Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 02/08/1994FINAL DRAINAGE M EROSION CONTROL STUDY MATTERHORN P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS STORMWATER UTILITY COPY f 1 1 t f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II Q FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY MATTERHORN P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS November 8, 1993 Prepared for: Giant Video 201 Commerce Drive, # 1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 583-001 RM ' INC. Engineering Consultants. 209 S. Meldrurn Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX:303/482-6368 ' November 5, 1993 Mr. Glen Schlueter City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater ' 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Matterhorn P.U.D. Dear Glen: We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Matterhorn P.U.D. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. EngineeringConsultants J nelle K. Ohms P.E. � � � LE K , �a roject Engineer v ��-. �`'•.a*' Q ' - 25485 j pO ' +. i �/�• i»♦-k cc: Mr. Scott Pearson, GIANT Video Other Offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476-6340 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS : ' DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 3 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE ' AND CONSTRAINTS 3 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 ' E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4 V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. GENERAL CONCEPT 6 VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 7 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 7 VIL CONCLUSIONS ' A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 8 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 8 C. STORM WATER QUALITY 9 ! D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 9 1 REFERENCES 10 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP SWMM HYDROLOGY STREET HYDRAULICS & DESIGN OF INLETS PIPE SIZING EROSION CONTROL RIPRAP DESIGN CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES 6 2 7 13 19 24 29 32 I 1 I. 0 1 [1 11 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The Matterhorn P.U.D. is located at the intersection of South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road in Fort Collins. The site is bounded on the north and west by the Larimer No. 2 Canal, bounded on the east by College Avenue, and on the south by Horse -tooth Road. The site is shown on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the southeast corner of Section 26, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. B. Description of Property The Matterhorn P.U.D. contains 2.46 acres more or less. Currently, the site is a vacant lot. Until several months ago, a commercial building sat in the southeast corner of the lot, near the street intersection. This building had housed a variety of small businesses in recent years. A number of years ago, a restaurant called the Matterhorn operated on the northern portion of the site, until it was consumed by a fire in the early 1970's. The City drainage.. aerial photo, dated March 1988, still shows the remains of the foundation. The aerial photo also shows a 30 foot wide green strip which separated the northern and southern paved portions of the lot. Except for this green strip and the Canal banks, the entire site was historically covered with either a building or. asphalt pavement. A copy of the City drainage aerial photo is provided in the appendix. For a higher quality copy of the photo, we would direct interested parties to the City mapping department. ' The site now contains little more than a large tree, and a large commercial sign. The existing site is presently covered with open ground with some gravel on the surface, plus the weeds which prosper along the Canal bank. ' Currently, the site topography is generally sloping toward the Canal, at approximately 1.0%. 1 L ' IL DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS ' A,- 'Major Basm Description The Matterhorn P.U.D. lies within the Foothills Basin. No major drainageway ' crosses the subject site. The Larimer No. 2 Canal, however, forms the north and west boundaries of the site. ' B. Sub -Basin Description Historic drainage patterns for 2.46 acre site differ only slightly from the way ' the site currently drains. Since the former building was torn down, the grades around the former building pad are slightly different. On the northern portion, the ground generally slopes toward Larimer No. 2 Canal. The south ' bank of the Canal is built up higher than the nearby ground, causing northbound water to pond against the south bank of the Canal. About 90 feet west of the west flowline of College Avenue, there is a depression in the ' Canal bank. This is the point where stormwater flows have entered the Canal. Historically, there has been a slight swale which directs flows toward this point in the Canal bank. The drainage aerial photo contains contours ' which depict this swale. The four existing curb cuts along College Avenue allow for some off -site flows ' to enter the subject site. The potential for off -site flows is the greatest from the two northernmost curb cuts, due to the elevation difference between the flowline and the grades on -site, with the flowline being higher. The high point ' in College,Avenue occurs farther north, opposite from Reynolds car _ dealership., The extent of south -bound College Avenue and contributing areas to the west which drain into the site is limited, however, by a curb opening ' where College Avenue crosses the Larimer No. 2 Canal, at the very northeast corner of the site. The canal itself provides a barrier against major flows ' entering the site. The high point in Horsetooth Road occurs to the west of the site, near the railroad tracks ,which cross Horsetooth Road. Again, for purposes of this ' study, only the portion of Horsetooth Road directly. opposite the site is considered as contributing flows. Near the southwest corner of the site there will be off -site flows contributed by the business' to the west. These flows have historically flowed eastward ' toward the canal, and will continue to do so. 2 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ' A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The subject site is in the Foothills Basin. The Foothills Basin SWMM model shows that this site is intended to drain completely into College Avenue, and then east toward Horsetooth Road. A future 24-inch storm drain pipe in Horsetooth Road would convey these flows to Warren Lake. The SWMM model does not show flows from this site entering the Larimer No. 2 Canal, ' nor does it call for on -site detention. The relevant pages from the SWMM model are included in the appendix. ' The Larimer No. 2 Canal representatives are aware of the intent to drain part of the site toward the Canal. Approval from the Canal representatives• is necessary, and meetings have been held to incorporate their requests into the ' final design.. C. Hydrological Criteria The rational method was used to determine runoff peak flows from the site. The 10 and 100 •year rainfall criteria, obtained from the City of. Fort Collins, ' is the criteria which was utilized. This criteria is included in the Appendix: ' D. Hydraulic Criteria All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. E. Variances from Criteria ' A variance from City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria is being sought, in modifying the manner in which the stormwater is released from the site, . compared to the SWMM model for the Foothills Basin. 3 _ I r 1 H When development is complete for the two lots within the subject site, all on-' site fully developed flows will either flow directly or indirectly toward the Larimer No. 2 Canal. No off -site flows will enter the site through the College Avenue entrance. Included in the back pocket of this report is the Matterhorn P.U.D. Grading & Drainage & Erosion Control Plan. B. Specific Details Subbasin Design The proposed development is divided into five on -site and three off -site basins. Please refer to the Grading and Drainage Plan for the location of these subbasins. ' Subbasin A will,drain toward an area inlet, with flows piped toward the Canal, and released into the Canal. Subbasin B runoff will reach the Canal. by surface flows. Subbasin C actually includes off -site areas, but for consistency with previous versions of this report. Subbasins D and E will each drain toward.a curb cut. at a corner of'the parking lot. A grouted riprap rundown will be located below each curb cut. For this site, a curb cut is deemed more advantageous than an area inlet and pipe. The disadvantage of an inlet and pipe is that the ditch flows; if high enough, would submerge the pipe and reduce the release rate. To insure' the stability of the curb and gutter at the curb cut, a cut-off wall would be installed beneath the curb cut, at the top of the rundown. The developed drainage patterns for the three off -site basins, i.e. the areas in College Avenue and Horsetooth Road opposite the site plus areas adjacent to the streets, will be similar to the historic pattern. Subbasin 0-1 and 0-2 will drain toward a proposed curb inlet in the northwest corner of the intersection and within the proposed right turn lane on College Avenue. Subbasin 0-3 will drain toward a new curb inlet located north of the College Avenue entrance. This inlet is covered in greater detail later in this section. Variance Request Instead of releasing stormwater solely onto College Avenue, as represented in the Foothills Basin model, on -site stormwater flows will be released into the Larimer No. 2 Canal. There will be several release points into the Canal, to simulate the current release pattern into the Canal. Much of the site naturally drains away from College Avenue, and toward the Canal. It is not 4 realistic to re -grade the site with significant fill in order to redirect all flows toward College Avenue. ' Another reason. for requesting the variance is that the 24-inch pipe which will deliver flows to Warren Lake has not been installed along Horsetooth Road. ' No on -site detention is intended for the site. Since flows have historically travelled undetained toward College Avenue, Horsetooth Road and the Canal, ' this pattern will not be modified. Existing Inlet ' There is an existing 5' curb inlet near the northwest corner of the College and Horsetooth intersection. It is located on Horsetooth, near the tangent point of the intersection radius. Along with the proposed improvements within the ' site, a right turn lane will be added along southbound College Avenue. This new lane will push the intersection radius farther west, and cause interference with the location of the existing curb inlet. The existing curb inlet and the ' outlet pipe into the Canal will be removed or abandoned. The City drainage system maps show no pipes coming into the inlet. The curb inlet will,be relocated to College Avenue, due to restrictive grading caused by the new ' turn lane. The flows intercepted by the curb inlet will be piped toward the new area inlet 'Within Subbasin A and then piped toward the Canal. New Inlet Although off -site flows were formerly routed through sub -basin E, a new inlet will instead be installed north of the College Avenue entrance. This inlet is in a sump.. Design point H, to the north, was added for the evaluationof contributing flows from College Avenue and the contributing areas to the west of College Avenue. This contributing area is estimated to be 6.9 acres, and included portions of the two car dealerships to the north, plus West Monroe Street. This area creates runoff rates far in excess of the capacity of a single inlet. The intent of this additional inlet is not to solve the existing drainage problems along College Avenue. The new inlet will prevent flows from entering the site, and allow for acceptable grades in the turning flowline. Although the Q100 for Design Point H is 26.2 cfs, the relevant flow rate is the hydraulic capacity of the street at this same design point. The output in the appendix shows a hydraulic street capacity of 5.2 cfs. Assuming that the 48"011 opening is plugged (which is quite likely), any flows which exceed the street hydraulic capacity will create weir flow over the curb at the bridge, or will flow south and overland until they reach the Canal. The bridge and the canal limit what southbound flows can reach the Matterhorn site and the new curb inlet.. Therefore, the curb inlet is sized for 5.2 cfs. From the UDInlet output, the ponding depth at the inlet is no higher than the elevations at the 5 ' driveway entrance. No flows should enter the site in a 100-year storm event. Although the inlet is in a sump, it will be possible for flows to continue south ' along the turn lane flowline since the flowline peak at the driveway is lower - than the driveway elevations farther into the site. Overall, the College Avenue drainage situation is improved with the addition ' of a new curb inlet. Runoff into. the Canal The existing and developed flow rates were compared for runoff contributed by the on -site and off -site basins. The design point was chosen as the point where the Canal crosses under Horsetooth Road. The calculations in the appendix show an increase in the volume of runoff for the developed condition. For the 10 year storm event, the flow is 12.7 cfs for historic and 13.5 cfs for developed. For the 100 year storm event, the flow is 26.1 cfs for historic and 29.7 cfs for developed. The "C" factor as calculated was also lower for the developed condition, i.e., 0.80 developed versus 0.83 historic. The calculations indicate that this development will not create a significant increase in the amount of runoff which is delivered to the Canal. ' Structures over Canal The proposed grading plan shows two new structures over the "rimer No. 2 Canal. These structure spans are both 20 feet. The standard waterway opening required by the Larimer No. 2 Canal. company is 20 feet by 5 -feet. The structures4ill be precast three -sided boxes, with a 20 foot span and a height of 10 feet, to allow for adequate cover over the cast -in -place footings' Bridge No. 1 is adjacent to the existing bridge carrying Horsetooth Road over the Canal. This structure has a 20 span also. Representatives -of the Canal company have requested, due to the proximity of Bridge No. 1 to the existing bridge, that vertical retaining walls be installed between the two structures. This will ease the maintenance required in the Canal. V. STORMWATER QUALITY A. General Concept ' In late 1993_ or in 1994, it is anticipated that the water quality of stormwater runoff will be required to be addressed on all final design utility plans. For this study, we have considered the downstream impacts of the stormwater runoff. Stormwater which is released from the site directly or eventually enters the Larimer No. 2 Canal, and is then delivered to Warren Lake. ' Warren Lake is used as a source of irrigation water. The pollutants which are 6 collected from this site and others, upstream and downstream of the subject site, will settle' out .along the water course and in,_ Warren Lake. No ' downstream receiving V waters of the United States will directly 'receive pollutants from this proposed development. ' The release of stormwater 'runoff into the Larimer No. 2 Canal is in conformance with the desire of the Canal owners to receive such water. Since this runoff is delivered to downstream water users, and not to the Cache La Poudre River, no additional stormwater quality measures are proposed for construction, with this site. ' VI. EROSION CONTROL ' A. General Concept The Matterhorn P.U.D. lies on the edge of a High Rainfall Erodibility Zone, ' but is primarily within a Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone, per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. This development lies within a Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City zone maps. Due to the existing site slopes generally around 1%n, the potential exists for minor erosion problems during the construction phases of the project. ' Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference. Manual for Construction Sites and the related calculations in the appendix, the erosion control performance standard for the subject site is 75.3%. From the ' calculations in the appendix, the effectiveness of the proposed erosion control plan during construction is 77.3%. The effectiveness for the fully constructed state was not calculated because the "during construction" phase is the more ' critical phase for control of erosion. Therefore, the erosion control plan, as specifically detailed below, meets and exceeds the City of Fort Collins requirements. ' B. Specific Details Since construction is scheduled to begin around the end of November, it is not possible to make use of a temporary cover crop. The City erosion control requirements do not allow for the use of temporary cover crops- between October 1st and March 1st. Since the site is rather small, the use of permanent grass seed and hay or straw mulch does not seem worthwhile. Much of the site will eventually be covered with pavement or buildings, so there would be no longterm value from a permanent grass seeding. With the construction starting rather late in the season, the paving will probably not ' occur within 6 weeks of the beginning of construction. Therefore, no credit 7 ' is taken for; the: eventual pavement.. The calculations were initially performed with using soil roughening as the ' main surface treatment. It was not possible to attain a high enough effectiveness rating, including other erosion control measures such as gravel filters and silt fence. To improve the effectiveness, gravel mulch is proposed for a portion of the site, primarily the southern portion. Construction will most likely occur first on the southern portion of the site. More specifically, gravel mulch will be used in sub -basins A and B. The soil will be roughened in sub -basins D,'and E, as well as in the "on -site" portions of the three "off-' site" basins. iFor sub -basins A, D, and E, gravel filters will be used at the area inlet and curb cuts. In these same sub -basins plus sub -basin B, a silt fence will be ' installed along the banks of the Canal. The silt fence should be installed as soon as construction starts, and placed ' close enough to the Canal banks so that it will not be a nuisance for most of the grading; operations. After overlot grading has occurred, the gravel mulch should be installed in the southern sub -basins, and the soil left in a roughened ' state on the -remainder of the site. The subgrade should be left in a . roughened state for as long as possible, since soil clumps are more resistant ' to the erosive -effects of wind and rain. After the installation of the inlet and the curb cuts within the curb and gutter, the gravel filters should be installed. These filters consist of a combination ' of concrete, blocks, wire screen and coarse gravel. VII. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort.Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. A variance from the tFoothills Basin. Master Plan as to where the runoff is directed is being requested. With a variance granted, the flows would release into the adjacent ' canal, instead of directly into College Avenue. B. Drainage Conceit ' The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide for the conveyance and release of developed on -site flows into the Larimer No. 2 Canal. Off -site ' flows which presently enter the site via curb -cuts on College Avenue will no 8 longer do so. Stormwater will be directed toward area inlets and curb cuts. ' C. Storm Water Quality' The developed flows will be directed toward the Larimer No. 2 Canal, then toward Warren Lake, and then to irrigated crop land. Stormwater quality will ' be controlled by allowing pollutants to settle out along the watercourse and in Warren Lake. ' D. Erosion Control Concept The erosion control performance standard has been calculated, and appropriate measures will be taken to control erosion from the site. The erosion control measures will be consistent with the City of Fort Collins ' Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. 9 ' REFERENCES l Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984. ' 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. Urban Stormw'ater Quality Management Guidelines, prepared for the ' American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado and Camp Dresser McKee, Orlando, Florida, 1991. ' 4. Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, prepared by Resource Consultants, February 25, 1981. 10 No Text 1 VICINITY MAP ti 1 � _ ' SWMM 77� DEVELOPED BY METCALF • EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(S) JIN(6) 2 1 0 0 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) 1 2 0 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) 3 4 0 WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** BASIN G FOOTHILLS BASIN 100 YR FULLY DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE 3 VTTATFT HILL RD TO FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR INLET DITCH (REV 11-29-90) BER OF TIME STEPS 72 EGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 5.00 1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH OR 24 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES OR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR 60 .96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.D4 1.20 .84 .60 .40 .36 .36 .24 .24 .12 .12 ASIN G FOOTHILLS BASIN 100 YR FULLY DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE 3 AFT HILL RD TO FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR INLET DITCH (REV 11.29-90) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JINGO) 0 0 0 . 0 JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10) 0 0 0 0 9.00 .24 NSCRAT(4) 0 3.72 2.16 .24. .24 3 NSCRAT(5) 0 1.56 .24 UBAREA UMBER GUTTER OR MANHOLE WIDTH (FT) AREA PERCENT SLOPE RESISTANCE_ FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN) INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE 2 0 0. (AC) IMPERV. (FT/FT) IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO 1 1 5400. .0 69.2 .0 40.0 .0300 0070. .016 M .100 300 51 .50 00180 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 TABLE 17 2 3 4 2100. 46.9 40.0 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 51 50 00180 1 103 600. 8.3 40.0 : .0060 .016 .250 .100 • 300 S1 00180 - 4• 4 705 16511 66 6 .;.. 40.0 , .0090 ".. • ., 016. 25Q'. .100 '- .300 '4 .50 ... 00180 5 103 2100 37 0 40 0 0040 016 '. 250` ".100.': '= 300- , ,.51 51 _. .50 - t 6 8 1800 40 5 39.0 .0070 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50' .50 .00180 1 7 202 300 9 7. 40.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .00180 1 8 ti 2800. 25.0 . 40.0 .0050 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 9 13 700. 4.8 23.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 i 10 14 3000: 68.4 38.0 0110 016 250 100 .300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 t 11 16 1800. 50.5 40.0 .0100. .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .00180 1 12 18 4000. 64.9 28.0 .0030 .016 .250 .100 .300 .50 .00180 1 13 120 500. 7.4 10.0 .0120 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .51 .50 .00180 1 14 15 21. 120 1100. 5.9 40.0 .0130 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 1 16 98 1000. 850. 2.2 7.2 .0 90.0 .0400 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 .00160 1 17 24 800. 3.1 80.0 .0200 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 18 25 1200. 24.1 80.0 .0150 .0050 .016 .016 .250 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 19 205 980. 13.4 90.0 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .100 .300 .300 .51 .51 .50 .00180 1 t 20 120 27 206 1200. 23.0 90.0 .0350 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 .00180 1 ' 21 2000. 19.0 40.0 .0350 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 1 121 28 204 300. 500. 4.8 10.1 90.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 .00180 1 22 29 1400. 25.7 90.0 76.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 23 31 4600. 40.1 40.0 .0090 .0050 .016 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 00180 1 24 33 3600. 47.9 40.0 .0100 .016 .250 .250 .100 .100 .300 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 1 25 26 34 4500. 72.0 90.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .51 .50 .50 .00180 1 27 35 36 1700. 35.3 50.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 28 37 1100. 11.6 50.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 < 29 43 700. 4200. 4.8 64.5 50.0 40.0 .0400 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 .00180 1 30 40 2800. 64.6 21.0 .0090 Ot00 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 31 38 4600. 57.7 40.0 .0050 .016 .016 .250 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 32 42 1400. 26.9 27.0 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .100 .300 .300 .51 .50 .00180 00180 1 1 33 34 48 _...._ _`5800. 500. 3.7 ...._-16.9..._._..80.0 90.0 - _.0070 --- _016 .250__ _10_0 .300 .51 .51..__ .50 35 47 1200. 18.0 .0200 016 .250 100 300 .__. .51 ..-.50_00180___ .50 .00180 1 36 45 2000. 27.9 10.0 90.0 .0150 .016 .250 .100 1.300 .51 .50 .00180 1 37 50 23000. 269.0 76.0 .0300 .0300 .016 .250 250 .100 100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 38 51 4400. 34.2 40.0 .0100 .016 .016 .250 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 39 40 53 1000. 32.1 3.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .100 .300 .300 .51 .51 .50 .00180 1 1 41 55 72 7300. 700. 202.3 5.8 40.0 .0070 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 .00180 1 42 172 1000. 14.0 90.0 40.0 .0100 .016 .250 ..100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 142 173 1200. 35.5 40.0 .0100 .0100 .016 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 43 44 74: 600. 26.5 7.0 .0100 .016 .250 .250 .100 .100 .300 300 .51 51 .50 .00180. 1 1 _ GS 58 62 4600. 6600. 50.2 151.8 40.0 53.0 .0050 .016 .250 " .100 .300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 00180 1 46 60 2400. 30.2 40.0 .0080 .016 '.016 .250 250 " .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 47 63 2000. 91.4 40.0 .0070 .0080 .016 100 .300 .51 50 .00180 1 48 65 2000. 74.1 40.0 .0060 .016 .250 .250 .100 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 49 67 3200. 42.2 40.0 .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 51 .50 .00180 1 50 57 2400. 37.4 65.0 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 300 .50 .00180 1 51 70 2600. 69.7 40.0 .0070 .016 .250 .100 .51 .50 .00180 1 52 753 600. 1 70.0 .0050 0/6 .250 .100 .300 .300 .51 .50 .00180 i 54 5 81 600. 1800. 2.9 52.7 60.0 .51 .50 .00180 1 55 208 1300. 56.5 40.0 .0030 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 56 209 1300. 36.1 40.0 .0060 .0030 .016 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 57 85 6500. 166.2 .40.0 .0200 .016 .250 .250 .100 .100 .300 51 51 .50 .00180 1 58 212 2650. 79.1 40.0 .0040 .016 .250 .100 .300 .50 .00180 1 59 211 1350. 20.7 40.0 .0020 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 60 78 1500. 27.0 40.0 .0050 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 61 210 1400. 42.0 40.0 .0020 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 62 213 1300. 69.3 48.0 .0080 .016 250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 63 92 1250. 86.4 40.0 .0050 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 64 214 2700. 80.6 40.0 .0010 .016 .250 100 .300 .51 51 .50 .00180 1 65 66 88 94 2700. 33.0 16.0 .0130 .016 .250 100 .300 .300 .51 .50 .00180 t 1 6T 86 5800. 1500. 93.2 28.3 19.0 40.0 0200 .016 .250 .100 300 .51 .50 .50 .00180 .00180 i 68 .87 1800. 60.0 40.0 .0360 .016 .250 .100 300 .51 .50 .00180 1 69 95 1300. 41.8 40.0 .0100 .0300 .016 .250. 250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBCATCHMENTS, 72 .016 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 24 25 0 1 CHANNEL 10.0 800. .0004 3.0. 3.0 .030 100.00 -. p 25 26 0 1 CHANNEL 10.0 ' , 1200. . .0004. 3.0. 3.0 030 100 00 0 26 27 0 .° 1 CHANNEL 10.0'. 400.'_ .0004. 3.0 . 3.0 030 100 00 0: 27 50 : 0 1 CHANNEL 10.0 3200. 0004 3.0 3.0 030 100 00 0 205 26.0 _ 2 RIPE 1.0 100. .0020 .0 .0 .013 1.00. 0 206 50- 0 2 PIPE 2.0 100. .0100 .0 .0 013 2.000 204 34' 0 5 PIPE : 1.5 1200. .0040 .0 .0 .013 1.0 0 OVERFLOW 1.0 1200. .0040 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 28 30 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 800. .0020 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 29 34 0 5 PIPE 4.0 800. .0050 .0 .0 .013 .4.00 0 OVERFLOW 10.0 800. 0050 25.0 25.0 .016 100.00 30 32 0 2 PIPE 2.0 2200. .0120 .0 .0 .016 2.00 0 31 32 0 1 CHANNEL. 2.0 2400. .0090 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 32 40 0 2 PIPE 2.0 1650. .0060 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 33 40 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 2600. .0100 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 34 35 0 5 PIPE 4.5 2300. .0100 30.0 30.0 .016 4.50 35 p OVERFLOW 5.0 2300. .0100 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00. 40 0 4 CHANNEL 10.0 900. .0030_ 4.0 4.0 .040 6.00 0 OVERFLOW 58.0 900. .0030 30.0 30.0 .060 100.00 36 51 0 1 CHANNEL 1.0 1100. .0060 30.0 4.0 .016 100.00 0 37 49 0 1 CHANNEL 3.0` 800:- - .0130 3.0 3.0 .040 100.00 0 38 39 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 2400. 0050 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 39 55 4 2 PIPE 2.0. 350. .0050 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 1.4 .0 4.5 .0 6.2 .0 40 41 0 4 CHANNEL 15.0 1000. .0020 4.0 4.0 .040 4.00 0 OVERFLOW 47.0 1000. .0020 100.0 100.0 .060 100.00 41 42 6 2 PIPE .1 150. .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 5.0 .1 15.0 2. 27.0 .4 42.0 .9 57.0 2.3 233.0 42 55 10 2 PIPE .1 150. .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .1 .0 .2 5.0 1.2 18.0 2.8 48.0 5.6 88.0 10.5 134.0 16.6 179.0 23.8 219.0 32.0 295.0 43 44 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 2150. .0060 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 44 42. 2 2 PIPE 1.5 1700. .0020 .0 .0 .013 1.50 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 6" .0 45 490 5 PIPE 3.0 900. .0150 .0 .0 .013 3.00 0 OVERFLOW 5.0 900. .0150 100.0 100.0 .016 100.00 46 49 0 5 PIPE 1.5 500. .0200 .0 .0 .013 1.50 0 OVERFLOW 2.0 . 500. .0200 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 47 46 0 5 PIPE 2.0 1300. .0170 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 OVERFLOW 2.0 1300. .0170 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 48 47 _ '0 _ _ _ 1 CHANNEL _ 1.0 _ 5.00__ _0020 30.0 1.0 .016 100.00 _0 _ 49 S0 - 5 -1 --CHANNEL 70.0 500. 0160 5.0 5.t .040 100.00 0 50 53 5 2 PIPE .1 1. .0160 .0 .0 1.000 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 90.0 40.0 250.0 220.0 460.0 560.0 630.0 880.0 51 52 0 5 PIPE 1.5 2400. .0100 .0 .0 .013 1.50 0 OVERFLOW 2.0 2400. .0100 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 52 53 0 5 PIPE 2.0 1300. .0050 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 OVERFLOW 3.0 1300. .0050 4.0 4.0 .040 100.00 53 54 0 5 PIPE 2.0 900. .0040 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 OVERFLOW 50.0 900. .0040 4.0 4.0 .040 100.00 54 55 0 5 PIPE 2.0 1500. .0060 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 OVERFLOW 3.0 1500. .0060 13.0 13.0 .040 100.00 55 56 0 1 CHANNEL 10.0 3200. .0030 3.0 3.0 .040 100.00 0 56 97 9 2 PIPE 2.0. 100. .0050 .0 .0 .013 2.00 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .7 .0 2.7 1.0 6.5 2.0 12.0 4.0 18.9 85.0 26.8 231.0 35.6 420.0 45.3 1946.0 97 57 6 2- PIPE .1 100. .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW %17,78 .0 54.0 1.2. 144.0 3.3 230.0 9.3, 337.0 10.2 400.0 12.4 440.0 2 PIPE 2.0 75. .0200 .0 .0 .023 2.00 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW 0 0 .0 .1 80.0 .1.8200.0 4.1 280.0 8.3 463.0 . 58 59 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 2400. .0060 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 0 59 62 4 2 PIPE 1.8 900. .0020 .0 .0 .013 1.80 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW p .0 .0 .1 .0 1.5 .0 3.0 .0 No Text C O � V a� :• .V°L II II � -J,1 N II # 1 CIO N Z N 0 LL F- w (/) o � Ho7 F-a O W W U�Z c 0QQ F- w fA 4�1 y. m �... Z 0 > Q (] J 5 m � U J m 4 •U Q � _ a Q \� o `� oi 3 v .p tc'� - CCU O. N z AY 7- I Cn 1(� \ V r4 N � � II II II II II ". z kA 04 F E+ I a� QM .'7- O X : O i114 ca N rU7 ..kro O{ UO �O O O o O o w F w a m In O p OLO > 1a- -- N N W� W o co z�� � - lil N LP •� _ 0 � zp O � J I V W .. W OV pn. .- ,e O N, W t` v- N N m Z w .N c i J i M M I N _ fn QQ Ill'] a 4\ ; Q Q N ^ vi O ''�`` O1 `/� '•` O o ` \ F IU O o No Text U w 00 rn a. (J C 0 > 7 mcc o w - _ - N LRU L _ - oQ iJ O °1 1' 61 LU / w _ C w m -- - a - u5ac� a. LL. a co W V _ a a. x cn a O O = `"__ ___ fr, o Ln a F- o �Q w _ a - - - - - H / 6Tb27G C- l ,b177oNS /I N � cr P a Z D U. Voz- � O�� a v� o L� Q DEG to m F o ❑ U F a i ❑ m D U Z) (� J Q U �x . Q �w Z,v �\ �` ul •. 4i �[j lIj cal a0 ko n cn U4. OO t\1x mo Ua. co 4,p U U S n 0 0 of o 0 V w J to w a m cl) � � � N O C11 �l L(1 Ld LU o o ro O lcj cp �1 M + �- � �- N I �_ LL p - W v N `X5 `! O O J N N NI�z t6 O >•�:. W O� �� O � O O O O O O O- J w u `� IN N N cj Q� x z w" w Z O D O O O O O 4 o a3 w a 'i m in (noo 0 o WL In �m F G cc w F- EE U J Q U Z L J L No Text No Text - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------=------------------ ----------=-------------------- <<STREET DRAINAGE. INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> ' UDSTREET-MENU: NETWORK: DESIGN-MENU:STREET FLOW: RESULTS '***"STREET:GUTTER!HYDRAULICS - GIVEN GUTTER"GEOMETRIES. ' LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) _. 0.40 CROSS SLOPE ($) _, 2.70 DEPRESSION AT GUTTER (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (feet)= 2.00 STREET MANNING ROUGHNESS N = 0.016 ' THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATER CURB HEIGHT SPREAD(ft)= 36.00 (inch)= 6.00 STREET UNDER IDEAL HYDRAULIC CONDITION: STREET CAPACITY IS DICTATED BY -- THE CURB HEIGHT ' PEAK.RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 5.21 FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 2.49 FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)= 2.72 ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft).= 12.35 . GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = 6.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (fps)= 2.34 ' THE STREET CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTOR= 0.80 ' STREET. GUTTER -FULL,, CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.21 < -- AT DE�(CyN STREET ALLOWABLE CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.17 ". STREET UNDER ALLOWABLE HYDRAULIC CONDITION: PEAK RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 4.17 FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 2.18 ' FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)= 2.00 WATER SPREAD ON'STREET (ft) = 11.22 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = 5.63 ' AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (fps)= 2.24 STREET ALLOWABLE CAPACITY=SMALLER ONE BETWEEN IDEAL CAPACITY AND REDUCTION FACTOR*GUTTER-FULL CAPACITY. 1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN .INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE •(degree)= 63.40 LATERAL WIDTH OF'°DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL'SLOPE (o) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 3.90 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 9.78 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.55 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.58 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.03 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(*)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.19 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 5.20 = STREET 5.20 �YDQ.AULIG 000 6,APAGITy 5:20 ADJACENT TO, 5.20 DESIGN M H 0.00 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: Pr, F GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 63.40 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ' SUMP DEPTH :• Note: The sump depth (ft)= 0.25 is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL.SLOPE ($) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 4.90 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 7.58 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.54 ' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.60 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.57 ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR CURB OPENNING CLOGGING ($)= FACTOR(%)= 50.00 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.10 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.10 = Quo F FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 ' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 ' 0.7 ' u- 0.6 Z 0.5 > 0.4 0 x a 0.3 w 0 z 0.2 0 z 0 a 0.1 0.0 0 1 2 3 1 4 FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2) ' Figure 5-3 CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP (From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969) '. MAC�EA(� No.IZ-.G2Ar>co INS -ET.; ' C'r E. N At EA - 2-70 MAY 1984 5 .Sw�E9- t L.oNME2cE C,Iry Sv�P�j/� P/IouE 7-8l- x 0g 2 = lo.6p C, fs x 0.80 = 5. 3 C_ RED. FACjdK. -oslyN PT A aio.= 2.8c CoNyrDF D 5-11 DESIGN CRITERIA 0 CLIENT JOB NO. P.y.D CALCULATIONS FOR Ltypm)ue-s NC PROJECT UA Engineering Consultants MADE B�IIATE HECKED BY DATE SHEET --Lt-3OF -7 7 T _j i. Ti L L 4 t :,I ziw 7-1 T 7-i 7' - - - - - - - - - - -4- . ...... ..... ..... .. ..... . . . . . . T. L L L T i L J- T -T- ---- - --------- L -- ----- - ---- -- -j ... .. ...... ------- T- . ..... -4 - -17 4 + ----- -------- J.- ------ 1-4 d 14 4 -7 -j -7- i i- -4-1 Fd 7 -T- --- ---- ----- -- ----- /Ol ' PIPE SIZING DATA 11-08-1993 AT TIME 09:31:12 F** PROJECT TITLE : ' MATTERHORN P.U.D *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 10 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 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 12.10 30.25 28.00 OK ' 3.00 12.10 30.03 28.22 OK 2.00 9.30 30.11 28.37 OK 1.00 0.10 5.20 5.20 30.69 30.69 28.86 28.87 OK OK K MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION h ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 13.00 3.00 4.00 ARCH'* 23.79 24.00 19.00 30.00 12.00 2.00 3.00 ARCH 21.56 24.00 19.00 30.00 11.00 1.00 2.00 ARCH 17.33 18.00 19.00 30.00 ' 10.00 0.10 1.00 ARCH 13.83 18.00 19.00 30.00 & vPU.y Ho(ZZ, C L( P. IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES IMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET EQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. OR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, XISITNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q iDEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------- 12.1 13.1 1.55 4.55 1.24 5.83 3.70 0.65 V-OK ' 12.0 9.3 13.1 1.27 4.35 1.09 6.79 2.84 0.74 V-OK 11.0 5.2 13.1 0.89 3.78 0.83 7.49 1.59 0.81 V-OK 10.0 5.2 24.0 0.65 5.84 0.83 4.19 1.59 1.50 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS --- ---------------------=---=----------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ------------------ %' ------- (FT) (FT) 13.00 0..30 26.75 26.49 12.00 11.00 0.30 0.30 27.00 27.92 26.85 27.11 10.00 1.00 27.93 27.92 ----------------------------- BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) ----------------------------- (FT) 1.70 2.17 NO 1.53 1.60 NO 1.19 1.42 NO 1.18 1.19 NO K MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET ** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS-. ----------------------=----------------------------------------- ----------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ---------- 13.00. ----FEET -----------------------------------------------------------.- 85.00 0.00 28.33 28.08 28.22 28.00 SUBCR 12900 11.00 50oOO 270.00 0.00 0.00 28.58 29.50 28,43 28.69 28.37 28.86 28.22 28.37 SUBCR SUBCR 10.00 1.00 0.00 29.51 29.50 28.87 28.86 JUMP �RSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW t** 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 -------------------------==---------------------------------------------------- 13.-0 3.00 28.43 0.43 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4,00 28.00 12.0 2.00 28.49 0.01 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.00 28.43 11.0 1.00 28.90 0.36 1.32 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.00 28.49 10.0 0.10 28.91 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 28.90 MAX, W,SEL. 0 I NLI✓-r < T 0. CoNG, EL, 31. 2¢ ' BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. @ DIZIVEWA LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD 'FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. OK 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 FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. J T:§DNC Migineering Consultants 23 CLIENT �,AaT V;dw JOBNO. 503-00 PROJECT MArr r- &JQ r, N Pup CALCULATIONS FOR ()p*P_w9_F1 MADE By aa DATE.L��HECKED BY DATE Z�30F -SHEET 7 4-i itt _7 if i L _�_;_L --T tj 1 L U, _1 LJ­!­L. I ....... a I t 1 1 F --------------- - _T -- - ---- T __T T-7-77 1-d - L L L "T _!_J­; FT 7 T L I 3 -- -- ----- .44 T L ------- --- 1 %31 to M i�)- _7 ------ --- ---- TJ -- ----------- 77 17 -7 L -4- 4 7 _77 ..... ... + 1 j + --------------- ------------ ---- - -- L L 7 - - - - - - - - - - i __A 4- ------- --------- - _4 ------ F A_ ff 4 4_1 . E _1 J_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L 'T j; - - - - - - - - - - _L _J T T T ■ 1 1 EROSION CONTROL 25' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: ATTMff v?-N _ P U.D. STANDARD FORMA COMPLETED BY 'SKo RhJD Inc: DATE: Id S 3 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBA§IN ZONE (ic) (ft) (t) (feet) M M C RAINFALL. A N iU �trlopF 0• 64 / 93 0. 5. dy ot mn toav, o. 47- 2 20 E o, 44- 270 0, g 0-1 0.33 0.4 0- Z 0. 5& 2 20 0,6 0-3 227 0.94- 7s: 3 /� % 2 (6s6L. Asb . 0, 8 6 aSbL J. 2, = TABLE 6-,A Zoo 72.v 76.3 234 72.1 S 3 7&.S Soo '72.4 77.0 n MARCH 1991 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA .26 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: MATTEKf-ioR►J p U. D. STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: �KO o �C-3P, TnG. DATE: . Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor' Method Value Value Comment 41'5T PAVeMr-NT 001 1,072 RotmiNENEp SoJL, 1." 0.90 CaeaVEL FIuTEIZ /,D"D 0190 SILT FENGE 1.ya 0.60 ESTD NATIVE GRM55 0,06' l.ay &57,, coyE2 6x2AVEL, MUL.LH 0.05 1. ob MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN ($) BASIN (Ac) . CALCULATIONS 0 A 0. 4 CANALC� 2A s5 M RAVEL L LN WT'D G FAci—pr,.= ao4- ,o6) + 0.6b(.65) oT 1J ET P FA(,Top, D. S icy (, 6) - O,05)(0.40)] X. )00 = 96.a174, .5 0,2(o O.O&Ar, CANAL w/NATNE CgRA55 0.16- Ac, eiRA V EL. M U L.LH \NTb G FALTo 2 0"(0 NET P FA P-- _ (/, o)(1•o)(o,5) = D. 5:- EFF = [i- 0,05(o•5o)jx 1QU = cl7 5 �o 24- 004-)Ac, EXIST PAVEMENT C KAEAML WH D T 0. 0.15 05 = D•0.2¢ (oxow 9.4EFF -0.04.•4o)I �- -D o•4.7 0,16 Ac, (AWAL w/NATIVE G2A55 0.3fAc, Rou6,4r-NEb soiL_ W D ii FA(,T0K = 0.lb(•06)t 0.3F(1) - D.4'y NET F FA�ToK = 0, OFF = [i - 0.loa(o.3(o)� x l 0-0 MARCH 1991 8-1 S DESIGN CRITERIA PROJECT M ATTE Z HO IZ N , _ P U . P STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY 41� W DATE: p Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment (`�E PrLEVlbl�S PEE) MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS . 1 16.0 E 0, 44. L9 Ac, CA A[- wI T I E, GRAB 0•33 Ac- RDVGrHGtJED t5oI L WTD G FAGTOK = 0.11 (.D6) + 0. 33 O = 0.77 0.44 N ET P FAcTo rz = ©.4�(0. 9 )(0.5 ) = o. 3(0 E F. F = [i - (.:77)(, 3(0) x iav = 72. 3 %. 0-1 0.33" ©•z& Ac EX6T PAVEMENT 0.01 Ac, RDU6I14ENED 22IL Wr'D O.z& (o/) + n.nFn) - 0.22- D.33 SET P FACTorz = 0.6(0.9) = 0.72 EFF = [i - (. 2.2)(, 72,)l x / 0-0 0-Z 0.56 0.1-(a ExsT. FAVEMENT 0.30_ RDU61 HEt� Eo SOI I - WT'D G FACTnrz = NET P FAQ 0 T R = oA?(o, 9) = = 0,72 EF F =- [i - (0..54)(0.72-)) x ion.=%l. 0.5.11 0.3OA& EXST PAVEMENT 0.27Ac- ROLYaNENt✓D 'SOIL WVI) G fALTop� = n.3o(o.01, + 0,ozI = 0,48 NET P f= A(,To R = o. � (0.9) ° 0.7L EFF = [i-o.4-o(o•7n,)] x ion = Cj5.4 % NET EFF = [(G4)(I,(a.$) + (, 2&)(9 1. 5) + E-ig.4-�F + (147)(75,3, 644X71.3) t (. 33)*2) + (. 5Co)(lo l ,'1 � + (• 57X 105.4)] : 3. �7 qET EP F, = 71.5 > 75 3 �o wit try 6c)N,5Tr-UcTION MARCH 1991 e•15 DESIGN CRITERIA CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: 1 V A1-1-Fr� HoR1 rp , U. D. STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE- FOR 193 `ONLY-. COMPLETED ° BY ` ITKD OF'` �EDD DATE . 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. YEAR MDNTH I I d l W l l l Q l Z a h LL d I I = OVERLOT GRADING ' WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier ' Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant other 1 RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL ' STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving ' other - GAVEL .MULCH 1 VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant _Temporary Seed Planting w Sod Installation Nettings/Mats/Blankets Other RUCTUREs: INSTALLED BY GETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR 'ATE SUBMITTED 1 WK MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON MARCH1991 8-16 DESIGN CRITERIA RIPRAP DESIGN 9 WIRE I CLIENT 61A T JOBNO. ��3_OD �NC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR RIPZAP Engineering Consultants MADE BY OT40 DATE LVYjAMHECKED BY —DATE —SHEET —�—fo—L OF I V CA P 5 V6 1 N6A9 UD GD -4 4 LI .T 14- L T­ j 14- 1-11 1'7 -1-40 p U11 LL_ 144T T' -H4- _LL _JLi _L.L L. -4. T J. --r— 7—�---- LJ L T_ -7- -.4 71 L + - - - - - - ------- -- --rt -- ------ + ------7 7 T _4_ .4.- I J -- -- - -- ----- -- 7 7+ t ... .. .... .. -- --------- F_ ---------- I r L ------ ---- -- -A, 1- Ti -T.4­1_ i r p ----- -- - ------- j_ 44— ........ .. ----- ------ I F r L ;_J_ !--T­�'— '-� "F �-- - � I r . . : a T 160 40 v 20 I■■■■■■m ,, ESIONE MEMO No ME No No BENZINE 1 CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES :32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 50 30 F- 20 RUNOFF INERFANFAIliffm EN01IIII/I�0311111VM ME FA FAI M 5.1 2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING `UNDEVELOPED" ..LAND. SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT No Text 11 If II II 'II iI LEGEND I III windshields Of Plaza Mason Still Arme,'s I Pl America / I I I I ' I II -, EXISTING MANHOLE II II V I II Auto 1 1 11 II I 111 - Design I I L J L____-__� IL U EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT II I I (Net Part Of Tine Pu D.) J LS I i -' EXISTING CONTOUR tv.Xv' r_.....%1................ ................1._._A.-i T I II II If I I _ - IV/ :' 3 10' CURB CUT II 1 11 W PROPOSED CONTOUR II II 11 r 1,1 WITH GROUTED RIPRAP 1 h II -89- II 11 YATCH \ p -I y •"� O EROSION CONTRA II I I -"----- LOT LINE / 03 Wd2 I �� ! GRAVEL FILTER II �I EXIST. C \ _. e _ ,.) / �✓ I II z ___ FLOwUNE It 11 9 • ' -_`•1� 0.31 tl', a •• -< � EI 1. �I I II -n DIRECTION OF FLOW --- II IIj I f" _ \ II II W \ II II i 1 p 111 i�X•• Y� - -� II II F.F. FINISHED ROCK ELEVATION 1111 " e 30 ••'j %66) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION it U O-I I l4 E6 I st \\\\\ W PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION --- Dss I�. :.:r pas \ 1 11 ! Q ` scv` rr _JJ I O © DESIGN POINT II Q 1 II 1 ) ' •• I' •' / t ' v 1 DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY (PROPOSED) < I u li i1i o,� I I. D - ---y� z •...... DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY (EXISTING) II II . �6 �x,'fjJ�. O PROPOSED BASIN NUMBER Lowell I II 11 0 fi' h �`'' BASIN AREA (ACRE) Q Ill 11 AST, E 1 } i) I �p�I ; / I ~ E2 EXISTING BASIN NUMBER I I �A I f ` 1• ,r. to u, l J e BASIN AREA (ACRE) Vl Q I I v $ 8 `4.+z my =\ x,. W III • . 0.26 ® AA°' y�� '} I > GRAVEL FILTER I - Pad A >- A • > W I I 4• e A ' - A STRAW BALE DINE 3'-10' CURB CUT Fee 3224 I _j. P.a11 _ .'see WTH GROUTED RIPaAP l ' I � 0 %VIFL n CIXf TRH A- I I - l R - X SILT FENCE It I ir- I I FF • 9220 w cRAviL FILR I II IIII 2 In IIn O u ❑ -- --- II T _ `0aa '•W>a I u II I u _ EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY _ A / V - __-_ _ _ _IJ TOTAL AREA: Z55 ACRES 11 IIn A IN I G6A -, II ~ II II 1 $ iD• w EROSION CONTRA' ON-SIM UN 010 II E2 O.CA 4� g eA I (n 11 110 I a T6• GRAVEL FILTER BOA ON -SIR RUNOFF: O10 - 10.2 crs GIGO - 20.2 cis I I I I I ' _ ... -' � : ,x � ` v . -• 11 OFF -SIR FLOWS: 010 - 5.1 cis GIGO - 9.4 cis If n W II IIYATdf 11 � II IIEAST. C 1 1 , 1 j' _ 4 ISLAND .(�= E3 i 'S i ♦ \ / •p CHASE '� yin - 5' TYPER INLET NO. 2 ill R INLET It 1 -- ® ------ REMOVE EXIST. CURB REMOVE `- W ERDSON COHmOI GRAVEL FILTER W EROSION CONTROL GRAVEL FILTER O•ej INLET. ABANDON IN EXIST, STORM O.SJ PLACE EAST. STORM DRAIN M.X. O-rj 0-2 - - -<B•%J LURB OPENING DRAINS. CAP ENDS 0Be S O U T H C L L E G E A V E N U E 0.56 -__----- w/CONCRETE. DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY DESIGN PONT BASIN AREA (cc) 'C 010 (Cfe) GOOD (08) A 1 0.6e .79 2.6 5.5 B 1 0,26 70 1.0 2.1 C 1 0.31 .65 1.5 2a D 1 0,47 .76 20 4.0 E 1 0.44 .J] 1.9 3.8 F 1 0.69 .06 4.1 SO G 1 0.57 .1 2.5 SA H I 6A 0.95 26.2 53.5 . a: 2� EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS -�f vARIEs,\ Print to my earmrax. silt fma« N ld be Instilled along the banks of LAN " the canal. For arms to real Consistent. no son shWld be left In a roughly- BENCHMARK: Waded state as long as passible, with Me grading delayed until necessary. IN E. BONNET BOLT ON FIRE HYDRANT AT IN . CORNER OF These areas sholl also receive gravel mulch. COLLEGE AVENUE h HORSETOOTH ROAD. EL 5031J5 After the Installation of the curb inlets, arm inlets. and curb openings the some owed be filtered wlth a combination of concrete blacks. w and ISLAND CHASE DETAIL coarse gravel, constructed according to the deficits on the deto.sheet. The grovel 3/6"=1'-0" epos .null be regularly maintained. to prevent ponding problems due to clogging wlm debris or trestinq. The grouted rlprop rundowns ahmld be l Constructed mmedblely ono no Cp1WealMrl of Ule C=wb of Wife. TJ After We overlol grating hat been completed and no uHllNs haw been Installed. the rmdway surfaces shmld racer" the pavement structure. SCALE 1'-30' seeding and londacoomg requirements ore not covered within these plans. zWz PCP "ID LF 19�30 I�rgl 2J0 4F. 19'%JO• ERCP, AS C-SOJ CL. HE -I 0 0.30i �I�`; _ C HE -I O 0 30] P1 u PROFONFO FX61. - - r FOCUSED EAST H.G.L. 1 --- APPROVED BY LARIMER N0. 2 CANAL COMPANY o HERCP ASTN CSOJ 1 1 I OEIIF IX2WN0 THIS _ DAY OF _ _ __ _ _ __ 1993. W 1 f ^ : 09ED RORLE GROUNC ____ z BOX CUL`.ER _ 5030 m / '� �._-___-_ __ 1 5030 -.. r-- :I H.GL. I _ - ---- PRESIDENT ! 5025 J g I' : 5025 - 5020oar< Inn__: 5020 o^ >_>_Irp n ^ NZim 0+00 1+00 2+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 -- EHEFr� c.+FFr DRar�alD-" DESw�D aECIiEIs liV Engineering Consultants MATTERHORN P.U.D. GRADING. DRAINAGE AND MT. 1993 583-001 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EROSION CONTROL PLAN 12 4 N0. BY DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION APPROVED DA7 PROfFCT NO.