Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 11/04/1994Final.Storm.'Drainage Repo it for Final { LORY ANN ESTATES .. ( a% l ) November 1994 ;Sl�i141 0o P C,�ou r:.'.1 4)jC =_11Ji1 .. - :.....`�..w.. t J may, JAR // �� '�- '�!kl. �'i°i);��;�;I)I� •,��In{q�1/I,{�r1p�111�I���ro1L , ♦'. 1.— �4'�f�_ �-.r/'4u�0.4... .r._.... I�I�� .wa^����` 1'��!�L�II " /4V �r�7 111 • Stewart & Associates Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 103 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-9331 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPICS COVER / LOCATION ' Storm Drainage Report Erosion Report Erosion Control Design/Estimate PINK Times of Concentration YELLOW Rational Runoff Computation Composite Runoff Coefficients * Historic * Developed * Offsite Areas Detention Design Hydraulic Design Streets, Pans, Piping... PURPLE GREEN GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS This is the "Final Submittal" for Lory Ann Estates, Subdivision whose plat was approved in 1985. The original plat is not being changed, though utility easements are being added to meet current utility requirements. The site is located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 7, North, Range 69 West of the.6th P.M. This is the Southeast corner of the intersection of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. No Master Plan has been developed for this area of the City of Fort Collins (the City). Approved in 1985 were 29 lots with an average square footage of approximately 10,500-s.f. Zoning on the site was established as RLM Low Density Multi -Family, which is consistent with what is being proposed on the site at this time. A waterline (8-in) was constructed by the City during the 19801's that traverses the site consistent with the 1985 plat along Cuerto and Tierra Lanes. The exception to this is, instead of running between lots #12 and #13, it was placed between lots #13 and #14. Easements have been included to account for this utility modification. Additionally, a waterline 125-ft long (6-in. diameter) has been installed in Tierra Lane. Hydrants have been installed from both waterlines that do meet current standards. Page.2 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates The site is densely covered with rangeland grasses and slopes (± 2.5%) to the Southeast, into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Two existing single family homes have been constructed on lots #28 and #29. No changes will be made to the grading of these residential properties. SITE HYDROLOGY HISTORIC The Rational Method of analysis will be the basis of hydrologic . design for both the historic and developed conditions. All design criteria meet the City of Fort, Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS). The 10.77-ac site including both West Elizabeth and South Overland Trail, suggest a calculated composite runoff coefficient of C=.27, with heavy clay soils assumed. This also includes the two single family residential housing units on lots #28 and #29. Total direct runoff in a 2-yr rainfall event is 5.1 cfs, flows from the three historic basins. These flows are collected in the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (the Canal). Attached are computational spread sheets showing overland flow paths and times of concentration (100-yr) for the historic site conditions. Noteworthy, is that this historic runoff rate will not be the allowable release detention release. Page 3 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates Rather the hydraulic capacity of the pipe system for Lory Anne will establish the release rate into the regional pond, at 11.3 cfs in the 100-year storm event. DEVELOPED In the developed conditions..a total site acreage of 10.15-ac will be included for on site detention. The difference of 0.62-ac, includes portions of both West Elizabeth and South Overland, neither of which will be directed into onsite detention. Overland will be directed too, the newly constructed storm drainage collection system, while Elizabeth will be allowed to flow in its historic manner in the borrow ditch. The minor change in hard surface along Elizabeth showed no. significant effects in downstream conditions. Curb and gutter (existing) along South Overland is built, from the north easement line of the Canal, South. The flow line at that point is graded to the south, and moves runoff toward the Overland Trail Farms Subdivision. The current proposal is for a curb inlet, on grade, which will preclude flows from the newly improved section of South Overland Trail (0.54-ac), from going toward Overland Trail Farms Subdivision. Runoff will be collected into the storm drainage system where it will be released into the existing Clearview Park regional detention facility. Reiterating, detention will be provided for the remaining 10.15 -ac that consists of 15 subbasins within Lory Ann Estates. These are j small responsive basins with areas ranging from 0.15-ac to 1.84-ac. Page 4 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates A single "C" value was used for the entire developed site area, justification is shown in the appendices. In this project the "C" value was 0.60, as a site average, which included the existing single family homes, and the undetained portion of Elizabeth improvements. Again for these analyses heavy clay soils were assumed throughout the project area. The Lory Ann Estates site has topography that required small overland flow conditions, while direct runoff quickly collects in grass swales as the primary method of conveyance. Within the site, overland grades are shown to be at 2%, and swales will be constructed with a minimum of 2% slope. Rainfall intensities from these conditions were generally high as compared to some lesser sloping sites. The results from this modeling exercise provided no unexpected findings, quick response and high runoff volume is what could be predicted for the series of 15 basins making up the Lory Ann Estates multi -family development. Detention will be provided for this development based on SDDCCS standards, and is a necessary hydraulic requirement. Page 5 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates HYDRAULICS HISTORIC There is an existing arterial street on the west boundary of the site, South Overland Trail, which must be improved to current standards as part of this construction activity. The existing north bound lane of Overland Trail has been improved to the north easement line of the Canal. Runoff from this point south is channelized, and flows into and through the Overland Trail Farms Subdivision. At the junction of the existing curb and gutter, and the unimproved half width of Overland, a poorly defined borrow ditch collects flows from approximately 500-1f of Overland and directs these flows into the Canal. This will no longer be allowed as part of the current design. West Elizabeth Street, a collector, is adjacent to the north boundary of the Lory Ann Estates site. Again the runoffs from the half width pavement ± 470 l.f. along this portion of Elizabeth are collected in a borrow ditch and flow east along the east bound lane. This historic pattern will remain, though the length of the paved area will lessen, the width of pavement will increase. Results will be a lessening of flow into the borrow ditch. Page 6 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates DEVELOPED Overland Trail will be paved to a 35-ft distance from the existing center of the 100-ft. R.O.W. The runoff from the one-half acre of Overland will need to be collected and managed. This will be accomplished by installation of a 14-ft curb inlet on grade at the southwest boundary of Lory Ann Estates. At the street slopes shown, the inlet will be capable of collecting the full 100-yr runoff rate of 2.8 cfs. Direct runoff will then be piped southeast to the existing Clearview Park Detention. Runoff from West Elizabeth Street will be directed into. the existing borrow ditch adjacent to the East bound lane of Elizabeth. A 0.08-ac portion will be directed toward the ditch, in its historic pattern along the south R.O.W. line of Elizabeth. The borrow ditch has conveyed the entire ± 470-1f of the unimproved Elizabeth and not presented a concern. What will be undertaken is channelizing flow along 125 l.f. of new gutter while directing that flow into the borrow ditch. Asphalt will be utilized as a means of minimizing erosion concerns at the transition of new improved to unimproved. Within the confines of Lory Ann Estates, the principle method of control will be surface measures, in grass lined earthen swales and drive over curb and gutter. Swales will all be constructed with slopes of greater than 2 percent and less than 3 percent. This negates the need for pans or underdrains for areas of "swamping." 0 Page 7 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates There will be two separate and distinct storm drainage systems constructed in the Lory Ann development. The first intercepting gutter flows within the development, and the second conveying these flows south to the regional detention pond. The first section of storm drainage piping will be part of the street design concept. Tierra Lane will include two curb inlets for conveying street flows into the main detention area. These inlets have been sized to reflect being in a sump condition in the 2-yr rainfall event. The north inlet on Tierra is 8-ft for the 6.1 cfs directed toward it. On the south curb line, a requirement of 1.4 cfs of direct runoff results in a 4-ft inlet installation. The two inlets run into a hydraulic system being designed to handle the 2-yr, storm. Software developed for the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Board, "UDSEWER" was used to design and confirm sizing requirements. Keeping the energy grade line (EGL) near the curb flow line, has been the design requirement for this type of collection system. Including a 1-ft length of pipe at each inlet location with a loss coefficient of Ke = 0.25, reflect losses associated with passing through the curb inlet itself. Piping sized over the software suggested diameters, did lower the EGL below the proposed flow line grades. A pipe slope of 1% is to be used between inlets, while 2% pipe grade will stay constant into the main detention pond. Mannings' "N" values of .012 have been used to simulate use of ADS brand, "smooth walled" piping. A variance is being requested for use of ADS throughout both piped conveyance systems. Page 8 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estates A second pipe system will also be constructed to provide conveyance to the Clearview Park detention pond. Included in this system will be the new Overland Trail inlet and Ponds 1 and 2 area inlets/outlets. The existing regional facility has been designed to include this fully developed Lory Ann project. Again a "UDSEWER" hydraulic model was run to establish what flow rates can be carried through the system. The principle design consideration was to not allow any downstream effects to influence upstream points of collection. Primarily, Overland Trail will not be allowed any surcharging at the inlet, thus eliminating offsite concerns. The model was configured to incorporate a 0.25 = Ke for the new inlet losses and the appropriate downstream main losses ie.(bends, laterals . . . etc.). This method will simulate that the EGL must be kept at or below the proposed flowline at inlet design points for a minor event. Base modeling methodology is consistent throughout the project for any area/curb inlet within the design. UDSEWER does suggest some hydraulic grade line above the existing ground elevation. Points where this occurs are within the proposed detention ponds and do not present a concern to system function or safety. Street flows through the development and on the adjacent arterial and collector are easily within the allowable flows established by the SDDCCS manual. All data associated with the 2 year and 100 year design flows are included in the appendices of this report. Page 9 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estate DETENTION DEVELOPED The existing 8-in City waterline traversing lots #13 and #14 and the associated cover requirement, has been the driving influence behind the use of two onsite ponds. The main detention pond (Pond 1) will fall primarily behind lots #17 to #21. Capacity of this pond will be 25,273 cf. minimum, with freeboard of greater than the 1.0 ft required, and HWL being well below structure openings. This volume is the sum of the direct runoff from the 7.40 acres that contribute directly, and 2,840 cf. that will flow from Pond 2. Space and volume limitations have required that the ponds be hydraulically connected, with Pond 2 being above the HWL of Pond 1 this is not a concern. The release rate used in Pond 1, in establishing this capacity was set at 8.0 cfs, which was the allowable hydraulic capacity in the "UDSEWER" as described above. Control of the release will be accomplished through inlet control with designed orifice plates at the area inlets. This will result in a pond high water line (HWL) of 5117.87-ft, well below any proposed structure elevations adjacent to Pond 1. The secondary pond (Pond 2) will be much smaller in volume, with 11,404 cf., and the release rate of 0.5 cfs. Located behind lots #14 to #16, the HWL will reach 5118.70-ft. Again this will be well below any proposed structure elevations, the available freeboard will be greater than the 1.00 ft. required in the SDDCCS. Page 10 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estate A new 8-in ADS pipe will be placed with its invert at the 18.7-foot HWL in Pond 2 to convey the volume above the ± 11,400 c.f. available in Pond 2, into the lower Pond 1. The additional volume required is calculated to be 2,840 c.f. and that volume has been added to Pond 1 calculations. Concern over any detention release into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal have prompted the inclusion of redundant outlet structures. This will include two area inlets per pond, one being at the adjacent ground elevation, as would be normal. A second inlet will be placed at the computed HWL for the specific pond. This will preclude, in the event of inlet plugging, any overflow from entering into the canal. Generally, the pipe system will not become fouled with debris, rather the inlet grate structure becomes restricted as a result of accumulated debris within the pond itself. Emergency overflow weirs will still be provided for both ponds, these will spill in the extraordinary event that both pond area inlets are plugged or in the event a storm above the 100-year occurs. The Canal will be the point of release in these emergency circumstance. Grading of these spillways will be at the 1-foot freeboard elevation as being the crest. With the inlets on Tierra designed to collect and convey the 2-yr event storm, storms above that intensity will overtop the south curb line and be collected in a grass lined earthen swale that flows to the main detention pond. With a slope design of 3.30, and a 12-ft easement with 4:1 side slopes, flows are easily contained within the easement. Page 11 Storm Drainage Report Lory Ann Estate CONCLUSIONS Construction of the Lory Ann Estates,. multi -family development will not cause unacceptable impacts to adjacent land use or downstream property owners. There are no apparent risks to property or human safety that can be identified because of improvements proposed for Lory Ann Estates. Special precautions have been included to aid in easing the current concern over" the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal during storm events, even though not specifically required in the SDDCCS. These redundant detention pond improvements (dual pond outlet structures) will aid in remediating those ongoing local concerns, by further ensuring, that direct storm runoff gets to the existing regional facility for which it was intended. Should questions arise regarding any aspect of this proposed storm drainage plan, please do not hesitate in contacting Alex Evonitz or myself so we may help in your understanding of the project. Respectfully, Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. #5028 5028 J F GO\ b:\loryannl.rpt EROSION CONTROL REPORT LORY ANN ESTATES The project construction sequence will be developed to accommodate implementation of erosion control measures. Detention will be the first activity undertaken in the late fall of 1994. Geotech filter fabric will be placed between this construction and the Canal for the entire length of the south boundary. Temporary revegetation of the disturbed area associated with this facility installation will be completed immediately after final grading is finished. Straw bale barriers will be installed at the outlets of the two detention ponds. These barriers will remain in place until all construction activities conclude. Use of the ponds as sedimentation traps and outlet barriers will provide substantial protection. Additionally, filter fabric will be placed along the east site boundary up to the back of the existing house on Lot 29. These preliminary activities will'be followed closely by the rough cutting of the residential streets and overlot grading. Areas of overlot grading will again be reseeded for temporary vegetation. Residential street asphalting will occur within two months of the time rough grading has taken place. During those two months, installation of underground utilities will be accomplished. This will include sewer, water, storm drainage, telephone; power and cable television. Final services will be completed during the construction of any specific multi —family building. At points where drainage swales are required, additional straw bale barriers will be installed and remain in place until final landscaping plans have been completed. After the residential street asphalt is completed, additional protection will be installed at the newly completed curb inlets. Gravel.filters will be placed at the two new inlets for additional protection to the storm drainage piping. This combination of measures will provide adequate erosion performance when viewed in series. The final construction activity will be Trail and West Elizabeth Street. Both street a short construction time. Beginning to end, to six weeks. If you have questions, please Richard A. Rutherford, P.E.- & L.S. the improvements projects will be the construction let us know. ,'F e 5028 , (IF C(y1�0.,%%" 1ttutttntt` o South Overland completed within will be four 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: •_ _Liz" 'kh, Eswo-, STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE. FOR 19 6 ONLY COMPLETED BY: t3�^�. DATE: ( -Z- 1 Ins -ate 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. YEAR ! MONTH ----------------------- __ OVERLOT GRADING I - - I I ' I I i , i I I -- � i ,JIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughing ! •I I I ii ! � Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers ! ; Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant j Other ZAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers and Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant I i !I i III I Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation I! i I� Nettings/Mats/Blankets I Other i ! --------------------------------------!------ --- --- ----- ----1- --- --- ---- fRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY CracN2 MAINTAINED BY C>Lp .Co,,,TZ�1rro�z . .GETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR ITE SUBMITTED 11— APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON II, rC:1989 STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 S. ME9331 LDRUM,FAX FORT $OLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: IZ-7-7-33 Client: -,�. SO pw--o Sheet No. l of Project: COLT k,,,� Subject: T� ZvS io " Oa � v?-oc. P- -6 m AIR I I J Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation Project: &(? t k v, Siyl TEr Standard Form A By: Stewart & Associates Completed: �t 1�- 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: 12 Developed Subbasinne bility Nz Asb acres Lsb feet Ssb % Lb feet Sb % PS % N1 q 1A 10,17 5 7;6 l 9 70 83S !, 7P 8� D i-0(L �00 , s = I.7Z —vL2 HDI/SF—A:1989 a Y Effectiveness Calculation Project: LoV--( Standard Form B By: Stewart & Associates Completed:. 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: 12/ 2/ 4i Erosion Control Method C— Factor Value P — Factor Value Comments: Tip otix Pz u a SiRfi J 1, 00 0 O SILT +ct�CSL �, pp (7,�(7 �,� ZIDW 'OIL. %ASIr✓ �I�-a C�t2v��•et_ fil�iElZ 1.CO o.g0 0.415 1,00 Major PS Subbasin Area Calculations Basin % acres s9 0�/ � 8� I •�+ 3 ( D•9�� = C Iru ... 9.vLI o .1 = I I prct v x loo ........ ........ xl.o�� xlo� HDI/SF—B:1989 Effectiveness Calculation Project: L-00 -1 Nli v\- Standard Form B By: Stewart & Associates Completed: 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date:-12, /23/ IS Erosion Control Method -7Sr—P-P,w C— Factor Value P — Factor Value Comments: ZWE 1,00. 0. eo I SILT - 1,0a . OtWE MMT (,Do Major PS Subbasin Area Calculations Basin (acres) ,Z,\T6go,O-Z UNL�C ..... ...... 1 '7 Z> P� UP I» Sias tl-51q, lot BA Le 0 0 Ck C) C � (0 '7 It F Z, 314 Ica, -71 OL), R. V6 .. ... ... ........ LkAolw-, 040 HDI/SF—B:1989 11 Effectiveness Calculation Project: L01-24 kv,�, Standard Form B By: Stewart & Asso iates Completed: t -� 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: Erosion Control C— Factor P — Factor Comments: Method Value Value ls�t K) � U1L �,00 0,90 StCT cFs-)e2 t.00 yS�\oo t art.% S u(LVDAc I �o� �i�►<SS D,o 1 1 •�� la t t.a. ` no oil Srt£ -Mre,4' M C- 3�7 g� • O o-z L\ V,) HDI/SF—B:1989 1 --, Ici-i� XI DO = 'P)O,wi� 3 J 0 a E 0 O of N U z O 14 J J z UQ J m Q U m 0 LL LL U O z=3 �Uy W m W H O O^ a- 2 O U Q 2 Z W (n O S H f Z 1 a0W 2U z 0s¢z LL O F- O N Z a W¢f O Ucc 0 W I L Z C I W CR W Z O 0 o 0 U NLli II W LL J ~0 �- O U O Z 2 Z y W LL Q � D tl cr- Cl) LL 0 0 \©o 0 0 c c 0 c -6 0 0 0 a C\T 0 0 c 0 c c c c W c W c c c 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 > ic > > > > LO >1 > > > CM 0 0 m > 0 Lo > 0 to > © > o cm z cm 0 o c cli. ze z c ca w w — — — cr) 0. m 00 0) CO I Lq Cq LQ c� LQ eq 0) co co Co 00, 0 co cc cc w w a) — — — — — — — — — — — — wo, LL, 7 z C: LL: tt= (U < 3— = LL X zt= I= L L = *: "'. 0 3-- 0 0 EL 0 0 0 ce) 0 a 0 0 cf) Z 0 C C 0 0 c 0 C t 0 Cli c cv) W c C , 0 c cc 2 2 2 t5 ' 2 2— C: 2 2 ci w c c c 2 2 c\T w 2 Cq 2 2 2 . %Z 2 CD > , �: > > > > > > Ul > > > "t LL > 0- C-4 2 Cq w a) CM 0 z cm 0 (3i CL C) F) CS cm 0, CO) W C6 12 ol w ci C6 ;r-.: C6 N z CCT I,: (D ED z LO LO w I LO 0 'gr (D r� Orr q Ci q Z (0 OD LO CM Ln U) 7 LO w 't P, lqt in 0 o , 2 $L -: N 0 0 Lo r, a U) d (M ci r,: C'l CO fr DO 5 cr O CO O T C) T N U) F— W Z Q O J c rn L N O I C'') N w 3 O N LL N O O C (YC6 U H U p d .O. A O C c II ca �U 0 .202 �02 C - f.OT�i W II o Z U > J X 'O U (1) W-9 Z p w c m 0 LL 12z �� J �a No Text No Text No Text No Text STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 S. 482-9331MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. FAX 482-9382 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: IZ-14 Client: �. SaAtf-p Sheet No. Of J Project: Ly-)o -ESTYN=--, Subject: ipD A-s I rJ ()V-q2 fla*N IS &P �7 7s ! i 445 'li Ills Z4� C) 54 %0-Qkp1'VJ S tq-p- 1 1 ottmolu_ 0 -SLOW 40 .401 `2 140(1 \,g (go/ "K7. qt2 STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 S. M 3DRFM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors �--- AX 482-9382 By: Date: Client: Sheet No. of Project: _ Subject: 147, I � I I I ! I I I I .I �_. I I..� .L I I- I I ✓ � -I � I ! .; j � i 1 l i j fl'LsTG/:%fi9GE7'��_ I f ' 'I 1 _ I . 77•c�-A`I I .�rS ✓ I .:/ '/ G-'•� I 1= �I.i.i� Illllll!j'il li I Iill,�l.� �- j l ;!Ijlill,l ;i i I II I ' I I ; I_ _�. --�- -�---I ;_ D•! �C� I i I I I' I I � �' i I i/o, I I I I ' 1 � O. I ' _ I ►I I - _ --fir -.I. ��✓.CLu,oCC I EL �.r�d'�;7/•f � 5..5 I I! I I� 4iD.725i I I 7 I I; STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 PH. S. MEL9 3DIRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: / Date: Client: /� �V D Sheet No. _ of Project: Subject: %�i �,r� a� /�• �S' /�� I_ ; 167I I� 11 IL I i cFro,�T,iEn�q I I Le"43- ' G'.,;a I=_� (ice• ' 4=)>�(l>. ��, a 7� �o. ��' rs�i)OI sa ,�- 73_s; ) I I I.. j _ I , i lil!,il I i J`II I 1 I , I Ilo I i ZGL4S�! I DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USER=Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado........ .................... EXECUTED ON 08-24-1994 AT TIME 13:53:21 PROJECT TITLE: Lory Ann Pond #1 Design **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 7.40 RUNOFF COEF = 0.60 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY (IN/HR) -DURATION (MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 7.0 7.0 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 8 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .805 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 6.44 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ----------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL DURATION INTENSITY MINUTE INCH/HR 0.00 0.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 7.00 15.00 6.10 20.00 5.20 25.00 4.68 30.00 4.15 35.00 3.83 40.00 3.50 45.00 3.25 50.00 3.00 55.00 2.80 60.00 2.60 65.00 2.46 ------------------------------- INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE ACRE -FT ------------------------------- ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.17 0.43 0.09 0.34 0.56 0.13 0.43 0.64 0.18 0.46 0.72 0.22 0.50 0.77 0.27 0.50 0.83 0.31 0.52- 0.86 0.35 0.51 0.90 0.40• 0.50 0.93 0.44 0.48 0.95 0.49 0.46 0.96 0.53 0.43 0.99 0.58 0.41 ----------------------------------------------------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = .5150942 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 35 MINUTES 22, 433 eu-. 4r. ZS,Z73C�.�. DETENTION POND 1 HIGH WATER LINE VOL. = 1/3 (AREA ABOVE) (DIFFERENCE IN COUNTOUR ELEV.) 2. FOR THE REMAIMDER OF THE VOLUMES BETWEEN CONTOURS (SECTION 9.2) VOL. = DEPTH/6 (A + 4AB mean + B) 3. HWL=(VOL.REQ.—VOL.LOW CUML)*6/(AREA LOW+4*AVG.AREA+AREA HIGH) DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado USER=Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado ........................ EXECUTED ON 08-24-1994 AT TIME 14:32:56 PROJECT TITLE: Lory Ann Pond #2 Design **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 2.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 2.75, RUNOFF COEF = 0.60 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY (IN/HR) -DURATION (MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 7.0 7.0 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE _ .5 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .96 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE _ .48 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. 3f ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ------------------------------------------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE -------------------------------------------------- INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 7.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 10.00 7.00 0.16 0.01 0.15 15.00 6.10 0.21 0.01 0.20 20.00 5.20 0.24 0.01 0.23 25.00 4.68 0.27 0.02 0.25 30.00 4.15 0.29 0.02 0.27 35.00 3.83 0.31 0.02 0.28 40.00 3.50 0.32 0.03 0.29 45.00 3.25 0.34 0.03, 0.31 50.00 3.00 0.34 0.03 0.31 55.00 2.80 0.35 0.04 0.32 60.00 2.60 0.36 0.04 0.32 65.00 2.46 0.37 0.04 0.32 70.00 2.32 0.37 0.05 0.33 75.00 2.19 0.38 0.05 0.33 80.00 2.05 0.38 0.05 0.32 85.00 1.96 0.38 0.06 0.33 90.00 1.88 0.39 0.66 0.33 95.00 1.79 0.39 0.06 0.33 100.00 1.70 0.39 0.07 0.32 105.00 1.64 0.39 0.07 0.32 110.00 1.58 0.40 0.07 0.32 115.00 1.51 0.40 0.08 0.32 120.00 1.45 0.40 0.08 0.32 ----------------------------------------------------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = .3272147 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 90 MINUTES �tq = 14 , 2N4 �-r. pq, 1-�WL = 1&. -Ar. Srote r�� = l 11 404- CuGtc. I4,v4 - 11, 404 = Z, 540 eu. �r. w��� ��t T�zw�►x�n� � DETENTION POND 2 HIGH WATER LINE VOL. = 1/3 (AREA ABOVE) (DIFFERENCE IN COUNTOUR ELEV.) 2. FOR THE REMAIMDER OF THE VOLUMES BETWEEN CONTOURS (SECTION 9.2) VOL. = DEPTH/6 (A + 4AB mean + B) 3. HWL=(VOL.REQ.—VOL.LOW CUML)*6/(AREA LOW+4*AVG.AREA+AREA HIGH) -T'I MOO, T— 00 (D d N p) DO LO d- N 00 CY) 0) CY) C DO DO 00 00 O O O O O CD C) O x — .10-4ole,3 -4uaLu4snrp-v Moulnp . N U \jz` O o n k4 o w 1 O V ., C w V a 41 vi � O N '([d1 _ ^l Y i A/ ivl 4 J $4 M Y\ _U Y I A. �• 3 O H v? w V O N N tin l LL. STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 PH. S. ME 3D1RF , FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: I Date: 2- l Client: Sheet No. of Project: Lo+ZT P 1,w Q—Enna m Subject: SCVm-7m�a . f ZI I I I fi7 ='Z'I I ; I I I Io• _ �-135 ' i l l I' I,i 1 I i �._ f t i -I .. ( I I ' li �� V.I � I I � I • I 1 I I 1 7 , f , ' 1 ' 1 - I I 3 it I I ! I 7 ( .! ! ( I I � I I � I I � ! I I �• I I I _ I I. ! mH f IDI IDZ MopEI- kDDI-t'IDN k ;IN M N ! +t 3 1 I'J t�" !pLimm ( M N 'fill fTI t-Y' 1(fG aU tiE rl I I i e6rL-1 N t5 R) M►wc -ro n r_ j REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 10-19-1992 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 STEWART AND ASSOCIATES (FT COLLINS-COLORADO)............................ ON DATA 03-09-1994 AT TIME 12:00:07 *** PROJECT TITLE : STkf'L(_ s't E`^ %N T F_v_%LAc *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 23.10 23.17 NO 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 23.10 22.64 OK 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 23.10 22.17 OK 102.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '1.40 23.10 23.16 NO 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 22.00 18.55 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION N ; v��r►�N 5 k�� ITT -r' I H t�fi5 hNv 4cr GUz15 -nZWuHE. -4+'t> IMFUS:5 tt 4. D 1--Fr of W RcER -p-rT-rl+ ,© af;Z5 I H cr L{o *** 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) 21.00 101.00 1.00 ROUND 17.32 18.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 1.00 2.00 ROUND 15.21 18.00 21.00 0.00 11.00 102.00 2.00 ROUND 9.14 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 2.00 3.00 ROUND 15.42 18.00 21.00 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 ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH NUMBER CFS CFS FEET -------------------------------- 21.0 7.7 8.6 1.11 20.0 7.7 18.3 0.79 11.0 1.4 8.6 0.41 10.0 9.1 20.8 0.81 ------------------------------- NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY FPS ------------------------------- FEET FPS FPS 5.48 1.06 5.76 4.36 7.27 1.03 5.25 3.20 3.57 0.46 19.85 0.79 8.36 1.12 0.86 3.78 FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ---------------------------------------- % (FT) (FT) 21.00 1.00 20.50 20.50 20.00 2.00 20.15 19.43 11.00 1.00 20.50 20.50 10.00 2.60 21.05 17.54 -------------- FROUDE COMMENT NO. 0.93 V-OK 1.64 V-OK 1.16 V-OK 1.87 V-OK ----------------------------- BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) ----------------------------- (FT) 1.10 1.10 OK 1.20 1.92 OK 1.10 1.10 OK 0.30 2.71 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET HDT�-: -TH15 -1715 -F,�EMvH -FnrfiP IHLf,�-r t-1 --------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH FEET FEET ------------------------------ 21.00 0.10 0.00 20.00 36.00 36.00 11.00 0.10 0.00 10.00 135.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------------ CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------- 22.00 22.00 23.17 7---------------- 22.64 SUBCR 21.96 21.18 22.64 22.17 PRSS'ED 22.00 22.00 23.16 22.17 JUMP 22.80 19.29 22.17 18.55 JUMP PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT ------------------------------- 21.0 101.00 23.64 0.10 20.0 1.00 23.46 0.13 11.0 102.00 23.36 0.10 10.0 2.00 23.25 4.59 ---------------------------------------------- JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ---------------------------------------------- 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 1.00 23.46 0.50 0.08 0.00 0.00 2.00 23.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 23.25 0.50 0.11 0.00 0.00 3.00 18.55 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 4 LORY ANN ESTATES SEWER DATA FILE 1 , 18 , 20 , 3 , 2 , 1 , .8 , 500 , 300 , .2 ,N 1 , 5 1.4 , 28.5 , 10 , .786 5 101 , 23.1 , 21 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 7.7 , 0 , .001 , .001 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 1 , 23.1 , 20 , 1 , 21 , 0 , 0 , 0 7.7 , 0 , .001 , .001 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 2 , 23.1 , 10 , 2 , 20 , 11 , 0 , 0 9.1 , 0 , .001 , .001 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 102 , 23.1 , 11', 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 1.4 , 0 , .001 , .001 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 3 , 22 , 0 , 1 , 10 , 0 , 0 , 0 9.1 , 0 , .001 , .001 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 4 21 , .1 , 1 , 22 , .016 , .25 , 0 , 1 , 0 , 0 20 , 36 , 2 , 21.9 , .016 , .5 , 0 , 1 , 21 , 0 11 , .1 , 1 , 22 , .016 , 25 , 0 , 1 , 0 , 0 10 , 135 , 2.6 , 22.8 , :OT .5 , 0 , 1 , 21 , 0 STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 82 933D1RFAX FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH.82 Consultin3 En3ineers and Surveyors By: Date: - 21 Client: seAUo Sheet No. of 1 Project: Lz4 AcnV" Subject: 00T La-t'- 17t DciKu-)Tl a,. DuEY-C.Awt I- tJL- intliT IF 501 (o is" pas v D. 4} ADS C?- I1tn•70 IZ ��ADS M UZ.'10 r 1iZ too �4D0 15"A ps cR 108.��0 �I. CR, lo8.eto °'.300 I S" AAS CR IC(,,-7 �Zop 15"NDS CQ\00.7. L C2 Iw,10 l00 Z 1 APb C� ]?.2oo a 10C) L- +zI, 1 5= 17.I 301 L=l.o` i 5= 1.0&7, 3oo L= 1 10-0 � S = 1.7$ %. #u'o.. L= Z&oI. S = 2.5% 100 L= 303 � s= o.�o 90 q 00T L� 7b -flJ I`%,%Qj E2410V#& fWCIIITY �Cxv�q i I or. CvZLe_T 41.1�I I.�1✓v �1TN(�J; T' S wutAiE 1Nla� Lo;SE� LAA REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 10-19-1992 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 STEWART AND ASSOCIATES (FT COLLINS-COLORADO)............................ ON DATA 08-23-1994 AT TIME 09:01:26 *** PROJECT TITLE : Lory Ann Collection System *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 102.50 99.78 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 103.20 100.12 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 114.00 106.21 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 115.00 109.39 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30 115.00 114.12 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 119.80 116.13 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 115.00 111.41 51.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 115.00 115.65 61.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 119.80 117.24 OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION -TES lou'r lS �e >1� V W..( t rr�6? COMMENTS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK NO OK i� C- 1, ) L lc. � ��rarE c02.y.04;rr `'s *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .9 -------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM -------------------------------- ID NO. ID NO. 100.00 2.00 1.00 200.00 3.00 2.00 300.00 4.00 3.00 400.00 5.00 4.00 500.00 6.00 5.00 301.00 41.00 4.00 401.00 51.00 5.00 501.00 61.00 6.00 -------------------------- SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) -------------------------- (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) ROUND 19.76 21.00 ROUND 15:12 18.00 ROUND' 16.12 18.00 ROUND 11.54 12.00 ROUND 10.49 12.00 ROUND 15.77 18.00 ROUND 5.58 12.00 ROUND 10.64 12.00 ------------------- EXISTING DIA(HIGH) WIDTH (IN) (FT) ------------------- (FT) 21.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED SEWER COMMENT ID FLOW Q NUMBER CFS ------------------ 100.0 11.3 200.0 11.3 300.0 11.3 400.0 3.3 500.0 2.8 301.0 8.0 401.0 0.5 501.0 2.8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE FULL Q DEPTH V CFS FEET ----------------- 13.3 1.24 11.1 1.25 9.4 1.25 3.7 0.74 7.3 0.54 3.9 1.00 3.9 0.24 3.9 0.63 LCITY DEPTH VLCITY FPS --------------------- FEET FPS 6.22 1.24 6.21 9.21 1.19 9.39 9.21 1.19 9.39 5.29 0.78 17.25 5.55 0.68 4.87 10.19 0.97 3.59 3.39 0.30 39.60 5.37 0.71 0.84 FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS VLCITY FPS 4.70 9.21 9.21 4.20 2.28 10.19 0.64 3.57 NO. ------------ 1.03 V-OK 0.00 V-OK 0.00 V-OK 1.10 V-OK 1.53 V-OK 0.00 V-OK 1.44 V-OK 1.29 V-OK ---------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION J NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ---------------------------------------- % (FT) (FT) 100.00 0.60 98.35 96.53 200.00 2.50 105.45 98.95 300.00 1.78 107.41 105.45 400.00 0.90 111.60 107.76 500.00 1.08 115.45 111.45 301.00 1.00 107.77 107.76 401.00 1.00 111.71 111.70 501.00 1.00 115.81 115.80 ------------------- BURIED DEPTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) ------------------- 3.10 7.30 6.34 2.40 3.10 6.23 2.29 2.99 4.22 3.00 7.30 6.24 2.30 6.24 2.30 3.00 COMMENTS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 100.00 303.00 178.11 100.10 98.28 100.12 99.78 JUMP 200.00 260.00 260.00 106.70 100.20 106.21 100.12 PRSS'ED 300.00 110.00 110.00 108.66 106.70 109.39 106.21 PRSSIED 400.00 427.00 329.43 112.60 108.76 114.12 109.39 JUMP 500.00 370.00 150.16 116.70 112.70 116.13 114.12 JUMP 301.00 1.00 0.00 108.77 10.8.76 111.41 109.39 PRSS'ED 401.00 1.00 0.00 112.71 112.70 115.65 114.12 JUMP 501.00 1.00 0.00 116.81 116.80 117.24 116.13 JUMP PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW Lo,A4 .our- �a"r *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS -------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT -------------------------------- 100.0 2.00 100.72 0.77 200.0 3.00 107.52 6.74 300.0 4.00 110.70 2.85 400.0 5.00 114.55 2.39 500.0 6.00 116.60 1.80 301.0 41.00 113.02 1.00 401.0 51.00 115.82 1.00 501.0 61.00 117.68 1.00 ------------------------------------------- JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ---------------------------------------------- 0.50 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.00 99.78 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 2.00 100.72 0.25 0.33 0.00 0.00 3.00 107.52 0.75 0.21 0.25 1.25 4.00 110.70 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 5.00 114.55 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.91 4.00 110.70 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.27 5.00 114.55 0.25 0.05 0.25 0.03 6.00 116.60 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. >% _L cz Cl C: T C%j 0 CL (1) Q 0 0 C) Fn ca a) (1) B.g C.) (j) CO uu C0 ) cia Lo Lo L_ C\j C\j 0 ci C=; (1) CY) Jc r C cz a) —C a CZ 0 S15 0 C-) 4— a) cu C 0 II E cu >4 :3 C/) Cl) 0 z 0 CD CL a) a 0 0 C: Fn C-0 cz a) a) c II II C\j C\j CD 0 60 0 (m N ul NOr -t 1,. 0) U) Or 01 fl. 0) cm 0) t, U) UD J-D 0 46 46 46 6 4.6 co, 0 5 a) 07 sL cm R 06 a co T NON M LO w 0 00 N cm w 0 0, CM ca 0 ci C5 d 00 6 cm cr cn ..... 0000000000 BOO C4 (q q It 00. cq w E �O cm co co C\l CD 00 00 C\j 0 00 c; a' 6 cr) U) ci 0*� a) 6 C\j 4.4. (0 a 2:1 ... ... .... a) 20 0 00 0 C', 10 C', ( 0 w C\j (D oi (D E0 0 CD\j cqj C� .— Cl) tv) ­.. Tt.0 0 W C0T 0 M LO CO c o 6 in (D v r- 6 m 'M cm j C'i r'. (6 cm C6 'i C\l N v- 0 CM v co- 00 ca L C 17' r 0 E CD 15 L) II N 01 00 00 00 TO N(l) C\j co Cl) OD cq C') 00 CM cu ui i�'. ci M* (00' C-4 0 (D CA n � 0 Lai N; (D cr) 00 0 a N V) M 0 LO r�� (D ': 00 cm (a a in T a) V) - ry EIt E 04 C\j cr) cv) 0 cm 00 04 a �q cq tv) CO 00 OD cf), 00, (a 0 a Col, Ln I,, CRO, (0, 0, 2 r� -: cf) cl 0 ln N (R or) cq 0 q N -: C4) 5) 0 U) (D E 0006 060 000 C\jCOIt . to (D N 00 CD 0 c; 6 ci 6 ci 0 0 0* 0* CD 0 L Loll IN, __O >% -L cz 0— C , NCZ 0 CD Cl. 0) a C) 0 0 (Z 0 U) U) (D 00 C\j LO to C\l 0 6 ci a) o) co 0 a) CD cvO :E cz E >% o co q =3 cl) cr- I w L- (1) 0 c)) z (1) a) 0 cl 00 a cu 'UD II II Ln LO C\jcCM c ci o 0 C0 0 00 to (D N It T co N 0 0 C) co CD OOOreNM V) PS 0 It co 0 cn (m co co cm 0 C4 co co N o, 0 0 CO U) r- a) CM (D 0 N . 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 . v . -n r cm (U 0) QN .. . .... ..... 2 0000000000 0 lqt a Po C4 R +n q �t co CM (D 0 a) E 0., C\j C4 C� �d CV) (D c N OD co o co co cm 0 (I UD cn CM (D C) 0 0 0 0 0 CrOJ (D rL 't 'T co () co C\j w 0 co C\j 0 N E c; T7 C4 C4 .. C4 co: co s 0 (D (D a o 0) r, cm V. R) 0 r�. CO 1� CO N 't CO (D CO Co N CO It, (D CO C * 0 C 15 CO 6 (D sr x: C)O000010000. w C\j cO 00 CM 0 C\l cq cO N 0 0 0 CO U) t� C) CM co ca C400 0) CY C' a CD 0 CD CD 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 C) O. d0 M, o - C, 4 C6 cm (D 0 E4 �... N cm cm m 0 V 00000000000. i q co co q a cm co co C4 a 0 o T V) LO h 0i cm (D 0 cz C9 a) (n 200 0 0 CD o o a) Iq co 0 CD '. t\l CO 0 E cc\, c cm coCM c(D r) 'gr 0 .... ... cm co It. U) (D:h co a) 0 ci 6 C5 C5 6, 0* 0" 0' T7 0 LL m I CIO CL C:r cm CL 0 co 0 CL(1) C) 0 0 U) (1) c c CZ (1) (1) CD o co CZ v 0 It C) LO 0 0 C) 0 c; cz J� O L) U) D. U) CL o ca > O II 0 E to Q CO >% cr w U) 0 z C\j CL 0 Oa 0 -E 0 0. (1) U5 0 0 a) J(D c c CIO to II CZ) 0 0 C:) C; ol It=; 0 , ci Lo co -T cm cr) r'. U) r, N to n to Lq IN q CO 0 0.0 Cm , It to It (TI It co LO 04 N co C-i co Cf) 5, � CIO c N r, 0 ... . ... ... 0 ca Lo T in Lo ��lo T In N, N 0 CID (D I Itt MIN 41� 0 a 0 ca :=7 o J N 614 T InI (6 i4 c6 a; ovs:: I 0 000 o o o c; d00 to N0 r-* C; in C4 0 Lri N. N. a C:5 LID 6i 0 to to N 2 E t- N. w o to r a T. to r. O r Lo.r VJ 0 CO CD 'It M CM T 0 0 CM cm co v- iq co n Co 0) c ... ... cu 2000000000at O to in 0 0 LO 0 to C3 N. E LID 1� 0 C\j U) N 0 IN to rl N r- co co 00 CD 0 m CAm V) 0 c M. LO to (D Lo to to .,it c CID . CT . . (D . C. O CO . . D C. .,-: 14: CO: cm N CD CM It 0 CD CO to >, C"a C\j N C\j C\J N cf)� cr) CID c c .0 c c 0 0 0 En cn C: CIO cr) cm 't OD 't cm IV) (o 00 . C\j . 0) ... (D . CO . . . 0) I . 1 0 C\j I 0 0 C\J cr) CY) 'T in Lo P. o C,o to Cr�r) (COO G0U 06 0* 16 (0:) 6 N2) rn of coo, T41(o ca)) CD 00 E (D r, I r, f" N t, co coloo co 0 a LO 0 NN0 co to -T CM C\j 0 0 6i N c9i 4 ifi (6 N* c6 6 (u a) cr U 0 LO 0 LO 0 to 0 tn 0 Ln a) to N, 0* CV to N" 0' Nto1-* 0E r- w W, w w 0.01 OP 0) 0 iN 0 T cm In 't to (D p- co 0) m co m CID co co M co co m C5 6. C5 6. c; 6" 0* '10, 7 0 LL I Ma a cm OF: r, ce) w Lo w C4 - m C\j6 cm c67 0 CU rn cn co co cm a cm co co N o cm 0 1p q 'At CO M 0) iq '7 CM ci r cm 6 ci vi vi 4 LO 0 co a) cr 0 a o a 0 0 o 0 CO C\! (D la '4T co I cm co 0 't CD E C\J m C6 li 4 It ui ui C6 C6 cc) CNJ 0 CNJ co co CNI o N 0) CNI (D 0 It 00 CO (M LO ... . . . . cl) . . . r. 0 C4 CNI CNI CO 1* (D cr 00 co CV(D 0 v co CNJ (oq Itt ui - 0) c\i C6 C6 14 'i li 0 ci CO 0) C) N CO -V co O 0 LP CZ L-A 7,1 (3. 4-1 r-'7 I A I � I t -T- gal SNZ �n I -I- 9 kA CD � r-- z z 0 w C) a �(1 Is w 1 -- T J� f' 1.0 12 5 1.0 _- 4 _ .9 8 - ;:� 10 6 - 3 _ 1 9 4 �,,-- tL W71� 2U. _ 8 w a �� z - 1.5 ! .6 7 �- I /e" Poti�.-emu: t .5 �g EzampleiPorf a I'0 - 6' S - .9 ul 5.5 a v - a-- O .8 i i w 5 z w6 z o - - .7 , u- .4 z z .4 - - z - 4.5 z 0'.3 P - 6 - w _ f t ` t V 4 ^ `, u' o _ 0 - .5 z_ z .2 z 3 - 3.5 z w c� z w - EL o ct -J. rr .4 !' u. o 3 0 V_ 0 .08 - ►- - _ .25 X ~o .06 tD - .3 C7 C7 a z _ 2.5 _ x .04 w rr. w - .25 2 I - a .02 0 - .2 a z .15 .01 0 - .15 L u_ 0 0 - Yo 1.5 Er a _ 2, .10 h Yo .I 1.2 � `"' (D�` s o Figure 5-2 NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEP11-12" ®r,, Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph I DRIVE OVER C & G AND INLET SIZING THEORETICAL FLOW CAPACITY VS. FLOW DEPTH Equation used is Q = .56 (Z/n) (S ^ .5) (Y ^ 8/3) When solved for depth Y = ((Q * n) / (.56) Z (S) ^ .5) ^ 3/8 0.95 = Inlet Capacity (cfs/ft) Without Reduction factor SDDCCS (Figure 5-2) enc& .wk3 St. Name/Inlet ID N. Side Tierra / INLET IA I Type Of Street: Residential / Initial Storm 7.70 = Q flow in cfs 0.016 = n Mannin s 0.020 = Sx X—slope 0.004 = S (st. slope) 0.85 = Init. Red. Fact. 50.00 = Z (1 /Sx) BUILD 10' f�v STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 . M L RUM, FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors -c^ By: ��Q - Date: 12— IS Client: J • �C i�y-O Sheet No. of 1 n � — Project: '.oy1f NNW. -F— Subject: Lv 2LPplu i j I 44 1it .' ! I 1 I I j �7, i i i OtreO,t �►�� I —��AIL I �� l ! A l LC— �� ! L�'^5r Ni I ;1p0J7o I I � ! I Oo, � i �Ir�QLJtrsD� '1 12►�►�. ; ! js �3� ' ; i I i j l j I I I I lit it II 11 ! I I I 1 I I i i I i I i I I it l j ; i p! ' I I r)1 No Text July 1994 Street Name TIFRRA Gutter Capacities For: J. Scavo, Lory Ann Estates By: Stewart and Associates Street X-Slope ft/ft= 0.02 Gutter Slope ft/ft= 0.004 Mannin 's "N" Value = 0.016 I nrtatinn• (ni imi FT A( npQinn Flnw• 7 7rfe Depth at Face Of C&G ft Depth at Flow Line ft Wetted Per. (ft) Flow Area (s .ft. Spread "T' ft) Flow Vol. (cfs) Velocity (ft/sec 0.00 0.11 1.55 0.08 1.55 0.3 3.62 0.05 0.16 2.70 0.23 4.22 0.8 3.64 0.10 0.21 2.84 0.51 6.90 1.7 3.40 0.15 0.26 2.95 0.92 9.57 3.0 3.32 0.20 0.31 3.05 1.46 12.24 4.9 3.33 0.25 0.36 3.14 2.14 14.91 7.3 1 tz 3.39 0.30 0.41 3.23 2.96 17.59 10.3 3.47 0.311 0.42 3.251 3.131 18.12 .91 3.49 Z -��� �� R.�►�o� 12 € Lri\ll S wtTl+i . SQ�CCS December,1993 Gutter Capacities For: J. Scavo, Lory Ann Estates By: Stewart and Associates Street X-Slope ft/ft= 0.02 Gutter Slope ft/ft= 0.031 Mannin 's "N" Value = 0.016 Say 1 L A oon ova��w,�p oa QZ = f Oefs Street Name: -T4,L, Location:Design Flow: Q,,= S2> Depth at Face Of C&G ft Depth at Flow Line ft Wetted Per. (ft) Flow Area (s .ft. S read 'T' ft) Flow Vol. (cfs) Velocity (ft/sec 0.00 0.11 1.55 0.08 1.55 0.9 10.08 :0 0.16 2.70 0.23 4.22 10.14 0. 0.21 2.84 0.51 6.90 4.8.2 9.47 0.15 0.26 • 2.95 0.92 9.57 .5 9.24 0.20 0.31 3.05 1.46 12.24 13.6 9.26 0.25 1 0.36 3.14 2.14 14.91 20.21 9.43 0.301 0.411 3.23 2.961 17.59 28.61 9.67 0.311 0.421 3.251 3.131 18.12 30.51 9.73 DcPr� o��u)Q OA-4 600-ti�Z� '5-p zzm� uess THAN (D ") O - -4r ✓OIZp, I (-koo vZ Street X-Slope ft/ft= 0.02 Gutter Slope ft/ft= 0.016 Mannin 's "N" Value = 0.016 l.�e� (=_U -� Sit of-ugkBErt+ �Z= Street Name: s,-� Location: s.t. (� w w �o�o. Design Flow: = 1,2� Depth at Face Of C&G ft Depth at Flow Line ft Wetted Per. (ft) Flow Area (s .ft. S read 'T' ft) Flow Vol. (cfs) Velocity (ft/sec .60 0.11 1.55 0.08 1.55 T. ' 7.24 0.05 0.16 2.70 0.23 4.22 1.7 7.29 0 0.21 2.84 0.51 6.90 6.80 0.15 0.26 2.95 0.92 9.57 6.1 6.63 0.20 0.31 3.05 1.46 12.24 9.7 6.66 0.25 0.36 3.14 2.14 14.91 14.5 6.78 0.301 0.41 3.23 2.96 17.59 20.5 6.95 0.311 0.42 3.25 3.13 18.12 21.9 6.99 % 00 \,L). (,I?g. TF Pi''?� Qu�o�-� =.GC2=XAu��c.2. of Wo2ST Cf•S��m - r ✓04AI 600 yZ� ' ")V4-f", (100 y2� V STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 PH. S. ME 3D1RFUM, FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: �i9Cf Date: Client:" �Sheet No. Zof Z Project: Subject: 7�9,0 I I /zG /�isc�as-� L I•' ilil ili;�i;l'i� ,,', STEWART&ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 103 S. MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. 482-9331 FAX 482-9382 By: Date: Client: c-�c;7ya Sheet No. I of Z- Project: Subject:-Z�:�%'�ley �/1/� 70I Ire! t i.%'=r^�GObc1 f1��1/2 I l !G ; i I! i"'I zoo 560 �.__ ! �.. I i � i ..I�•/KZO I 1 ! � I ? D;SG ,Ir 7 K /. ZS � / f'S! !cis !NI --`--t .�-S'�T To iO�lf?O%v.D � ! � /,�'?C7�;0;•Z5' I-! %�s'-I�S f � I O �I 1 1 STd 2 s�'la G !/d G /i.�r94�I • ! I I { j i i t"Z STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 482-93S. MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. 31 FAX 482-9382 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: Client: Sheet No. Z- of 01 Project: 1-2 Subject: 7f, • _l.___ �. , _ � i I i i _(._..� �. .I -..I ... t (_. .. + ' .. (.... i _ i - � i V" i -- I i ' ' f 1 11H 1 1. 2;2 �ijlj!Ilili i !I�i.i.�i i il!I� _i�i �_.I i I_i ! j 1 I I i I I , ( I I