ' 3.1 Method tThe Rational Method was used to determine both the 10-year and 100-year flows for the sub - basins indicated in this drainage report. A detailed description of the hydrologic analysis is ' provided in Section 3.4 of this report. 3.2 General Flow Routing ' Flows within Harmon Road take the form of sheet, ,gutter and pipe flow. The existing ' drainage patterns have been maintained where possible. All grading has been designed to carry flows away from structures to the proposed drainage facilities. The proposed drainage facilities for this site consist of proposed sump inlets and drainage pipes. The runoff from Harmony Road will drain to the detention pond located in the ' southeast corner of the Harmony Village site. The detention pond outlets to the existing storm system for the Harmony Crossing Subdivision located to the south. Flows from ' Harmony Village and Harmony Crossing (south of Harmony Village) enter the McClellands Drainageway and eventually reach the Cache La Poudre River. 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan ' A qualitative summarization of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussions of the detailed design of ' drainage facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections. ' Runoff from Subbasin HR-OS-1 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow easterly to Subbasin HR-1. Runoff from this 0.22 acre area historically was conveyed northerly in sheet flow across Harmony Road. However, with the creation of the ' intersection with raised median for site access, the runoff would have become more concentrated if it were to continue to the north creating an undesirable safety situation. Therefore, it was determined that it would be diverted southerly into ' Harmony Village. It is noted that this small additional contributing area does not adversely affect the overall drainage and detention system constructed with Harmony Village. ' Runoff from Subbasin HR-1 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to a proposed sump condition curb inlet located at Design Point 1. Subbasin HR-1 was 3 ' included in Subbasin 101 of the previously mentioned Harmony Village Report. Runoff from the combination of Subbasins HR-OS-1 and HR-1 are conveyed to the previously mentioned sump condition curb inlet, which is connected to a proposed pipe which outlets onto the Harmony Village site. Runoff from Subbasin HR-2 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to a proposed sump condition curb inlet located at Design Point 2. Subbasin HR-2 was ' included in Subbasins 101 and 104 of the previously mentioned Harmony Village Report. ' Runoff from the combination of Subbasins HR-OS-1, HR-1, and HR-2 are collected in the previously mentioned sump condition curb inlets which connect to ' a proposed pipe which outlets onto the Harmony Village site. Runoff from Subbasin HR-3 is conveyed southerly via sheet flow onto the Harmony Village site. Subbasin HR-3 was included in Subbasin 104 of the previously mentioned Harmony Village Report. ' 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions ' The Rational Method was used to determine both 10-year and 100-year peak runoff values for each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS ' Manual. The Rational Method is based on the Rational Formula, 11 1 1 11 Q = CrCIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 10-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100-year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time of concentration t'=t;+tt 4 (2) I F 1 [1 1 where tc 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 ditch, channel, or gutter in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation: t, = (1.87(1.1 - CCr)L0.5)/(S.)0.33 (3) where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. 3.5 Allowable Street Flow Capacities Allowable street flow capacities for Harmony Road were calculated using City of Fort Collins standards. The allowable street capacity is not exceeded during the 10-year and 100- year event. (See Appendix B for Calculations.) 3.6 Storm Drainage Structures Inlets were sized using the computer program UDINLET that was developed by James C. Y. Guo of the University of Colorado at Denver. Computer output files for the inlet sizing are provided in Appendix C of this report. The inlets are designed to convey the 100-year peak flows. All inlet locations and sizes are shown on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for the construction of this project. Storm pipes were sized using F1owMaster and StormCAD computer programs. A flared end section and riprap is required at all storm sewer outfalls. Riprap is sized according to the pipe size and the flow conditions at the outlet. Guidelines from the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual' (UDFCD) were used to design the riprap at storm sewer outfalls. Calculations for storm culvert design and riprap sizing can be found in Appendix D. A summary of the storm drainage system including inlets and pipes at each design point (DP) is shown in Table 3.1. 5 1 I 1 [1 0 TABLE 3.1: DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Design Print Tributary Subbasln Area (ac) C (10) tc (10) (min) Q(10)tot (ds) C (100) is (100) (min) Q(100)tot (ds) DRAINAGE STRUCTURE /REMARKS HR-OS-1 0.22 0.95 5.0 1.17 1.00 10.0 1.6 HR-1 0.39 0.95 5.0 2.04 1.00 10.0 2.7 1 HR-OS-1 & HR-1 0.60 0.95 5.00 3.21 1.00 10.0 4.3 5' Type R Wei 2 HR-2 0.68 0.95 5.0 3.59 1.00 10.0 4.8 5' Type R Inlet 3 HR-M1,HR-I,HR-2 1.28 0.95 5.00 8.80 1.00 10.0 9.1 Outlet onto site HR-3 0.47 0.95 5.0 2.49 1.00 10.0 3.3 4. REGIONAL DRAINAGE EVALUATION 4.1 Detention Pond Design Detention is required and was provided for on the Harmony Village site. 4.2 Variances No variances are requested for the stormwater drainage facilities for Harmony Road at Harmony Village P.U.D. 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of inlet filters, silt fences, and straw bale barriers. (See the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for details.) The ' measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. A construction schedule showing the overall period for construction activities is contained in Appendix D and shown on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. 5.2 Dust Abatement ' During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor ' 6 I L� 7 iL I contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce dust nuisance, and to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from his operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere. 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of - way unless so ordered by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on the Erosion Control Plan, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. 5.4 Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bale dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. 5.5 Permanent Stabilization All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation or other permanent erosion control is installed. No soils in areas outside project street rights of way shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days before required temporary or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/ mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the Stormwater Utility. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature and stable enough to control soil erosion as specified in paragraph 11.3.10 of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Construction Standards. 5.6 Variances Requested ' There are no variances requested for the erosion control for Harmony Road at Harmony Village P.U.D. 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Irrigation Ditches ' There is a section of an abandoned irrigation ditch on the north side of the site along ' Harmony Road. The remainder of this ditch will be removed as part of this project. Therefore Ditch Company approval will not be required. 6.2 Maintenance Agreements ' The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all temporary and permanent drainage structures. 7. REFERENCES ' 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" ' (SDDCCS), May 1984. ' 2. "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Harmony Village P.U.D.", JR Engineering, Ltd., November 6, 1998, Revised January 6, 1999, February 6, 1999, and April 7, 1999, and approved by the City of Fort Collins on April 16, 1999. 3. "McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan", Greenhorn and O'Mara, 1986. ' 4. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980. 5. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March 1969, and Volume 3, dated September ' 1992. 8 I 1 1 APPENDIX A i 1 HYDROLOGIC & STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 8525 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 9168.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. ICLOCKEMAN SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 10/20/00 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Streets, parking lots (asphalt): Sidewalks (concrete): Roofs: Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil): Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.10 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious HR-OS-1 0.22 9,562 0 9.562 0 0 0.95 100 HR-1 0.39 16,774 0 15,774 0 0 0.95 100 HR-2 0.68 29,429 0 211 29 0 0 0.95 100 HR.3 0.47 20,400 0 20,400 0 0 0.95 100 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Al's Harmpny Road Ill I I k I I I I I I I I I I I �aa 22!! }r !z Em§m §�k�� ©{f =;;; __ 4#E j § _/2 2 fyE e � 6 a s s =mRa fale� � \ � / f«® ) f«¥ g!|5 f\E Lo kkk) \\ §I§ !)! ■`2 {?) o .EE Efr �t *"1 > E ) ) { 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O O z O F h Z W w Z o O o V 40 Y1 W r c� a a O a �i W oOC7o to II U W O OOaFQ F U F o` h UOai d Oa Yp m o n n Qn D D f Z Z Z O O O O Q O O O O :E E � LL a Z � m apo v m u C ` LU O O W Z = J _ Z N M m u � O N N W II Z "" IV fV m O U + rn M N N 3 Oi W N N O x E� �Nim o LL J w N a N s N a, N a N z o m m m U K o 0 0 0 O m Q o 0 0 0 0.0. N N f7 O e dJ w F pn 0 o J L C N N f Z E fO 0 2`� L Z I I p � U p U U J« m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 N O m n N m m a d N G C O G z` (n O N th m � S S 2 m c _ co z F- Q (9 (n tm a N G �w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (10-YEAR) LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 9168.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. KLOCKEMAN SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 10/20/00 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRYOVER TOTAL IREMARKS Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C10 tc (min) i (inlhr) 0(10) (cfs) from Design Point a(10) (cfs) Q(10)tot Ws) HR-OS-1 0.22 0.95 5.0 5.59 1.17 1.17 0 HR-1 0.39 0.95 5.0 5.59 2.04 2.04 0 1 1 HR-OS-1 d HR-1 0.60 0.95 5.0 5.59 3.21 321 2 HR-2 0.68 0.95 5.0 5.59 3.59 3.59 5' Type R Inlet 3 HR-OS-I,HR-I,HR-2 1.28 0.95 5.0 5.59 1 6.80 6.80 HR-3 0.47 0.95 6.0 5.59 2.49 2.49 0 Q=CtCiA Harmony Road flow.xis Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from OF curve I =46.7 f (10+tcf u A = drainage area (acres) 1 1 1 1 1 1 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (100-YEAR) LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 9168.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. KLOCKEMAN SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 10/20/00 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C 100 tc (min) I (iNhr) Q (100) (cts) from Design Point Q (100) (cfs) Q(100)tot (CIS) HR-OS-I 0.22 1.00 10.0 7.12 1.56 1.56 0 HR-1 0.39 1.00 10.0 7.12 2.74 2.74 0 1 1 HR-OS-I & HR-1 0.60 1.00 10.0 7.12 4.30 4.30 2 HR-2 0.68 1.00 10.0 7.12 4.81 4.81 5' Type R Inlet 3 1 HR-OS-I,HR-I,HR-2 1.28 1 1.00 10.0 7.12 9.11 9.11 HR-3 0.17 1.00 10.0 7.12 1 3.33 13,33 0 Q=CiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve 1=751(10+tc)°7M A = drainage area (acres) Harmony Road flowAs 1 1 1 1 1 W w Vl G Y d Z ? O O N a a C H H a in in O 0 G fV •! 6 fh d O E o 0 0 0 0 0 O o00000 O O O O O w U n _ v O N rn N o W rn a d •- (V M l7 f0 CV 0 C E 0 ui 0 ui CD0 0 0 ,n c in rn 0 rn n rn 0 rn LO rn 0 rn U o 0 0 0 0 0 m � V (N N rn M 0 f0 ao f0 m N n a S � O x � x C � C a o U) X 3 O m ir >, C O E co 2 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 10/23/00 LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COMPUTATIONS BY: DWK SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING 10-year design storm Design in accordance to "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" City of Fort Collins, May 1984. Street with 36' Roadway, vertical curb and gutter - local street no curb topping, flow may spread to crown of street calculate for channel slopes from 0.3% to 5% Theoretical Capacity: use revised Mannings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow: Q = 0.56 'Z/n 'S y 110 Call = F' Q where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) Z = reciprocal of cross slope (f /ft) Qall = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) n = roughness coeff. S = channel slope (fVft) Q = Cla - Qb + Qc y = depth of flow at face of gutter (ft) Q� n Z n ya S Q. 12 0.013 0.49 0.30% 4.23 12 0.013 0.49 0.40% 4.88 12 0.013 0.49 0.50% 5.45 12 0.013 0.49 0.60% 5.98 12 0.013 0.49 0.70% 6.45 12 0.013 0.49 0.80% 6.90 12 0.013 0.49 0.90% 7.32 12 0.013 0.49 1.00% 7.71 12 0.013 0.49 2.00% 10.91 12 0.013 0.49 3.00% 13.36 12 0.013 0.49 4.00% 15.43 12 1 0.013 1 0.49 1 5.00% 1 17.25 Sec. B Z in Yb S Qb 12 0.013 0.33 0.30% 1.47 12 0.013 0.33 0.40% 1.70 12 0.013 0.33 0.50% 1.90 12 0.013 0.33 0.60% 2.08 12 0.013 0.33 0.70% 2.25 12 0.013 0.33 0.80% 2.40 12 0.013 0.33 0.90% 2.55 12 0.013 0.33 1.00% 2.69 12 0.013 0.33 2.00% 3.80 12 0.013 0.33 3.00% 4.66 12 0.013 0.33 4.00% 5.38 12 0.013 0.33 5.00% 6.01 FL rt 2' 16, B Ya '" z, 2" Ye=Yc= (16ft)'(2%)=0.33ft Ya= 0.33ft+(2in)•(1f/12in)=0.49ft Za = 24"/2" = 12 Zb = 24"/2" = 12 Zc = 1/0.02 = 50 Both sides Z n Yc S Q. Q F Olall Qall 50 0.016 0.33 0.30% 4.99 7.74 0.50 3.87 7.74 50 0.016 0.33 0.40% 5.76 8.93 0.65 F81 11.62 50 0.016 0.33 0.50% 6.44 9.99 0.80 7.99 15.98 50 0.016 0.33 0.60% 7.05 10.94 0.80 8.75 17.51 50 0.016 0.33 0.70% 7.61 11.82 0.80 9.46 18.91 50 0.016 0.33 0.80% 8.14 12.64 0.80 10.11 20.22 50 0.016 0.33 0.90% 8.63 13.40 0.80 10.72 21.44 50 0.016 0.33 1.00% 9.10 14.13 0.72 10.17 20.34 50 0.016 0.33 2.00% 12.87 19.98 0.60 11.99 23.97 50 0.016 0.33 3.00% 15.76 24.47 0.48 11.75 23.49 50 0.016 0.33 4.00% 18.20 28.25 0.40 11.30 22.60 50 0.016 0.33 5.00% 2035 31.59 0.34 10.74 21.48 R 5 3.2 c,F5 b P 1, 4-N D 3. cis 2� r O HAR ROAD ST CAPAS 1 of JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 10/23/00 LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COMPUTATIONS BY: DWK SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING 100-year design storm Street with 36' Roadway, vertical curb and gutter - local street depth of water over crown not to exceed 6", buildings shall not be inundated at the ground line calculate for channel slopes from 0.3% to 5% Theoretical Capacity: use Mannings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow: Q=1.486/n'R2J3 S'n'A Call =F'Q where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) n = roughness coeff. Qall = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) R= A/P A = cross sectional area (ft) Q = Qa + Qb P = wetted perimeter (ft) S = channel slope sec. A sec. B A= 12.37 A= 6.00 P = 18.51 P = 24.50 R = 0.67 R = 0.24 n = 0.016 n = 0.035 Both sides S Qa S Qb Qtot F Qall Qall 0.30% 48.23 0.30% 5.48 53.71 0.50 - 26.85 53.71 0.40% 55.69 0.40% 6.32 62.01 0.65 40.31 80.62 0.50% 62.26 0.50% 7.07 69.33 0.80 55.47 110.93 0.60% 68.21 0.60% 7.74 75.95 0.80 60.76 121.52 0.70% 73.67 0.70% 8.37 82.04 0.80 65.63 131.26 0.80% 78.76 0.80% 8.94 87.70 0.80 70.16 140.32 0.90% 83.53 0.90% 9.49 93.02 0.80 74.42 148.83 1.00% 88.05 1.00% 10.00 98.05 0.72 70.60 141.19 2.00% 124.53 2.00% 14.14 138.67 0.60 83.20 166.40 3.00% 152.51 3.00% 17.32 169.83 0.48 81.52 163.04 4.00% 176.11 4.00% 20.00 196.10 0.40 78.44 156.88 5.00% 196.89 5.00% 22.36 1 219.25 0.34 1 74.55 149.09 FL CL i ¢.3 t✓r-s p p'� AW D Area A =(0.5)'(2')'(0.17')+(2')'(0.32')+(0.5)'(0.32')'(16')+(18')'(0.5') = 12.37 sq. ft. Area B = (24.5')'(0.49')'(0.5) = 6.00 sq. ft. 0.5' 0.32' 2" = 0.17' HAR ROAD ST CAP.As 1 of I [] 1 APPENDIX B u INLET CALCULATIONS 1 1 11 1 t 1 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO .................................................. ON DATE 10-22-2000 AT TIME 09:44:03 ** PROJECT TITLE: HARMONY ROAD *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 6) e V P I ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. C5 1 P� F ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 tNote: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.32 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 1.70 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 ' GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.50 1 1 1 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 16.38 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.40 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.80 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.40 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.59 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.30 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.30 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.30 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.30 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 t t----------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO .................................................. ON DATE 10-22-2000 AT TIME 09:51:34 t** PROJECT TITLE: HARMONY ROAD *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: e Ci 0 P Z ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. 51 %y PC kk;0' ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.32 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 3.10 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 ' GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.69 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.49 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.15 ' FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.24 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 ' CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.90 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.80 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.80 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 4.80 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 11 I 1 1 0 1 1 C �II F HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File x:\3910000.all\3916800\drainage\har road.fm2 Worksheet CURB CUT FROM HARMONY ROAD OUTFALL PIPE Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 Channel Slope 2.0000 % Bottom Width .4.00 ft Discharge 9.10 cfs Results Depth 0.37 ft Flow Area 1.50 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.75 ft Top Width 4.00 ft Critical Depth 0.54 ft Critical Slope 0.006298 ft/ft Velocity 6.08 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Energy 0.95 ft Froude Number 1.75 Flow is supercritical. 4 Gu2� 6:, u T 1-1,45 P-- I �Qu/.400 10/23/00 FlowMaster v5.15 t09:20:40 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet CURB CUT FROM HARMONY ROAD OUTFALL PIPE ' Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 ' Channel Slope 2.0000 % Depth 0.37 ft Bottom Width 4.00 ft ' Discharge 9.10 cfs 1 1 10/22/00 ' 10:50:16 AM :a 0.37 ft 4.00 ft Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 1 VD H 1 NTS FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 I I I 1] APPENDIX C ' STORM PIPE, RIP RAP AND SWALE CALCULATIONS 11 I 1 1 1 � � � � � � � � w m � � k s D co w a a §\0 (>m Kt CD. eo(L mU UJ \\ §j i E a am — r) G �� 312> »c3 ` 2 CD ))MV jj / w Est � ( C-4 Eco {L) ° OD # ( . a E_a Z {m m* §/ $/. 0a> Z) u ! % f $$ \ S §/ \7 ) c f ° 2a© ® 2 E 0 /k _ /m ` ca }k 2 00 . . \} �U) \\ \co \)0 r:3 e . ,®e �� /j0 10/20/00 LOCATION: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE ITEM: RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR CONDUIT OUTLETS COMPUTATIONS BY: DWK SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Q = discharge, cfs D = diameter of circular conduit, ft W = width of rectangular conduit, ft H = height of rectangular conduit, ft Yt = tailwater depth, ft At= required area of flow at allowable velocity, ft2 V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ft/s = 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils = 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils PIPE OUTLET FROM HARMONY ROAD Q = 9.1 cfs D = 24 in = 2 ft Yt= 1.17 ft V = 5.7 ft/s 0/D1.5 = 3.2 Yt / D = 0.6 From Figure 5-7, use Type L for a distance 3D downstream, L = From Table 5-1, d5o = 9 in From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 Riprap depth from U2 13.5 Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 6 ft Q/D2.5 = 1.6 From Fig. 5-9, Expansion factor, 1/(2 tan 0) = 6.7 At = QN = 1.61 ft2 L = (1/(2 tan 0))'(At/Yt - W) _ -4.19 ft Use L=3H= 6 ft Use 6'x6'x18" Type L riprap Her Road Riprapl.xls in in 6 ft DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE Table 5-1 CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP Riprap % Smaller Than Intermediate Rock d50* Designation Given Size Dimension By Weight (Inches) (Inches) Type VL 70-100 12 50-70 9 35-50 6 6** 2-10 2 Type L 70-100 15 50-70 12 35-50 9 9** 2-10 3 Type M 70-100 21 50-70 18 35-50 12 12 2-10 4 Type H 100 30 50-70 24 35-50 18 18 2-10 6 Type VH 100 42 50-70 33 35-50 24 24 2-10 9 *d50 = Mean particle size ** Bury types VL and L with native top soil and revegetate to protect from vandalism. 5.2 Wire Enclosed Rock Wire enclosed rock .refers to rocks that are bound together in a wire basket so that they act as a single unit. One of the major advantages of wire enclosed rock is that it provides an alternative in situations where available rock sizes are too small for ordinary riprap. Another advantage is the versatility that results from the regular geometric shapes of wire enclosed rock. The rectangular blocks and mats can be fashioned into almost any shape that can be 11-15-82 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL KI RIPRAP ENEENE mon NEEN MOME MEN EA 0.AII , I E. d god 10 W = N .2 A .6 .8 1.0 Yt/D Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 1 1 1 1 n DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL E m E C � 0 N F D: 0 L) q z 0 r z a x w A = Expansion Angle MONOSSON 0 0 PAO rJaM VJA a 0 MEMEMEME Emmommum Emmummum MUNNEEME MORNMEME MENNEN RIPRAP .1 .2 .3 R .5 .6 .7 b TAILWATER DEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP MEN MENNEN No 51001AVENA ,a pur 0 0, N, MEN ADA. WPAP rJEJAZEEMEN-Em MWEEMEEMEN 00 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Yt/H Use Ho instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel. **-Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream. FIGURE 5-8. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT RECTANGULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. I 1-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 HARMONY ROAD OUTLET CHANNEL Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File x:\3910000.all\3916800\drainage\har road.fm2 Worksheet OUTFALL CHANNEL C F7P—o f-q / 8" A-7 G P 7— ¢' C�a e!S Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel C/[.GT Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 6.0000 % Left Side Slope 1.000000 H : V ' Right Side Slope 1.000000 H : V Bottom Width 4.00 ft Discharge 12.10 cfs .4= / 3 -3 oX0 1 1 Results Depth 0.48 ft Flow Area 2.14 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 5.35 ft Top Width 4.96 ft Critical Depth 0.62 ft Critical Slope 0.024706 ft/ft Velocity 5.65 ft/s Velocity Head 0.50 ft Specific Energy 0.97 ft Froude Number 1.51 Flow is supercritical. 10/22/00 FlowMaster v5.15 11:57:43 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I r. L 1 I 11 1 APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE JOB NO. 9168.00 EROSION CONTROL MEASi7RES COMPLETED BY: DWK ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 SILT FENCE LF $ 3.00 1 800 $ 2,400.00 2 INLET PROTECTION EACH $ 250.00 2 $ 500.00 3 STRAW BALES LF $ 3.25 10 $ 32.50 COST $ 2,932.50 CITY RESEEDING COST ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 IRESEEDMULCH ACRE $ 750.00 0.7 $ 540.00 COST $ 540.00 TOTAL COST $ 2,932.50 TOTAL COST WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 4,398.75 10/23/00 cons seq CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: HARMONY ROAD AT HARMONY VILLAGE STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 2000/2001 ONLY COMPLETED BY: DWK DATE: 10/22/00 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. 2000 2001 MONTH N D J I F M A M J J A S O Demolition Grading Ind Erosion Control: Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other Rainfall Erosion Control Structural: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other Vegetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Mats/Blankets Other 3UILDING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: DEVELOPER VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID DATE SUBMITTED: Oct-00 APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON: Page i