HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 10/29/2003I
T
FIWJ �+wprn. r�j1� i NjiSl t t
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
RESPITE CARE CENTER
Submitted to:
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
August 19, 2003
u
August 19, 2003
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Respite Care Center
Project No. 0739-100
Dear Mr. Harridan:
We are pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for the Respite Care Center. Grading has
been adjusted to move our detention pond and swales out of the 100-yr floodplain.
We look forward to your review and comments and will gladly answer any qugAtiona,you may
have. ''ADO REG '
Sincerely, �0 J� g
T
TST, C. CONSULTING ENGIN RS = v :', 32135 <`: o
A
Spen M. Smith David t "bind ay, P.E.'\-11—
SMS/sjk ,
TST, INC.
748 Whalers Way - Building D
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Consulting Engineers
(970) 226-0557
Metro (303) 595-9103
Fax (970) 226-0204
Email info@tstine.com
www.tstine.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
' 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Scope and Purpose...................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location and Description...............................................................................
Y.0 Historic Conditions..........................................................................................................3
3.0 Developed Conditions Plan
3.1 Design Criteria...........................................................................................................6
1 3.2 Drainage Plan Development.....................................................:................................7
3.2.1 Street Capacity ..............................................................................................7
3.2.2 Storm Sewer Design......................................................................................7
3.2.3 Swale Design...............................................................................................11
3.2.4 Detention Pond & Water Quality Design......................................................11
3.2.5 Inlet and Curb Cut Design...........................................................................11
3.3 Erosion/Sediment Control Plan...............................................................................15
Figures
Figure1 -Vicinity Map ...........................................................................................................4
Figure 2 —Historic Drainage Mapap. ••
Figure 3 — Detention Pond Spillway Calculations..........................................................................
' Figure 4 — Erosion Control Construction Sequence......................................................................
Tables
Table 1 - Historic Hydrologic Calculations Worksheet..............................................................5
Table I - Developed Hydrologic Calculations Worksheet.........................................................8
Table 2 - Summary of Street Capacity Analysis.......................................................................9
Table 3 - Summary of Storm Sewer Design...........................................................................10
Table 4 - Summary of Swale Analysis and Design.................................................................12
Table 5 - Detention Pond 'A' Design......................................................................................13
Table 6 - Water Quality Volume Calculation.........
Table 7 - Water Quality Plate Sizing . .....•.................................",....•....................•..
Table 8 - Summary of Inlet & Curb Cut Analysis & Design.....................................................14
Table 9 - Summary of Riprap Design.........................................................................................
'
Table 9a - Summary of Riprap Design.....................................................................................16
Table 10 - Performance & Effectiveness Calculations.............................................................
..
Table 11 - Effectiveness Calculations..........................................................................................
Technical Appendices
Appendix A — Rational Method Analysis
Appendix B — Street Capacity
Appendix C — Storm Sewer
Appendix D — Swale Design
Appendix E — Detention Pond & Water Quality Design
Appendix F — Inlet and Curb Cut Design
'
Appendix G — Riprap Design
Overall Drainage and Erosion Control Plan................................................................Sheet 1 of 1
a
I
7.0
' Introduction
1.1 Scope and Purpose
This report presents the results of a Final Drainage Evaluation for the Respite Care Center. In
accordance with the requirements of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards, the purpose of this report is to present a storm drainage plan that
identifies peak runoff conditions and provides a means by which to safely collect and convey
' runoff to Stone Creek drainage channel. This report will evaluate existing hydrologic conditions
for the proposed area and will use that information for hydraulic analysis of proposed culverts,
drainage swales and detention facilities.
1.2 Project Location and Description
The Respite Care Center project is located on South Lemay Avenue approximately 3/4 of a mile
north of Trilby Road, in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West
of the 6'" P.M. in the City of Fort Collins. The project is Tract A of the Brittany Knolls P.U.D.
Filing 2.
The project is bordered on the west by undeveloped land, on the north by the Huntington Hills
residential subdivision, on the west by South Lemay Drive and on the south by natural wetlands
and Stone Creek.
The developed storm water runoff from the site will be conveyed via natural grass -lined
channels and an ADS storm pipe to a detention pond on the southern portion of the site. The
outlet of the detention pond will then convey the storm water into the Stone Creek
channel/wetland.
1
1
1
No Text
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
2.0
Historic Conditions
The existing drainage from the site sheet flows from north to south across undeveloped land
into the Stone Creek drainage channel. The existing ground is covered with sparse natural
grass and has an average slope of 6.7%. A small portion (approximately 0.12 acres) of the site
adjacent to Stone Creek is within the 100-year floodplain. A summary of the historic runoff
analysis is found in Table 1.
3
L WAS/ AMM7 VS
,
w
1
6
Q
`M
a
N
W
a
�
Q
O
g
0
0
i
o
n
I
`1
1]
I
O
d
m
c0
a
F: z 0
H U W
I
1
1
10
1 Developed Conditions Plan
1 3.1 Design Criteria
The drainage system presented in this report has been developed in accordance with the
1 guidelines established by the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria &
Construction Standards" manual dated May 1984. Storm runoff systems were evaluated based
on the 2 to 10-year, and 100-year storm frequency as dictated by section 3.1 of the storm
1 drainage manual.
The Rational Method was selected to calculate runoff for the site. The Rational Method utilizes
' the equation:
Q = CCAA
' where Q is the flow in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, C is the runoff coefficient, Cf
is the storm frequency adjustment factor and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour. The
runoff coefficient, C, was selected from Table RO-5 of the Urban Drainage Criteria Manual
(VA), based on percent impervious area from Table RO-3. It was assumed that both of our
basins consisted entirely of undeveloped area of NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group Type B. A
summary of the interpolated runoff values from Table RO-5 can be found in Appendix W. The
1 appropriate rainfall intensity was taken from the "Time -Intensity -Frequency Curve" located in
section 3, Part 1 of the criteria manual. To obtain the rainfall intensity, the time of concentration
was determined by the following equation:
tc=to+tf
' where tc is the time of concentration in minutes, to is the initial or overland flow time in minutes,
and It is the travel time in the ditch, channel, or gutter in minutes. The initial or overland flow
time was calculated using the following equation:
1 to=[1.87 (1.1-05)L1"2]/(S)1f3
where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the
' average basin slope in percent and C5 is the 5-yr runoff coefficient. Gutter travel times were
determined by utilizing Figure RO-1 of the Urban Drainage manual, for the flow velocity within
the gutter/channel. This procedure for computing time of concentration allows for overland flow
' as well as travel time for runoff collected in roadside ditches or other channels.
1
1
1 6
�I
I
1
1
LI
3.2 Drainage Plan Development
The proposed drainage plan consists of a combination of overland flow and gutter flow. Much
of the site will sheet flow into swales and be conveyed to Detention Pond A. The runoff from
paved and impervious areas of the site will collect in gutters and be transported to curb cuts.
From the curb cuts, runoff is conveyed via ST-1 or Swale 1 to Detention Pond A. The existing
basin (H1) was analyzed to determine the amount of runoff that could be released from the site.
The 2-year historic release rate from the site is 1.34 cfs. The outlet from the detention pond
was sized based on this release rate.
The results of the Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis can be found in Tables 1 and la.
Supporting calculations and figures can be found in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Street Capacity
The street located on -site is a private drive. The FL -FL width varies from 12' to 24', with the
curb and gutter being both standard vertical curb and gutter and also outfall curb and gutter.
Street encroachment criteria were taken from Table 4-1 (minor storm) and Table 4-2 (major
storm) of the criteria manual. The minor storm criteria does not allow for curb overtopping, and
flow may spread to the street crown. The major storm criteria does not allow building
inundation, and flow may pond to 6" at the crown. The allowable street capacity calculations
were made using a "worst -case scenario" for the site. The largest runoff amount and the
minimum allowable flowline slope were used.
The results of the street capacity analysis can be found in Table 2. Supporting calculations and
figures can be found in Appendix B.
3.2.2 Storm Sewer Design
One storm line (ST-1) was designed to convey the 100-year developed runoff from basin A6.
The basin collects runoff from the northeast corner of the site consisting mainly of parking lot.
ST-1 conveys the runoff from a grated area inlet south to a natural swale that then drains into
Detention Pond A. Due to the extremely small amount of runoff released from Detention Pond
A, the pond outlet (ST-2) was sized using the minimum pipe diameter required by the City of
Fort Collins criteria.
The results of the storm sewer analysis and design can be found in Table 3 with supporting
calculations and model outputs presented in Appendix C.
7
�o
00
N M
O A
cI
A
0
T
x
z z
Z�w
z
I.:z (9
F V w
I
1
Vi
N
U
rli
u
u
HW
Fz�
0z
H U W
FT�1
r�
Flo
N 00
z,
1
' 3.2.3 Swale Design
Swale 1 conveys the 100-year runoff from a curb cut in basin A3 to Detention Pond A. The
swale was designed to be a natural grass -lined swale with 3:1 side slopes and a v-notch
bottom. A 6' x 24' riprap pad was placed in the swale beginning at the curb opening to prevent
erosion.
' Swale 2 runs from west to east along the south side of the site. The channel was designed to
intercept the majority of the 100-year runoff from the undeveloped western side of the site and
' convey it to Detention Pond A. It was designed to be a natural grass -lined channel with 4:1
side slopes and a v-notch bottom.
The results of the Swale analysis can be found on Table 4 with supporting calculations in
' Appendix D.
3.2.4 Detention Pond and Water Quality Design
Detention Pond A was designed to detain the 100-year runoff, including the water quality
control volume. The release rate from the pond is equal to the 2-yr historic runoff rate from the
entire site. Per the City of Fort Collins, we are allowed to disregard the undetained flows that
leave the site. The pond receives storm water runoff from Swales 1 and 2 and releases it into
the Stone Creek channel/wetland area. An orifice plate was sized to release the 1.34 cfs from
' the outlet structure. A spillway was also designed for the pond. Figure 3, located in Appendix
E shows the calculations used for the spillway.
' Detention pond and water quality sizing and analysis is summarized in Tables 5, 6 and 7, with
supporting calculations located in Appendix E.
3.2.5 Inlet and Curb Cut Design
Two curb cuts and one area inlet are utilized in the drainage plan. The area inlet collects runoff
' from a 5' curb cut in the northern parking area and conveys it into ST-1. The capacity of the
area inlet was verified using Figure 5-3 with a ponding depth of 0.5'. The capacity of both curb
cuts was verified using Figure 5-2.
' A summary of the area inlet and curb cut analysis can be found in Table 8, with Figures 5-2, 5-
3, and supporting calculations found in Appendix F.
1
1
11
N
OIN
b
O
Cl
Basin =
Area =
C=
Frequency =
Release =
Table 5
Detention Pond'A' Design
A3, A4, A5, A6
1.66
0.63
100
1.34
V = 1/3*d*(A1+A2+sgrt(A1*A2))
-.j
ac
✓r
Ifs
Stage
Increment d
Area ft^2
Volume ft^3
Total Volume ft^3
Volume ac-ft
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
4908
1
4282'
1.426
1426
0.03
4909
1
.6554.
5372
6798
0.16
4910
1
9425
7938
14737
0.34
Required Storage Volume = 9738 ft^3
WS Elev is Above Stage 3 Pick Stace
Lower Stage Volume (ft^3) = 1'426 Actual WSEL =
Upper Stage Volume (ft^3) = 14737 Freeboard =
Lower Stage Elevation (ft) = 4908
Upper Stage Elevation (ft) = 4910
TST, INC.
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
Page 1 of 1
03/27/03
Hydromas_739-100
In In r
OIOIOI
�0I�oIMI
dldldl
3.3 Erosion/Sediment Control Plan
' Silt fence will be installed around areas to be disturbed by grading operations to prevent
sediment from being transported off -site by wind or storm water runoff. Straw bale dikes will be
' installed in Swales 1 and 2 to prevent the deposition of soil and debris into Detention Pond A
during construction.
' Riprap was designed for the outlets of ST-1 and ST-2/spillway to prevent channel bank and bed
erosion. Type L riprap will be required at the outlet. Swale 1 has a 6' x 24' riprap pad, and
Swale 2 has an 11' x 17' riprap pad.
' Performance and Effectiveness calculations were also performed for the site. A summary can
be found in Tables 10 and 11.
' Surety Calculations and the Erosion Control Construction Sequence are located in Table 12
and Figure 4, and can be found in Appendix G.
' Riprap sizing is summarized in Tables 9 and 9a, with calculations located in Appendix G. All
erosion control is shown in the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan drawing at the back of this
report.
1
1
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
O
V
O
in O
O O
U
E. z u
EU W E-F
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
C
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
Rational Method Analysis
1
I
O
1,
1
0
O
d
O
a
I®
z�
J W
W
? in Z
z
U)0z
ruw
No Text
City of Fort Collins
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table
for using the Rational Method
(5 minutes - 30 minutes)
Figure 3-1a
Duration
(minutes)
2-year
Intensity
in/hr
10-year
Intensity
in/hr
100-year
Intensity
in/hr
5.00
2.85
4.87
9.95
6.00
2.67
4.56
9.31
7.00
2.52
4.31
8.80
8.00
2.40
4.10
8.38
9.00
2.30
3.93
8.03
10.00
2.21
3.78
7.72
11.00
2.13
3.63
7.42
12.00
2.05
3.50
7.16
13.00
1.98
3.39
6.92
14.00
1.92
3.29
6.71
15.00
1.87
3.19
6.52
16.00
1.81
3.08
6.30
17.00
1.75
2.99
6.10
18.00
1.70
2.90
5.92
19.00
1.65
2.82
5.75
20.00
1.61
2.74
5.60
21.00
1.56
2.67
5.46
22.00
1.53
2.61
5.32
23.00
1.49
2.55
5.20
24.00
1.46
2.49
5.09
25.00
1.43
2.44
4.98 .
26.00
1.40
2.39
4.87
27.00
1.37
2.34
4.75
28.00
1.34
2.29
4.69
29.00
1.32
1 2.25
4.60
30.00
1.30
1 2.21
1 4-52
11
I�
City of Fort Collins
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table
for using the Rational Method
(31 minutes - 60 minutes)
Figure 3-1 b
Duration
(minutes)
2-year
Intensity
in/hr
10-year
Intensity
in/hr
100-year
Intensity
in/hr
31.00
1.27
2.16
4.42
32.00
1.24
2.12
4.33
33.00
1.22
2.08
4.24
34.00
1.19
2.04
4.16
35.00
1.17
2.00
4.08
36.00
1.15
1.96
4.01
37.00
1.13
1.93
3.93
38.00
1.11
1.89
3.87
39.00
1.09
1.86
3.80
40.00
1.07
1.83
3.74
41.00
1.05
1.80
3.68
42.00
1.04
1.77
3.62
43.00
1.02
1.74
3.56
44.00
1.01
1.72
3.51
45.00
0.99
1.69
3.46
46.00
0.98
1.67
3.41
47.00
0.96
1.64
3.36
48.00
0.95
1.62
3.31
49.00
0.94
1.60
3.27
50.00
0.92
1.58
3.23
51.00
0.91
1.56
3.18
52.00
0.90
1.54
3.14
53.00
0.89
1.52
3.10
54.00
0.88
1.50
3.07
55.00
0.87
1.48
3.03
56.00
0.86
1.47
2.99
57.00
0.85
1.45
2.96
58.00
0.84
1.43
2.92
59.00
0.83
1.42
2.89
El
60.00
0.82
1.40
2.86
DRAINAGE CRPIERIA MANUAL
30
�- 20
2
to
U
e
LU
Z. 10
2
tiI
C
0
it7
to
c 3
O
U 2
C
to
H
Q
1
RUNOFF
0 15
f
I
II
I
�o
WT
y
1z
_Ail
I' o° l 3 1 =T'
1°Q I yWh `'
'a
I
1
I I 14
2° I I I"
t
I
I
I
I I
I
I!
I
h
t h /a
a�yW
•
I
+.
h
pW
3�`_
I�°e o
4T
I
Ir r
I
I
I
I
.
e
�W
QT
1 1
1 1
1 A
1 1/1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I I
1 1
11
1
I
I I
I
1
1
1 1
1
I
I I I
I
I
1
1
I
11
1
1
I
I•
I I
1
I
I
yl II
I
I
I
Figure 3-3
.2 .3 .5 1 1 1;9 2 3 5
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
10 20
MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING'UNDEVELOPED'
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: 'Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds'
Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan.1975.
5-1-54
URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Table 3-3
' RA=CML MTSOD RUNOFF COEFFICMMS FOR CC[!POS= AM=SIS
Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient
Streets, Parking Lots, Drives:
Asphalt ...................................... 0.95
Concrete ..................................... 0.95
' -> Gravel...........0.50
............................. Roofs... 0.95
' Lawns, Sandy Soil: .............................. Flat <2%.. 0.10
Average 2 to�7%.. ... 0.15
Steep>7%.................................... 0.20
Lawns, Heavy Soil:
Flat<2%..................................... 0.20
Average 2 to 7%.............................. 0.25
' Steep>7%..................................... 0.35
3.1.7 Time of Concentration
' In order to use the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, the time of
concentration must be )clown. The time of concentration, T., represents the
time for water to flow from the most remote part of the drainage basin under
consideration to the design point under consideration. The time of
' concentration can be represented by the following equation.
TC=t,.+ tt
' Where:
T, = Time of Concentration, minutes
t,.= overland flow time, minutes
tt= travel time in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer, minutes
' The overland flow time, t,., ,can be determined either by the following equation
or the "Overland Time of Flow Curves" from the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual, included in this report (See Figure 3-2).
L87(I1-(rf)D112
TOV S113
' Where: T„ = Overland Flow Time of Concentration, minutes
S = Slope, 8
' C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient
D = Length of Ovezldnd Flow, feet'(500' maxi + m)
C! Frequency Adjustment Factor
' The travel time, tt, in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer can be estimated with
the help of Figure 3-3.
3.1.8 Adjustment for Iafregaeat Storms
' The preceding variables are based on the initial storm, that is, the two to ten
year storms. For storms with higher intensities an adjustment of the runoff
coefficient is required because of the lessening amount of infiltration,
' depression retention, and other losses that have a proportionally smaller
effect on storm runoff.
These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table 3-4.
' May 1984 Design Criteria
Revised January 1997
3-5
No Text
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
Street Capacity
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
u
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
0
a
' 4.2.3.2 Theoretical Capacity
' Manning's equation shall be used to calculate the theoretical runoff -
carrying capacity based on the allowable street inundation. The
equation will be as follows:
' 149 3 in
Q=—R S A
n
' Where 0 = Capacity, cfs
n = Roughness Coefficient
R = Hydraulic Radius, A/P
S = Slope, feet/feet
A = Area, feet
Appropriate "n" values can be found in, Table 4-3. Any values not
listed should be located in the Geological Survey Water Supply Paper,
' 1849.
Table 4-3
M WaNG' S ROOGHNM C==CIE NTS FOR STREET SCRSACES
' Surface Roughness Coefficient
Gutter a Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.016
' Dry Rubble 0.035
•
Mowed Kentucky Bluegrass . . 0.035
. . . . . . .
Rough Stony Field w/Weeds. . . 0.040
Sidewalk 6 Driveway . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.016
' 4.2.3.3 Allowable Gutter Flow
The theoretical capacity must be reduced in order to obtain the actual
' flow rate allowable. The procedures and criteria are identical to
those found in Section 4.2.2.3 "Allowable Gutter Flow", which is
finding a redaction factor from the chart included in that section.
' Any street poading of storm water shall be controlled by the same
criteria set forth in Table 4-2.
4.2.3.4 Cross Street Flow
' Table 4-4 is the criteria to be used for allowable cross street flow.
Both the theoretical and allowable cross street flow shall be
determined by the methods described in the preceding sections,
' depending upon which design storm is being considered. However, the
gutter slope variable should be replaced with the cross street water
surface slope.
' Table 4-4-
I
ALLO A= CROSS STREET EZ,dp
' Street Classification Initial Design Runoff Maior Design'Runoff
Local (includes places, 6 inch depth in 18 inch depth
gutter alleys, marginal crosspan above flowline
access)
' Collector Where crosspans 18 inch depth
allowed, depth of flow above gutter
shall not exceed
' flowline
Arterial crown None 6 inches or less
over crown
' Major Arterial None None
May 1984 Design Criteria
' Revised January 1997
4-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAY 19"
L6
.9
.8
.7
.3
.2
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14
ELOPE OF GUTTER (%)
Figure 4-2
REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY
Apply reduction factorfor applicable slope to the theoretical guttercapacity to obtain
allowable gutter capacity.
(From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads,1965)
4-4
DESIGN CRITERIA
No Text
No Text
I
1
1
C
1
APPENDIX C
Storm Sewer
0
a
fl
U W
wig
FUzo
W
1
Ll
AREA INLET
2.4 CF3 RIM = 4918.87
—M� INV = 4916.12
N
PRO✓ECT Respite Core Center
JOB NO.- 07JY-100
DA7E• 7-2-03
BY. SMS
12
3.67X 150 ADS
2.4 CFS
0
LINE ST-1
04177-ET 7O SWALE (FES)
WS = 4911.72
INV = 4911.25
UDS Results Summary KoeoUDS
Page i of 3
Results Summary
0.ect Title:
oject Description:
utput Created On: 7/2/2003 at 2:25:19 PM
Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.1.
amfall Intensity Formula Used.
Return Period of Flood is 0 Years.
Lb Basin Information
Time of Concentration
Manhole
Basini,
utter
Basin
Peak Flow
ID #
Area * C
inutesMinutes)
(Minutes)
nch/Iiour)
CFS
1
0.04
5,011
2.4
3
0.04
0.04
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0F
0.0
60.00
60.00
2.4
2.4
e shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes.
r rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes.
For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes.
5the first design point, the time constant is <_ (10+Total Length/180) in minutes.
When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized.
When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supercedes the calculated
Iues.
lummary of Manhole Hydraulics
Design
anhole
Contributing
Rainfall
Rainfall
Peak
Ground
Water
ID #
*
Area C
Duration
Intensity
Flow
Elevation
Elevation
Comments
(Minutes)
(Inch/Hour)
(CFS)
(Feet)
(Feet)
1
0.08
:0.101
5.01
0.00
30.00
2.4
2.41
4911.25
4918.87
4911.72
4916.75
Surface Water
Present
2
0.04
5.0
60.00
2.4
0.00
4917.39
Surface Water
Present
of Sewer Hydraulics
tote: The givend th to flow ratio is 0.9.
Manhole ID Number Calculated Suggested Existing
file://K:\739\100\Respite%20Drainage\st-1%20respite.htm 7/2/2003
jFoUDS Results Summary
Page 2 of 3
Ver�
Sewer
Diameter (Rise)
nches) (FT
Diameter (Rise)
(Inches) )
Diameter (Rise)
nches)0
Width
1�
Round
7.9
18
15
F N/A
2
0�
Round
800
1 181
15
N/A
Round and arch sewers are measured in inches.
x sewers are measured in feet.
lculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity.
uggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially availible size
1 hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters.
sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations.
Design
Full
Normal
Normal
Critical
Critical
Full
ewer
Flow
Flow
Depth
Velocity
.Depth
Velocity
Velocity
Froude
Number
Comment
ID
(CFS)
CFS)
(Feet
PS
eet)
PS
pS)
1
2.4
13.4
0.3611
0.63
3.8
2.0
2.88
2.4
12.9
0.37
8.0
0.63
3.8
2.0
2.76
' Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs.
Summary of Sewer Design Information
Invert Elevation
Buried Depth -71
Up stream Downstream
U stream Downstream
p
ewer ID
t
(Feet) eet
eet (Feet)
Comment
1
3.67
ISewer Too S.hal.low
3.36
ISewer Too Shallow
t
tmmary of Hydraulic Grade Line
Invert Elevation Water Elevation
ewer ID #
Sewer Length
(Feet)
Surcharged Len
eet
U stream
p eet
Downstream
(Feet)
U stream
p(Feet)(Feet)
Downstream
Condition
1
132.8611
4916.75
4911.72
Jump
0
4916.12
.4916.09
4917.39
4916.75
Jump
■
Lmmary of Energy Grade Line
Manhole
Juncture Losses
Sewer Bend
Friction 11 Bend K 11 Loss 11 Lateral K
Downstream Manhole
Lateral II II Energy
Loss Manhole Elevation
Energy
Sewer 11 Manhole 11 Elevation
file://K:\739\100\Respite%20Drainage\st-1 %20respite.htm 7/2/2003
,eoUDS Results Summary
Page 3 of 3
ID #
1
L_ _JO
ID #(Feet)
0
4916.98
4917.45
(Feet)
5.26
0.42
lCoefficient(Feet)
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
lCoefficient(Feet)
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.04
ID #(Feet)
0
0
4911.72
4916.98
Fat
nd loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer.
eral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead.
friction loss -of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump.
Iliction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole.
Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition.
fminimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0.
iction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations.
of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate
Le user given trench side slope is 1.
Manhole
ID #
Rim Elevation
(Feet)
Invert Elevation
(Feet)
Manhole Height
(Feet)
1
4911.251
4911.24
0.01
2
1 4918.8711
4916.091
2.78
3
1 0.0011
4916.12
-4916.12
Trench WidthllDownstream Trench
On Ground
At Invert
On Ground
At Invert
Trench Length
ii
Wall Thickness
Earth Volume
(Feet)
(Feet)(Feet)eet)
(Feet)
(Inches)
Cubic Yards)
5.9
3.6
0.4
3.61
132.8761
2.25
52
3.6
3.6
5.9
3.61
ill
2.25
-330
ftalearth volume for sewer trenches =-277.58 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was estimated to have a bottem width
ual to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for
pipes larger than 48 inches.
if the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used.
e backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot.
e sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivelant diameter in inches/12)+1
77
ILI
1
file://K:\739\ 100\Respite%20Drainage\st-1 %20respite.htm
7/2/2003
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX D
i
Swale Design
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
O
O
0101
vl
cVINI
a
11 Analvsis of Trapezoidal Grass -Lined Channel 11
Project: Respite Care Center
Channel ID: Swale 1
Waming 0,
Waming 0'
F X T
---------------Yo--------
Y : 1� • 1
w Zl c----- B------ > Z2
;Type:
A
B
C
D
E
Limitin Mannin 's N
0.060
0.040
0.033
0.030
0.024
Soil Type:
Max. Velocity (Vrr,)
Max. Froude No. (F,,,e )
Non -Sandy
7.0 fps
0.80
Sandv
5.0 fps
0.60
Design Information
Enter Grass Manning's N
N = ,0.060
Type of Grass (A,B,C,D, or E)
A;' -
Channel Invert Slope
So = 0.0225 ft/ft
Bottom Width
B = 0.01. ft
Left Side Slope
Zt = 3.00 fVft
Right Side Slope
Z2 = 3.00 ft/ft
Design Discharge
Q = 2.7 cis
Check one of the following soil
types
Sandy Soil check, OR
Non -Sandy Soil X check
Flow Condition ICalculated
Water Depth
Y = ft
Top Width
T = . _ , ,' �>4 27. ft
Flow Area
A = ...... ` ' 1;52 sq ft
etted Perimeter
P =T'`" 450 ft
Hydraulic Radius
R = 0;34 ft
Flow Velocity
V = '•'t1'i$1,: fps
Hydraulic Depth
D=._.:;:; °:;i>0t36ift
Froude Number
Fr = „:,�;a�<Q 53_
Discharge (Check)
4= 7 cfs
Warning 01: Sideslope steepness exceeds USDCM Volume II recommendation.
swale1, Flow Analysis 7/2/2003, 11:40 AM
Anal sis of Trapezoidal Grass -Lined Channel
Project: Respite Care Center
Channel ID: Swale 2
T
F-------------------------
Yo 1
Y 1� •
W Zl E-----H------> Z2
Desian Information
Grass Type: A I
B
I C
IDI E
Limiting Mannin 's N 0.060
1 0.040
1 0.033
1 0.030 1 0.024
Soil Type:
Max. Velocity (Vmm)
Max. Froude No. (Fina)
Non -Sandy
7.0 fps
0.80
Sandy
5.0 fps
0.60
Design Information
Enter Grass Manning's N
N = 0.060
Type of Grass (A,B,C,D, or E)
A .
Channel Invert Slope
So = 0.0440 ft/ft
Bottom Width
B = 0.01 ft
Left Side Slope
Z1 = 4.00,ft/ft
Right Side Slope
Z2 = 4:00 Wit
Design Discharge
Q = 2.0 cis
Check one of the following soil
types
Sandy Soil check, OR
Non -Sandy Soil X check
Flow Condition Calculated
Water Depth
Y = 01W ,_ 0 ft
Top Width
T = rT� ^`4 0I i It
Flow Area
A =, x V6,1' sq ft
Wetted Perimeter
P =ft
Hydraulic Radius
R = 0"24` ft
Flow Velocity
V = �� #r2:03: fps
Hydraulic Depth
D = ° Z,° 0425 ft
Froude Number
Fr = r0 71
Discharge (Check)
Q=EM0 cfs
swale2, Flow Analysis
7/2/2003, 11:39 AM
I
1
II
APPENDIX E
1
Detention Pond & Water Quality Design
1
1
I
I
I
U
Basin =
Area =
C=
Frequency =
Release =
Table 5
Detention Pond'A' Design
A3, A4, A5, A6
1.66
0.63
T00
1.34
V=1/3*d*(A1+A2+sgrt(A1*A2))
D^nrl
ac
ifs
Stage
Increment d
Area ft^2
Volume ft^3
Total Volume ft^3
Volume ac-ft
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
4908
1
4282
1426
1426
0.03
4909
1.
6554..
5372
6798
0.16
491:0 ..
1
.9425
7938
14737
0.34
Required Storage Volume =1
9738, ;_ ft^3
WS Elev is Above Stage
F. ..;:3' ""` :"
1PIckStaae
Lower Stage Volume (ft^3) _
1426 Actual WSEL =
ft
Upper Stage Volume (ft^3) =
1'47.,37
Freeboard = r "
ft
Lower Stage Elevation (ft) _
.4908
Upper Stage Elevation (ft) =
49;10
TST, INC.
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS,
Page 1 of 1
03/27/03
Hydromas_739-100
Site Area
Concrete/Asphalt/Roof
Gravel
Lawn (steep)
Undeveloped
TST, INC.
CONSULTING
' ENGINEERS
Table 6
Water Quality Volume Calculation
2.11 acres
Imperviousness
Area (ac)
Impervious Area (ac)
0.95
0.5900
0.5605
0.50
0.0600
0.0300
0.35
0.1200
0.0420
0.25
1.3400
0.3350
2.11 o.97 = sum
I, = 45.85%
1 = 0.4585
WQCV = 0.195 watershed Inches
Design Volume = 0.0412 ac-ft
179199 fe
Page 1 of 1
03/27/03
Hydromas_739-100
Table 7
Water Quality Plate Sizing
Basin =
Area =
C=
Frequency =
Release =
Invert Out =
V=1/3*d*(A1+A2+sgrt(A1*A2))
Stage
Increment d
Area ft^2
Volume ft^3
Total Volume ft^3
Volume ac-ft
:0
0
0
0
0
0.00
1
1
4282
1426
1426
003
2.
1
6554
5372
6798
0..16
3 -
1
_ . 9425: ;
7938
14737.
0.34
Required Storage Volume (ft) _ `1793 00" Release Rate = 01;0125 1cfS
WS Elev is Above Stage 1 Pick Stage
Lower Stage Volume (ft^3) 14M Actual WSEL = Uft r ft
Upper Stage Volume (ftA3) = 6798 . Freeboard = �3 ft
Lower Stage Elevation (ft) = 1
Upper Stage Elevation (ft) = 2
W QCV
a=
K40
K40 = 0.2329
TST, INC.
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
K, = 0.013*D„,q2+0.22*D ,q-0.w
Page 1 of 1
03/27/03
Hydromas 739-100
No Text
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3)
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
r
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
r
9-1-1992
UDFCD
0,
xten
10-Hot ir
ed De
Drai
entio
i time
Basi
(Dry)
'
1
D
1
OnlIc
-Hour
n Pon
Drain
Js (W(t)
nme
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed
Source: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker (1989)
Note: Watershed Inches of runoff shall apply to the
entire watershed tributary to the BMP Facility,
FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV)
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL(V. 3)
0.61
m
40.41
m
0.2
U
0.1
3 0.0
0.0
,E
STRUCTURALBMPs
WQCV=2.1acre-feet
SOLUTION: Required Area er
Row = 1.75 in
EME&M,
MEAN!
- FAdj
ij
MINEWARAJAMPA4A
OF
FF1
PFA
0A
j
dl'A
or
44MA
VA
FAA1
rW,AjA
VAJFEEPAS
0401 P
per
'a
1 VAJ
E
I
0A 0,00
lArmom,1011
j Fill
eAA
VA'AF421
VJA K
IVA
PA A
WA A
m ,
p4FFA
�j
1ANAVE
jrjAJFrj
Pr
VA A
PA
PJA
- - - - ---
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Required Area per Row (In 2 )
Source: Douglas County Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria, 1966,
FIGURE 5-3. WATER QUALITY OUTLET SIZING: DRY EXTENDED DETENTION
BASIN WITH A 40-HOUR DRAIN TIME OF THE CAPTURE VOLUME
Rev. 3-1-1994
UDFCD
1
1
1
1
1
Structural Steel Channel
Formed Into Concrete, To
Span Width Of Structure.
See Figures 6—a, 6—b
0
Orifice Perforation Details
A-01-7
WPlate _ Wconc. + 6 inches
Conc. (see below)
B
Permanent
Water Surface
12" 2'-4"
L —J Majx, Minimum
4" 0
Circular Openings: Wconc. Obtained From Table 6a-1
a
Rectangular Openings: Wcanc. = width. of rectangular perforation + 6"
Sc, see Sc, see
figure
5 Figure 5
O a a a
a vC�
aa
0 0C7
0 0 O 0 oC7
0 00
'
0 0. 0 000.
0 0 ° ° 0 a° 00000 0 o t
0 0 a 000 C�
0 0 0 000
0 0 0 0 a 0 o a o
Example Perforation Patterns
Note: The goal in designing the outlet is to minimize the number of columns of perforotions
that will drain the WQCV in the desired time, Do not, however, increase the diameter of
circular perforations or the height of the rectangular perforations beyond 2 inches. Use the
allowed perforation shapes and configurations shown above along with F(gure 5 to determine the
pattern that provides an area per row closest to that required without exceeding it, f
Urban Drainage and Figure 4
Flood Control District
Orifice Details for [
Drainage Criteria Manual (V,3) Draining WQCV
File! U—Gullet Oetaile.dwq
� J
Orifice. Plate Perforation Sizing
Circular Perforation Sizing
Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet.
Hole Dia
(in)
Hole Dia
(in)
Min. Sc
(in)
Area per Row (sq in)
n=1
n=2
n=3
1 /4
0,250
1
0.05
0.10
0.15
5/16
0.313
2
0.08
0.15
0:23
3/8
0,375
2
0.11
0.22
0.33
7/16
0.438
2
0.15-
0.30
0.45
1 /2
0.500
2
0.20 -
0.39.
0.59
9/16
0.563
3
0.25
0.50
0.75
5/8
0.625
3
0.31
0.61
0.92
11 16
0.688
13
0.37
0,74
1,11
3/4
0.750
3
0.44 -
0.88
1.33
7/8
0.875
3
0.60
1.20
1.80
1
1.000
4
0.79
1.57
2.36
1 1 8
1,125
4
0.99
1:99
2.98
1 1 4
-1,250
4
1.23
2.45
3.68
1 3/8
1.375
4
1.48
2.97
4.45
1 1 2
1.500
4
1.77
3.53
5.30
1 5 8
1.625
4
2.07
4.15
6.22
1 3 4
1.750
4
2.41
4.81
1 , 7.22
1 7 8
1.875
4
2.76
5.52
8.28
2
2,000
4
' 3.14
6,28
1 9.42
n Number of.columns of perforations
Minimum steel
plate thickness
1/4
5/16
3/8 "
Rectangular Perforation Sizing
Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed,
Rectangular Height = 2 inches
Rectangular Width (inches) = Regt.•Ired Area per Row (sq in)
2"
Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District
Drainage Criteria Manual (V:3)
File VJ-OwUet Oetaga.dwg
Rectangular
Hole Width
Min. Steel
Thickness
5"
1 4
6"
1 4
7"
5/32 "
8"
5/16 "
9"
11/32 "
10"
3/8 ,
>10"
1/2 „
Figure 5
WOCV Outlet Orifice
Perforation Stzing
Structural Ste
Formed Into
See Figures
WQCV Trash Racks:
A
Wdonerete
:I Channel
Stainless
Concrete.
or Intermit
5-0, 6—b
See Figure.
C.
H
Varies
to 6'
'.
2—
(miniri
_I
Of
A
Elevation .
feel Bolts
:ant welds,
6—a, 6—b
Z'—o"
-a"
1. Well —screen trash racks shall be stainless steel and shall be attached by intermittant
welds along the edge of the mounting frame.
2. Bar grate trash rocks shall be aluminum and shall be bolted using, stainless steel hardware.
3. Trash Rack widths are for specified trash rack, material, Finer well —screen or mesh size
than specified is acceptable, however, trash rack dimensions need to be adjusted for
materials having a different open area/grass area ratio (R value)
4, Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero
head downstream of the rack.
Overflow Trash Racks:
t. All trash racks shall be mounted using stainless steel hardware and provided with
hinged and lockable or boltable access panels.
2. Trash racks shall be stainless steel, aluminum, or steel. Steel trash racks shall be hot.
dip galvanized and may be hot powder painted, after galvanizing.
3, Trash Racks shall be designed such that the diagonal dimension of each opening is
smaller than the diameter of the outlet pipe.
4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero
head downstream of the rack,
Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District
Figure 6
WQCV Outlet Standardized
Trash Rack Design
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3)
File: VJ—outlet 0atc0&dwq
C808.75 American Standard
Structural Steel Channel.
Trash Rack Attached By Welding
7
Varies
2'—O"
to
2'-4" <
Minimmum
J�
3or4
It �
U.S. Filter$ Stainless
Steel Well —Screen
(or equal) Per Tables
6a-1, 6a-2
C808.75 American
Standard Structural
Steel Channel Farcned
Into Concrete Bottom
And Sides Of Wca d,
Trash Rack Attached
By Intermittant Welds,
8"
orularack
6"tersrated
r
,'olit
Rock Swivel Hinge
Optional
Flow Control
Orifice Plate
Outlet Pipe I8Min.
3" Minimum
Section' A —A
From Figure G. Circular Openings Only
Steel Perforated
Flow Control
Plate
Well -Screen Frame
Attached To Channel
By Intermittant Welds
ni ,v,
,
. ''��',�,.�� Weans• �„�;';' ,
Trash Roek Attached 6"
By Intermittent Min.
Welding All Around
Section 8-8 — Plan View
From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only
Limits for this Standardized Design;
1. All outlet plate openings are circular,
2. Maximum diameter of opening = 2 inches.
*U.S. Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Stainless Steel
Support Ban
No. 93 Stainless
Steel (U.S. Filter*
or Equol) Wires
0.139" 0.090"
Section C—C
From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only
R Value = (net open area)/(gross rack area)
= 0.60
Urban Drainage and Figure 6—o
Flood Control District
Standardardized Trash Rack Design
' Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) For WOCV Outlets With
FRe: U—avast Oataea.dwq Circular Openings
I
Table 6a-1; Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
Minimum Width (Weene.) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack,
See Figure 6-a for Explanation oFTerms.
Maximum Dia.
of Circular
Opening
(inches)
Width of Trash Rack Opening (W Per Column of Holes as a Function of Water De th H
H=2.0'
H=3.0'
H=4.0'
H=5,0'
H=6.0'
Maximum
Number of
Columns
<0.25
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
14
<0.50
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in,
3 in.
14
50.75
3 i.
6 in,
6 in.
6 in.
6 in.
7
< 1.00
6 in.
9 in.
9 in,
9 in.
9 in.
4
<1.25
9 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
15 in.
2
< 1.50
12 in.
15 in.
18 in.
IS in.
18 in.
2
< 1.75
18 in.
21 in.
21 in.
24 in.
24 in.
l
<2.00
21 in.
24 in.
27 in.
30 in.
30 in.
1
Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
US FilterT"' Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications.
Max. Width
of Opening
Screen #93 VEE
Wire Slot Opening
Support Rod
Type
Support Rod,
On -Center,
• Spacing
Total Screen
Thickness
Carbon Steel Frame
Type
9"
0.139
#156 VEE
'/,"
0.31'
'/,"x1.0"f1at bar
18"
0.139
TE .074"x.50"
l"
0.655
'/+" x 1.0 angle
24"
0,139
TE .074"x,75"
1 ".
1,03"
1.0" x I %i' angle
27"
0.139
TE ,074"x.75"
1,,1
1.03"
1 1.0" x 1'/a" angle
30"
0.139
TE .074"x l .0"
l"
1.155"
1 '/4 `x l'/i ' angle
36"
0.139
TE.074"xl:O"
l"
1:155"
1'/,'x 1'/i'angle
42"
0.139
TE .105"x I.0"
l"
1,155"
1 /,"x l %a" angle
' US Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, UJA
DESIGN EXAMPLE:
'
Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings,
Water Depth R above the lowest opening oF3.5 feet.
'
Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame.
Solution: From Table 6a-1 with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e„ rounded up from 5/8 inch actual
diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for
'
each column gFopenings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is Waeee, = 3.6 - 1S inches. The total height, after adding
the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the flange of the top support channel, is 64
inches. Thus,
'
Trash rack dimensions within the mounting frame = IS inches wide x 64 inches high
From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications loran 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US Filter (or
'
equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0, 09" openings between wires, TE ,074" x .50" support rods
on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and'/r" x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame.
Sid Well Sceen Trash Rack.doc
C
I
I
I
I
1
I
APPENDIX F
I
Inlet and Curb Cut Design
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
1
h
e+1
0
0
gj
0Kago 1
Q
cn9
z
F U W
' D� Gvrb1 v+
1.0 12
10 4
.9 II 8
3
10
6
.8 0
9 0 4
7 3 ,q0 c F5�
8
2L
76 113 r/pt
E� Z 1.0
_ - ^, 1.0 z .9 Z,37 cfs
.5 ' _ e_Part a z ;>
-.8- - --- a .8 OIClU C
5.5 .6 0
LL
W 0 o .7 - 2 2t
W 5 = Z
U. .4 Z Z .4 s
W
? 4.5 Z c .3
s
t o 0 .5 Cu+ Z
cv
w '3 3Uj
.5 Z Z '' .4 1,13xf$0 �,q0
c » . 1 {�=Z�70 efs.
U.
.25 3 }- c .06 0 .3 :9ZZ'7-
n n U. z
¢ .04 .25 2 2.5 a .03
.U.
oz .2
a
2 ~o.
.15 L .01 .15
0
o
Yo a
h 6. .10
a=2
Figure 5-2
NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2-
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
0.6
r
0.7
�.
0.6
W
Z 0.5
c 0.4
x
a 0.3
W
G
n
Z 0.2
1
C.
2.
O
0.0
0
IFLOW
Figure5.3
J CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP
(From: Wright-Mcf aughlin Engineers, IM)
re-)
■ ��W 5��17 cfs
MAY 1984 5-11 DESIGN CRrrM A
I
I
1>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
MTST, INC.
OPTNION OF COST
Project: Respite Care Center
Job No. 0739-100
6/16/2003
By: S.M.S.
Item
Units
Unit Cost
Total
Comments
ION CONTROL (Developer)
V
/Mulch
1.3
AC.
$800.00
$1,008.00
Inlet Filter
1.0
EA.
$300.00
$300.00
ale Barrier
3
EA.
$150.00
$450.00
ce
1,027
L.F.
$3.00
$3.082.41
Erosion Control Subtotal
150% Subtotal
84,840.41
$7,260.62
1. EROSION CONTROL (City)
Reseed/Mulch
1
1.31
AC.
1 $800.00
1 $1,008.00
Erosion Control Subtotal
150% Subtotal
$1,008.00
$1,512.00
EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT
$7,260.62
I
LJ
LJ
LJ
APPENDIX G
Riprap Design
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
N
n
fyal
C4
d z
0
a
N
Ti
I
A
p
M
�o
«? M
(Do
Uo
ca U U
w
c�i a
J
o_
co
J
vi
T
Lo
r, p N
m
LL
v v 61
'= C U5
rU °.o
co Z U p y
D
`o
2ro
N
coia N••
w
m L6 C a M
c
o
p Ci nLq m
c, 1 p v
c
10
'a
� o >?? co
a
t
p o m p
a
u
�
J it 11
Z 11
N
O 3 J Q i 3
U
LU
0a£`m
� �
a 3
a
� J
LL
O
Z
W
8
J
M M f0
p
L�b
Boa
V
N fG
LLI
to N
J
r
n r
N
CO CO
T
p
U
co
LL
J
p
CLo
L6
a_ U
am
R' Z
LL
+ U
p
ov c c
W
>
o o
p
w Ui T
cO
O J
T w
z 3:
o Q LL
a¢
ao
W
Z
J
0 0
ao cri .
J
N T �
L
m
LOLOw
T T
� N
co N
7 �
V N
a
T N V w
N T O
to U cu o)
LL J
Z U)
J Z W
W N Z
�zZa)
H U W
'
Table 8.1 lists several gradations of riprap. The minimum average size designation for loose riprap
shall be 12 inches. Smaller sizes of riprap shall be either buried on slopes which can be easily
maintained (4 to 1 minimum side slopes) or grouted if slopes are steeper. Grouted riprap should meet
'
all the requirements for regular riprap except that the smallest rock fraction (smaller than the 10 per-
cent size) should be eliminated from the gradation. A reduction of riprap size by one size designation
(from 18 inches to 12 inches or from 24 inches to 18 inches) is permitted for grouted riprap.
'
Table 8-1
CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP
%anatalweight
SmeYerttonthe Stone Size dsot
PAP Designation cirenSae king) final
70-100 85
'
Class 6 tt 50-70 35
35.50 10 6
2-10 <1
70.100 440
Class 12 SD-70 275
35-50 85 12
2-10 3
100 1275
Class 18 W70 655
35-50 275 18
2-10 10
100 3500
Class 24 W70 1700
36-50 655 24
'
2-10 35
t dso= Mean Particle Size. At least 50 percent of the.. shall be so= equal to or larger than eft dimension.
tt euty on 4 to 1 side slopes or grout rock if slopes are steeper.
Table 8-2 summarizes riprap requirements for a stable channel lining based on the following
relationship:
'
VSo.17
(dso)--Ir' (�M = 5.8
1
in which, V = Mean channel velocity in feet per second
S = Longitudinal channel slope in feet per foot
S, = Specific gravity of rock (minimum Ss= 2.50)
dso -= Rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller.
The rock sizing requirements in Table 8-2 are based on the rock having a specific gravity of 2.5 or
more. Also, the rock size does not creed to be increased for steeper channel side slopes, provided the
side slopes are no steeper than 2h:1v. Rock fined side slopes steeper than 2h:1v are not
'
recommended. '
• Table 8-2
'
RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL. LINMGS tt
Vs0'17Rs.-11° e6t Roc kTYPett
0 to 1.4 No Riprap Required
1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 ROM
4.1 to 5.8 Class 12 Riprap
5.9 to 7.1 Class 18 Riprap
7.2 to 82 Class 24 Riprap
t Use S, = 25 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design
tt Table valid ony for Fmude number of 0.8 or less and side slaM no steeper than 2hI v.
' MAY 1984
8-18
DESIGN CRITERIA
r
CO
Q
OMD.
v
O
OM
a
LL. o
�
O
Q M
a
O���
M
O
M
r
N
CG
N
N
cC
COMO
r
U7
In
f�aN
M
CD
O
r
LO
y�
n
.M-NN
Nco
a
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
..
Ln
0
O
O
O
I--
e
v
ai
of
I:
ui
r
of
C:
a
r
,^N
V!
I�
CO
r
O
N
CO
v
CN
t)
N
N
v
r
a
N
J
co
r
O
co
N
I.-
�-
U
V
C
O
C
O
C
C
N
`m
W
O
aci
U
NN
m
}
0
0
0
0
0
0
�j
E
E
E
E
E
E
m
m
CL N
O
0
02
w
o z
0°
o
a
W
OQ
-iCO
.-
MvCnco
QQ
c.)W
LU Ca
cn
-3a
0
wcn
o
C,
aU
co
T
O
U)
a
C9
Z �
J W
W
Z N z
I.za
H U W
Table 11
Effectiveness Calculations
11
1
1
LJ
I
I
r
PROJECT: Respite Care Center STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: SMS DATE: 03/27/03
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment Although the effectiveness percentage is 0.1 % less
Soil Treatment Methods than the performance percentage, it is believed that
bare soil 1.00 1.00 the proposed erosion control is adequate. Due to
reseed 0.06 1.00 flow length of 74.5' being less than the shortest
sod grass 0.01 1.00 length listed in Table 5.1, the calculated
pavement 0.01 1.00 percentage based on a 1 00'flow length is larger than
Structural Treatment Methods the actual performance percentage.
no structure 1.00 1.00
gravel filter 1.00 0.80
straw bale 1.00 0.80
silt fence 1.00 0.50
sediment trap 1.00 0.50
Major Basin
PS (%)
Sub -Basin
Area
Calculations
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.16 reseed
Al
0.28
0.10 sod grass 0.02 pavement
Structural Methods: 0.5 silt fence
A
98.44%
1 no structure
C-FACTOR= 0.04 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 0.50 1 no structure
EFF= 98.07% 0.27 = EFF'Am 1 no structure
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.00 reseed
A2
0.11
0.10 sod grass 0.01 pavement
Structural Methods: 0.5 silt fence
1 no structure
C-FACTOR= 0.01 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 0.50 1 no structure
EFF= 99.50% 0.11 = EFF'A b 1 no structure
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.00 reseed
A3
0.30
0.04 sod grass 0.26 pavement
Structural Methods: 1 no structure
1 no structure
C-FACTOR= 0.01 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 1.00 1 no structure
EFF= 99.00% 0.30 = EFF'Am 1 no structure
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.26 reseed
A4
0.43
0.09 sod grass 0.05 pavement
Structural Methods: 0.8 straw bale
0.8 gravel filter
C-FACTOR= 0.04 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 0.64 1 no structure
EFF= 97.47% 0.42 = EFF'A b 1 no structure
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.54 reseed
A5
0.72
0.11 sod grass 0.07 pavement
Structural Methods: 0.8 straw bale
0.5 silt fence
C-FACTOR= 0.05 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 0.40 1 no structure
EFF= 98.10% 0.71 = EFF'A,b 1 no structure
Soil Treatment Methods: 0 bare soil 0.00 reseed
A6
0.27
0.07 sod grass 0.2 pavement
Structural Methods: 0.8 straw bale
1 no structure
C-FACTOR= 0.01 1 no structure
P-FACTOR= 0.80 1 no structure
EFF= 99.20% 0.27 = EFF•A b 1 no structure
Area = 2.11 Sum (A,p EFFeb) ° 2.07
EFF = 98.3%
Performance = 98.4°/.
TST, INC.
CONSULTING 3/27/2003
ENGINEERS Page 1 of 1 Erosion Control Effectiveness
FIGURE 4. EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT: RESPITE CARE CENTER STANDARD FORM C
SEQUENCE FOR: CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED BY: SMS DATE: JUNE 2003
Indicate by use of bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major
modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the
City Engineer.
MONTH
1
2
3
4
5
6
OVERLOT GRADING
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughing
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temp. Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blankets
Other
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: CONTRACTOR
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DECIDED BY BID
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/17/03 APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
1
TST, INC.
Cnnsultin¢ F,ngineers
OPINION OF COST
Project: Respite Care Center
Job No. 0739-100
7/032003
By: S.M.S.
No.
Item
Units
Unit Cost
Total
Comments
1. EROSION CONTROL (Developer)
Reseed/Mulch
1.3
AC.
$800.00
$1,008.00
Gravel Inlet Filter
1.0
EA.
$300.00
$300.00
Straw Bale Barrier
2
EA.
$150.00
$300.00
Silt Fence
1,027
L.F.
$3.00
$3,082.41
Erosion Control Subtotal
150% Subtotal
$4,690.41
$7,035.62
1. EROSION CONTROL (City)
Reseed/Mulch
1.31
AC.
1 $800.001
$1,008.00
Erosion Control Subtotal
150% Subtotal
$1,008.00
$1,512.00
EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT
$7,035.62
0
1
TABLE W. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT. RESPITE CARE CENTER STANDARD FORM
SEQUENCE FOR. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED TO SNS MTE: NNE am
MplmYb/um olyr rcor rymtob Menmoln ambtlmueaMaEMMW. Miller
moalAmbnE b m eppraM LceMu a mry rxRln m4neRM a Fw MxMN b emeoxl0y M
Cpy Erglmv.
MONTH
1
2
3
e
s
e
ERLOTORADNO
MING EROSION CONTROL
Ra.peeeanM
RR,,l
V@e"ty Woods
Sri Sk'P
RAINFALL EN)i CONTROL
STRUCTURAL
S,dwTmpa,,n
N
SSMNFem Rsrrcn
Rare PreW mMn
CoRow
TrmapNe�m�.e
,
AIVGomen Perms
aver
VEGETATT RE
PYmmp
makeeexm
Two Sets WmW
ue WSeek@*
Oser
STRUCTURES. xN[y`FOSY CONFUR!Orm MANTMNED Or.
VEDETAnCI MULCx NOCONTMCTDN: *Oc=oecwso er xo
MTESUSM 1TED'_NTNt APPROVEDeYCIFOOFFMTCtt1JxSON
A3. A4, A5, AB •
1.86
0 63
100
/.34
Basin =
Area=
ac
C=
Frequency =
yr
Release =
Cis
V=1/]'d'IA1♦A2Rsgrt(A1'A2))
Pond
I
11
STRAW SYSSYxII Ov" \\
`aT.L SIGN
MELRwpe PM. /N
�RD00.PC
Mars
Stage
Increment 0
Area VA2
Volume t03
Total Volume 43
Volume Cc-ft
0
0
J
0
0
003
d908
1
4282
1426
1426
003
4909
1
6554
5372
6798
0.15,
4910
1
9425
7938
14737
034
Required Storage Volume= 9738 IA3
WS EIev IS Above Stage 3 Plc
N Stage
Actual WSEL= 4 .2
Lower Stage Volume NV3)=M491
Ertl
Upper Stage Volume (ft43) =Freeboard = L38
0
Lower Stage Elevation (ft) =
Upper Stage Elevabon(ft)=
I I
I \ \ p II I
J wav w km cukeaTfoy
RUNT Wr O l (a mT�L PHUTt
SEE berm earl
GuET
OVE METAL McXM) �. rewnvae, I
AS DRAINAGE BASIN O DESIGN POINT
0.l] M LABEL
ynam SPOT ELEV.
MOE=10.75 MIN. OPENING ELEV. DRAINAGE BASIN
FF=11.00 TIN. FLOOR ELEV. Eyre-- PROP. 5 CONTOUR
FLOW ARROW PROP. V CONTOUR
v STRAW BALE BARRIER _ _---- - EXIST. 1' CONTOUR
® RIPRAP PAD - - -_. EXIST. 5' CONTOUR
v_. PROP. STORM SEWER 100-yr FLOODPLAIN
�F
\\ ' t
_FF=21.00
2.00
RETAINING WALL
_ 100' WETLNND SETBACK
EXIST. WETLAND
EXISTING SM. SEWER
PROP. WALK
PROP. FL
PROP. EDP
PROP. MOC
Contributin
Basin
Area
acres
C
2- r
C
10- r
C
100E r
Te
2, 10- r
To
100E r
Intensity
in/hr 2- r
Intensity
in/hr 10- r
Intensity
in/hr 100E r
Discharge
cfs 2- r
Discharge
cfs 10- r
Discharge
cfs 100E r
Al
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.31
5.00
5.00
3.24
5.64
9.00
0,28
0.49
0.98
A2
0.10
0.40
0.40
0.50
5.00
5.00
3,24
5,64
9.00
0,13
0.23
0.45
A3
0.30
0.87
0.87
1.00
5,00
500
3,24
5.64
9.00
0,85
1.47
2.70
A4
0,35
0.40
0.40
0.50
5.00
5.00
3,24
5.64
9.00
0.45
0.79
1.58
A5
0.74
0.29
0.29
0.36
8.92
8.13
2.66
4.62
7.40
0.57
0.99
1.98
A8
0.27
0.78
0.78
0,98
5.00
5.00
3.24
5.64
9.00
0.68
1.19
2.37
A3, A4, AS,
1.66
0.50
0.50
0.63
SM
5.00
2.66
4.62
7.40
2.21
3.83
7,67
20 rayeeev Pmo New
L%F mTsU sPor sl
CXlB" K
aTTot
see E� ESS
f jr. YfRI CIABQ
! 'I
✓il �I
II
V
it
I I tnxxxa WA�Nss
CaPRESUSE
IS
�' II sueLE..uW.
`\ PRFERTY UNE
J
i el
\
�\ k4
'Is ZWFS
LL Sr. �[fmpr AK 1UPXCK1IfN
Leon aPm
tWE onu sREE, I
Ir I
I II
J \ \ I G
.. 11IR
I JII
X It
1 1
I iI Ni
lu
1 I ll
I III
I N '
I l
Iyl'y I
Y8,
x
tU
z
U.l
U
LU
a
Q
U
LLI
FL
U)
W
City of Ft. Collins, Colorado 2
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ea,exffingTW,M .ern
Fal . Ovi0
APPROVED: -n-r
Clty Engineer Dole
CHECKED BY: No.
Water a WaNv ealer UCllty Dote 739-ILA
CHECKED BY:
stermwear Utility Date v�M EPal T•_ M
CHECKED BY: 8/1a/4r
Parke W Recreation Dale qm,
CHECKED BY:
relic Engineer Date
CHECKED BY OF
Natural Resources Dote