HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 12/18/2001 (2)FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
DESDALE PARK PUD - FILING TWO
Final as
Approved
Submitted to:
LARIMER COUNTY
December 2001
' December 18, 2001
Mr. Rex Bums
Larimer County Engineering Department
P.O. Box 1190
Fort
Collins, CO 80522
' Re: Clydesdale Park PUD Filing Two
Project No. 0957-001
' Dear Mr. Bums:
We are pleased to present you with this Final Drainage Report for Clydesdale Park PUD
Filing Two. This report was prepared based on Larimer County criteria and the
' . approved "Final Drainage and Erosion control Report for Clydesdale Park PUD"
prepared and submitted by JR Engineering on March 31, 2000; we believe it satisfies all
criteria for a final report. This report also includes discussion of erosion and sediment
control measures that will be utilized during and after construction, as required by the
August 1996 revision of Section 10 of the Larimer County Drainage Criteria Manual.
' We look forward to your review and comment and will gladly answer any questions you
may have.
'
Sincerely,
TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Keith G. Sheaffer, PE
'
KGS/cros
'
Enclosures
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@tstinc.com
www.tstine.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
Page
1.1 Scope and Purpose...................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location and. Description...............................................................................1
2.0 Historic Conditions..........................................................................................................3
3.0 Developed Conditions Plan
3.1 Design Criteria...........................................................................................................4
3.2 Drainage Plan Development......................................................................................7
3.2.1 Street Capacity.............................................................................................. 7
3.2.2 Storm Sewer Design....................................................................................10
3.2.3 Inlet Design..................................................................................................10
3.2.4 Riprap Design..............................................................................................13
3.2.5 Detention Pond Design................................................................................13
3.3 Erosion/Sediment Control Plan................................................................................16
Ficiures
Figure1 - Vicinity Map................................................................................................................ 2
Tables
Table 1 — Developed Conditions Hydrologic Calculations Worksheet......................................5-6
Table 2 — Summary of Attenuated Developed Runoff................................................................. 8
Table 3 — Summary of Street Capacity Analysis......................................................................... 9
Table 4 — Summary of Storm Sewer Design.............................................................................12
Table 5 — Summary of Inlet Analysis.........................................................................................14
Table 6 — Summary Riprap Design...........................................................................................15
Technical Appendix
Appendix A — Firm Map/Soils Map
Appendix B — Rational Method Analysis
Appendix C — Street Capacity Analysis
Appendix D — Storm Sewer Analysis
Appendix E — Inlet Analysis
Appendix F — Riprap Design
Appendix G — Erosion Control
Sheets
Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan ...................................................Sheet 1 of 1
I
1.0
Introduction
' 1A Scope and Purpose
' This report presents the results of a Final Drainage Evaluation for Clydesdale Park, PUD —
Filing Two. In accordance with the requirements of the Larimer County Stormwater
Management Manual (LCSWMM), the purpose of this report is to present a storm drainage plan
t that identifies peak runoff conditions and provides a means by which to safely collect and
convey runoff across the site. This report will evaluate hydrologic conditions for the proposed
development and will use that information for hydraulic analysis of the proposed streets and
drainage facilities.
' 1.2 Protect Location and Description
Clydesdale Park PUD is a proposed 75.82 acre medium density, single-family residential
development located in Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 61' PM in Larimer
County, Colorado. A vicinity map is located on the following page. This report addresses the
' second filing of the Clydesdale Park PUD. The second filing is an extension of the approved
design by JR Engineering, dated March 31, 2000. The site consists of 132 lots located east
and south of the existing Carriage Parkway. The storm drainage facilities will be designed in
' accordance with the approved overall "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
Clydesdale Park, PUD", prepared by JR Engineering, approved on March 31, 2000.
' TST, Inc. 1 October 3, 2001
0957-001
Vicinity Map
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N NORTHERN RAILROAD
6
NW
F-
a� a
HIGHWAY 14
.SITE • � a
0
z
n
0
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
PROSPECT ROAD
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 0=2000'
2
ZO
' . Historic Conditions
' . The existing site has historically been planted with corn and drains in a southwesterly direction
at slopes ranging from 0.5 to 1 percent. The site also contains Irrigation ditches that run north
to south. All drainage from this site is eventually received by Boxelder Creek. According to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area, the site lies within Zone C, which corresponds
to an area of minimal flooding. The site is shown on a portion of the FIRM Map Panel No.
080101 1080E in Appendix A.
The soils on this site Include Ascalon Sandy loam, Loveland Clay loam and Satanta Clay loam.
The predominate soil is the Satanta Clay loam which consists of nearly level soils on high
terraces and fans (USDA, 1980). Pertinent characteristics of this soil include slight runoff and a
' slight to medium erosion hazard. Satanta Clay loam is categorized in Hydrologic Group B. A
souls map for the Clydesdale Park PUD site is found in Appendix A.
TST, Inc. 3 October 3, 2001
0957-001
10
Developed Conditions Plan
3.1 Desitan Criteria
The drainage system presented in this report has been developed in accordance with the
guidelines established by the LCSWMM dated April 1979. Developed condition storm facilities
were evaluated based on the 2-year and 100-year storm frequencies as dictated by Table
2.3.1-1 of the LCSWMM manual
The Rational Method was selected to calculate runoff for the site. The Rational Method utilizes
the LCSWMM manual equation:
Q = CfCIA
where Q is the flow in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is the storm frequency
adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall Intensity in Inches per hour.
The runoff coefficients, C, were calculated from Table 4.2.6-1 of the LCSWMM manual, and
composite runoff coefficients were created. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is given on
page 4.2-6 of the LCSWMM manual and is 1.0 for the 2-year storm and 1.25 for the 100-year
storm. The appropriate rainfall intensity was taken from the LCSWMM rainfall Intensity duration
curve (included in Appendix B). To obtain the rainfall intensity, the time of concentration was
determined by the following equation:
tc=A+4
where tc is the time of concentration in minutes, ti is the initial or overland flow time in minutes,
and tt is the travel time in the ditch, channel, or gutter in minutes. The initial or overland flow
' time was calculated with LCSWMM manual equation 4.2.4-1:
tI=[1.87(1.1-CCf)0.su(S)o.33
where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), and S is the
average basin slope in percent. 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.
Table 1 (next pages) presents the results of the Hydrologic Evaluation. Supporting calculations
are provided in Appendix B.
TST, Inc. 4 October 3, 2001
0957-001
O N O I O OI OIO N O O V)I O O O O G
�o
10Or o�o�OoV O O� 1n 00000Olocl�
ton h , en of
N 'M,. en en M' �--� en 7— enN of N O
cc I- I
11"
1�1
If,
C:l
N 1
M I O� l� 10 Q b O M I v1 e+1 I
N M N N Or b .; n I b = V1 1p I V1
0 0 OIOIO 0 0 0 0 O O O coOIOIOI
O N O O 1O N O ClO O 00 O O N O N
0..i ---; 0 0-+ Cc;l� N rn N N M N� ^� N -;
$���C-44w00r-N�in�onwas-A��W�'l
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O O O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M N qn In " N" 00% I M " M N h N h
C O C C C O C O O O O C O 0 0 0
I �, .:..ii •:•:.•':,FL?:. CO..... r MIN NIp m O .M. 10 ;IM MIOI
IQl�i 11���:�:4����� f`l N 7 �-^ c l 1C C (`l fV � - to M 00 t� O
N N NIN NIN N N N N NIcn M M M M
~ININININI AI N I N I N ININ I N I N I N IN INI
O
O
N
�o to h h M N . O . V1 N
M N O � e` 'p N ,.. 0, M M O� as 00 eb N
�IPINIen Nl� r- OININICININIW) NI00
1t N I%0 V1 �0 10 56 0� 1 16 0lI16 �6 (tom I P I C+ I h
O 00 O O O O h CR
h O O n O O O O O
M N N N N N N� N
P 100 0000 "t h O n N — 'n ONO I M M n 100 N I
V M O 06 O "0 00
co
cl � I
00 as 00 01
et O n"
n� .r Nv. O M O+ h M h hCl?
a N v 0�6 a ad N M M .- 06 N v e0 ,Nr
.10llq1_INIOO,19I_INI.101.1...101_
N N N N N N N N N NIN en M M M M
~I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N IN
O
0
N
' 3.2 Drainage Plan Development
The proposed drainage plan consists of a combination of overland flow across lots and open
spaces, which will be collected by proposed curb and gutter or swales to direct runoff to the
' detention pond. Subbasins were delineated based on proposed grading as shown on the Final
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans, which can be found at the end of this report.
The site lies within Larimer County and all drainage is eventually received by Boxelder Creek.
The discharge from the site shall be restricted to the 100-year historic rate. The design
presentation in this report accommodates this requirement.
' Table 2 (next page) presents the attenuated runoff at key design points on the site. Attenuated
runoff was calculated using the highest time of concentration and the total sub -basin area
contributing to the design point. The runoff coefficient used represents a composite of the
' contributing sub -basins.
' 3.2.1 Street Capacitv
Streets were evaluated based on a 36-foot FL -FL width with a rollover curb, gutter and
attached sidewalk. This street section is consistent throughout Filing Two of the
' . Clydesdale Park PUD.
Allowable street encroachment criteria were taken from Table 5.1-1 of the LCSWMM for
' the. minor and major storm events. The minor event (2-yr.) criteria allows no curb
overtopping when curb.is present and a maximum flow depth of 6 inches at the gutter
flowline. The major event (100-yr.) criteria allows for flow depths of up to 18 Inches over
the gutter flowline. Street capacities were based off of the approved "Final Drainage
and Erosion Control Report for Clydesdale Park, PUD", JR Engineering, March 31,
2000. In their evaluation, street capacities were calculated for a minor and major storm
' event. These calculations show the available capacity for varying street slopes. Filing
Two street capacities have been designed and evaluated and conform to the approved
design constraints provided by JR Engineering. During our design of Filing Two, the
owner requested that an evaluation be made to eliminate Pond E and the proposed
storm sewer discharging into Pond E.. The pipe and pond are located along Carriage
Parkway. In our analysis, this storm sewer was not planned and profiled during JR
' Engineering's submittal for Filing One and Pond E does not have any proposed outlet or
serviceability to the overall development. Therefore, we evaluated the minor and major
street capacity of Carriage Parkway, which can adequately convey the, storm runoff to
' design point 26 and into Pond B. The results of the street capacity analysis can be seen
on Table 3 (following pages) with supporting calculations in Appendix C.
L
L
' TST, Inc. 7 October 3, 2001
0957.001
rlal�
=a�
gig
1pI�
aoo
.-h N
rt-:Im;
NINItnImm
11
00 � 00 00 00 � 00
.-
O� N
�D N 00 00
O O O O O O O
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O O O O O O
O �O M O 00 00
w O M N M 00 �
OO O C� GO N C
N N t� N N v1 [:
.r
N N N N N N
O
NNNN�IMM
O
o
N
!7
LI
'
3.2.2 Storm Sewer and Swale Design
There are five (5) storm sewer runs and one (1) culvert run incorporated in the drainage
plan.
All storm sewer lines were analyzed with UDSEWER and the culvert run was analyzed
using the HY8 software package. The water surface at the downstream end of all lines
were determined by the water surface as designed in the approved "Final Drainage and
Erosion Control Report for Clydesdale Park PUD," March 31, 2000 by JR Engineering.
'
Line ST-1 captures storm runoff generated from basins 01 and 201 along Breton Drive,
and basin 203 along Withers Drive and conveys the 100-year storm to detention pond
'
C.
Line ST-2 captures storm runoff generated from Salemo Court, basin 207 and conveys
the 100-year storm to detention pond D.
Line ST-3 captures storm runoff generated from basin 214 along Shetland Lane and
portions of Frisian Drive, Haflinger Drive and Brumby Lane and conveys the 100-year
storm to detention pond G.
Line ST-4 captures storm runoff generated from basin 212 along Brumby Lane and
portions of Carriage Parkway and Haflinger Drive and conveys the 100-year storm to
detention pond D.
Line ST-5 captures storm runoff generated from basin 208 along Frisian Drive and a
'
portion of Shetland Lane and from basin 210 along Haflinger Drive and a portion of
Carriage Parkway, and conveys the 100-year storm to detention pond F.
Line ST-6 conveys the storm runoff generated from Basin 213 through detention Pond
G. This culvert design conveys the runoff under the proposed 20' emergency access
from Brumby Lane to the property to the south located in the southeast portion of our
'
site.
The emergency access culvert was evaluated by maximizing the amount of conveyance
' through the existing irrigation swale, then by using a HY8 culvert software program to
size the actual pipe. The proposed 27" RCP will convey the maximum flow of the
irrigation ditch, however it is improbable that this irrigation ditch will flow completely full
due to the existing characteristics of the ditch (i.e. slope, vegetation height, amount of
water rights, etc.)
Overflow swales were analyzed per the request of the County due to the potential of
inlet clogging. For our analysis, it was assumed that the proposed inlets would always
have 67% of capacity and only 33% of the 100-year storm event would be conveyed
through the proposed swales. A normal depth software program was used to evaluate
each overflow swale based on a typical section. The typical swale section assumed a
slope of 1.5%, 4:1 side slopes, bottom width of 0-feet and an n-value of 0.035. copies
of the normal depth output calculations can be found in Appendix D.
TST, Inc. 10 December 2001
0957-001
The results of the Storm Sewer and Culverts Analysis and Design can be found in Table
4 (next page) with supporting calculations and model outputs presented in Appendix D.
3.2.3 Inlet Design
There are thirteen (13) Type 'R' inlets ranging from 5 feet to 15 feet incorporated in the
drainage plan, all of which are sized to intercept the 100 year runoff from the
contributing basins.
There are four (4) 5-foot Type 'R' inlets located at design points 21 and 23 (Line ST-1).
These inlets are located at low points along Breton Drive and Withers Drive. The flow
line elevations for these four (4) inlets are the same respectively and are located in 0.60-
foot sumps.
There is one (1) 5-foot Type 'R' inlet located at design point 27 (Line ST-2). The inlet is
located at the low point in Salerno Court. The flowline elevation for the inlet is located in
a 0.60-foot sump.
There are two (2) 15-foot Type 'R' inlets located at design point 34 (Line ST-3). These
inlets will be located on either side of Brumby Lane. The flowline elevation for the inlet
is located in a 0.60-foot sump.
There are two (2) 10-foot Type 'R' inlets located at design point 32 (Line ST-4). These
inlets will be located on either side of Brumby Lane. The flowline elevation for the inlet
is located in a 0.60-foot sump.
' There are four (4) 5-foot Type 'R' inlets located at design points 28 and 30 (Line St-5).
These inlets are located at low points along Frisian Drive and Haflinger Drive. The
flowline elevation for the inlet is located in a 0.60-foot sump.
LJ
7
In addition, we evaluated the inlet capacity associated with design point 26 to convey the
28.1 c.f.s. generated by the major storm event, which will now be conveyed to Pond B.
This analysis was performed due to the fact that the proposed Pond E and discharge
pipe located at design point 25 were eliminated since there was no designed outlet or
serviceability to the overall project associated with either facility. By eliminating the
proposed storm sewer at design point 25 and conveying the 100-year storm event to
design point 26, the proposed inlets will need to be 15-foot Type-R inlets at said design
point 26.
' TST, Inc. 11 December 2001
0957-001
v�av�v�v�v�a
v�
w
voa.
WU)9%
WWWW04
h
N
N
N
N
N
N^
N
N
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N^
N
olIrll
016 006 V^ O O O VN1 M N-
I 00I�I ININ m m M m m M I06
a
Q
N
Q
fY1
U
Q
en
Q
W
r
U
..
U
N
A
A
N
Q^
W
W
N
W
U
A
W
M'
W
UQQ
N
Q
U
Q
M
A
OU
OA
w
Qi
wwwi
cv
M
U
A
r
0
Qy^
!�R7.1!
J.
v
vi
in
a
F
N
F
M
F
F
H
F
1q
F
r
i
I
I
I
Table 5 (next page) presents the results of the inlet design. Supporting calculations can
be found in Appendix E.
3.2.4 Rinraa Design
All of the proposed channels and ditches were designed to convey runoff at velocities
that would not promote erosion. However, outlet velocities of the culverts exceed 5 fps
and riprap will be necessary to prevent channel bank and bed erosion. The criteria
manual does not reference riprap sizing for culverts or gradation classification so the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control Manual was used. The results of the riprap design
are summarized in Table 6 (page 15) and copies of the design nomograph and the
riprap classification table can be found in Appendix F.
3.2.5 Detention Pond Design
The detention for the entire Clydesdale Park PUD, including Filing Two, has'been
previously submitted by JR Engineering, "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
Clydesdale park PUD" and approved by Larimer County on March 31, 2000. Filing Two
has incorporated all grading and drainage constraints Jrom this aforementioned report
and will not introduce any additional detention facilities.
' TST, Inc. 13
0957-001
October 3, 2001
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
'
n
C.4
7
M
a
a
00
�o
N
N
O
00
„
N
�
v�i
�
�
�
.�•
O
F
n
3i:4 .. c:•.0
iiifiYi.:.:.ro.<
C
.�
n
00
N
M
C
W
00
......................
.ry
,�./+
ter/
(�
Nr
�+
Nr
ir3ii5i:•i
..
...�
..
..
`' �.,
'`�"'
'"M.
0
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
0
N
0
N
..rT ..
:..::•:R':.::.. •.. .
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
:::::
:Cii•:�y
QOhhyyhHrA
iC?
OEM
:;:;'
s
ocxxaaaxx
e
t
e
e
e
s
...:zr�:;:; .
;......a..
wwwwwwww
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
.�'
................
G7
U W
z
L: z
�UW
i
1
3.3 Erosion/Sediment Control Plan
' The grading and reseeding of Clydesdale Park PUD, including Filing Two, has been completed
during the construction of Filing One (area west of Carriage Parkway), therefore minimal
' erosion control efforts will be necessary during the construction of Filing Two. However, at all
proposed inlets, gravel inlet filters will be installed and maintained during the completion of
roadway construction. In addition, riprap protection has been designed at all proposed storm
sewer outlets to reduce bank and channel erosion. A fugitive dust permit will not be necessary
since the overlot grading has been complete for the entire site and all disturbances due to
construction efforts for the Second Filing will be less than 5.0 acres.
The Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan sheets, located at the end of the report,
show the location of the proposed temporary and. permanent erosion control measures.
Appendix H contains the erosion control cost estimate and the anticipated schedule of
construction.
I
n
1
1
1
1
1
I
fl
' TST, Inc. 16 October 3, 2001
0957-001
I
i
1
i
1
1
1
�1
r,
1
�I
i
1
i
1
r
I
APPENDIX A
FIRM Map/Soils Map
1
AATIOIAI full gEEEAEC[
FIRM
a000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
LARBU R CGUM,
COLORADO
(G acogPOum k$m)
PANEL 160 6f 216
w(4 W MNwr•NrM{Y NMMNrAI
COMMUNRraAREL KUMBER
eoalal aloe E
MAP RE1RSE0:
MARCH IE, M6
FWW EmvrW MOM-1 Alma
KEY TO MAP
frLT.V rY/N..r.,�
n►T+rlr r+w--
4—t/.4rlr.
14LTr/FMYrq� �
ll•.I+IYr •nrf.J�
iwnrowrw---na---
trr a.nlr M r.r
Nw /lr 4M.rrMM In4rN
•rw. Yrlww wNMlw••
�•w.rr •.H.1. Yn4 INTN
Mrwrl M 11. N.br O..YN, YYllwl •wr I IR(
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
INwi UPLAN♦T"
♦ Aww 11M Nrrl {r Nwl
Nr 4wrlrwwwtr..4L
N A. of.1116"orM 111..1 ww~a
wrN.L
AN Aww 1144Tw •r4.. 4r rw vwl
w MYF w N1 m •1.. 4I W II.Y
rw�µrl.w 4.1 w �r Yl.w
ALAf �d11(yN r Nrfw N..r ♦wYw r
N rww4.� �r w.wlw^YA1r m •il
.YwN.I. r
• Awr_Ilw.w N.N A ti ITNT..IY,1 rl_(i
a M.w r (.Ywrb.l. M w.iw, n�.1�ww
V rrW11�Mµ Yn�wY Nrdew.i 4o
TIAl4 AI.Y I IrrV.. rYl N.W
wY.jl4w Nrr rt.r(.r Yr a.r l.w.
MOM TO L6ER
11Y.F\ w.w YFY.NFNr.r I�/Fwww�..
(r F wry IrM r wa u.Yr •—Yiar.wr.
NwrwYr.rw,rw rawrrrw.YF.w
Y.4r1Yr1YwrA—
rr..rrl—r�14N,..Y.N....r
r4ALARRVW r
wrrArwwl�: �rr.M1w.�wlw...•
t9r r rrwr..w,wrY.rw rr...R. w..
M II.Y
Ir.MM11A�✓V NY1'w✓//.r Yr. \ Ilrh.la
NIIT44MNVIT11141pN1
dr n. In(
n•N NAWA•N A4T NAr 44Vew.0
flrAw li. 1rT
/4.0•pWL4NR NA is" VrlR1YG
Awes va(
?U=1WVL 4NAT9N0YV%WJl
WIIt Mtm
Nw\Nm 11. Im
Il.r wr.l Y14NI IL 14w Ywnr.fw l..1
r.+.. Y r1 Yw r.r wn.Y.l Y Yv r.r. Y.1 Irw
w...rwrrp wNy.Fa
fi wtw.d ■ Irr L>•Yw Y w.MY N rw rw.rb,
r.lrl I—YrnN rr4wm NM MwYY /I..1 f V.l...l
n.wN,w1Y41 uLws,
AnNaNAn ruu Y r4T
r (
AT
AZ
r
AISA
FIGURE 2— FIRM MAP
CLYDESDALE PARK, P.U.D.
7-777
71
XV
Aj-
,;:
/' r. ilh' f �� t,a. ,A,�ir. C i, :� ',f �yj' ` " (.. � ` ��'L/ r� L �, wyR°
rq
nR, �dl
"14
I
d
i
I
r
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Rational Method Analysis
I
p NI D vOi n 0101t0� INI vOi
r+ �-+ O C O O O N O O V1 O O O O O
NI M.i to Mien 0 'fir M 0IOIMINIa N 1-01
I
MIw n a,�INIO ZO O O
M r^,i N� N O v h n W C
C Q N N O b O H1 M 00
N M .-+ N 0 l� "6 �^ [Z G
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N O O "G N 0 0 0 0 *0 O O N O N
N N N M N ..i N �^ NIl
--
hININI.ICIrINI%I�o �o �ItIoIwi
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -,I I'll Wli IfIl I'll Ifli Ifli I'll Wli I'll IrlilrIlwIlrll.lN
O O O O O I O O I O 1211
I O I O O O I O O I O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 NIh kn to NIkn MIon N to NI"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�INIMIOINIC --ICIR OI-I1* b V IMIM CI
C N N 06 [4 O
N N I N N N N N N N N M M M M M
~ININININININI'No IIN" I"NO I.NINININININI NI
H
s
v
T
x
oININIOININIkncn NI=
V I N �G I h % b I b I O� %G Q; �O n I to: I e+ I V1
000 as V v et � M I I b b 2-1
O I O, I
N O N 24 N N N t+1 N N N N N N 2-+ N�
O --. N g 09 00 09 h N M N n N N N t0
I� W V; In r N ,.,,� V1 00 M M [� 00
N V�'1 M N .�. O M N O �'1 .~-i .~-i 00 00 �p
wi %c I �O N [- '. Itr
F. q .n. N 7 O M a, in rl� M VO1 yIM
N 4 0 b 7 06 N e+ M �-4 DO N a 00 N
OIIRI^I^'IOI^I091(19 �I^'I0�1�II ql
O d ^+ N M p h '0 l� 00 C� O ;; N M� V1
N N N N N N N N N N N enM r1 en en en
—
INININININININININCo INININININININI
O
O
N
I
I l
N
M
alp
II=1�1� N N 2-
NIT
oIo�o�o
N IMIP
w
A 'd. :
i
Y
RAINFALL INTENSITY ( Inches per Hour)
N W A !JI
WA
PA
PO
REM
m WA
MAN
MA
VA
m
m
m
m
MFOANDFAWAAMMMMM
mrsillffirAmmmmmm
mmmmmm
NIFIM���
W1111%MMMMMM
27,
Ell 11111
m
m
m
m
■IPIII
��
rn
.Iron
ntlriii�
rovo
mmmom
MMU
rn. —
1
I,INhI�Arn�
DRAINAGE' CRITERIA MANUAL
- SO
so
f- •20
4 10
a
0
gee .j 5
w
N 3
0
u�
RUNOFF
F
■N/1Pi1
FARo�ri�it■i
F
,I FAI
it ,
, I � � I I'��111t�
,1
MEMO
oii
�■
FINE
Nil
1111
�N!
I...►/�
VANW.META
�M
1�
All
.2 .3 •',5 1 - 2 • .
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. 65, USDA, SCS Jan. 075.
5 —1-84
I
1
1
0
0
1
APPENDIX C
Street Capacity Analysis
19
00 �o 00 00 0o n ao
V1 ll O %n V1 M O
b N n"R b OOO n
O O O O O O O
00 00 00 a0 00 00 00
O O O O O C O
0N M 00
00 CD I", ON OO N a:
N1 O fV err:,
N fV vi [�:
01 Q� N O O t- N
l� O v1 O� 00 t5 vi
O O
O M V1 00 O N eh
N N N N N N
O
NINININImIMIM
O
O
N
K
JR EnolneeMO. Ud.
2e20 E Prospect Rd., Ste. 100, Fat CoMm, CC 803M
LOCATION: CLYDESDALE PARK FMING 02
ITEM: CHECK OF STREET CAPACTTY
CdbffVTATIONS $Y: B. STRAND
SUBMTTTED BY: JR ENGINEERING
Street w/ 30' Roadway (drive -over curb, gutter 3 walk) • local street
Major Storm (100yr)
depth of water not m exceed e' over the crown or 18' over the curb,
bulldings stall not be Inundated at the ground line
calculate for channel slopes from 0.4% to 7%
Theoretical CepeW. use ManMngs eq. Allowable Gutter flow:
0=1.488/n'R2*•So•A Call =F'0
where 0 = theoretical gutter capacity (ofs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2)
n = roughness cceff. Call = allowable gutter capacity (cfs)
R= A/P
A = =as sectlonal area (it) O = Oa + Qb
P =
wetted perimeter (it)
S =
channel slope
A =
Section A
13.37 R2
Section
A =
9
8.05 tt2''
P =
19.48 it
P a
29.00 R
R =
0.69 it
R =
0.28 it
n ■
0.016
n =
0.036 Both sides
S
O.
8
Op
C
F
Q,e
C"s _
0.40%
61.11
0.40%
9.20
70.31
0.50
35.15
70.31
0.50%
66.32
0.50%
10.28
78.50
0.66
81.09
102.18
0.60%
74.84
0.80%
11.27
88.11
Oleo
88.88
137.77
0.80%
86.42
0.80%
13.01
00.43
0.80
79.54
159.09
1.00%
96.62
1.00%
14.64
111.16
0.80
88.93
177.96
1.60%
118.33
.1.50%
17.61
136.16
0.80
108.02
217.83
2.00%
136.64 •
2.00%
20.67 '
157.21
0.80;
125.77
.251.53
3.00%
107.35
3,00% '
26.19 '
192.54
0.72
' 138.63
277.20
4.00%
193.24
4.00%
29.09
=32
0.60
133.39
266.79
6.00%
210.05
5.00%
32.62
248.57
0.46
119.31
238.62
6.00%
230.67
0.00%
36.63
272.29
0.40
108.02
217.83
7.00%
1 255.63
1 7.00%
38.48
294.11
0.34
1o0.00
199.99
FL q
0.5'
0.34'
0.11,
1016100
Area A = (8')'(1 jl?X1.42'+18') + (0.347'(18.83'7(i/2) + (0.34')'(1.17')+ (0.454.40)'(1.42) + (1.375"112)'(1.17')'(1/2) + (4.75"/12)'(1.47)'(1l2) =13.37 sq. ft
Area 8 = (2916(0.66)'(112) = 8.05 sq. fL
920102StMelCap.sls
A Eri&eerhg
2= E. Proaped Rd., Ste.190, Fart CoAlne, CO $0025
LOCATION: CLYDESDALE PARK FILING #2
ITEM: CHECK OF -STREET CAPACITY
COMPUTATIONS BY: B.STRAND
SUBMITTED BY: 7R ENGINEERING
Street w/ 36' Roadway (drive -over curb, gutter & walk) - local street
Minor Storrs
no curb tapping, flow may spread to crown of street
calculate for channel slopes from 0.4% to 7%
Theoretical Capacity use revised Mannings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow.
Q=0.66 -En "SIll. y°r' Qall=F"Q
where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cis) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2)
Z = reciprocal of cross slope (ft/R) Call = allowable gutter capacity (cis)
n = roughness coeff.
S = channel slope (ft/R) Q = Qa - Qb + Qc + Qd
y = depth of flow at face of gutter (ft)
Section A
Section B
�.
2 = 10.18 ft/8
n= 0.013
Z = 10.18 it/ft
n= .0,013
y = 0.40 ft
y = 028 R
FL
17"
I 14"
16.83'
Section C
Z = 50.00 Rift
n = 0.01 e
y = 0,28 ft
Both sides
.,r efreef
S
Qe
Qb
61d
Qtow
F
Qen
Q,tr
0.40°k
2.41
0.93
3.71
0.85
8.04
0.80
3.02
0.04
0.50%
2.89
1.04
4.15
0.95
8.75
0.66
4.39.
8.78
0.80%
2.95
1.14
4.65
1.04
7.40
0.80
5.92
11.84
0.80%
3.41
1.32 '
5.25
1.20
8.54
0.80
6.83
13.67
1.00%
3.81
1.47
5.87
1.34
9.58
0.80
7.64
15.28
1.50%
4.87
1,80
7.19
1.84
11.70
0.80
9.36
18.71
2.00%
6.39
2.08
8.31
1.89
13.51
0.80
10.80
21.61
3.00°k
8.80
2,55
10,17
2.32
18.54
0.72
11.01
23.82
4.00%
7.62
2.94
11.75
2.88
19.10
0.60
11 AG
22.92
5.00%
8.52
3.29
13.13
3.00
21.35
0.48
10.25
20.50
8.00%
9.33
3.60
14.38
3.28.
23.39
0.40
9.30
18.71
7.00%
10.08
3.89
15.64
3.54
25.27
0.34
8.39
17.18
CL
4 3/4" \ D I •••A
/ I1 3/8" Yb= Ye = (4 3/4") - (1 3/8") = 3 3/8"
Ya�Yd = (4 3/4"112") = 0.40'
Section 0
Z = 3.58 ft/ft
n = 0,013
y = 0.40 it
10/6/00
! 920102StreelCap.rde
l .
APPENDIX D
Storm Sewer and Swale Analysis
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v�a�nrnv�ma
v�
Ana
Ana
�n�na�nv�rnrnp.
v�
O
O
v
^..
..,
.-.
oo
v
N
N
N
N
N
N^
N
N
N
N
m
m
N
N
N
N
N^
N
OOI00 4 CICIC rj 00 4 0^0 T ININ 00 MIM CH P1 f-11 IID
�
�¢
NQC1
VMS
¢Q
oa
UU
^"(`+
AA
^N
ww
ww
gowa¢C°UW
qow
qow
A�ww��Qa
oo
o
F
F
F
F
F
F
TS rp INC.
• � Consulting Engineers
CLIENT C Il , 44 4B,.Q[ l oWk. /��i q A•I JOB NO. 0� -447- OO
�Lt /
PROJECT CYfJax P •!c. - �dGGit�f 1IM-D CALCULATIONS FOR XstbH» ,��v✓ doJ'Ewe� ��/ S
' MADE BY KEi S DATE 2 /Z O CHECKED BY �� DATE SHEET OF
.. NN MmP
Y J �
n T
'd i '• n
t� C
.. i ... .. .. - ,
AA
t I .... ... .. .... �. .. .. ...
N
CS
ul
:.
h N M
.. 3
; T
,A.
4,_. .
�....-Y.R..�i — ram..,..,...,_ .......:....:
Ifl---
_..........
.-.,_. � .... _ .. _ ... ... ._ .. ... ... _
.. M. .II. �.._..r. .ao..
• ... ..• s.... to
i ... 1. q
.. .. ' P ..,..
O NIse
. i .. .... t ... ., .._.
N.. � rp. � p
J. diCS
5 N ;
A. '.. t .. i.
... !
L
Clydesdale Park
KGS LINE ST-1 2-13-01
'
1 , 15 , 20 , 2 , 2 , 1 , .85 , 500
500
.2 ,N
1 , 100
1.4 , 28.5 , 10 , .786
12
1 4929 , 0, 1 12 , 0, 0 0
18 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
, 0
2 , 4932.69 , 12 , 2 , 23 , 24 0
0
'
18 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ; 0
23 0 0 0 0'
, 0
0
3 , 4932.69 , , , , ,
3.75 , 0, 30.6 , .45 0 0 0
0
0
4 , 4932.69 , 24 , 2 , 45 , 46 , 0
, 0
�.
14.25, 0, 30.6, .45, 0, 0,.0;
0,
0
5 , 4932.69 , 45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,
0
3.75, 0, 2.1, .45, 0, 0, 0,
0,
0
6 , 4935.2 , 46 , 1 , 67 , 0 , 0 ,
0
'
10.5 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,
0 ,
0
7 ,_4935.2 , 67 1 78 0 0.,.
0
10.5 y 0, 2.1 ,.45 0 0 0,
0
0
8 , 4935.51 , 78 , 1 , 89 , 0 , 0.,
0
'
10.5, 0, 2.11 .45, 0, 0, 0:,
0,
0
9 , 4934.98 , 89 , 2 , 910 , 911 ,
0 ,
0
10.5 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,
0 ,
0
t
10 , 4934.98 , 910 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
2.1 0, 0 0
, 0
0,
0
5.2 5, 0, ,.45 ,
11 , 4934.98 , 911 , 1 , 1112 , 0 ;
0 ,
0
'
5.25, 0, 2.1, .45, 0, 0, 0, 0,
12 , 4934.98 , 1112 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
0
5.25 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ;
0 ,
0
11
12 ; 120.67"1 .5 , 4931.1 , .012 ;
1 ,
0 ,
1 , 24 , 0
23 , 1 , .5 , 4931.1 , .012 , 1 , 0 , 1
, 24 , 0
24 , 37.34 , .5 , 4931.39 , .013 ;,.05
, 0
, 1 , 24 , 0
45 , 1 , .5 , 4931.39 , .013 , 1 ,
0 ,
1 ,
24 , 0
46 , 107.93 , .5 , 4931.78 , .012 ,
1 ,
0 ,
1 , 21 , 0
'
67 , 25 , .5 , 4932.01 .012 1 ,
0
1 ,
21 0
78 96 , .5 , 4932.59 .012 .4
," 0
1
21 0
89 ', 24 .5 4932.75 .012 .4
0
1
, 21 0
910 , 1 , .5 , 4932.75 .013 , 1 ,0 ,
1 ,
18 , 0
911 , 33 , .5 , 4932.89 , .013 , .05 ,
0 ,
1 , 18 , 0
1112 , 1 , .5 , .4932.89 , .013 , 1
", 0
, 1
, 18 , 0
'
of1;1810
11
STORM SEWER SYSTEM. DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at
Denver,
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
_--=_'-_____=____�__
' USER:TST Inc Consulting
Engineers..
ON DATA 02-27-2001 AT TIME 08:11:00 VERSION=07-17-1995
PROJECT TITLE :Clydesdale Park
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
t
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH FEETFEET
------------ ------------------------
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
4925.00
OK
2.00
48.87
377.91
0.37
18.00
4932.69
OK
3.00
13.77
559.60
0.27
3.75
4932.69
OK
4.00
21.33
171.86
0.67
14.25
4932.69
OK
5.00
0.94
8.85
3.97
3.75
4932.69
OK
6.00
6.61
50.47
1.59
10.50
4935.20
OK
7.00
5.67
39.70
1.85
10.50
4935.20
OK
8.00
4.72
29.41
2.22
10.50
4935.51
OK
9.00
3.78
19.67
2.78
10.50
4934.98
OK .
10.00
0.94
5.00
.5.56
5.25
4934.98
OK
11.00
1.89
19.67
2.76
5.25
4934.98
OK
12.00
0.94
5.00
5.56
5.25
4934.98
OK
'
OK MEANS WATER
ELEVATION IS LOWER
THAN GROUND ELEVATION
***
SUMMARY OF
SEWER
HYDRAULICS
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER
SIZE RATIO= .85
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED
EXISTING
0.00
0.0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
' WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
24.35
27.00
24.00
0.00
23.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
13.52
15.00
24.00
0.00
'
24.00
9.00
2.00
ROUND
22.99
24.00
24.00
0.00
45.00
5.00
4.00
.ROUND
13.93
25.00
24.00
t
0.00
46.00
6.00
4.00
ROUND
19.89
21.00
21.00
0.00
'
67.00
0.00
7.00
6.00
ROUND
19.89
21.00
21.00
78.00
8.00
7.00
ROUND
19.89
21.00
21.00
0.00
89.00
9.00
8.00
ROUND
19.89
21.00
21.00
'
0.00
910.00
10.00
9.00
ROUND
15.81
18.00
18.00
0.00
911.00
11.00
9.00
ROUND
15.81
18.00.
18.00
0.00
1112.00
12.00
11.00
ROUND
15.81
18.00
18.00
0.00
'
DIMENSION
UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION
UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE
IN.FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW
SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE
SUGGESTED
SEWER SIZE;
OTHERWISE,
'
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
-------- ----- ---- ----- --------------------------------------------------
SEWER
DESIGN FLOW
NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC
FULL FROUDE
'
COMMENT
ID
FLOW Q FULL Q
DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER
CFS CFS
FEET
FPS
FEET
FPS
FPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
12.0
18.0 17.4
2.00
5.73
1.53
6.99
5.73 0.00
'
V-OK
23.0
3.8 17.4
0.63
4.41
0.70
3.83
1.19 1.15
V-OK
24.0
14.3 16.0
1.47
5.77
1.36
6.27
4.54 0.86
V-OK
45.0
3.8 16.0
0.66
4.16
0.70
3.83
1.19 1.06
V-OK
46.0
10.5 12.2
1.25
.5.69
1.24
5.77
4.37 0.93
V-OK
'
67.0
10.5 12.2
1.25
5.69
1.24
5.77
4.37 0.93
V-OK
78.0
10..5 12.2
1.25
5.69
1.24
5.77
4.37 0.93
V-OK
'
89.0
10.5 12.2
1.25
5.69
1.24
5.77
4.37 0.93
V-OK
910.0 5.3
7.4 0.93
4.57
0.88
4.87 2.97
0.91
V-OK
911.0 5.3
7.4 0.93
4.57
0.88
4.87 2.97
0.91
V-OK
1112.0 5.3
7.4 0.93
4.57
0.88
4.87 2.97
0.91
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O
INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
------------------
%
---------------------------------------------------
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
12.00
0.50
4929.10
4928.50
1.59
-1.50
NO
23.00
0.50
4929.10
4929.10
1.59
1.59
OK
•24.00
0.50
4929.39
4929.20
1.30
1.49
OK
45.00
0.50
4929.39
4929.39
1.30
1.30
OK
46.00
0.50
4930.03
4929.49
3.42
1.45
OK
67.00
0.50
4930.26
4930.13
3.19
3.32
OK
78.00
0.50
4930.84
4930.36
2.92
3.09
OK
89.00
0.50
4931.00
4930.88
2.23
2.88
OK
.910.00
0.50
4931.25
4931.25
2.23
2.23
OK
911.00
0.50
4931.39
4931.23
2.09
2.25
OK
1112.00
0.50
4931.39
4931.39
2.09
2.09
OK
OK MEANS BURIED
DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1
FEET
TST, INC.
. � Consulting Engineers
' cuErrr CG.ds ./ JOBNO. &-T7- Oo/
PROJECT lA ,&,Z,6 Dd. �ilc.0 SAM CALCULATIONS FOR //Ms �Gi.YI./ U .SEI✓ P .✓S
MADE BY DATE o7 �j CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Clydesdale Park
KGS LINE ST-2 2-13-01
1, 15 , 20 2, 2, 1, . 8 5, 5 0 0, 5 0 0, .2 IN
1 , 100
1.4 , 28.5 , 10 , .786
3
1 , 4929.87 , 0 , 1 , 12 , 0 , 0 , 0
3, 0, 30.6 , .45 , 0, 0 0 0, 0
2 , 4932.95 , 12 , 1 , 23 0 , 0 , 0
3 0, 30.6 .45 , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
3 , 4932.95 , 23 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , . 0
3 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
2
12 , 66 , .5 , 4931.45 , .012 , .65 , 0 1 15 , 0
23 , 1 , .5 , 4931.45 , .012 , 1 , 0 , 1 15 , 0
0 0 ; 0 , 0
2
'
___ __= _____-_
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at
Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
'.
USER:TST Inc Consulting
Engineers..
ON DATA 02-27-2001 AT TIME 08:12:54 VERSION=07-17-1995
'
*** PROJECT TITLE :Clydesdale Park
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100•YEARS
'
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
--------------------------------- 7--------------------------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
'
---------- MINUTES INCH/HR----CFS --FEET------FEET---
------------------------ ----- --=-
' .
1.00 0.00 0.00
OK
0.00 3.00 4929.87
0.00
2.00 27.54 1817.48
0.11 3.00 4932.95
0.00
OK
3.00 13.77 746.59
0.22 3.00 4932.95
0.00
OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER
THAN GROUND ELEVATION
'
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN.FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85
'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER
SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
WIDTH
SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
ID NO. ID NO.
(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
7 --------------------------------------------------------------
12.00 2.00 1.00
ROUND 12.44 15.00
15.00
0.00
23.00 3.00 2.00
ROUND 12.44 15.00
15.00
'
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
'
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE
IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED
BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED
BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE;
'
OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORMAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
------------------------------------- 7----------------------------------
12.0 3.0 5.0 0.70 4.24 0.70 4.26 2.44 0.99
V-OK
23.0 3.0 5.0 0.70 4.24 0.70 4.26 2.44 0.99
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER--0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
---------------------------- ------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
% (FT) " (FT) (FT) (FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00 0.50 4930.20 4929.87 1.50 -1.25 . NO
23.00 0.50 4930.20 4930.20 1.50 1.50 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
TST, INC.
Consuking Engineers
CUEW rf dod & Piwfc_ ! / ['. JOB NO. -
PROJECT �& AQUAL �.fi(.f.�,i !4 M CALCULAMONS FOR A40A 1O/ UD .,WkjaQ .CyIIJS.
rMADE BY eS DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Clydesdale Park
KGS LINE ST-3 2-13-01
1 , 15 , 20 , 2 , 2 , 1 , .85 , 500 , 500 , .2 ,N
1 , 100
1.4 , 28.5 , 10 , .786
5
1,. 4921.76 0 1, 12 0, 0, 0
28.8 , 0, 30.6 .45 0, 0, 0 0 0
2 , 4927.98 , 12 2 , 23 , 24 1.0 , 0
28.8 , 0 , 30.6 .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
3 , 4927.98 , 23 , 0 , 0 0 , 0 , 0
14.4 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 , 0
4 , 4927.98 , 24 1 , 45 , 0 0 0
14.4,.0, 30.6, .45, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
5 , 4927.98 , 45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 0
14.4 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 , 0
4
12 , 171 , 1.32 , 4926.02 , .012 , .05 , 0 , 1 , 21 , 0
23 , 1 , 1.32 , 4926.02 , .012 , 1., 0 , 1., 24 , 0
24 , 37.34 , 1 , 4926.34 , .013 , .05 , 0 , 1., 21 , 0
45., 1 , 1 , 4926.34 , .013 , 1 ,.0 , 1 , 21 , 0
00 1, 24 0
24 ; 37.34 , 1 , 4926.34 , .013 , .05 , 0 , 1 , 21 , 0
45 1 , 1 , 4926.34 , .013
I
-
-
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng.
Dept, U. of Colorado
at
Denver
'
Metro Denver Cities/Counties &
------------ _-----_-------
UDFCD Pool Fund Study
--_--_-------
'
USER:TST Inc Consulting
Engineers..
ON DATA 02-27-2001 AT TIME 08:19:24
VERSION=07-17-1995
*** PROJECT TITLE :Clydesdale Park
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 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
- - _-----
--_
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28.80 4921.76
0.00
OK
•
2.00 55.08 238.39 0.52
28.80 4927.98
0.00
ox
3.00 13.77 92.84 1.05
14.40 4927.98
0.00
OK
4.00 27.54 238.39 0.52
14.40 4927.98
0.00
OK
5.00 13.77 92.84 1.05
14.40 4927.98
0.00
OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
'
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIZE RATIO= .85
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER
EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO.
(FT)
------------------------------
SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED
SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
12.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
24.21
27.00
21.00
0.00
23.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
18.67
21.00
24.00
0.00
24.00
4.00
2.00
ROUND
20.26
21.00
21.00
0.00
45.00
5.00
4.00
ROUND
20.26
21.00
21.00
0.00
1-
I I
i
11
I
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE;
OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
SEWER DESIGN
FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC FULL
FROUDE
COMMENT
ID FLOW Q
FULL Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY
NO.
NUMBER CFS
---=--------------------------------------------------------------------
CFS FEET
FPS
FEET FPS FPS
12.0 28.8
19.8 1.75
11.97
1.68 12.13 11.97
0.00
V-OK
23.0 14.4
28.2 1.01
.9-04
1.37 6.30 4.58
1.78
V-OK
24.0 14.4
15.9 1.31
7.48
1.41 6.95 5.99
1.17
V-OK
45.0 14.4
15.9 1.31
7.48
1.41 6.95 5.99
1.17
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O
INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
%-----(FT)---=--`FT)
(FT) (FT)
-
12.00
1.32 4924.27
4922.01
1.96 -2.00
NO
23.00
1.32 4924.02
4924.01
1.96 1.97
OK
24.00
1.00 4924.59
4924.22
1.64 2.01
OK
45.00
1.00 4924.59
41924.58
1.64 1.65
OK
OK MEANS BURIED
DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1
FEET
' TST' INC.
• � Consulting Engineers
r CUENT C�C/Cltllddt� �..G, G^^G77 C JOB NO. v7oT'� Od/
PROJECT I udtidrl. Padr�! - 7 i.. Vsdv CALCULATIONS FOR �1O'~_%94K rA/ GOet�n/62_
MADE BY DATE a 13 Oe CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
u G
u n
'
i
p
r
\
_
14
I
Clydesdale Park
KGS LINE ST-4 2-13-01
1 , 15 , 20 2 2 , 1 , .85 500 , 500 , .2 ,N
1 100
1.4 , 28.5 , 10 , .786
'6
. 1 , 4921.76 , 0 1 , 12 0 0 , 0
27.9 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
2 , 4924.87 , 12 2 23 24 0 0
'27.9 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
3 , 4924.87 , 23 , 0 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
9.4 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 0 0 , 0 0 , 0
4 , 4924.87 , 24 2 45 46 0 , 0
r18.5 , 0 , 30.6 .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 0
' 5, 4924.87 , 45 , 0 0, 0 0, 0
9.4 , 0 30.6 .45 , 0 0 0 0, 0
6, 4922 46 0, 0 0 0 0
9.1 , 0 30.6 .45 , 0 0 0 0, 0
5
12 139 .5 , 4923.31 , .012 , .05 , 0 , 1 ; 24 , 0
23 1 , .5 , 4923.31 , .012 , 1 , 0 1 , 24 , 0
24 , 37.34 , .5 , 4923.34 , .013 , .05 , 0 , 1', 21 , 0
45 1 , .5 , 4923.34 .013 , 1 0 , 1 , 21 , 0
46 , 122 , .35 , 4924 .012 , 1 0 , 1 24 , 0
05 0, 1 21 , 0
45 , 1 , .5 , 4923.34 , .013 , 1 , 0 , 1 , 21 0
46 122 , .35 4924 .0•
S ..
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo,•Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
aIISER:e===TST==_=====a=IncConsulting===aa=v==aa=a=v=o==a=aav==a==aa=ec�=aaa====�aa=========a=aa=aa
Engineers............................................
' ON DATA 04-06-2001 AT TIME 08:42:51 VERSION=07-17-1995
' *** PROJECT TITLE :Clydesdale Park
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 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
CPS
FEET
FEET
"
1.00
2.00
7
0.00
68.85
0.00
333.53
0.00
0.41
------------------------------
27.90
27.90
4921.76
4924.87
0.00
0.00
OK
OK
3.00
13.77
166.93
0.68
9.40
4924.87
0.00
OK
4.00
41.31
292.51
0.45
18.50
4924.87
0.00
OK
'+OK
5.00
6.00
13.77
13.77
166.93
174.39
0.68
0.66
9.40
9.10
4924.87
4922.00
0.00
0.00
OK
OK
MEANS WATER
ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF
SEWER
HYDRAULICS
NOTE• THE
GIVEN FLOW DE
i
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTH-TO-SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
----------------------------------------------=.;
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
12.00
2.'00
1.00
ROUND
-------------------------------
28.70
30.00
24.00
0.00
23.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
19.08
21.00
24.00
0.00
24.00
4.00
2.00
ROUND
25.35
27.00
21.00
0.00
45.00
5.00
4.00
ROUND
19.67
21.00
21.00
0.00
46.00
6'.00
4.00
ROUND
20.16
21.00
24.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
DESIGN
FLOW
NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC
CRITIC
FULL
FROUDE
COMMENT
ID
FLOW Q
FULL Q
DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH
VLCITY_
VLCITY
NO.
NUMBER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPS
CFS
FEET
FPS
FEET
FPS
FPS
12.0
27.9
17.4
2.00
8.88
1.80
9.37
8.88
0.00
V-OK
23.0
9.4
17.4
1.05
5.64
1.10
5.31
2.99
1.09
V-OK
24.0
18.5
11.2
1.75
7.69
1.54
8.25
7.69
0.00
V-OK
45.0
9.4
11.2
1.22
5.23
1.14
5.68
3.91
0.87
V-OK
46.0
9.1
14.5
1.15
4.89
1.08,
5.24
2.90
0.89
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
t
I
'SEWER
----------------------------------------------=-----------------------
SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED DEPTH
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
it
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
'
. 12.00
0.50
4921.31
4920.62
1.56
0.86
NO
23.00
0.50
4921.31
4921.31
1.56
1.56
OK
24.00
0.50
4921.59
4921.40
1.53
1.72
OK
45.00
0.50
4921.59
4921.59
1.53
1.54
OK
'
46.00
0.35
4922.00
4921.57
-2.00
1.30
NO
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH
IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL
COVER OF
1 FEET
11
1
1
' TST, INC.
. � Consulting Englneers
' WENT AA�,,ff , Ct//� !/iI/I.IG. LG/C ,/� JOB NO.
PROJECT G�!/d�dQ/L�C. (/A11•�'. •' % fie//Jd CALCULATIONS FOR .)tP:41 1,96rML Ut%,rjdWLr'Ie--f
MADE BY DATE 'Z �� G� CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
04
4 H M N
q
-
N•
d pV p
• . .............._..__ A.. n„n _A. ................ ....__...... ......_ .... .. .- ..
1
u.
SA
wo
r
_. .
a`
Clydesdale Park
KGS LINE ST-5 2-13-01
'.
1 , 15 , 20 , 2 , 2 , 1 , .85 , 500 , 500
, .2 ,N
1 , 100
1.4 , 28.5 10 .786
13
1, 4924 0, 1 12 0 0 0
23.2 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
'
2 , 4928 , 12 , 1 , 23 , 0 0 , 0.
23.2 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ', 0 , 0
3 , 4927.27 , 23 2 34 35 , 0 , 0
23.2 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 ', 0 , 0
4 , 4927.27 , 34 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
5.05 , 0 , 30.6 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0. , 0 , 0
5 , 4927.27 , 35 , 2 , 56 , 57 , 0 , 0
18.15 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 0 , 0 , 0
6, 4927.27 , 56 0 0 0, 0,. 0
5.0 5, 0, 2.1 ,.45 0 0 0, 0, 0
7 ; 4928.15 , 57 , 1 , 78 , 0 0 , 0
13.1 ,.0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
8 ,. 4928.8 , 78 , 1 , 89 ; 0 , 0 , 0
'
13.1 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
9 , 4930.95 , 89 , 1 , 910 , 0 ,.0., 0
13.1 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 0 , 0 , 0
10 , 4930.45 , 910 , 2 , 1011 , 1012 , 0
0 2.1 0 0 0 0 0
0
13.1 , , , .45 , , , , ,
11 , 4930.45 , 1011 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
6.55 , 0, 2.1 ,.45 0, 0 0 0 0
12 4930.45 , 1012 1 1213 , 0 , 0 ,
0
6.55 , 0 , 2.1 ., .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
13 , 4930.45 , 1213 , 0 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
6.55 , 0 , 2.1 , .45 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
' .
12
12', 109 , .5 , 4925.67 , .012 , .05 , 0
, 1 , 30 , 0
23 , 22.17 , .5 , 4925.88 , .012 , 1 , 0
, 1 , 30 , 0
34 , 1 , .5 , 4925.88 , .012 , 1 , 0 , 1
, 30 , 0
35 , 37.34 , .6 , 4925.7 , .013 , .1 , 0 ,
1 , 24 , 0
56 , 1 , .6 , 4925.7 , .013 , 1 ,.0 , 1 ,
24 , 0
57 36.54 , ..79 , 4925.84 , .012 , 1 , 0
, 1 , 21 , 0
.,
78 95 , 1.11 , 4927 , .012 , .05 , 0 ,
1 21 , 0
89 , 142.5 , .98 , 4928.5 , .012', :05 ,
0 , 1 , 21 , 0
910 , 109 , .4 , 4929.29 , .012 , .05 , 0
, 1 , 24 , 0
1011 , 1 , .4 , 4929.29 , .012 , 1 , 0 ,
1 , 24 , 0
'
1012', 37.34 , .4 , 4929.04 , .013 , .05
, 0 , 1 , 18 , 0
1213 , 1 , .4 , 4929.04 , .013 , 1 , 0 ,
1 , 18 , 0
❑, 24 , 0
1012 , 37.34 , .4 , 4929.04 , .013 , .05
1213 , 1 , .4 , 4929.04 , .013 1
, 0 , 1 , 18 , 0
.1 , 0
.1
I
'
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado
Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
at
USER:TST Inc
Consulting
Engineers..
ON DATA
02-27-2001 AT TIME 08:25:24
VERSION=07-17-1995
'
***
PROJECT
TITLE :Clydesdale Park
***
RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 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
---
1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
23.20
4924.00
0.00
'
OK
2.00
49.81 277.80 0.47
23.20
4928.00
0.00
OK
'
OK
3,00
36.04 180.69 0.64
23.20
4927.27
0.00
4.00
13.77 380.04 0.37
5.05
4927.27
0.00
OK
5.00
8.50 31.50 2.13
18.15
4927.27
0.00
'
OK
6.00
0.94 5.00 5.34
5.05
4927.27
0.00
OK
7.00
6.61 35.64 1.98
13.10
4928.15
0.00
'
OK
8.00
5.67 27.51 2.31
13.10
4928.80
0.00
OK
'
9.00
4.72 19.74 .2.77
13.10
4930.95
0.00
OK
10.00
3.78 12.39 3.47
13.10
4930.45
0.00
'
OK
11.00
0.94 5.00 6.93
6.55
4930.45
0.00
OK
„
12.00
1.89 12.39 3.47
6.55
4930.45
0.00
OK
'
13.00
0.94 5.00 6.93
6.55
4930.45
0.00
OK
OK
MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
'
***
SUMMARY
OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE:
THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER
SIZE RATIO=
.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
MANHOLE NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN)
(FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
'
(FT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
26.78
27.00
30.00
'
0.00
23.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
26.78
27.00
30.00
0.00
34.00
4.00
3.00
ROUND
15.12
18.00
30.00
0.00
35.00
5.00
3.00
ROUND
24.32
27.00
29.00
0.00
56:00
6.00
5.00
ROUND
15.05
18.00
24.00
'
0.00
57.00
7.00
5.00 -ROUND
19.84
21.00
21.00
0.00
78.00
8.00
7.00
ROUND
18.61
21.00
21.00
'
0.00
89.00
9.00
8.00
ROUND
19.05
21.00
21.00
0.00
910.00
10.00
9.00
ROUND
22.54
24.00
24.00
0.00
1011.00
11.00
10.00
ROUND
17.38
18.00
24.00
0.00
1012.00
12.00
10.00
ROUND
17.91
18.00
18.00
0.00
1213.00
13.00
12.00
ROUND
17..91
18.00
18.00
'
0.00
DIMENSION
UNITS FOR
ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION
UNITS FOR
BOX SEWER ARE
IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER
WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
'
SUGGESTED
DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED,
BY COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE
SIZE.
FOR A NEW
SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE
SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE;
OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE
WAS USED
----------------------
SEWER
DESIGN
---------------------------------------------------
FLOW NORMAL
NORAAL
CRITIC
CRITIC
FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID
FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH
VLCITY VLCITY NO.
'
NUMBER
CFS
CFS FEET
'; FPS
FEET
FPS
FPS
i
12.0
23.2
31.5 1.59
7.02
1.64
6.82
4.73 1.05
V-OK
'
23.0
23.2
31.5 1.59
7.02
1.64
6.82
4.73 1.05
V-OK
34.0
5.1
31.5 0.68
4.70
0.77
3.95
1.03 1.19
'
V-OK
35.0
18.1
17.6 2.00
5.78
1.53
7.02
5.78 0.00
V-OK
56.0
V-OK
5.1
17.6 0.73
4.83
0.82
4.19
1.61 1.16
57.0
13.1
15.3 1.25
7.15
1.35
6.59
5.45 1.17
V-OK
78.0
13.1
18.1 1.10
8.21
1.35
6.59
5.45
1.49
V-OK
89.0
13.1
17.0 1.15
7.81
1.35
6.59
5.45
1.37
V-OK
910.0
13.1
15.5 1.41
5.55
1.30
6.07
4.17
0.86
V-OK
1011.0
6.6
15.5 0.91
4.73
0.91
4.70
2.08
1.00
'
V-
1012.0
10
6.6
6.7 1.21
4.30
0.99
5.31
3.71
0.67
V-OK
1213.0
6.6
6.7 1.21
4.30
0.99
5.31
3.71
0.67
'
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=0
INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED
FLOW OCCURS
' •
------=---------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE
=-----------------------------------
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
9 (FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
'
---------- ----------
12.00
---------- ----------
0.50 4923.17
----------
4922.63
--------------------
2.33
-1.13
NO
23.00
0.50 4923.38
4923.27
1.39
2.23
OK
34.00
0.50 4923.38
4923.38
1.39
1.40
OK
35.00
0.60 4923.70
4923.48
1.57
1.79
OK
56.00
0.60 4923.70
4923.69
1.57
1.58
OK
57.00
0.79 4924.09
4923.80
2.31
1.72
OK
78.00
89.00
1.11 4925.25
0.98 4926.75
4924.20
4925.35
1.80
2.45
2.20
1.70
OK
OK
910.00
0.40 4927.29
4926.85
1.16
2.10
OK
1011.00
0.40 4927.29
4927.29
1.16
1.16
OK
1012.00
0.40 4927.54
4927.39
1.41
1.56
OK
•
1213.00
0.40 4927.54
4927.54
1.41
1.41
OK
OK MEANS BURIED
DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1
FEET
- TST, INC.
1
CURRENT DATE: 02-27-2001
27-2001
CURRENT TIME: 16:37:10
------------------------
FILE DATE: 02-
FILE NAME: CPST6
- FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS ----------
HY-8, VERSION 4.0----------
C I SITE DATA 1 CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET
I
IU I-------------------------- I ----------
-------I
L i INLET OUTLET CULVERT] BARRELS
V I ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH 1 SHAPE
INLET I
i # I (FT) (FT) (FT) I MATERIAL
TYPE I
i1-------------------------- I--------
1 1'14924.88 4924.70 36.50 i 1 RCP
CONVENTIONALI
121 I
1
13I I
I
I4I I
I51 I
I
161 I
--------------------
--------------------
FILE: CPST6
2001
DISCHARGE 1
ROADWAY
0 4924.88
4928.50
1 4925.28
4928.52
2 4925.49
4928.54
3 4925.68
4928.55
4 4925.84
4928.56
5 4925.99
SPAN RISE MANNING
(FT) (FT) n
---------------------
2.00 2.00 .012
---------------------------------------------------
CULVERT HEADWATER ELEVATION (FT) DATE: 02-27- .
2
3
4
5
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
4928.57
6 4926.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4928.57
7 4926.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4928.58
8 4926.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4928.59
8 4926.39
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4928.59
10 4926.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
'
4928.60
25 4928.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
--- The
aboveQ and HW
-----------------------=-----------------------------------
are for
a point
above
the roadway.
O
2
CURRENT
DATE: 02-27-2001
FILE DATE: 02-
'
27-2001
CURRENT
TIME: 16:37:10
FILE NAME: CPST6
''
--------
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR CULVERT
-----------------------------------
# 1 -
1 ( 2 BY 2 ) RCP
DIS-
HEAD- INLET
OUTLET
CHARGE
WATER CONTROL
CONTROL
FLOW .NORMAL CRITICAL
OUTLET
'.
TAILWATER
FLOW ELEV. DEPTH
DEPTH
TYPE DEPTH
DEPTH
VEL. DEPTH
VEL.
DEPTH
(cfs)
(ft) (ft)
(ft)
<F4>.
(ft)
(ft)
(fps)
(ft)
(fps)
(ft---------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4924.88 0.00
0.00
0-NF
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
'
l
4925.28 0.40
0.40
1-S2n
0.31
0.33
3.11
0.31
1.01
0.25
2
4925.49 0.61
0.61
1-S2n
0.45
0.48
3.72
0.45
1.25
'
0.36
3
4925.68 0.80
0.80
1-S2n
0.56
0.60
4.15
0.56
1.90
0.45
4
4925.84 0.96
0.96
1-S2n
0.65
0.69
4.49
0.65
1.52
'
0.52
5
4925.99 1.11
1.11
1-S2n
0.73
0.79
4.49
0.65
1.62
0.58
6
4926.12 1.24
1.24
1-S2n.
0.81
0.86
5.00
0.81
1.70
0.64
7
4926.25 1.37
1.37
1-S2n
0.88
0.93
5.21
0.88
1.78
0.69
8
4926.36 1.48
1.48
1-S2n
0.96
1.01
5.39
0.96
1.84
0.73
8
4926.39 1.51
1.51
1-S2n
0.97
1.02
5.42
0.97
1.85
0.74
10
4926.58 1.70
1.70
1-S2n
1.09
1.13
5.69
1.09
1.95
0.82
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
ft El. inlet face invert 4924.88 ft El. outlet invert 4924.70
El. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft El. inlet crest 0.00
ft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT INVERT **************
'
INLET STATION (FT) 36.50
INLET ELEVATION (FT) 4924.88
OUTLET STATION (FT) 0.00
OUTLET ELEVATION (FT) 4924.70
NUMBER OF BARRELS 1
SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT) 0.0049
CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE (FT) 36.50
***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY
BARREL SHAPE - CIRCULAR'
BARREL DIAMETER 2.00.FT
'
BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE
BARREL MANNING'S N 0.012
INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL
INLET EDGE AND WALL SQUARE EDGE WITH HEADWALL
INLET DEPRESSION NONE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
CURRENT DATE: 02-27-2001 FILE DATE: 02-
27-2001
'
CURRENT TIME: 16:37:10 ----FILE NAME: CPST6 .
--------------------------------------------------------------
'
-------------------------- TAILWATER ----- 7------------
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
******* REGULAR CHANNEL CROSS SECTION ****************
BOTTOM WIDTH (FT) 3.00
SIDE SLOPE H/V (X:1) 4.0
CHANNEL SLOPE V/H (FT/FT) 0.005
MANNING'S N (.01-0.1) 0.035
CHANNEL INVERT ELEVATION (FT) 4924.70
CULVERT NO.1 OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION 4924.70 FT
******* UNIFORM FLOW RATING CURVE FOR DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL
FLOW W.S.E. FROUDE DEPTH VEL. SHEAR
(CFS) (FT) NUMBER (FT) (FPS) (PSF)
0.00 4924.70 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 4924.95 0.359 0.25 1.01 0.08
'
2.00 4925.06 0.366 0.36 1.25 0.11
3.00 4925.15 0.370 0.45 1.40 0.14
4.00
4925.22
0.373
0.52
1.52
0.16
5.00
4925.28
0.375
0.58
1.62
0.18
6.00
4925.34
0.376
0.64
1.70
0.20
7.00
4925.39
0.378
0.69
1.78
0.21
8.00
4925.43
0.379
0.73
1.84
0.23
8.20
4925.44
0.379
0.74
1.85
0.23
10.00
4925.52
0.381
0.82
1.95
0.25
--------------------------
------------------
7--------------------
ROADWAY OVERTOPPING
DATA -
ROADWAY SURFACE
EMBANXMENT TOP WIDTH (FT)
CREST LENGTH (FT)
OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION (ET)
PAVED
100.00
100.00
4928.50
' TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
' CLIENT / JOB NO. ��/qj/
PROJECT-1L%GFgcGtBl.! Y.'[r �� 2� CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY DATE �u �Z CHECKED 8Y DATE SHEET OF
��L 4. .c'14'to'r�/ ty` .�G• TLG:r,� � lLCte-!iiuw _ e2yh+C J�y��o�w q�t�,,�ia�,. w/.�r+a-� /J66ao-c«+L/��.C�
L+h.(,�, � L+Lt•4:1v/w� J�w� ryL ( � �-�q HV 1OrJu�- (/,u..� e� CG�d�e wKG i�/L�C., I-(/D —
�` .�k. 2OOl) � .�- �r(liy..v.y /,ptii..nw.7e/ X.J(cr �i-+�•�aw�+� R-�rv+•',..Z
w�•tw�ut•' �u � C/JZJ�cyc.0 vuw,;:� ,l`fw � dcic.C„,
,bra.
'AWh srJc. ...
.24:
.. 0 1 ..2..3 4 S 4 'I 6 -_9
to':i
Al 1/z ib �3x1. Gz� = S• 3-1 1L
qr I A2 + 29 �'ts
o
Pt
"/P
Manriw.s a u—`19 (A).� lz/a- a)�w
h. = CoraC. =... o'f J�.etr ,t pme 6 ,bi �C�kf.
' I _ I : - 1. �9 7 29X. a�)'!a oio�. ;.. /� • Q.ita..
slope
G0507/3-84
1
CURRENT DATE: 01-10-2002 FILE DATE: 01-10-2002
CURRENT TIME: 14:16:12 FILE NAME: CPSIRR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'-------------------------- FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS --------------------------
-------------------------- HY-8, VERSION 4.0 --------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C SITE DATA CULVERT SHAPE MATERIAL INLET
U--=----------------------- --------
---------------------------------------
L INLET OUTLET CULVERT I BARRELS
V ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET
# -(FT)-- (FT) (FT) MATERIAL (FT) (FT) n TYPE
------------------ --------------------------------
1 14926.59 4926.44 30.00 1 RCP 2.25 2.25 .013 CONVENTIONAL
3
5
6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILE: CPSIRR DATE: 01-10-2002
ELEV (FT) TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
ROADWAY
ITR
4926.59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4927.25
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4927.62
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
'
4927.93
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4928.19
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4928.42
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4928.79
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4928.98
18
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4929.20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4929.40
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4929.46
24
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
'
4929.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
OVERTOPPING
SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE
SOLUTION
ERRORS
FILE:
CPSIRR
DATE:
01-10-2002
HEAD
ELEV(FT)
HEAD
ERROR(FT)
TOTAL
FLOW(CFS)
FLOW
ERROR(CFS)
96 FLOW
ERROR
4926.59
0.00
0
0
0.00
4927.25
0.00
3
0
0.00
4927.62
0.00
5
0
0.00
4927.93
0.00
8
0
0.00
4928.19
0.00
10
0
0.00
4928.42
0.00
13
0
0.00
4928.79
0.00
15
0
0.00
4928.98
0.00
18
0
0.00
4929.20
0.00
20
0
0.00
4929.40
0.00
23
0
0.00
6
---------
_0_00
24
0
0.99
<1> TOLERANCE
----
(FT) =
0.010
----------
-------------------------------
<2>
TOLERANCE
W
----
= 1.000
Im
2
DATE: 01-10-2002
FILE DATE: 01-10-2002
'CURRENT
CURRENT TIME: 14:16:12
----------------------
FILE NAME: CPSIRR
--------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR
CULVERT # 1
- 1 ( 2.25
------
BY 2.25 )
--------------
RCP
DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑DO❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL
FLOW
NORMAL
CRITICAL
OUTLET
TAILWATER
FLOW ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH
TYPE
DEPTH
DEPTH
VEL. DEPTH
VEL. DEPTH
'
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
-
<F4>
(ft)
(ft)
(fps) (ft)
(fps) (ft)
0 4926.59 0.00 0.00
0-NF
0.00
0.00
- -----------------------
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3 4927.25 0.66 0.66
1-S2n
0.50
0.52
3.72 0.50
0.93 0.13
'
5 4927.62 1.03 1.03
1-S2n
0.73
0.75
4.49 0.73
1.21 0.19
8 4927.93 1.34 1.34
1-S2n
0.91
0.94
5.00 0.91
1.41 0.24
10 4928.19 1.60 1.60
1-S2n
1.06
1.09
5.40 1.06
1.57 0.29
13 4928.42 1.83 1.83
1-S2n
1.22
1.22
5.70 1.22
1.71 0.33
15 4928.79 2.05 2.20
2-M2c
1.37
1.35
6.03 1.35
1.83 0.36
18 4928.98 2.28 2.39
2-M2c
1.52
1.46
6.44 1.46
1.94 0.40
20 4929.20 2.52 2.61
2-M2c
1.69
1.56
6.78 1.56
2.04 0.43
23 4929.40 2.78 2.81
23 4929.45 2.85 2.86
2-M2c
2-M2c
1.92
2.00
1.65
1.68
7.20 1.65
7.30 1.68
2.13 0.46
2.17 0.48
---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
E1. inlet face invert
4926.59 ft
El. outlet
invert
4926.44 ft
--------El.-inlet throat invert
--------------------------
0.00 ft---El_-
inlet
-crest
---
---0_00 ft
--------
***** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT
INVERT
**************
INLET STATION (FT)
30.00
'
INLET ELEVATION (FT)
4926.59
OUTLET STATION (FT)
0.00
OUTLET ELEVATION (FT)
4926.44
NUMBER OF BARRELS
1
'
SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT)
0.0050
CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE (FT)
30.00
1
f
r
***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY
BARREL SHAPE
BARREL DIAMETER
BARREL MATERIAL
BARREL MANNING'S N
INLET TYPE
INLET EDGE AND WALL
INLET DEPRESSION
CIRCULAR
2.25 FT
CONCRETE
0.013
CONVENTIONAL
SQUARE EDGE WITH HEADWALL
NONE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
CURRENT DATE: 01-10-2002
CURRENT TIME: 14:16:12
FILE DATE: 01-10-2002
FILE NAME: CPSIRR
------------
-------------------------- TAILWATER
--------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******* REGULAR CHANNEL CROSS SECTION ****************
BOTTOM WIDTH (FT) 21.00
SIDE SLOPE H/V (X:1) 4.0
CHANNEL SLOPE V/H (FT/FT) 0.010
IMANNING'S
N (.01-0.1)
0.040
CHANNEL
INVERT ELEVATION
(FT)
4926.44
'CULVERT
*******
NO.1 OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION
4926.44 FT
UNIFORM
FLOW RATING CURVE
FOR DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL
FLOW
W.S.E.
FROUDE
DEPTH
VEL.
SHEAR
(CFS)
(FT)
NUMBER
(FT)
(FPS)
(PSF)
0.00
4926.44
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
4926.57
0.460
0.13
0.93
0.08
5.00
4926.63
0.489
0.19
1.21
0.12
'
7.50
4926.68
0.506
0.24
1.41
0.15
10.00
4926.73
0.518
0.29
1.57
0.18
12.50
4926.77
0.527
0.33
1.71
0.21
15.00
4926.80
0.534
0.36
1.83
0.23
'
17.50
4926.84
0.540
0.40
1.94
0.25
20.00
4926.87
0.546
0.43
2.04
0.28
22.50
4926.90
0.550
0.46
2.13
0.29
23.75
4926.92
0.552
0.48
2.17
0.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
ROADWAY OVERTOPPING
DATA ---------- ---------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROADWAY SURFACE
PAVED
EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH (FT)
CREST LENGTH (FT)
50.00
50.00
OVERTOPPING CREST
ELEVATION
(FT)
4929.44
1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[l
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
Typ_sw.txt
Clydesdale Park Second Filing typical swale analysis
INPUT DATA: -1Jx�'S IA'2A
DISCHARGE = 5.940000 CFS
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED SLOPE = 1.500000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = .3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
7.489259E-01
FT
FLOW VELOCITY =
2.647162
FPS
HYDR. DEPTH =
3.745218E-01
FT
TOP WIDTH =
5.991407
FT
FROUDE NUMBER =
7.622790E-01
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
8.577375E-01
FT
INPUT DATA: jjA,+s 3^/+A
DISCHARGE = 3.460000 CFS = I0.5 it 0.31 %.
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED SLOPE = 1.500000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
INPUT DATA:
6.115403E-01 FT
2.312695 FPS
3.058037E-01 FT
4.892323 FT
7.370026E-01
6.945924E-01 FT
Page 1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
i
1
1
DISCHARGE _
BOTTOM WIDTH =
BED SLOPE _
SIDE SLOPE _
MANNINGS N =
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
Typ_sw.txt
1.000000 CPS = 3 0.332.
0.000000E+00 FT
1.500000E-02 FT/FT
4.000000
3.500000E-02
3.839358E-01 FT
1.695399 FPS
1.920346E-01 FT
3.071487 FT
6.817958E-01
4.285690E-01 FT
INPUT DATA:
I L 12.L.
DISCHARGE
= 9.600000
CPS c 28.q, * 0.33%.
BOTTOM WIDTH
= 0.000000E+00
FT
BED SLOPE
= 1.500000E-02
FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE
= 4.000000
MANNINGS N
= 3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
8.966463E-01 FT
2.984726 FPS
4.483897E-01 FT
7.173170 FT
7.855047E-01
1.034978 FT
INPUT DATA: i t,& I D /2- D
DISCHARGE = 6.200000 CPS = 18.8
BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT
BED SLOPE = 1.500000E-02 FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000
MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
7.610557E-01 FT
2.675688 FPS
Page 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
Typ_sw.txt
3.805834E-01 FT
6.088446 FT
7.643329E-01
8.722250E-01 FT
INPUT DATA: Cis J E /2E
DISCHARGE _
BOTTOM WIDTH =
BED SLOPE _
SIDE SLOPE _
MANNINGS N =
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE _
BOTTOM WIDTH =
BED SLOPE _
SIDE SLOPE _
MANNINGS N =
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH =
FLOW VELOCITY =
HYDR. DEPTH =
TOP WIDTH =
FROUDE NUMBER =
SPECIFIC ENERGY=
7.650000 CFS = 23.2 a33s.
0.000000E+00 FT
1.500000E-02 FT/FT
4.000000
3.500000E-02
8.234653E-01 FT
2.820130 FPS
4.117722E-01 FT
6.587722 FT
7.744845E-01
9.469612E-01 FT
T Q SF-14E
4.320000 CFS = 13•l0 0 0,23P,
0.000000E+00 FT
1.500000E-02 FT/FT
4.000000
3.500000E-02
6.646153E-01 FT
2.444412 FPS
3.323908E-01 FT
5.316922 FT
7.471743E-01
7.573971E-01 FT
Page 3
I
n
1
I
I
1
APPENDIX E
Inlet Analysis
t
11
....... .
pp
h
N
N
h
C
T
.:.:.
C
h
Gor
n
y�
;•; i:; ::r;•;
�.
00000
O
O
O
yy
fir•
00000000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
w
i.:. ' .....
........ri......... is
00000
0
0
CD
w
w
N
w
N
Nmom
V)
h
N
N
N
N
w
N
O
M
N
M
,w
en
•i:Piiiri:4.:..
:•...
C
y
z
Fzz
F U W
c
:5
1.01
.6
5 J
a
5 a'
� '� .3
i o
4 o .Z
5 �i� rI
4 8 .06
3
n .OE
04
u
0
n
5
.0;
vo
L
Ht.
5 _ _ _ Curb
Local Depression (a)
Figure 6.3.3.1-1 NOMOGRAPH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING
INLETS AT A SUMP.
(From: Wright - McLaughlin Engineers, 1969)
3
APPENDIX F
Riprap Design
1
1
1
1
11
aaxa
LtaLhl
nININIMIN
n
V1 N �;,i V1 R 4e1
�ImINI�INI00
000000
HFFFFE=F
ti y y N y y
aaaaaa
euerrt: CW=dab PQ* uc .roe No: 0957-001
PmEcr. Clydesdale Park -Filing Two mcmnoNsFom Riprap
mADEer. KGS DATe 2/12/01 sNEEr.. 1 of 1
EXTENTS OF RIPRAP PROTECTION: (Per Urban Drainage Criteria)
L=(1/2Tan9)(AWt-w) (EQ 5-9, USDCM)
where: L = Length of Riprap Protection (3D 5 L 510D)
At = Q/V for V=5.5 fps for erosive soil
Yt = Tailwater Depth (ft)
w = Pipe Diam
1/2Tan6 = Expansion factor from Fig 5-9 USDCM
100-yr
PIPE
DESIGN
100-yr
•RIPRAP
LINE
DIAM
FLOW
VELOCITY
Yt
DESIGN CONTROLS
L (Eq 5-9)
Req. L
(In)
cfs
(fps)
ft)
Yt/D WCH
1/2Tan6
ft
(ft
ST-1
24
18.0
5.73
0.5
0.25 3.18
1.9.
8.14.
8.14
ST-2
15
3.0
4.24
0.77
0.62 1.72
6.75
-2.23
3.75
ST-3
21
28.8
11.97
0
0.00 7.11
6.75
0.00
5.25
ST-4
24
18.8
5.98
1.15
0.58 3.32
6.75
4.95
6
ST-5
30
23.2
7.02
1.38
0.55 2.35
6.75
-0.71
7.5
ST-6
24
8.2
5.1
1.97
0.98 1.45
6.75
-7.99
6
I
3
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE
Table 5-1
� �PR�P GR14DA.no,J
CLASSIFICATION -AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP
Riprap
Designation
% Smaller Than
Given Size
Intermediate Rock.
d50*
Dimension
By Weight
.(Inches)
Inches
Type VL
70-100
12
50-70
g
35-50
6
6**
2-10
2
Type L
70-100
15
50-70
12
35-50
g
9**
2-1.0
3
Type M
70-100
21
50-70
18
35-50
12
12
2-10 .
4
Type H
100
30
50-70
24
35-50
1st
to
Type VH 100 .;. 42
50-70 . 33
.35-50 24 24
2-10 ► g
*d50 = Mean particle size
** Bury types VL and L with native top soil and revegetate to protect
from vandalism.
5.2 Wire Enclosed Rock
Wire enclosed rock refers to rocks that are bound together in a
wire basket so that they act.as a single unit. One of the major
advantages of wire enclosed rock is that it provides an alternative in
situations where available rock sizes are too small for ordinary
riprap.' Another advantage is .the versatility that results from the
regular geometric shapes of wire enclosed rock. .The rectangular
blocks and mats can be fashidned into almost any shape that can be
11-15-82
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RIPRAP
60
40
c ASN
GO
20or
TYPE L
r
00 .2 A Y /D '6 .8 1.0
t
Use Do Instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel.
**Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.
FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
I�
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
G = Expansion Angle
TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Y f / D
RIPRAP.
FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS
i1-15-82 .
URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
9
n
a
i
I
1
1
I
1
i
I
E
5
17
I
1
1
APPENDIX G
Erosion Control
1
F
lw
cc
E
H
W
0
0
c
0
0
W
I
U
�
� x
�
A
ffA
0
8
0
a
Fq
0
H
O
o
U
w
o
..
W
a1
O
p
.
�
M
rl
�C
o
3
'
0
bD
i
O
102
U
U
d o
z
r a
W
N
C
0
U
c
cn
F-
I
.:
I
:
- .
I
E
I
§
§
(
k
■
L6
�
U3
k
§
Z
S
to
LO
—
\_I[
P$$
ƒ
` .
/
EL
!/�g!»EIaaE
!�
o
OR
k
°F-
c §7
oto
§
§
2|_§
§
§,
§2§@� ff
o
,.I
§
7
§�22I
y
)71;f
£
am
�K\)
2.
_JB
|§ ms
E
$,l
&a=u
2ƒ
§�lA�ael
kkt
..
No Text