Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/13/1994No Text I 1 RCERESOURCE CONSULTANTS & ENGINE A KLH Engineering Group Company ' April 12, 1994 1 1 1 Mr. Basil Harridan City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Huntington Hills Filing 3 PUD (RCE Job Number 93-103.03) Dear Basil: INC. Enclosed please find the "Revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Huntington Hills Filing 3 PUD." This report incorporates your comments dated March 31, 1994. This report was prepared under my direction in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria as revised in May 1991. If you have any questions, please call. tPRB:sp ' Enclosures ' Q\DATA\WP51\H-DRAIN4.LTR 1 1 Sincerely, RESOURCE CONSULTANTS & NGINEERS; INC. Paul R. Barker, P.E. Vice President 3665 JFK Parkway, Building 2, Suite 300 • P.O. Box 270460 " Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556 • Denver Metro (303) 572-1806 • FAX (303) 223-5578 Fort Collins, CO • Davis, CA • Laramie, WY I April 1994 REVISED FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD: FILING 3 Prepared for Huntington Hills 650 S. Cherry Street, Suite 435 Denver, Colorado 80222 To Meet the Final PUD Submittal Requirements for the City of Fort Collins 266 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Prepared by Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. 3666 JFK Parkway Building 2, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 RCE Ref. No. 93-103 H-DRAINIREV TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1.1 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................. 2.1 3. DRAINAGE PATTERNS ............................................... 3.1 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ............................................... 4.1 5. EROSION CONTROL PLAN ............................................ 5.1 5.1. Overview ................................................... 5.1 5.2. Wind Erosion ................................................ 5.1 5.3. Rainfall Erosion ................................................ 5.1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Vicinity map ................................................... 1.2 Figure 3.1. Drainage basin map ............................................ 3.2 Figure 3.2. Lot layout and storm drainage facilities ............................. 3.3 Figure 5.1. Construction schedule .......................................... 5.2 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Basin Discharges - Rational Method ................................ 4.2 Table 4.2. Calculated Peak Discharges ...................................... 4.3 Table 4.3. Gutter Capacity ............................................... 4.3 Table 5.1. Security Requirements for Erosion Control ............................ 5.4 i Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. J [1 ' 1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the storm drainage investigations performed for the proposed Huntington Hills PUD, Filing 3 in Fort Collins, Colorado. A hydrologic analysis of the proposed ' development was completed to determine the magnitude and location of storm runoff, effects on the existing storm sewer and inlets in Filing 2, and effects on Dunne and Derry Drives. The analysis was ' completed in accordance with specifications and guidelines listed in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. The site location is shown in Figure 1.1, which uses the City's street zoning map as a base. ' Filing 3 is located just east of the previously approved Huntington Hills PUD Filing 2, (Figure 1.1). Phase 2 consists of 2.28 acres, making up ten lots. A site master drainage plan for the overall development was prepared to meet the City's submittal requirements for Overall Development Plans and is contained in an October 1993 report "Huntington Hills Conceptual Drainage Plan" by Resource Consultants and Engineers, Inc. (RCE). 11 1.1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. No Text I 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES Previous drainage studies of the area include (1) "Drainage Report for Huntington Mews, Phase 1 Final Plat" by Resource Consultants, Inc. (RCI), March 5, 1981; (2) Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Master Drainageway Planning Study" by Simons, U & Associates, Inc., August 1982; (3) "Preliminary Engineering Report for the Rehabilitation of Portner Reservoir" by RCI, January 1987; (4) Tina] Drainage ' and Erosion Control Report for Huntington Hills Filing 2" by TST, Inc., June 1992; and (5) the previously mentioned "Huntington Hills Conceptual Drainage Plan" by RCE, October 1993. These were reviewed to assist with the preparation of this report. I 1 11 I 2.1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. I [J 1 1 3. DRAINAGE PATTERNS Figure 3.1, which is from the Huntington Hills Conceptual Drainage Plan Report (RCE, 1993), shows the general drainage patterns in the vicinity of Huntington Hills. The base map for the figure is an enlargement of the USGS maps of the area (contour Interval - 10 feet). As can be seen, there is an east -west topographic divide that extends through the area of Filing 3. This divide results in storm runoff flowing in two different directions. Runoff to the north of the divide will flow into the Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch and runoff south of the divide will flow into the unnamed draw that extends along the south side of the Huntington Hills property. The existing topography of the area is such that runoff from the Filing 3 area would flow more or less parallel to Dunne and Derry Drives, after they are constructed as part of Filing 2, and would not flow into the streets. A small amount of runoff would flow to the east of Filing 3 onto the proposed future filing area. Drainage analyses that were performed for Filing 2 by TST, Inc. did not consider any of the Filing 3 area to be tributary to the Filing 2 area, which is correct for existing conditions. Existing runoff calculations were performed on four basins labeled N1, N2, S1, and S2 (Figure 3.2). Concentration points were found at the end of natural drainageways in Basins N1 and S1, which run parallel to Dunne and Derry Drives. The 2-year discharge was 0.34 cfs for both basins and the 100- year discharge was 1.23 and 1.24 cis for Basins N1 and S1, respectively. The runoff from Basins N2 and S2 flow east and eventually into Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The 2-year discharge was 0.04 cis and the 100-year discharge was 0.15 cfs for both basins. A detailed Grading and Drainage Plan (enclosed in pocket) shows the lot layout, streets, and storm drainage facilities that will be used for Filing 3. The map uses a contour interval of 2 feet. Fill will be used to raise the lots so that the majority of the flow will drain into Dunne and Derry Drives. The storm drainage facilities for Filing 2 would then be used for carrying the small amount of additional storm runoff generated from these lot areas. The storm drainage facilities for Filing 2 are shown in the Grading and Drainage Plan. Calculations presented in the following sections of this report show that the Filing 2 storm drainage facilities can adequately handle the additional storm runoff. Runoff from the back, northeast side of lot 1 will be carried by a drainage swale that connects to a larger existing swale from Filing 2. This swale flows into Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Easements have been established for the Filing 2 swales and a 20-foot wide drainage easement will be granted for the proposed swale. Runoff from a portion of lots 5 and 6 and the Saturn Drive turnaround will flow down ditches on the north and south side of the temporary access road, which will run to the Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Calculations show that this flow is too small to cause hydraulic problems in the road ditches or the Inlet Ditch and dos not affect the Overall Development Plan. 3.1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. i t •ato 6 .............. .................. ...........,.........' ; .; late '` ............. ofy U'VN '. Contours ' ---_E \ `\ tfN ` ntington Hills ` Hu Filing No. 3 Huntington Hills ` Basin Filing No. 2 �� ` NI �. 0n,41% A� eBasin ••>a ` N2 J 0 ` Basing ' 00 e' �• SATURN 12 a .f,e....... tfta ................. ) Basin H{t....... ......'�_ 1 11 LEGEND Coneentretion Point Baoin Bfunfer> Eviftlnf Contour GRAPHIC SCALE f tie - 100 a Figure 3.2. Existing conditions, Huntington Hills Filing 3. 3.3 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. The Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch extends approximately 4,000 feet from its headgate on Fossil Creek to Portner Reservoir. Most of the first 2,000 feet of ditch is located in l..arimer County, outside ' of the City limits. The ditch presently intercepts storm runoff from upslope areas as shown in Figure 3.1. Some of this storm runoff, especially in the first 2,000 feet of ditch, is from areas that are presently ' developed. This could affect water quality entering Portner Reservoir. The ditch along its entire length is in poor repair and partly filled with vegetation. During a 100-year flood, the ditch would undoubtedly fill to capacity and then spill at various low spots along its embankment. However, even during a 100- year storm, Filing 3 will add a negligible amount of water to the ditch. ' There is an existing detention pond near the south east part of Filing 2. Water from the pond is presently discharged through a 30 inch diameter pipe to wetlands and from there into an unnamed ' draw that extends along the south side of the Huntington Hills property. A spillway and other storm drainage improvements will be constructed as part of the approved Filing 2. As with the inlet ditch, Filing 3 will contribute a negligible amount of water to the pond and its outlet. 3.4 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. ' 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Filing 3 consists of five separate basins that contribute drainage to separate outlets from the property. The basins were labeled A, 8, C, D, and E. Design points were identified at all locations where storm runoff will leave Filing 3 and enter Filing 2 or a future filing of Huntington Hills PUD. Results are summarized in Table 4.1. Calculations supporting these numbers can be found in the ' appendix. The rational method, which was used for the Filing 2 Drainage Plan, was used to determine the new 2- and 100-year discharges that would occur as a result of the additional Filing 3 area. The effects of Filing 3 on the Filing 2 stormwater system are summarized in Table 4.2. Calculations supporting these numbers can also be found in the appendix. ' Basin A, having an area of 0.20 acres, will drain into an 8-foot wide swale along the north edge of lot 1, which has a drainage easement of 20 feet. Drainage leaves Filing 3 at Concentration Point #10. The water will then drain through an existing swale that ends at a riprap structure on Filing 2, where it will flow down another swale to the Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. These two swales were approved in ' Filing 2 (TST, Inc.). ' I Basin B, having an area of 0.90 acres, will drain Into the gutter of Dunne Drive, which flows northwest to a storm sewer inlet labeled Concentration Point #2. A 20-cfs capacity swale beginning at inlet #2 will carry any overflow from the storm sewer inlets. This water, combined with drainage from ' Filing 2 flows to the Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Basin C, which has an area of 0.26 acres, will drain to the east side of the Saturn Drive turnaround, entering the future Filing area at Concentration Point #11. The north ditch of the temporary ' access road will carry this flow to Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Basin D, which contains 1.03 acres, will drain into the Derry Drive gutter, which flows southwest to inlet labeled Concentration Point #6. The flows into Filing 2 detention a storm sewer storm sewer the pond. A 20-cfs capacity swale beginning at inlet #6 also flows to the detention pond and will carry any ' overflow from the storm sewer inlets. Basin E, having an area of 0.27 acres, will drain to the east side of the Saturn Drive turnaround, entering the future filing area at Concentration Point #14. The south ditch of the temporary access road will carry this flow to Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. 1 4.1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. m m m m m m m m A N m fD V1 O C 1 n (DA 0 O C_ rt N 90 m m m CD 1 N 7 0 I 11 1 I 11 Table 4.2. Calculated Peak Discharges. Without Additional Area From Fri 3 With Additwnal Area From Fd1 3 Design Point 2-Year ;. 100 Year' ; r 2 Yea .... 100: Year 2 2.17 8.09 2.94 10.96 Sum 1 +2 7.49 28.67 8.26 31.54 6 0.58 2.02 1.40 5.49 Sum 5+6 5.95 22.61 6.77 26.08 The sump curb inlets on Dunne Drive, Design Points #1 and #2, are 12 feet in length and have allowable capacities of 11.2 cfs each for a curb full condition. The storm drain pipes from the inlets are designed to carry at least 11.2 ds; from inlet #1 and 22.4 cfs after inlet #2. Any storm runoff in excess of these amounts will flow down a swale through an easement which has a design capacity of 20 cfs. In a 2-year storm, all of the runoff will be intercepted by the curb inlets, even with the additional runoff from Filing 3. The combined peak 2-year discharges at inlets #1 and #2 are 7.49 ds, without Filing 3, and 8.26 cfs with Filing 3. These are less than the capacity of the inlet and storm drain system. In a 100-year storm, inlet #1 would fill to capacity and spill the excess over the road to inlet #2. Inlet #2 would also fill to capacity with the excess flowing down the swale. The discharge flowing down the swale without Filing 3 is 6.27 ds; (28.67 cfs minus 22.4 cfs) and is 9.14 cfs with Filing 3. Since the design capacity of the swale is 20 cfs, there is extra capacity in the swale even with the additional runoff from Filing 3 and the easement width will not be exceeded. The allowable capacity for the gutter along Dunne Drive to inlet #2 is 11.2 cfs (Table 4.3). Using the most restrictive conditions, the gutter capacity will not be exceeded by the addition of Filing 3. During a 2-year storm, the discharge in the gutter is 2.1.7 cfs and 2.94 cfs without and with Filing 3, respectively. During a 100-year storm, the discharge in the gutter is 8.09 and 10.96 cfs without and with Filing 3, respectively. Dunne Drive will not be negatively effected by the additional flow from Filing 3. Discharges were calculated assuming local streets with no curb topping and that flow may spread to the crown of the street. Table 4.3. Gutter Capacity. Street Magnin s 9 1 Y Slope Theoretical Capacity;: lleducKion Allowable .: �apy n (ft) (e) z�i Factor .:. Dunne Drive 0.016 18 0.36 50 1.33 13 0.8 11.2 Derry Drive _0.016 18 0.36 50 4.00 23 0.6 13.8 4.3 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. 11 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 J 1 i 1 1 1 1 Storm drainage from this portion of Huntington Hills flows off the site into a swale through the Hahn property to Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. In the 100-year flood event, the additional flow in the drainage swale from Filing 3 (3.38 cis) will increase the depth of flow by 0.04 feet which is not a significant increase. The topwidth of flow will increase from 17.3 to 17.7 feet, which does not exceed the 40-foot easement width. A similar analysis was performed for the sump curb inlets on Derry Drive at Design Points #5 and #6, Inlets #5 and #6, respectively. Inlet #5 is 12 feet in length with an allowable curb -full capacity of 11.2 cfs and inlet #6 is 8 feet in length with an allowed capacity of 7.5 cfs. The combined capacity is 18.7 cfs (11.2 cfs plus 7.5 cfs). The storm drain pipes from the inlets are designed to cant' at 11.0 cfs from inlet #5 and at least 18.7 cis from inlet #6. Any storm runoff in excess of these amounts will flow down an overflow swale which has a design capacity of 20 cfs. The storm sewer and overflow swale empty into another swale with a capacity of 30.15 cfs, where it runs into an existing detention pond. In a 2-year storm, all of the runoff will be intercepted by the inlets, even with the additional runoff from Filing 3. In a 100-year storm, inlet #5 would fill to capacity and spill the excess over the road to inlet #6. Inlet #6 would also fill to capacity with the excess flowing down the swale. The discharge flowing down the swale without Filing 3 is 4.11 cfs (22.61 cfs minus 18.5 cfs) and is 7.58 cis with Filing 3. Since the design capacity of the swale is 20 cfs, there is extra capacity in the swale even with the additional runoff from Filing 3 and the easement width will not be exceeded. This drainage water flows through another swale into the existing detention pond in Filing 2. This swale, having a 30.15 cfs capacity will contain the additional flow from Filing 3. The detention pond has an existing 30-inch outlet pipe and with Filing 2 improvements, a spillway will be constructed. The spillway has a trapezoidal cross section with a 20-foot bottom width and 3 to 1 sideslopes. With the additional drainage flow from Filing 3, the depth of water discharging out the spillway will increase 0.02 feet in the 100-year flooding event, which will not have a significant impact on the detention pond. The allowable capacity for the gutter along Derry Drive to inlet #6 is 13.8 cfs (Table 4.3). Using the most restrictive conditions, the gutter capacity will not be exceeded by the addition of Filing 3. During a 2-year storm, the discharge in the gutter is 0.58 and 1.40 cfs without and with Filing 3, respectively. During a 100-year storm, the discharge in the gutter is 2.02 and 5.49 cfs without and with Filing 3, respectively. Derry Drive will not be negatively effected by the additional flow from Filing 3. Storm drainage leaving Basins C and E of Filing 3 will flow onto the future filing area through ditches on either side of the temporary access road. Basin C will drain into the north side ditch and Basin E will drain into the south side ditch. Both basins are too small to cause hydraulic problems in the road ditches or in the Inlet Ditch; however, they will be accounted for in the design of future filing stormwater drainage facilities. The north ditch will have a 2-year runoff of 0.38 cis and a 100-year runoff of 1.43 cfs. The south ditch will have a 2-year runoff of 0.36 cfs and a 100-year runoff of 1.36 cfs. 1 4.4 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. 1 n I 1 1 5. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 5.1. Overview Filing 3 of Huntington Hills will be a 2.28-acre development consisting of 10 lots on moderate erodibility soil. Overlot grading will begin the first week of April 1994 and the entire subdivision will be completed by the first week of May 1994 (Figure 5.1). Home construction will begin by the first week of May. Although during the month of April wind erosion is dominant, water erosion will still be addressed in this plan. Land not covered by houses, pavement, or the drainage swale will be planted with bluegrass by the property owners, thereby negating the need for long-term erosion control specified in this plan. The property is divided into five individual basins, with each basin draining at a different location. Basin A consists of 0.20 acre, all of which will be disturbed. Basin B contains 0.90 acre, of which 0.69 acre will be disturbed. The undisturbed portion of B currently exists as part of Dunne Drive. Basin C consists of 0.26 acre, of which 0.25 acre will be disturbed. The undisturbed portion of C currently exists as part of the Saturn/Dunne/Derry Drive intersection. Basin D comprises 1.03 acre, all of which will be disturbed. Basin E contains 0.27 acre, of which 0.26 acre will be disturbed. The undisturbed portion of F, currently exists as part of the Saturn/Dunne/Deny Drive intersection. 5.2. Wind Erosion Since construction will occur in April, effective wind erosion plans must be established. On moderate erodibility soil, significant erosion could occur without steps taken to protect the soil. All five basins will have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch applied for water erosion control, which also meets the requirements for minimum wind erosion protection. All mulches will be properly anchored. 5.3. Rainfall Erosion Basin A, of which 0.20 acres will be disturbed, lies in the northeast comer of Filing 3. A drainage swale will be constructed along the north edge of lot 1 and connect to an existing swale in Filing 2. The swale will carry all runoff from Basin A. After its construction, it will be planted with a native grass mixture containing 50 percent blue grama and 50 percent intermediate wheatgrass. Houses will cover 0.03 acre. The remaining 0.37 acre will have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch either crimped 4 or more inches into the soil or sprayed with a tackifier. J 5.1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. PROJECT: Huntington Hills - Filing 3 STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 1994 ONLY COMPLETED BY: Chris Carlson DATE: 3/9/94 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. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY 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 Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt / Concrete Paving VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching / Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings / Mats / Blankets HOME CONSTRUCTION: STRUCTURES: INSTALLED Contractor MAINTAINED BY: Contractor BY: VEGETATION / MULCHING CONTRACTOR: Contractor DATE SUBMITTED: 3/9/94 APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON: Figure 5.1. Construction schedule. 5.2 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. 0 I 1 1 1 Basin B, of which 0.69 acre will be disturbed, lies just to the east of Dunne Drive. Initially, a gravel sediment filter will be placed at the storm sewer inlet #2. Houses and driveways will cover 0.24 acre. The remaining 0.45 acre will have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch either crimped four or more inches into the soil or sprayed with a tacker. Basin C, of which 0.25 acre will be disturbed, lies near the intersection of Saturn, Dunne, and Derry Drives. Constructed houses and driveways will cover 0.02 acre and gravel, asphalt, or pavement will cover 0.15 acre. The remaining 0.08 acre will be have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch anchored in the same manner as Basins A and B. Basin C will also have a straw bale barrier placed at the east end of the turnaround in the north temporary access road ditch. Basin D, of which 0.83 acre will be disturbed, lies just to the east of Derry Drive and south of Basin E. Initially, a gravel sediment filter will be placed at the storm sewer inlet #6. Houses and pavement will cover 0.27 acre. The remaining 0.56 acre will have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch anchored in the same manner as Basins A, B, and C. Basin E, of which 0.26 acre will be disturbed, lies near the intersection of Saturn, Dunne, and Derry Drives and to the south of Basin C. Houses will cover 0.02 acre; gravel, asphalt, or pavement will cover 0.15 acre; and the remaining 0.09 acre will have 2 tons/acre of straw mulch anchored as described previously. Basin E will also have a straw bale barrier placed at the east end of the turnaround in the south temporary access road ditch. In addition to the required erosion control measures taken for the five basins, straw bale dikes will be placed in the drainage swale between the riprap structure and the detention pond and in the drainage swale flowing into Portner Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The calculations for performance standards and effectiveness are shown in the Appendix as well as the supporting calculations. Security requirements for erosion control are shown in Table 5.1. The largest amount, the cost for revegetation, will be submitted. 5.3 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. Table 5.1. Security Requirements for Erosion Control. Construction Cost Estimate for Erosion Control ......... ..... ....... Uan 1 0 1 Unit Cost Erosion Control Measures 1 Reseed AC 0.01 $1,300 00 $13.00 2 Straw Bales EA 6 $4 00 $24.00 3 Inlet Filter EA 2 $300 00 $600.00 4 Straw Mulch at 2 tons/ ac AC 1.32 $250.00 $330.00 Total $967.00 1.5 * Total $1,450.50 Total Security Required Construction Cost Estimate for Gross Area Revegetation 5.4 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. I APPENDIX 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 [1 I RCEalent /�/J�r ,yob No. `13l03 Page --L of i Project or,qL i Date 7 ?V Datechkd. Subject ZLX . S io 4104d, onC By (:X Chkd. By WB MEN M mmilm I mmmmm M MEN ME ME m ME MMMM ME M ME MEMM! mmmm M ME mmm M ME ME M im MmMMmmmmMM EPEE M M MMMMIl mmm noavui uo wi isuuarna a u�yintltlre, inc., soon drR rKV17/, tl1O9 "[, Jte 300 / Y.V.. tlox 2/04W, rOrt U011lns, GO 50527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I I 11 I I I I I I I I I Client 1775)90 Job No. Page a of od RCE Pro . — Date Date chkd. Subject 62 Lig ;�26-a,0 �'-O �O By C Chkd. By MMENIMEN mmmmm mmmmmm mmm Ell m -mwmm m Immm mmmmEmm mm Immmmommmmmmmmmmm mmmmm NUMME N mmm mmmmmmmm m m ON R, , up mm m m Imm No NEI I m m m m 01i NEW m m m NO mom m mmommmmmoomm ME m No ME ON mimmmmmimmmmmmmmmim mmm mmmmmmmmm--m 0 m m m NEI 0 m m mm m mm IN m INN HeSOurce uonsuitants & tngineers, inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 11 1 1 [1 [1 1 I I I 1 I plant bb fVo. / J�I� 3 Page of L RICE Project n wnlf Date 3 �y Date chkd. IF Subject �rQfnf� By cc- n,le,f R 56� TFT - — - _ 00 ConrCcle4ei � ,;p } Orrve i o� o ©� 71 r. — _c,}e 7 , _ - , — - Q�y 1 - - 76- - _ - -jj ' L]f- _I�— r° , _ - -�-- I_. } I nvovul a.o W115411Q111.9 a CfICyumuro, inu., %loco Jim mWY, biag z, Sig 300 / Y.U. WX 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 1 1 alert Job No. 3 R CIE Project 1��un7�ino�o/J �h` �� / 9 SDate 7 �y Sublect 1— • � �3 3 t// a ina 9 8 av C'C _ _ Page Date chkd. r�,l�d a or Z p� /� I U 1 1 1 i [1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 �. Cat ConC n�a�ion i p;nf X' ayr -T 1- /-073_ / �� = 6 07 AWi I c c r_T__t - - - - - - 5�n C LEA / TT = I I 10 kr- _1�� - .15 t / 3 7pso.6,/ 19!�;� Gtr D.r_a,_nage Qr- V_a10,+ --- n++�r• Ala _ I rh {u t- r 71 noauuiaw wnnunants at engineers, Inc., s000 ir-r% rrcWy, Ulag 2, Ste 3001 P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 5( 3C I— 2 C Z W U cc W IL 10 Z W a 0 5 W cc 3 O U 2 W F- 3 RUNOFF I/=� / I • • •, / INill� / MEN MEMO MEMO mom I moll �� •, ' Il I' wm IMF F, IN WA MEMO WrAnow IF RA on s .5 1 2 3 5 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND 10 20 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 I I I I i I 11 I I I I I I I I I c"On' Job No. �PS163 Page —G— of LT Date Date chkd. RCIE Project C/ I Sublect —2&" 17a?,o w. rr . 1.� m. ljlJ., VW Urr%rmvyry, 0109z, -zoluijuv/r.u. mxzfU4W, t-ortUoilins, 0080527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 1 I 1 1 1 I� I n I �I Client JobNo. 3 Pace : % of 17 R C E Pro��ch//n'�Qls Date d Date chkd. �,/ Sublect �T � F�4/1u 3 9v C C n.l.a a, i��tD .a ak� FF a� � 1 n9 3 �c f c •, al�,{ � C1 y! I Y,r i OK 3�1IL�551. i I �► �7TF c � �s S� I .� 2a and — �I LO 1 r _t ,' - — — I }_� .- yl'7),�6�3.oI, �7--� oI-, e 6_o, �?_ ��ST - r 1 _ -- - . ,vav,„..v wnaunal na n a Iynlenris, uiG., OOGA .JrR rKWY, tl1O9 Z, b16 SW / Y.V. bOX 270460, Fort Collins, C0 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I Client R C E Project Subject E111;7,4 3By a3 Job No. Date --�L Page -a- Datechkd. Chkd.By of I I h I I k I I I I I I I k I m mom No 0 m so mom 0 0 lo ON m ONE 0 m ONNON mmmmmmm ONE NOMMENNEONNNIENNO ON m ONMEN No No No% MWAM 00 ON 0 m No ,,,,source Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I ,/j�5� 31�� plant — /�'/Job No. Page —L of R CE Project ff MV'"17 �� Date agDate chkd.Subject Ecru 67 By C n tr Chkd. l3v 1 1 i 1 11 i 0 1 11 1 1 11 1 i 1 [J NONE NEON SEEN mom MEN 0 0 MEN ME ON vim ON ON No 0 NEON INN ON nesource wnsunants & engineers, [no., UM5 JPK P , Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro 303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 2235578 ' plant 5� Job No. � �0 page �0 of / R C E a,.,.t � / /, / /— Date � Date chkd. Subject f/e6l and Su#ee- By CC MLIrl u _ 1 1 0 11 1 I 1 I r I { road C ictbl4 'too ry-�^T _- �'� c� Sor rn -r-�ee��.v. no i Enc roo��► unQ,�-F i.0./ I� o� — ,14 'I Oil �U .; n, m - fff �I�_; ► i - S c�s i _i- y- � i 00 Nq cis 4 /3--,+8 ca j IT } uia, aow ern r-KWY, DIO9 Z, Jie UUU / Y.V. bOX ZIU4bU, Fort O011lns, GD 80527 ' (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 No Text ' Client 5� Job No. 10 Page L of J RCE Project anill -/0/? �� Date 0) c� Date chkd. Subject d6 b�7G i /ou1 gv eC Chkd. By 11 I 1 I I I I MOM No MOEN _gym MOMMME ONO M ONO mom ME MOM ME No ME 0 ONO ME No No MEN nesource t;onsultants & t'-nglneers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RCEClient Job No. 13of Project' 44n�,,4�74 ;,,, ///,S - Date Date chkd. - Subject 04(�flt�- 47aAj By Ohkd. By - mm No MOMIN No IN 0 MOM NO ME 0 0 OMEN MOMM NEON 0 0 M M NO NEON MOM moommo mom 01 NOMELM I m mm M 0 NINE INN M ON= mmimmmmmmll!ql NOON M m MOMMEMEMN mm IMEN Elmo Elm imm 0911 I No 0 0 ME NIXON 0 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, . Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 - I Iq , 17 client Job No. F310 3 9 R C E Project Date 92b Date chkd. Subject BY cc Chkd. By I I I H I I I I I I I 11 I p I MEN NO No ME ME MENEMEN MEN M 0 ME OMNI M 0 M MMEM M ON M M 0 NOON MOON MEMEMEME MEM 11 0 ONE ON NONE M M Elm ME NEI No ONE M M MEN Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3M JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 ' Client Job No. Page 1�of � RCE �/ Project f lKn7�iit3 7d� N/ �l Date 4' Date chkd. ' Subject ( + ✓ 72 By � Chkd. By 1 I I I I I _1 k I 11 1 11 NONE ME 0 M mi 1100 M M! ME I rm mmmlimm M M ME mmm MMM 0 ME No ME NO M ME I ME Em I NO Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 2-23-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 2235578 1 ' /� alent /I// "' Job No. / p `�/Q 3 Page 1� of 1z 1 RCI Project—/44TimV 1115 Date ) 9y Date chkd. Subject ) c 7a fe c/e �/ gr/ By L Chkd. By 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 MEN 0 NONE ONO MEN No 0 NO No IN NEON ON No riesource wnsunants & tngineers, Inc., 3665 JI-1( PK", Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 ' alent /� S� Job No. /03 Page A of 17 RCE ProjectDates Date chkd. Subject �f cc 7/5 o f /- . n7 J By e Chkd. By I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ONE NO I No ON No 0 mom so 0 MEN ON M ME 1 11ml 0 0 Moll 0 m III NO NO m ON 0 II I ON m EMN WON ON IN mom MEN 0 No NMI No rtesource uonsunants tk tngineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I X Page Client Job No. 2ZLOI-L of aL R C E Project: E Data 3/7/9941 Date chkd. Subject BY 6W Chkd. By ME MONO M mi 0 0 ON MEN mi ENO ENO No No m NMI M OMEN M mm M 0 IN ON MONO M ON 0 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O.. x 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 1 431. ' 1.0 12 5 9 11 1g 4 10 3 .8 6 F 9 0LL 0 4 2 U .7 w � 3 �� 8 w i z 1.5 a - U) 2/ .6 Po b�ti o 7 �mptey / z t 1.0 1 - _ 5 a_ j 9 z ' 0-.8-----___ a 8 5.5 0 t- Cn v .6 U. w 0 w 5 = z 0 .7 U_ .4 z z .4 F- z 4.5 z ao 3 6 t .U- _ ' 4 _ .2 0 5 t- z z - 0 0 w.3 3.5 w w .4 a o '� 1 o w 0 0 .08 0= .25 3 0 = 0 .06 ( 3 0 0 z U_ a .04 Cr .25 2.5 w w .2 .03 Q. y' 3 a .02 0 .2 a = ' a .15 .01 0 .15 L U- ' 0 0 1.5 --- -- - -- -- yo a a=2h .10 ' 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 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA plant 1 6P -9th Job No. R C E PProjectI; E,3 MA Date Subject BY Page a of Date chkd. Chkd. By mom M m M ME ME M MMOMM M mmmmmm MMM M ON M I OMEN mmomm 0 0 MEN= MEN= 0 MOMEM M mmmmm MMEEM NONE EMMEN mom ON M N EMEMM ON MIN 0 so 0 I No mMMMMMMM MOMME ml MOM ml No M MEN musource wnsuiiams aL tngineers, inc.,;=0 JP-K PKWy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. BOX 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 q /31 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT OF STORK SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 4-30-93 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COL.ORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY RCE-FT COLLLINS..................................................... ON DATA 03-13-1994 AT TIME 14:12:48 *** PROJECT TITLE : Huntington Hills Filing 3 *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS --------------------- TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN I PEAK FLOW ID NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) INCH/HR CFS 1.00 2.53 13.92 0.61 12.56 2.33 5.91 2.00 1.42 12.10 2.85 14.95 2.18 3.09 3.00 2.94 17.07 1.12 15.56 2.14 6.29 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES FOR RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION ->10 MINUTES 1 ' FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION ->5 MINUTES ' AT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <-(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES WHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF-> .2 , THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED WHEN TO+TFOTC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2.53 12.56 2.33 5.91 63.10 61.98 OK ' 2.00 3.73 12.62 2.33 8.69 63.10 59.79 " OK 3.00 2.94 15.56 2.14 6.29 73.50 65.40 OK 4.00 6.71 15.16 2.16 14.52 60.50 54.64 OK 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 53.40 NO OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO- .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 1.00 2.00 ROUND 11.24 15.00 15.00 0.00 102.00 2.00 4.00 ROUND 14.75 15.00 24.00 0.00 103.00 3.00 4.00 ROUND 12.86 15.00 24.00 0.00 ' 104.00 4.00 5.00 ROUND 15.64 18.00 24.00 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 5.9 12.8 0.60 10.22 0.98 5.71 4.82 2.65 V-OK 102.0 8.7 31.9 0.71 8.65 1.06 5.13 2.77 2.10 V-OK 2 I 1 11 11 1 1 1 103.0 6.3 33.3 0.59 8.14 0.90 4.62 2.00 2.20 V-OK 104.0 14.5 45.7 0.78 12.91 1.37 6.32 4.62 2.99 V-OK F'ROUDE NUMBER-0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (FT) -------------------------- 101.00 4.53 -- 61.00 ----------------------------- 59.19 0.85 ---------- 2.66 NO 102.00 2.30 58.73 56.25 2.37 2.25 OK 103.00 2.50 64.50 56.80 7.00 1.70 OK 104.00 4.70 53.27 52.00 5.23 -2.00 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 40.00..:.. 0.00 62.25 60.44 61.98 59.79 JUMP 102.00 108.00 3.31 60.73 58.25 59.79 54.64 JUMP 103.00 308.00 1.00. 66.50 58.80 65.40 54.64 JUMP 104.00 27.00 0.00 55.27 54.00 54.64 53.40 JUMP 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 1.00 62.34 2.41 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00 59.91 102.0 2.00 59.91 4.86 0.64 0.08 0.00 0.00 4.00 54.97 103.0 3.00 65.46 10.46 0.40 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 54.97 104.0 4.00 54.97 1.56 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 5.00 53.40 BEND LOSS -BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS- OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD 3 I V'31 1 FRICTION LOSS-0 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-0. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 1 *** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE - 1 -------------------------------------"------------------------------------ MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE ID NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT ---_---�- ----- 1.00 63.10 61.00 2.10 2.00 63.10 58.73 4.37 1 3.00 73.50 64.50 9.00 4.00 60.50 53.27 7.23 5.00 52.00 52.00 -0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH 1 ID NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 4.57 3.63 8.20 3.63 40.00 2.25 25.6 1 102.00 8.24 4.50 8.01 4.50 108.00 3.00 108.8 103.00 17.50 4.50 6.90 4.50 308.00 3.00 626.5 1 104.00 13.96 4.50 4.50 4.50 27.00 3.00 37.6 TOTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES - 798.3896 CUBIC YARDS 1 SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH -DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B 1 BONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <-48 INCHES B-TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. 1 BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS-EQIVLNT DIAMATER.IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES 1 1 1 4 I I 11 1 I 1 I I 1 Client ' F / 1"Ut Project Subject l �O r s (2 a4 P, 14� S _ C t 71 QlDO i — ZO. t 4j- 2, _k3 +, C.T- Resource Consultants & Engh (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 Job No. q_ i 3• 0�3 Page —1— of 3 I E I I I I I 7 L I I I I I I Client —19 Job No. 9W!3 Page q of 3L, RICE Project Date Date chkd. — Subject By Chkd. By — ru I Yk -FT -1 ViWI-0 =��1,9 cis �� _CIF � _� �? = 4 IZ",_I_'�s (t.25)Z or (!.Z511� C .orf53 J/Z — _ ! f DeQW K t V+ Tr - Jill � kJ2--.-- 7— 7,Zt4 i resource consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3655 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 ' r 3.0 '2.0 1.8 I.B 1.6 1. 1.2 10 I TO 0.9-- L ) O.6 p 1 \ u S 0.7 Q a W t 0,6 U LL V a 0.5 1 0.4 u n 0.3 I of design. In how it can be are calculated as principles of above. The extensively in It in sanitary nverted siphons, ow measure - and inlets or 17 o, 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS, V lull and OQull Fig. 5-24. Hydraulic properties of circular sewers. HYDRAULICS OF SEWERS Non variable with NM, AMNOME MM ENE®EEC% K%M■NII■■ES �'�®■■■■I/1�■■■■■■I■■NI I��IN■■■■■..e ■■■:■■N■■■■ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 109 Hydraulically, a control has two effects. First, there is a local effect, which is a significant change in flow at the control. Within a short distance there is a loss of energy and there may be a rapid change in water -surface elevation. Second, there are the upstream and downstream effects. Up.3tream, the control may cause a backwater or drawdown curve. Downstream, it may cause a hydraulic jump. Many of the flow situations described in Subsection C2 are the effects of controls. Frequently the energy loss from a local effect is treated as a minor loss, and uniform flow is assumed on either side. Thus the upstream and down- stream effects are not considered. Eqs. 5.19 and 5.20 are used for the losses, . and the problem is reduced -to finding the suitable loss or discharge coefficient for the control under consideration. Values of coefficients are found in -a variety of sources, from standard texts (2,3,6,33,36) for such items as transi- tions and entrances, to manufacturers technical data sheets for items such as flap gates. In references they may be listed under form losses. Energy losses are used to determine the energy grade line. On each side of the local effect, the water -surface elevations are determined by subtracting the velocity head from the energy grade line. The inverts on either side of the control can then be adjusted as necessary. In certain cases, some engineers calculate the local effect in more detail by using the energy and momentum equations to analyze the flow in the. ` control. Such cases include large transitions, junctions, and inverted siphons. The analysis of flow in transitions and inverted siphons is available in stan- dard texts (2,3,6,33). A detailed and comprehensive analysis of flow in junc- tions based on the momentum equation has been developed, tested, and applied (12) but is not yet available in standard texts. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Client Job No. 26 Page JL of 2� Project — te 311 t Date chkd. leitf R C E �' 6�ywub%#' Da Sublect — &A� — By We; Chkd. By 0 mom mom m m ONE m ME 0 0 0 No so mom ONE MIN 0 0 mom I Hesource uonsunants & tngineers, Inc., 3565 JFK P", Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 I I F I I I I I I I I .1 I I plant Job No. ftDl Page lt� of'31 R C E Project N r RP -Date It1 Date chkd. Subject , CAY w 0(6. - BY a Chkd. By ON N m MMEME MEN MEMMEN Sol IMM IN M mom ON 0 0 0 ONO MOMMMMEMI 0 M No ON 0 M m MIN M M s MOMMOMMUMENN mmMMMMMMM1 ENE 0 OMNI 0 I M I 0 0 0 M NEON 0 M ONO NO 0 0 mom rZ, mesource %,onsunams ot tngineers, inc., J000 JM VKWY, Lqclg 2. tile 300 / F.U. box 270460, Fort Collins, GO 80527 1 - (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 1 I Client Ap Job No. to Page A3 of 31 I RCE Project 944'r q J Date 4111Date chkd. Subject 06 . 641 0#4By At Chkd. By 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I i 1 1 J i mom ME MEN I MOMME ME No M ON No Elm 0 0 IN III 0 1 mom 0 ME 1 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 �y�3T REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL 4-30-93 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 RCE-FT COLLLINS..................................................... ON DATA 03-13-1994 AT TIME 14:15:34 *** PROJECT TITLE ' Huntington Hills Filing 3 ' *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS ------------------ ---------------------------------------- TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN I PEAK FLAW ID NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) INCH/HR CFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 3.15 0.00 0.00 39.22 3.55 11.20 2.00 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 13.06 3.00 2.94 0.00 0.00 9.82 7.27 21.40 ' 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES - ' FOR RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION ->10 MINUTES ' 1 1 ►s/31 ' FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION a>5 MINUTES ' AT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <-(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES WHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF-> .2 , THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED WHEN TO+TF<>TC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS 1 *** 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 3.15 39.22 3.55 11.20 63.10 62.19 OK ' 2.00 4.57 22.56 4.90 22.40 63.10 60.41 OK 3.00 2.94 9.82 7.27 21.40 73.50 66.15 OK 4.00 7.52 16.37 5.89 44.30 60.50 55.21 OK 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.30 53.00 54.00 NO OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION ' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO- .8 ------------ 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) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 1.00 2.00 ROUND 14.28 15.00 15.00 0.00 102.00 2.00 4.00 ROUND 21.03 24.00 24.00 0.00 103.00 3.00 4.00 ROUND 20.36 21.00 24.00 0.00 ' 104.00 4.00 5.00 ROUND 23.76 24.00 24.00 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 I ID NUMBER FLOW Q CFS FULL Q CFS DEPTH FEET VLCITY - FPS DEPTH FEET VLCITY FPS VLCITY FPS NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 11.2 12.8 0.91 11.76 1.19 9.31 9.13 2.24 V-OK ' 102.0 22.4 31.9 1.23 11.01 1.68 7.96 7.13 1.90 V-OK ' 2 I 1 1 I 1 I 103.0 21.4 33.3 1.17 11.26 1.65 7.72 6.81 2.02 V-OK 104.0 44.3 45.7 1.59 16.56 1.94 14.22 14.10 2.27 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER-0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (ce) -------------------------- 101.00 4.53 61.00 ---------------------------------------- 59.19 0.85 2.66 NO 102.00 2.30 58.73 56.25 2.37 2.25 OK 103.00 2.50 64.50 56.80 7.00 1.70 OK 104.00 4.70 53.27 52.00 5.23 -1.00 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 40.00 0.00 62.25 60.44 62.19 60.41 JUMP 102.00 108.00 0.00 60.73 58.25 60.41 55.21 JUMP 103.00 308.00 0.00 66.50 58.80 66.15 55.21 JUMP 104.00 27.00 0.00 55.27 54.00 55.21 54.00 JUMP PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP -POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR-SUBCRITICAL FLAW *** 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 1.00 63.48 2.22 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 2.00 61.20 102.0 2.00 61.20 2.39 0.64 0.51 0.00 0.00 4.00 58.30 103.0 3.00 66.87 8.28 0.40 0.29 0.00 0.00 4.00 58.30 104.0 4.00 -58.30 4.14 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.00 5.00 54.00 BEND LOSS -BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD 3 ! FRICTION LOSS-0 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. ! *** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE o 1 ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE ID NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT ! FT -- FT --------- 1.00 63.10 61.00 2.10 2.00 63.10 58.73 4.37 3.00 73.50 64.50 9.00 ! 4.00 60.50 53.27 7.23 5.00 53.00 52.00 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH ! ID NUMBER ON GROUND AT JNVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 4.57 3.63 8.20 3.63 40.00 2.25 25.6 ! 102.00 8.24• 4.50 8.01 4.50 108.00 3.00 108.8 103.00 17.50 4.50 6.90 4.50 308.00 3.00 626.5 104.00 13.96 4.50 1.50 4.50 27.00 3.00 35.3 TOTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES - 796.1411 CUBIC YARDS SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH -DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B ' BONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <-48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS-EQIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES 1 4 I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C31ent "6p, Job No. 13 to 3 Page -Is_ of aL R C E Project 1+11lZlTn 3 Date 41 Date chkd. Subject Dt"Yu ' ZA-)(.ezLe? 4�-!S4-py wt By /9%0' Chkd- Rv IL u4) J F W-d A/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . , -KI Fit —.4 C;w ; 7— �--i I I I o240 --T-L 7 0- 1 18 T— masource %.,onsuaanis & wgineers, Inc., umb JI-K PKWV, 131cig 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Colllns, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 0 0 0 RIPRAP FAA, .G Yt yD Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 31) downstream. FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1V31. 'e"' [Mf ` l 1 �t - Job No. q 31 O� Page � of 3 R C E Project �T ^^ '^I �Lu !may"^/'11 P �_ Date 31 Iti� Date chkd. 1 subject Q a wnp 7T.u"1 �6 m blrsiw By Pm) Chkd_ av 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENO M ME NON MEMO NEON MEN mmom ME MEN ONE r,vaw� uv w� wunai uo n u iyuinnr s, uic., o000'irn r-K", mag Z, we 300 t Y.V. wx Z/04w, tort (Alllns, GV 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 1/ 1 I 1 4V DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL r- 7 RIPRAP al /31 9 = Expansion Angle Form IN -0 .1 .2 J .14 Z v TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE 6 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Client H42p Job No. 43 fal-) Page �D— of 31 RCE Project ( 4mx ( r tt IT 3 Date -rlt t I Fq Data chkd. Subject 50 rQ.cuw.c �T�+ Nt Ilra By 6149 Chkd. By NLN%Mmmm ONE m 11011 NIN NEON NEON ON ir mom ME ME -411 Ti �l I Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 a31:3( I 1 1 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 4-30-93 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 RCE-FT COLLLINS..................................................... ON DATA 03-14-1994 AT TIME 09:04:59 *** PROJECT TITLE : Huntington Hills Filing 3 - South Storm Drain *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS --------------------- TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN I PEAK FLOW ID NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) INCH/HR CFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.00 2.35 0.00 1.77 5.00 3.30 7.77 6.00 0.61 10.35 1.77 12.13 2.36 1.44 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES FOR RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION ->10 MINUTES FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION ->5 MINUTES AT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <-(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES 1 i agl3r ' WHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF®> .2 THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED WHEN TO+TFOTC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS 1 1 *** 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.00 2.35 5.00 3.30 7.77 55.13 54.28 OK 6.00 2.61 5.07 3.29 8.58 55.13 52.45 OK ' 7.00 OK MEANS WATER 0.00 ELEVATION 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 48.51 IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 49.01 NO 1 *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO- .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 101.00 5.00 6.00 ROUND 13.16 15.00 15.00 0.00 102.00 6.00 7.06 ROUND 14.22 15.00 24.00 0.00 1 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 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT 1 ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET . FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 7.8 11.0 0.77 9.75 1.09 6.83 6.33 2.12 V-OK ' 102.0 8.6 34.7 0.68 9.16 1.06 5.10 2.73 2.29 V-OK ' FROUDE NUMBER-0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS 1 2 1 a5�3 ► ' ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (FT) ----------------------------------- -------%-------(F7)- --- 101.00 3.37 53.19 51.84 0.69 2.04 OK 102.00 2.72 51.39 48.26 1.74 -1.75 NO ' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF .5 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------=------ ' SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLAW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 40.00 0.00 54.44 53.09 54.28 52.45 JUMP ' 102.00 115.00 0.00 53.39 50.26 52.45 49.01 JUMP PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP -POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR-SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LASSES DOWNST MANHOLE MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ID NO ID NO. ELEV FTFTK-COEF-LOSS FT K COEF LASS FT ID ENERGY --SEWER - - -- ---- ---- ----- --- ---- ----------- ----- ----------- 101.0 5.00 54.90 2.31 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 6.00 ----FT - 52.56 102.0 6.00 52.56 3.55 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 7.00 49.01 BEND LASS -BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS- OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL.VHEAD ' FRICTION LASS-0 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 FLAW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K-0. FRICTION LASS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. ' *** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE m 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE 3 ' ID NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT FT FT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.00 55.13 53.19 1.94 6.00 55.13 51.39 3.74 7.00 48.51 48.26 0.25 ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH ID NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD 101.00 4.26 3.63 6.95 3.63 40.00 2.25 21.5 102.00 6.98 4.50 -0.00 4.50 115.00 3.00 71.5 ' TOTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES - 92.99057 CUBIC YARDS SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH -DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B ' B-ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <-48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS®EQIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES 1 1 4 i . 4al t ' REPORT OF.STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL 4-30-93 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 RCE-FT COLLLINS..................................................... ' ON DATA 03-14-1994 AT TIME 09:21:13 *** PROJECT TITLE : Huntington Hills Filing 3 - South Storm Drain ' *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN I PEAK FLOW ID NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) INCH/HR CFS ' ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------------- 5.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.30 6.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30 LD,Q y 01 T'I ' 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0 'Om / THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES ° ' FOR RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION a>10 MINUTES FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION Q>5 MINUTES AT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <-(IO+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES D9/31 ' WHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF-> .2 THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED ' WHEN TO+TFOTC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS *** 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 ------------------------------ ---------- ----- --- ----------------------------- 5.00 3.39 5.00 3.30 11.20 55.13 54.50 OK 6.00 5.52 5.07 3.30 18.20 55.13 52.93. OK t 7.00 0.00 OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 IS LOWER THAN GROUN EL 48.51 TION 50.00 NO ' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO- .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) SUGGESTED DIA(HIGH) EXISTING DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ' 101.00 5.00 6.00 ROUND 15.10 18.00 15.00 0.00 102.00 6.00 7.00 ROUND 18.86 21.00 24.00 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 ID DESIGN FLOW Q FLOW FULL Q NORMAL DEPTH NORAML VLCITY CRITIC DEPTH CRITIC VLCITY FULL VLCITY FROUDE COMMENT NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.0 11.2 11.0 1.25 9.13 1.19 9.31 9.13 0.00 V-OK ' 102.0 18.2 34.7 1.03 11.19 1.54 7.03 5.79 2.19 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER-0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS 1 2 ' ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (FT) -------$-------(FT)- --------------------------------------- 101.00 3.37 53.19 51.84 0.69 2.04 OK 102.00 2.72 51.39 48.26 1.74 -1.75 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF .5 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' SEWER ID NUMBER SEWER LENGTH SURCHARGED LENGTH CROWN ELEVATION UPSTREAM DNSTREAM WATER ELEVATION FLAW UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 40.00 0.00 54.44 53.09 54.50 52.93 PRSS'ED 102.00 115.00 0.00 53.39 50.26 52.93 50.00 JUMP ' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP -POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR-SUBCRITICAL FLAW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE ' SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY FTK COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID ----------------------- 101.0 5.00 55.80 ---------------------------------------- -----FT- 2.29 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 53.45 102.0 6.00 53.45 3.42 0.05 0.03. 0.00 0.00 7.00 50.00 BEND LOSS -BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS- OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS-0 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-0. _. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. ' *** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE 1 3 ID NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT FT FT 5.00 55.13 53.19 1.94 6.00 55.13 51.39 3.74 ' 7.00 48.51 48.26 0.25 ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH ID NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101.00 4.26 3.63 6.95 3.63 40.00 2.25 21.5 102.00 6.98 4.50 -0.00 4.50 115.00 3.00 71.5 TOTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES a 92.99057 CUBIC YARDS SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER 11 0 1 I EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH -DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B B-ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <-48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS-EQIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES - 4 11 1 1 0 31 R Project H , 0:3 Date 3 l Dateech of Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc,, 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 11 I I I I F I I 11 I I 11 I I I 11 I Client Job No. 937/03 Page —L of —LL Project Date Date chkd. RCE C Ot?7�63 Z BY Chkd. l3v Subject mom No ONE NOON No MEN N EMMENNOMMEMN mom MONME MMEMEME No ON so ON ON== MMMMEMMEN No M MMMOIMMIMMMMMMM Mmmm ON mommomm m MINNI MEN NMI 0 MI M, M ON No Emmomm MOMMOM MMEN NON NI0 MOMMIN MENNEN M No MI Elm ME resource Loonsunanis & tnginears, Inc., .3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 ' wJob No. / J Page of �— R C E // ' Project Project // pate Ali 9'1 Date chkd. Subject �/ oSion (r�� ��a�/kn BY CC Chkd. By 11 [J I 1 I H I I 1 • ' • ■■ e ■■■■■■■■■ . o■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■ ■m ■■■■■■,H ME ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ON ■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■ ■ Y I ■ ■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ Resource Uonsultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 F I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I Client Job No. Page a of Project Date Datechkd. — RCE Subject By CC Chkd. By — J T F 4— T Z ire. CI-4- 1111 1 1 T- -1 C -1 Th TF 07 (LIN,C/6 Gr -Jr— a /00 Fb (Z) C61 —J— 1 ILN 7 1 0 F 1 T 7 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 ' S� 3/0 3 �,.f Client - Job No. Page � — of 1 RCE Project Au/1Ti, 761 A 11 y ' as3 Date v Date chkd. Subject ZD-CS14 n ccnfrol lz4/an By CC Chkd. By 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 mmm mm mm mmm mmm WE KeSource t_:onsultants & Engineers, Inc., 3665 JFK Pkwy, Bldg 2, Ste 300 / P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 1 - (303) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, Fax (303) 223-5578 [1 1_1 1 0 PROJECT: Huntington Hills - Filing 3 STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: Chris Carlson DATE: March 8, 1994 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBASIN ZONE ac ft % ft 0/O A MODERATE 0.20 125 5.2 82.8 B MODERATE 0.69 468 3.0 81.9 C MODERATE 0.26 285 2.0 79.9 D MODERATE 0.83 338 4.0 82.9 E MODERATE 0.27 285 2.0 79.9 I u 11 1 PROJECT: Huntington Hills - Filing 3 STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: Chris Carlson DATE: March 8, 1994 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT Paved (roads and walks) 0.01 1.00 Houses / Driveways 0.01 1.00 Straw Bale Barrier 1.00 0.80 Curb Inlet Filter 1.00 0.80 Gravel Straw Mulch 0.06 1.00 2 tons / acre Native Grass at 30% Cover 0.15 1.00 MAJOR PS SUB AREA CALCULATIONS BASIN 0/C BASIN ac CALCULATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPENDI A 82.8 0.2 Total Area = 0.20 ac Disturbed Area = 0.20 ac Houses / Driveways = 0.03 ac Straw Mulch = 0.16 ac Native Grass on swale = 0.01 ac Net C-Factor = 0.057 Net P-Factor =1.00 EFF = 94.3% (>82.8%) B 81.9 0.9 Total Area = 0.90 ac Disturbed Area = 0.69 ac Houses / Driveways = 0.24 ac Straw Mulch = 0.45 ac Curb Inlet Filter at Concentration Point #2 Net C-Factor = .043 Net P-Factor = 0.80 EFF = 96.6% (>81.9%) 1 I 1 t �I 1 PROJECT: Huntington Hills - Filing 3 STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: Chris Carlson DATE: March 8, 1994 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT Paved (roads and walks) 0.01 1.00 Houses / Driveways 0.01 1.00 Straw Bale Barrier 1.00 0.80 Curb Inlet Filter 1.00 0.80 Gravel Straw Mulch 0.06 1.00 2 tons / acre MAJOR PS SUB AREA CALCULATIONS BASIN % BASIN ac CALCULATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPENDI C 79.9 0.26 Total Area = 0.26 ac Disturbed Area = 0.25 ac Houses= 0.02 ac Roads / Pavement = 0.15 ac Straw Mulch = 0.08 ac Straw Bale Barrier In Gutter Net C-Factor = .026 Net P-Factor = .80 EFF = 97.9% (>79.9%) D 82.9 1.03 Total Area = 1.03 ac Disturbed Area = 0.83 ac Houses / Driveways = 0.27 ac Straw Mulch = 0.56 ac Curb Inlet Filter at Concentration Point #6 Net C-Factor = .044 Net P-Factor = 0.80 EFF = 96.5% (>82.9%) E 79.9 0.27 Total Area = 0.27 ac Disturbed Area = 0.26 ac Houses = 0.02 ac Roads / Pavement = 0.15 ac Straw Mulch = 0.09 ac Straw Bale Barrier In Gutter Net C-Factor = 0.027 Net P-Factor = 0.80 EFF = 97.8% (>79.9%)