Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 06/06/1994
PROPERTY of FORT comm UTUITIEs �Finalf-sd FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE WINDTRAIL P.U.D., TOWNHOMES SITE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE WINDTRAIL P.U.D., TOWNHOMES SITE PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 235 Mathews Fort Collins, CO 80524 PREPARED BY: Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. 736 Whalers Way, F 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (LA Project No. CO-TST-18.1) �®BFGisr MA °oo e o ci 4". February 22, 1994 --� n EONAL @ r N o LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. Water Resources and Environmental Consultants 736 Whalers Way, Suite F-200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (303) 226-0120 February 22, 1994 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Final Drainage Report for the Windtrail P.U.D., Townhomes Site (LA Project No. CO-TST-18.1) Dear Basil, Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. (LA) is pleased to submit herewith the revised Final Drainage Report for the Windtrail P.U.D., Townhomes Site. We have addressed all commments presented by the City, in accordance with our meeting on February 16, 1994. The hydraulic and hydrologic evaluation of the site was performed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Ci of Fort Collins SDDC Manual. If you have any questions regarding the procedures and results given in this report, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Christophe . Doherty, EIT Project Engineer G ;J' Koch, PE Senior Engineer CLD/tlt Enclosure Branch Office: Box 27, Savery, Wyoming 82332 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study ............................. 1 II. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS .......................... 4 III. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE WINDTRAIL P.U.D. TOWNHOMES SITE ................................ 5 3.1 General .......................................... 5 3.2 Proposed Drainage Plan ................................ 6 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of Proposed Drainage Conditions ............. 8 3.4 Design of Drainage Improvements 11 3.4.1 General .................................... 11 3.4.2 Allowable Street Capacities 11 3.4.3 Curb Inlet Design .............................. 13 3.4.4 Storm Sewer Design ............................ 15 3.4.5 Drainage Swale Design ........................... 16 3.4.6 San ng Creek Trail Culvert Design .................... 17 IV. SPRING CREEK FLOODPLAIN CONSIDERATIONS ................ 18 V. EROSION CONTROL PLAN ............................... 20 VI. REFERENCES ...................... 26 FIGURES/TABLES/APPENDICES/SHEETS FIGURES Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map for the Windtrail Development . .................. 2 TABLES Table 3.1. Summary of Results of the Hydrologic Analysis ................. 10 Table 3.2. Summary of Design Discharges at all Design Points . ............. 12 Table 3.3. Summary of Developed Condition Discharges and . Allowable Street Flows . .............................. 14 Table 3.4. Summary of Storm Sewer Pipe Design Requirements . ............ 15 Table 3.5. Summary of Swale Design Parameters . ..................... 16 Table 5.1. Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation . ................... 21 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Table 5.2. Effectiveness Calculations .............................. 22 Table 5.3. Construction Sequence ................................ 24 Table 5.4. Erosion Control Cost Estimate . .......................... 25 APPENDICES Appendix A: Hydrologic Calculations for the Windtrail P.U.D. Appendix B: Street Capacity Calculations Appendix C: Curb Inlet Hydraulic Design Calculations Appendix D: Pipe Hydraulic Design Calculations Appendix E: HY-8 Output for Final Culvert Design Appendix F: Riprap Sizing Calculations Appendix G: Swale Design Calculations Appendix H: Erosion Control Plan Calculations SHEETS Sheet 1: Final Overall Drainage Plan Sheet 2: Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Sheet 3: Final Details for Proposed Drainage Facilities 11 I. INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Background ' The Winditail P.U.D. is a proposed residential development located in the northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. ' The proposed development would consist of both single- and multi -family dwellings. The multi- family area is proposed to be an initial development phase, while the single-family tract would be a secondary phase. ' The development site is bounded on the west by the Hill Pond and Sundering Townhomes developments, on the south by an undeveloped tract, and on the north and east by the Spring ' Creek Trail. Along the north and east, the trail is located between the Windtrail development, and Spring Creek and Arthur's Ditch, respectively. This area is part of the Spring Creek— ' drainage basin and, consequently, is subject to the conditions specified in the Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan [EPI, 1988]. Figure 1.1 is a vicinity map of the project site. ' This report specifically addresses issues pertaining to the final drainage plan for the townhomes portion of the development; as shown on Sheet 2, this site includes approximately 6.1 acres of the southwest corner of the Windtrail area. The drainage plan presented herein conforms to the specifications and criteria defined in the, "Preliminary Drainage Report for the Windtrail P.U.D." [LA, 1994]. That report describes the overall drainage plan for the entire Windtrail development, accounting for all on -site and upstream runoff. As documented in the preliminary report, the overall plan meets the requirements of the Spring Creek Master Drainage Plan. 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study This study defines the proposed final drainage plan for the townhomes site within the Windtrail P.U.D. in the context of the conditions and requirements of the preliminary drainage plan [LA, 1994]. This plan provides consideration for all on -site and tributary off -site runoff, as well as 100-year flood levels in Spring Creek. Included in this plan is the design of all drainage facilities required within the townhomes site, as well as both the drainage swale and culvert under the Spring Creek Trail needed for drainage of the entire development. The swale and culvert are located off -site with respect to the townhomes site, but are situated within the Windtrail P.U.D. boundary. 1 Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map for the Windtrail Development. 2 All drainage facilities designed herein meet the specifications and requirements set forth in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDC) ' Manual. I I I I 1 q H. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ' Since the Spring Creek Master Plan does not require detention for this site, all hydrologic calculations for this study were conducted for developed conditions. However, existing ' development and drainage patterns have a significant influence on the drainage facilities required for the Windtrail area. The relevant issues concerning existing conditions and their impact on the proposed development are discussed in the preliminary drainage report; they are briefly summarized below. With the exception of a strip of Shields Street to the south, all contributing subbasins are ' shown on Sheet 1. As documented in the preliminary drainage report, off=site flows from Shields Street are generated along the east side of the street beginning at Shire Court and extending south for a distance of approximately 1,600 feet. Sheet 1 serves as an overall view which defines existing off -site conditions, identifies subbasins associated with the proposed development, and indicates the location of major drainage facilities. Sheet 2 displays more detailed information concerning on -site subbasin delineation, and the final grading and drainage plan. ' It is noted that existing drainage patterns within Windtrail are generally west to east, with an average existing ground slope of 0.6 percent. Off -site to the west of Windtrail, both Shire Court and Hill Pond Road convey undetained runoff from the Hill Pond and Sundering Townhome developments to the east end of the existing Hill Pond Road. At this point, the runoff reverts to overland flow as it commingles with off -site flows from the undeveloped area south of the site, before entering Arthur's Ditch. The runoff which enters Arthur's Ditch was historically tributary to Spring Creek, but the construction of a berm along the south side of the Spring Creek Trail through this reach directs flows away from the creek. A Swale was designed in conjunction with the Hill Pond development to re-establish historical drainage patterns whereby all tributary runoff was conveyed to Spring Creek. However, this swale has not yet been constructed (according to Mr. Glen Schlueter of the City Stormwater Utility, funds for its construction remain in escrow) and, consequently, runoff is currently directed east to Arthur's Ditch rather than north to Spring Creek. An existing low area within the Windtrail property, south of the proposed development footprint directs runoff to the east into Arthur's Ditch. The major swale proposed for Windtrail would follow an alignment different than that originally designed. However, the swale would ' serve the previously intended purpose, that is, conveying runoff from the Hill Pond area to Spring Creek, as well as conveying all Windtrail tributary on- and off -site flows to Spring ' Creek. 1 1 4 M. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE WINDTRAIL P.U.D. TOWNHOMES SITE 3.1 General The final drainage plan for the Windtrail P.U.D. Townhomes Site has been developed to provide a drainage system that is compatible with flood conditions along Spring Creek. This has been accomplished by utilizing existing drainage patterns to the extent possible and providing the intended outfall for the contributing drainage area to Spring Creek. Sheet 2 shows the grading and drainage plan for the Windtrail development. Included on the sheet are the proposed location of the major swales with the associated box culvert, and locations of the minor storm drainage facilities; i.e., curb inlets, storm sewer pipes, and overflow swales. Typical cross sections for all swales, as well as riprap protection details are provided on Sheet 3. The major drainage facilities planned for the property are two relatively wide, shallow swales running generally west to east along the south development boundary. These swales would collect 100-year runoff from: (a) the undeveloped tract south of Windtrail, (b) the Hill Pond and Sundering Townhomes developments, and (c) the proposed cul-de-sacs along Shire and Shadowmere Courts. The two swales would confluence east of Shadowmere Court, forming a single swale. As this Swale turns to the north, at. the east end of the Windtrail single-family area, it would collect 100-year flows from the east portion of the development, which are to be conveyed along Gilgalad Way to a concrete sidewalk culvert at the end of the street. North of the sidewalk culvert, the major Swale would also collect flow from the proposed backlot swale located along the north side of the development. (It is noted that the sidewalk culvert and backlot swale are part of the single-family development and, consequently, are not being designed as part of the current study.) The total 100-year flow in the swale would then be conveyed through a concrete box culvert under the Spring Creek Trail. The culvert would outlet into Hill Pond on Spring Creek upstream of the Arthur's Ditch weir. Minor drainage facilities in the form of curb inlets, storm sewers and overflow swales would be required to provide drainage relief for: (a) the eastern end of Hill Pond Road, which would outlet to the southern branch of the major drainage swale at Design Point #3b; and (b) the Shire and Shadowmere Courts cul-de-sacs, which would outlet to the northern branch of the major drainage swale upstream of Design Point #4b. The Rational Method was used to determine both 2- and 100-year flows for the subbasins indicated on Sheets 1 and 2. A detailed description of the hydrologic analysis is provided in Section 3.2. It is noted that since the Spring Creek Master Plan does not require detention for this development site, the hydrologic analysis was conducted for developed conditions only. The resulting 100-year runoff values were used to define design discharges at design points identified on Sheet 2; i.e., along streets, at low points, and along the major drainage swales. 5 I 3.2 Proposed Drainage Plan A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each subbasin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussion of the detailed design of drainage ' facilities which are introduced in this section, is included in Section 3.4. It is noted that compared to the Preliminary Drainage Report, slight modifications have been made to boundaries for Subbasins D and E within Windtrail. All changes in hydrology caused by the shift in subbasin boundaries are incorporated herein. Runoff from Subbasin A (undeveloped off -site) would be directed to the north to the low-lying area which would convey overland flows to the east into Subbasin F. Runoff from Subbasin B (Sundering Townhomes) would be collected along Shire ' Court, Gilgalad Way, and the south side of Hill Pond Road. Street flows within the subbasin would travel in a primarily easterly direction to the current eastern terminus of Hill Pond Road. Runoff from Subbasin C (a portion of Hill Pond Townhomes) would be collected primarily along the north side of Hill Pond where flows would be conveyed east to the intersection of Hill Pond Road and Gilgalad Way, at the western boundary of Subbasin D. Runoff from Subbasin D (a portion of the Windtrail Townhomes Site) would be directed east along Hill Pond Road. A fraction of the street flows would be taken off the street via four on -grade curb inlets to be located at the intersections of Gilgalad Way and Shire Courts, and approximately 80 feet west of Shadowmere Court. It is noted that the need for the four inlets was necessitated by large off - site flows from both Hill Pond and Sundering Townhomes. From these on -grade inlets, both pipe flow and the remaining on -site street flow would be carried east to the southern branch of the major swale located at the east end of Hill Pond Road. Two-year flows would be contained in the street at all locations; while runoff from the 100-year event would be allowed to exit the east end of the street section directly into the southern swale. Subbasin El is the local area tributary to the proposed extension of Shire Court northeast of Hill Pond Road. Runoff from this subbasin would collect in the northeast comer of the cul-de-sac. Both the 2- and 100-year flows would be diverted to the northern drainage swale by way of a curb inlet operating in a sump condition, and an outfall pipe. Subbasin E2 is the local area tributary to proposed Shadowmere Court north of Hill Pond Road. Runoff from this subbasin would collect in the northeast corner of the cul-de-sac; both the 2- and 100-year flows would be diverted to the I northern drainage swale by way of a curb inlet operating in a sump, and an outfall pipe. Subbasin E3 is the remaining area of original Subbasin E. Runoff from Subbasin E3 is collected in the northern swale and conveyed east to confluence of the northern and southern swales (at the west end of Subbasin G). At the eastern end of the Windtrail Townhomes development, a bike trail and emergency access path would be constructed across the Swale. Both the 2- and 100-year flows would ,r be conveyed under the trail by two 24-inch RCP's. Runoff from Subbasin F (undeveloped off -site) would be directed northerly into the southern drainage swale. Runoff from Subbasin G (undeveloped off -site) would also be directed to the north and into the major drainage swale. Runoff from Subbasins H (Wilderland Townhomes), I and J (both proposed Windtrail single-family) would be conveyed easterly into the major drainage swale located at the east end of the proposed Windtrail single-family area. As shown on the drainage plan presented on Sheet 2, on -grade curb inlets (8-, 20-, 20- and 12-foot lengths) would be placed at Inlets #2A through #213, respectively. These inlets would be required in order to meet allowable street capacities along Hill Pond Road. Flow collected by the on -grade inlets would be conveyed by a storm sewer pipe to the southern major swale at the end of Hill Pond Road. This pipe would vary in size from a 15- to a 27-inch RCP. This system is designed to carry runoff from the 2-year event without exceeding street criteria. Incremental flows along Hill Pond Road arising from the 100-year event which cannot be conveyed in the storm sewer would be allowed to exit the east end of the street, and drop ` directly into the southern drainage swale. Inlet #IA, located in the proposed Shire Court extension, would be an 8-foot curb inlet in a sump condition. It would collect the local 100-year runoff which would then be conveyed in an 18-inch ADS pipe to the west end of the northern drainage swale. Inlet #lB would also be an 8-foot curb inlet in a sump condition near the northeast comer of the Shadowmere Court cul-de-sac. It would divert the contributing 100-year runoff into an 18-inch ADS pipe, which would carry flows to the northern drainage swale. Although both Inlets #lA and #1B have been designed to convey the 100-year runoff without overtopping the adjacent curb, grassed overflow swales have been designed to convey the 100-year flow in the event the inlet or storm sewer would become plugged. In order to facilitate the movement of runoff through the street system, City of Fort Collins standard cross pans are specified across both Shire and Shadowmere Courts. In addition, I street high points have been designed (as shown on Sheet 2) to prevent 100-year flows along Hill Pond Road from entering either of these cul-de-sacs. 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of Proposed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determined both 2- and 100-year peak runoff values for each Subbasin A through J as shown on Sheets 1 and 2. As shown on the City of Fort Collins Zoning Map, the entire tributary drainage area is zoned "RP". This zoning designation is commensurate with a rational method runoff coefficient of 0_50; this coefficient was adopted for the single family portion of the proposed development. For the areas within Sundering Townhomes, Hill Pond and Windtrail which currently (or would) consist of multi -family dwellings, a slightly more conservative runoff coefficient of 0.60 was adopted. This value is commensurate with the projected land use within the townhomes site. A runoff coefficient of -0.20 was used for the undeveloped portions of Subbasins A, F and G. For all off -site subbasins, including both developed and undeveloped areas, the requisite geometric parameters were taken from the City of Fort Collins' topographic aerial photograph shown on Sheet 1. The geometric parameters for all on -site subbasins were defined based on the proposed grading plan shown on Sheet 2. The undeveloped area to the south of the Windtrail property is part of the Centre for Advanced Technology, Special Improvement District (SID). A drainage study for this 9ID was conducted in 1987 by RBD Inc. The associated drainage report indicates that detention is proposed for the areas of Subbasins A, F and G, south of the Windtrail property line. In the RBD report, detention was designed at a conceptual level to detain the 100-year developed condition runoff while releasing at the 2-year historical runoff rate. The portion of the RBD drainage report, including the final drainage plan map, which documents the runoff and detention calculations for this area (Subbasin E in the RBD report) was included in the appendix of the preliminary drainage report. All design calculations for the Windtrail drainage facilities were based on the 100-year existing condition runoff from the undeveloped area to the south. This ensures that the facilities would have adequate capacity both prior to and after development of Subbasin E of the Centre for Advanced Technology. Before development, the area would contribute the undeveloped 100- _ year runoff during the 100-year storm; after development, the area would contribute flow at the 2-year undeveloped rate during the 100-year storm (with the implementation of detention as designed). As shown on Sheet 1, off -site flow is being contributed to Subbasin B from the east side of Shields Street to the south. The magnitude of flow entering Subbasin B is impacted by the 8 i interception capability of two existing curb inlets. Documentation of the flow which passes the inlets was provided in the preliminary drainage report. As noted in that report, it was determined that the existing inlets would provided 100 percent interception of the Shields Street flows associated with the 2-year event; for the 100-year event, 3.6 cfs would pass the inlets. As stated above, the Rational Method was used to conduct all hydrologic analyses for the Windtrail Townhomes Site. The Rational Method utilizes the SDDC Manual equation: Q = CfCIA (1) where Q is the flow in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, C f is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour. IThe runoff coefficients were assigned as described above. The frequency adjustment factor, C f, is 1.0 for the initial (2-year) storm and 1.25 for the major (100-year) storm. The appropriate rainfall intensity information was developed based on the rainfall intensity duration curves in the SDDC Manual (SDDC Figure 3-1 which is included in Appendix A of this report). To obtain the rainfall intensity, the time of concentration must be determined. The following equation was utilized to determine the time of concentration: Ito=ti+tt (2) where t is the time of concentration in minutes, t i is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, and t , is the travel time in the ditch, channel, or gutter in minutes. The initial, or overland flow time was calculated with the SDDC Manual equation: ti = [1.87(1.1 - CCf)0.5]/(S)0.33 (3) 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 C and C f are as previously defined. This procedure for computing time of concentration allows for overland flow as well as travel time for runoff ' collected in streets, gutters, channels, pipes, or ditches. All hydrologic calculations associated with Subbasins A through J are included in Appendix A. Table 3.1 presents a summary of results of the hydrologic analysis, and resulting runoff values for the subbasins and design points. In defining design flows for the 100-year event for the inlets and pipes along Hill Pond Road and the major drainage swale, the 3.6 cfs contribution from Shields Street was added, 1 9 vC, t` IeDy v, a a, o 0, o i0NV a 1"ll N V01 N .N.i co n 'O a N N eT o~D a b N N N a �O O� "i oo N en N �O N h N eo O� ao- e0 V1 l+1 h O 00 Af G N �O NTw,�n �D 1+ff!ONN00 en V1 00e+1 v OD �O Inwe4i 0 0 00 00 0 v o 0 0 0 0� vvi vi v v vi v; c 'A eT "O e0 O O "O y� P V1 n^ eV N N eV — . ..a ...i ..a .r N .+ N �+ �+ N Hf en N mN0; WT20i N n r r I I eV eV dco c Nq ° �••, g g o I g I I g{ kn S h 11. g 1 1 �©eewwer-�©wawwawanw� l+f N00 r o vs I { h v oo I o I I N 1 N {� I I 0I�IlICI ICI.RIRI�I4RIRI�I�I�I�I�I�IRIRIRI�II gI�I�Ii,IGIl;I,�Illr9lihillnoIgI"on Io,IgIlcrnl11111aivIaIC�i-N N I N I N I N 1111 I N I N I N I 1 1 oo I I I I I I I I N I N I I_ IN 11 1 11 8012l°o°I I I I Ial'd°o°I I Iml I I I IgI 1 Igl°o°I { I°o°I 11 I II A w w u a �+I "IN►�+ICI"'lal�l�l�l�l�lal�l�l�l�l�l00l�l�ll 10 I where appropriate, directly to the runoff values resulting from the hydrologic analysis. (It is noted that it is anticipated that a portion of Subbasin I, that which is tributary to Gilgalad Way, would not contribute flow to the major drainage facilities, but rather would have its runoff directed into Spring Creek via a storm sewer pipe to be located approximately 250 feet west of the western cul-de-sac along Gilgalad Way; however, the design of the major swale and culvert has included the entire runoff from this subbasin.) Table 3.2 provides a summary of the design flows for all design points and particularly the individual reaches of the major drainage swales. Cross section locations for the major swales are shown on Sheet 2. 3.4 Design of Drainage Improvements 3.4.1 General The proposed drainage plan for the Townhomes Site consists of a combination of street flow, curb inlets, storm sewers, swales and a box culvert. Final lot grading details will ensure rthat each lot be graded and landscaped to provide positive drainage around and away from building foundations. In addition, final grading must ensure that all finished floor elevations are a minimum of 18 inches higher than the adjacent base flood elevations indicated on the current FEMA mapping. The base flood elevations are shown on Sheet 2. Within the site, drainage easements have been provided where necessary to ensure that overland flows can be collected and conveyed through well-defined drainage swales or storm sewers. Reference is made to the plat, where all easements are identified. 1 3.4.2 Allowable Street Capacities Due to the street configuration within the Townhomes Site, Hill Pond Road is the only street which was analyzed relative to allowable flow capacity. Hill Pond Road is considered a local street. It incorporates a roadway width (flowline to flowiine) of 36 feet and is further characterized by a 2 percent cross slope and a City of Fort Collins standard 4.75-inch rollover curb. Allowable gutter flows and maximum street encroachments for both the initial and major storms were estimated and evaluated based on the specifications set forth in the SDDC Manual. Allowable capacity calculations were made at three locations along Hill Pond Road: (a) directly east of the intersection with Gilgalad Way; (b) between Shire and Shadowmere Courts; and (c) just east of Shadowmere Court. I11 I I Table 3.2. Summary of Design Flows at all Design Points. .......... ... .. .... .. . .. .. ..... ... ....... ..... ...... DEscharge U. ................... . In .... . W . ............. . . Point; SUbbaSln(s} ...................... . .. . . ........ .Year- 3a A 22.5 0.20 1.25 3.65 5.6 20.5 I B 12.3 0.60 1.9 5.5 14.0 50.7 2 c 4.5 0.60 2.2 6.7 5.9 22.6 3b D 2.0 0.71 2.3 7.0 3.3 12.5 3b B, C, D 18.8 0.61 1.9 5.5 21.8 78.9 3 A-D 41.3 0.39 1.25 3.65 20.1 73.3 9 El 1.05 0.65 2.61 7.0 1.8 6.0 10 E2 1.22 1 0.65 2.78 1 7.0 2.2 6.9 4a E3 3.3 0.50 1.98 5.8 3.3 12.0 4a E I, E2, E3 5.6 0.56 1.98 5.8 6.2 22.8 5 G 10.5 0.22 1.5 4.4 3.5 12.7 5 A-G 65.6 0.35 1.25 3.65 28.7 104.8 6 H' 3.6 0.30 1.7 5.0 1.8 6.8 7 1 4.7 0.50 2.5 7.0 5.9 20.6 7 H, 1 8.3 0.41 1.7 5.0 5.8 21.3 8a 1 6.8 0.50 2.0 6.0 6.8 25.5 8a H-J 15.1 0.45 1.7 5.0 11.6 42.5 8 A-J 8.7 0.37 1.25 3.65 1 37.3 136.2 i 12 During the initial storm, runoff was not allowed to overtop either the curb or street crown. Per the SDDC Manual, the maximum street runoff criteria during the major storm event limits the depth of water over the crown to less than or equal to 6 inches for local streets. A normal depth analysis of the allowable street capacities was performed using HEC-2 [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991]. The single cross section, normal depth option was used to find the flow rate associated with the allowable depth. The results of the street capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3.3. Due to the large off -site flows entering the Windtrail area from both Hill Pond Road and Shire Court, minor storm street capacities would be exceeded at all locations along Hill Pond Road; major storm street capacities would be violated only at the eastern end of Hill Pond Road, near Shadowmere Court. Therefore, four on -grade inlets are required along Hill Pond Road to reduce flows in order to meet criteria. The design of these inlets is presented in the following section. All calculations associated with the street capacity analysis, including the HEC-2 results, are provided in Appendix B. 3.4.3 Curb Inlet Desien As indicated in the previous section, four on -grade curb inlets would be needed on Hill Pond Road to meet street capacity requirements. These curb inlet sizes and locations are designed as follows: (a) an 8-foot on -grade inlet on the north side of the street directly east of 1 the intersection with Gilgalad Way, Inlet #2A; (b) a 20-foot on -grade inlet on the south side of the street just east of the Shire Court intersection, Inlet #2B; and (c) and (d) on both sides of the street approximately 90 feet west of Shadowmere Court, Inlets #2C and #21) which are 20- and 12-foot on -grade inlets on the north and south sides of the street, respectively. In addition to these on -grade inlets, two curb sump inlets would be required within the Townhomes Site. Both sump inlets would be 8 feet in length. These inlets would be located: (a) near the northeast corner of Shire Court, Inlet MA; and (b) near the northeast corner of Shadowmere Court, Inlet #1B. Per SDDC Manual guidelines, the theoretical capacities of the curb inlets were reduced by 10 to 20 percent depending on the length of each inlet. All inlet locations and sizes are shown on Sheet 2. The calculations associated with the curb inlet design task are provided in Appendix C. In the case of Inlets #lA and #lB, overflow swales have been included in the corresponding utility easements shown on Sheet 2. These swales provide conveyance relief for the 100-year flow in the event the inlets become plugged; the calculations for sizing these swales are included in Appendix C. 1 13 I ITable 3.3. Summary of Developed Condition Discharges and Allowable Street Flows. I I I [1 I a = half street capacity b = full street capacity c = inlets and storm sewer capacities designed for 2-year event inlet interception was not calculated for the 100-year event 100-year stormsewer discharge is assumed to be equal to full pipe discharge. 14 I I LJ I I r i I I I I I I 3.4.4 Storm Sewer Design The capacities of the pipes flowing down Hill Pond Road were designed for the theoretical capacity of all upstream inlets during the 2-year event. The pipes at the end of Shire and Shadowmere Courts were sized based on the total 100-year discharge at each of those points. The preliminary design of all storm sewer pipes was accomplished using Manning's equation and assuming full pipe flow conditions. All storm sewers along Hill Pond Road were designed as reinforced concrete pipes (RCP's). The pipes at the end of Shire and Shadowmere Courts were designed as ADS pipes. The required minimum invert slope for all pipes within the townhomes site is 0.4 percent. A detailed hydraulic analysis and hydraulic grade line determination of the final pipe design was performed using the UDSewer pipe hydraulic analysis model, developed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The downstream tailwater elevation was assumed to be commensurate with normal depth at the end of each of the three pipe systems. It is noted that the pipe from Outlet #2E to Manhole STS-1 was restricted by available ground cover to be a maximum size of 27 inches high. Therefore, even though preliminary sizing calculations suggest a diameter of 30 inches, the pipe was sized to be a 27- inch RCP. The results of the analysis indicate that the hydraulic grade line in the pipe system is below the ground elevation at all inlets and manholes. A summary of the final design of the storm sewer is given in Table 3.4. In addition, the hydraulic grade lines computed by this analysis are shown on the Utility Plans. All storm sewer design calculations are provided in Appendix E. Table 3.4. Summary of Storm Sewer Pipe Design Requirements. 15 I I I u -1 r.� i [1 I li I i i At all storm sewer outlets (#lA, #1B and #2E shown on Sheet 2), riprap outlet protection is proposed to dissipate energy and reduce the potential for erosion. The riprap was sized based on procedures given in the USDCM and the SDDC Manual. All outlets are designed as buried riprap installations using Class 6 riprap (City of Fort Collins SDDC Manual gradation). Details and specifications for all storm sewer outlet protection installations are provided on Sheet 3. All riprap design calculations are given in Appendix F. 3.4.5 Drainage Swale Design Based on the design discharges shown in Table 3.2, sizing of the major drainage swales was accomplished assuming normal flow conditions. Due to grade constraints, the swales have been designed with a 0.4 percent bed slope and depths varying from 2 to 3 feet; side slopes are specified at 4H:1V. Flow velocities associated with the major storm would be relatively small (less than 3 fps), thereby normally requiring either a trickle channel or underdrain. However, a variance is requested to not include a trickle channel or underdrain in order to maintain the existing wetland; the limits of the existing wetland areas are shown on Sheet 2. The intention is to encourage wetland establishment in the swales. Correspondingly, a Manning's n value of 0.060 was used in the design of the swales. For these conditions, the bottom width of the major swales would vary from 5 to 35 feet, with 100-year flow depths ranging from .1.3 to 1.7 feet. A summary of swale design results is provided in Table 3.5 and is shown on Sheet 3. Table 3.5. Summary of Swale Design Parameters. 1Vlimmum 100-Year Erent Finw Parameters Swale Q,na Qua*13 Bottgm Channel Sechou (cfs) 3 (efs) Width feet { ) Depth TO Width P ` D th Vf eP Velocity (feet) of Flow Flow:$) Meet) A -A 20.5 27.3 5 1.6 16 1.4 1.4 B-B 81.6' 108.5 20 1.9 33 1.6 1.9 C-C 22.8 30.3 5 1.6-2.3° 16 1.4 1.5 08.4' 144.2 30 1.9 43 1.6 1.9 LZiLl 39.8' 185.9 35 2.0-3.0` 48 1.7 2.0 Includes 3.6 cfs from Shields Street. ° Minimum bank elevation is 5002.8 in swale C-C upstream of the double 24" RCP. Minimum bank elevation is 4999.0 in swale E-E upstream of the box culvert. 16 3.4.6 Spring Creek Trail Culvert Design Culverts would be required at two locations across the major drainage .swales in order to accommodate the two bike trail crossings. First, a culvert would be required at the north end of the major swale to pass flows under the trail and into the Spring Creek pond. The culvert design was performed using the HY-8 computer model which is based on the design methodologies used in the Federal Highway Administration's "Design of Highway Culverts". Results of the culvert sizing indicated that a double 12V x 4'H reinforced concrete box culvert would be required to pass the -100-year flow. This culvert design was based on an assumed tailwater elevation equivalent to the 100-year water surface in the Spring Creek pond of 4997.4 feet, and maximum headwater elevation of 4997.5 feet. The HY-8 output documenting the ' preliminary design of the culvert is included in Appendix E. The maximum headwater elevation of 4997.5 feet will ensure that 1.5 feet of freeboard is provided, relative to the proposed ground ' along the east end of the development. Riprap will be placed at both the upstream and downstream ends of the culvert. Riprap ' sizing calculations were performed in accordance with the design procedures given in the SDDC Manual. The sizing analysis indicates that an installation of buried Class 6 rock will be required. A detail showing the culvert installation and riprap specifications are included on Sheet 3. A second culvert would be required at the eastern end of the Townhomes development to accommodate a bike trail crossing and emergency access road. The design for the culvert was also performed using the HY-8 computer model. Results of the culvert sizing indicated that a double 24-inch RCP culvert installation would be required to pass the 100-year flow. This culvert design was based on a maximum headwater depth of 2 feet, to ensure that the entire flow would be contained within the swale. Sufficient freeboard will be provided to ensure an additional one-third capacity for the culverts during the 100-year event. Riprap would be placed at both the upstream and downstream ends of this culvert. Riprap sizing calculations were performed in accordance with the design procedures given in the SDDC Manual. The sizing analysis indicates that an installation of buried Class 6 rock will be required. 17 I IIV. SPRING CREEK FLOODPLAIN CONSIDERATIONS The Spring Creek 100-year floodplain boundary, as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated 1979, is shown on Sheet 1. This is the floodplain boundary currently recognized by FEMA; however, it is associated with 1979 hydrologic and channel conditions. It is noted that several modifications have been made to the channel since the floodplain was mapped for the 1979 FIRM. As a result, the floodplain delineations are no longer indicative of existing channel conditions. The 1979 FIRM indicates that the flood elevation at the location of the proposed box culvert is approximately 4997.5 feet. It is expected that FEMA will approve a revised floodplain boundary in the spring of 1994, prior to the development of the single family phase of the Windtrail P.U.D. As currently mapped, neither the existing or revised floodplain boundaries would lie within the Windtrail Townhomes development area. The major floodplain consideration ' associated with this development is the design of the major drainage swale and the box culvert under the Spring Creek Trail. The results of the HEC-2 analysis performed for the 1994 Physical Map Revision (PMR) show the 100-year water surface elevation would be approximately 4997.4 feet at the location of the proposed box culvert. The results of the PMR hydraulic analysis within the reach adjacent to Windtrail are very similar to the analysis performed for the Spring Creek Master Plan [EPI, 1988]. The results of the analysis in the Master Plan indicates that the floodplain would wrap around the east end of the Windtrail development and pond to an elevation of approximately 4997.4 feet at the south end of the development. There is a drop structure located on Spring Creek located near the western end of the development (see Sheet 1). The results of the Master Plan analysis indicate a water surface elevation of 5001.3 and 5003.6 feet upstream and downstream of the drop structure, respectively. Topographic mapping for the area indicates that the southern bank elevation is at least 5006 feet near the toe of the drop structure and 5008 feet on the upstream side. This would provide a minimum of 4.4 feet of freeboard at the western end of the development. Additional discussion and documentation of the Spring Creek floodplain was included in the Preliminary Drainage Report for the Wmdtrad P.U.D. [LA, 1994]. ' In order to accommodate the potential 100-year water surface elevation at the eastern end of the development, proposed grading within the future single family development, as shown on Sheet 2, specifies a minimum ground elevation of 4999.0 feet along the lot boundaries. This ' would provide a minimum of 1.5-foot of freeboard between the individual lots and the developed condition 100-year water surface elevation. It is noted that final grading throughout the development must ensure that all finished floor elevations are a minimum of 18 inches higher than the adjacent base flood elevation. 18 fJ ' If the 100-year storm occurs in the area tributary to Windtrail without extending throughout the entire upstream Spring Creek watershed, the major swale has been designed to convey the local 100-year flow while providing freeboard in the form of additional capacity of at least one-third of the 100-year discharge. r I I [1 I I 11 i I I I During the 100-year event along Spring Creek, the maximum ponding elevation adjacent to the downstream end of the development is 4997.4 feet. Under this condition, the proposed swale would act as additional storage for the pond with a maximum standing water surface elevation of 4997.4 feet. 19 n I_J IV. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The Erosion Control Plan for this site was designed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SDDC manual. Transportation of sediment from the site would be controlled by the implementation of a silt fence around the perimeter of the site at the start of construction. Inlet ' filters would be installed shortly after construction on all proposed inlets to trap any sediment which may be transported prior to seeding. It is also noted that the swale would be reseeded and mulched immediately following final grading of the Swale. Because of the relatively flat slope of the proposed Swale, any sediment produced on the construction site is likely to be 1 deposited in the swale. Straw bale barriers would be added at two locations within the major swale to further inhibit the motion of sediment toward Spring Creek. To ensure that any sediment collected in the swale would not reduce the capacity of the swale, the final ground surface would be marked by stakes at five locations within the swale as an indicator of sedimentation in the channel. If there is any sediment accumulation in the channel, the ' contractor would be required to regrade the swale to restore the designed final ground slope. In addition, the contractor would be responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities for ' as long as they are required. Erosion control effectiveness calculations were performed for Subbasins D and E within the Windtrail Townhomes site. In addition, calculations were performed for Subbasins F and ' G in order' to determine the effectiveness of the erosion control plan within the areas disturbed by the construction of the off -site swale. Within Subbasins D and E, sediment will be controlled ' by: (a) a silt fence along the northern and eastern perimeter of the development; (b) inlet filters on all proposed inlets; and (c) immediate reseeding and mulching of the proposed Swale. Within Subbasins F and G, sediment will be controlled by immediate reseeding and mulching of the ' drainage swale. It is noted that the erosion control effectiveness calculations are greater than the performance standard for the overall extent of the development. Furthermore, the effectiveness calculations were completed without considering the two straw bale barriers which would be placed in the major swale. Use of these barriers would serve to further improve the erosion control effectiveness. Wind erosion within the Windtrail Townhomes site would be controlled primarily by soil roughing which would be applied in a southwest to northeast direction, perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. Existing trees to the west and northwest of the site would further reduce the local wind velocities and wind erosion potential on the site. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 detail the rainfall performance and effectiveness of this Erosion Control Plan, respectively; associated calculations can be found in Appendix H. Table 5.3 outlines the construction sequence for the Erosion Control Plan; this table is also included on Sheet 2. The erosion control cost estimate for the townhomes development is provided in Table 5.4. 20 I 1 LJ I Table 5.1. Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation. PROJECT: Windtrail P.U.D. STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: SAH DATE: 1/19/94 DEVELOPED ERODIBILTTY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE (ac) (ft) M (ft) M M El MODERATE 1.05 310 1.0 E2 1.22 275 1.0 E3 3.3 950 1.0 D 2.0 1030 1.5 F, G 18.7 1000 4.0 TOTAL 26.3 935 3.2 82.7 21 [1 1 I F Table 5.2. Effectiveness Calculations. PROJECT: Windtrail P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: SAH DATE: 1/19/94 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR COMMENT METHOD VALUE VALUE BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 Construction Areas ROADS, WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCES 1.00 0.50 Around Swale Areas RESEED & MULCH 0.06 1.00 MAJOR PS SUB AREA CALCULATIONS BASIN (%) BASIN (AC) (CALCULATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPENDIX) E 80.1 El 1.05 Pavement Area = 50% x 1.05 Ac. = 0.53 Ac. Bare Soil = 50% = 0.53 Ac. Wtd C - Factor (0.01 x 0.53 + 1.0 x 0.53)/1.05 = 0.51 P-Factor = 0.80 Eff = (1-0.51 x 0.80) x 100 = 59.2% E2 1.22 Pavement Area = 50% x 1.22 Ac. = 0.61 Ac. Bare Soil = 50% = 1.22 Ac. Wtd C - Factor (0.01 x 0.61 + 1.0 x 0.61)/1.22 = 0.51 P-Factor = 0.80 Eff = (1-0.51 x 0.80) x 100 = 59.2% E3 3.3 Bare Soil (Construction Area) = 15 % x 3.3 Ac. = 0.50 Ac. Reseed & Mulch (Swale & Regraded Area = 85 % x 3.3 Ac. = 2.8 Ac. Silt Fence Around Swale (Construction Side) _ 30% x 3.3 Ac. = 0.99 Ac. Wtd C - Factor (1.00 x 0.50 + 0.06 x 2.81)/3.3 = 0.51 P-Factor = 0.50 Eff = (1-0.50 x 0.20) x 100 = 90.0% I 22 I 1 I 1 Table 5.2. Effectiveness Calculations (Continued). PROJECT: Windtrail P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: SAH DATE: 1/19/94 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR COMMENT METHOD VALUE VALUE RESEED & MULCH 0.06 1.00 UNDISTURBED LAND 0.07 1.00 Assumed to have 50% of established vegetation ROADS & WALKSS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 Around Swale Areas SILT FENCES 1.00 0.50 MAJOR PS SUB AREA CALCULATIONS BASIN (%) BASIN (AC) (CALCULATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPENDDQ D 80.1 2.0 Pavement Area = 50% x 2.0 Ac. = 1.0 Ac. Bare Soil = 50% = 1.0 Ac. Gravel Filter = 2.0 Ac. (100%) Wtd C - Factor (0.01 x 1.0 + 1.0 x 1.0)/2.0 = 0.50 P-Factor = 0.80 Eff = (1-0.50 x 0.80) x 100 = 60.0% F, G 80.1 18.7 Reseed and Mulch Swale Area = 15 % x 18.7 Ac. = 2.81 Ac. Undisturbed Land = 85% x 18.7 so. = 15.9 Ac. Wtd C - Factor (0.06 x 2.81 + 0.07 x 15.9)/18.7 = 0.07 Silt Fence = 50% x 18.7 Ac. = 0.94 Ac. Wtd P-Factor = (0.5 x 0.94 +1.00 x 17.8)/18.7 = 0.98 Eff=(1-0.98x0.07)x100=93.1% TOTAL 26.3 Eff = (59.2 % x 1.05 + 59.2 x 1.22 + 90.0 x 3.3 + 60.0 x 2.0 + 93.1 x 18.7)/26.3 = 87.2 % Since 87.2 % > 82.7, proposed plan is OK 23 ' Table 5.3. Construction Sequence. Project: Windtrail P.U.D. Standard Form C Sequence for 1924 Only Completed By: KGS Date: 1/19/94 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an annroved schedule may reouire submittine a new schedule for annroval by the Citv Engineer. Year 93 94 Month Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Demolition Overlot Grading Wind Erosion Control: Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other Rainfall Erosion Control Structural: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other Vegetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/MatsBlankets Other Structures: Installed by CONTRACTOR Maintained by OWNER Vegetation/Mulching Contractor To Be Decided by Bid ' Date Submitted: 1/19/94 Approved by City of Fort Collins on 24 I� 1 1 i [I Table 5.4. Erosion Control Cost Estimate. Client: Project: Windtrail P.U.D. Job No.: CO-TST-18.1 By: SAH Date: 1/19/94 Sheet 1 of 1 No. Item Quantity I Units Unit Cost Total Comments EROSION CONTROL 1 Reseed/Mulch 5.6 A.C. $ 1,742.40 $ 9,760.00 $0.04 per S.F. 2 Silt Fence 1,140 L.F. $ 3.00 $ 3,420.00 3 Gravel Inlet Filter 7 EA. $ 300.00 $ 2,100.00 CONSTRUCTION COST $ 15,280.00 1.5 X (CONST. COST) $ 22,920.00 TOTAL SECURITY $ 229920.00 CITY RESEEDING COST 1 Reseed/Mulch 5.6 A.C. $ 649.04 $ 3,630.00 $0.0149 per S.F. CONSTRUCTION COST $ 3,630.00 1.5 X (CONST. COST) $ 5,445.00 TOTAL SECURITY $ 50445.00 25 I APPENDIX B STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 NER-PROJECT Idinj4rcl, I By CAD DATE 9-n-q3 PROJECT PROJECT NO. 0 C� T_ N 'i COT-)T-16 P 0 TURE rl CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF k4- -1z CIS 00 9SHEE V:N p .a V-i to C-6 lzr—CZ cz Tc) :z 4Zf) V'N f C) --sb � IN Vi V� ar In -T Q c tcN WN ...... . . ......... -rz- VII -ij VIC% -- IZIC -1— 1� Vr i CO I C6 �/' i C3 rJ 0 r3 u 15 . r CIS C-6 CG C-76 m C13I M i I L, ! 'n Or% V\ IA W.W ■w ..... 1 . .....W e.r..w. OWNER -PROJECT BY DATE PROJECT NO. in)OT-,2AXL, sAH 11 29 93 c0-rs?-)8. FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF FIY QPU i< ANA�ldsi5 �i o � 1 1 r r N c 1 _ 00 S O N N n c 7 C'n Ul O O V Al } cn r4 r- W � N n1 a- � Q u> N v VIV1 T � O N 1 N N (b .9 O N) 0 I LF- Z In pro 0 0 0 v) O � N .41 2 f (1 W M y C1 c. Q U W Lw O Q - T s W.I. a.NI.... w ...Y.M.n.l owM1Y,. w FEATURE �7 I g417 -(-71 cv75T /a lT� 1a54< (�(opCnk9,�tac � ft(lo.�as+�Yisidr�•-ioj=O,�Cccite� L or 5,& 50 t-6 = 500ff / Sc -�,S%o ; 5Aoi4 �rass 60461ionnclizeJ) A= 3, & cicrCS (Prop--. 5• Inc %,,; SCri�l Sow - 2�350 La = D Sj bb�,5 ' e-, Z = 14,7aciC5 S�b6x,5-n T R= G�vuc�ls ) �, = gOOf-+ Flow Licltitone & Andeison. Inc. 7 lww.w a.. W C.MMIYI. OWNER —PROJECT W (fJ0TRA.IL BY SAH DATE i 1 ; 9 'Q' PROJECT NO. Co- TS'T - 18.1. FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF S')�• c 1,~ - r3P.s;c-.) Ae�r- Sv8-BraSra %SEA AvEP:=;c,r gRea � Re: a EI IZ.6oI i c IZ. cOug I2{oiz 45,tioZ 1.05 EZ 1y.86o \4.7$7 I I9.8o2 53, 2bC6 1.22 I y.r7 No b'6� 3q,t309 39.85o I'-13,U$0 3.3o 39, g9'7 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL IralelT►�,�e V2�vCi�y Col'/Ijvfci�vn. 5( 3C 1- 2 C z W U cc W a 10 z . W IL O 5 to W cc 3 0 O v 2 W H 3 1 RUNOF /li ANN FAME W4 W, A W21111111 WW.A Moslem 1MVANVAIn I�1W1 �111/A11�W,■■►1611�f�lM=���■■■■� �I��I/�►I ■/.II I WJI I•■MEEM■■■■� ►�����■11 ■I ��I/II M ■���■■■■� ■WI ■I/■I,2■II�I/III■■■■■■■■■� 5 1 s •5 1' r' '2 ' 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5 -1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT No Text No Text No Text Lidstone & Anderson. Inc. OWNER —PR J BY DATE J NO. klincl miI —10-,m 6ere9 CLD /- 18 - jqq4 COTSr(8• I FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF D15c(4 of DPS n T6,45 a lon A t I {Pond load' - De5,gr, I^btnf 14 (H,II cnd eorad a+ 611gelej Way, SaoAea3� Corner) It-,bv6l h-req (inScbb,36m B) = 3,11ecre5 Tcif41 #re., (tn 5ubb sin B) = lZ3acre5 �Subbasi.� g (g-yr) "1Ct5 la•3 SUbi7d51n g CI00-y/) Qioo 1a� 3'g l (Sv• �c�� , llo, ! cfs la•3 De5,gn Po.nf lb (9111 Pond (toad 0+ 5tivC cOvr f � SoJW 5i Corner) l 5c Qg 1 01ov for D.A. 1 �a (H�sb) = Icl•Ocfs Q,co (DAB b) _ 50, 7 cf5 43.& a5 (From Shields 50 = 54 3 rA D?51yn P014 as (fl,ll find Road4 6dgaW wAy, No, Aea4 Corner) 'I rlbvfarlr {}iea (Idtii,ln S�bhnyt� D)= 0.5uue5 to+al area Wibia 5abbasta D) = a,0acie5 �5✓ux",,, D (g'1� S�hbi,5 n C (a yr) (D• aa) : 6,5 a (33tccs) t (s,1Ck) = (,• CFS QIDO (D. P au) - b s (�a,s ��) .� (99.41Cf5) a.o -Qle5,yr,Pom+ ab (NIII Paid �oad 6L' 5h10,e (ov4, Nolgea5�Corner) Tr,bAc-q Pori (1k1,4a SuumoD)= 0-85acres 7o+6,1 f}rCG (J�iI iA S,*ba51n A) _ 4-0 acre5 Qa (D.A.ab = ba (33)cr,) = cf� 1 Ld�tone & Andeison. Inc. Wa X•w . w 4. .r•. m ew.Mr• Wivdfrnil TDwrl Homr 5 1 CL1� I I-18-19gq I COTSTIS, t FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF Di5etomeA+br51gn 1bIn45 1-410ng N,IlPortd %lout{• pe5itin Pan+ ac (H,U Pbnd Pond , kle5f -D� 5Wowtmere C�, Nor A5tde� i�, bvfc,�y Rrea (04,rn Soblxsln b = 1,15 acre? TDtul gmn (w,f6i 5ublgw5iriD = a,o Acres 1,1 S (3 3 ��� (SSc(�� : 7,.7cf5 a- QIoo (D. ac� - ?rD (�a,sc ) ; 09, 6cA) = aq,8 cfs Des�n Pc%,4 ad (Bill +end Road ai- eJje of.-geiveMrn+ (Fa4of5hcJo wo-e 6)) Tribufary Hareu = Sublxotn $ +5ob6,-tstrn C f 1)7 -acr65 wiAtn 5JbIX45tn D = U,3ctc+4,5ac F1•S ae- 18,3 �icrc5, iJbxiSM � J�6(/i.l � N/�J✓1 Y Layr (4 P. 3b) = l qtn �hr LIaoye,Pb-PI) QA (D ad) _ (0,61) (1.5in1hr) (iB.?cwes) = 2� a C�5 or.shelAs51 Qloo CDPad�. (a,�1�jU,as)(S.$) (I3• ac, : 74.7 Cf5 t 3,4c,4 = 80,3c45 1 L �dstone & nndelson. Inc. W.I. ".. W ff. w w C.~. WNER—PROJECT BY DATE PROJECT NO. \Jjlrao-TP-A). P.U., SR 1a,3 1q.7 Co- nT-18. EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF E1ze6 (A,PA_crrIF-5 CAD Ici-S-Ig93 a I it TNEoeETtc� ST¢E[T 2F_GUCF o CA pp,c Foli CA eompr��n � actual evhe4 �tSc�tG� g� �o - reAuceJ 5+re4 0U�U<<ly , -pleule j� 4e ✓eflr+o Tubb 313 ✓e�o�. SLoPF_ cAPacIr� 100 - YR (t=uu) CEs 2��cTl�ry FACT02 lr� 1,00 - v re"GFS Cis res ti•� lallS o.5o Z.3 !ov-�5 o. qs 6.7 t84 o.so S.y I'17 a9? r1.7 I8� -o. go 5.4 1'19 O. GLI 5.5 152 0-So u.y IZZ I TwLi(ato le & Andeison. hic. 01ndfrarl Twn6me5 1-I13-149q 0157-18•1 FEATURE a CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF (OD-yv,- S+w4 b6cl Ame rl{%1f 5 rg I a 11 - I�il{ ►�ore1 �up Easi'af �ilgalad Way Qloo (bc{orc rrn lcl5) Lb cf� (D,R 1a $ o1a> ��peca�xu jy?rt�nrnl2f (15"okcP, 5=044j.) : �+of-ppehJ,x D / for P-pe5iz,n,) CGIw (u{7w�� Q i ,0�3 3,8c-f5 Qloo (Jftermkl ) = yl, Sc(; - 3,8cr-5 = 38o cFs - Hrll Bond Road E�a5+ t>C Shrre Covrf Qloo (beforc rnlek) = 80, 0cf5 (D-A 1b +ab) Pipe frv,n rnl?+5 (A"oRc1', 5,a,q%) Qc fora Qloo (af4ei m (4) : SD, O ef5 - /413CA = &517 45 - Bill 1Poocl Road Fw4 o(- %Jov mere Coot% 010o (before M{cf5) = 80,3a(5 (D,"P, a8) Pipe capac(-� irl S+orrn5ewr (d7"ORCP, 5=b,4So1 Q= ,,q63 �a-a5)s/5 (,00LI)l14 = I�j,locfS ,00 Q,00 = 80,3c(s - 151,Gcf� -- (n0,7cfs �aaC-G ✓� (Qcup : 14 7ciG ✓) (Qc,p ; 60, 75cf5 ✓) tA wnw •.rw.0 w 4.rw.NJ GwMnn. meld frc,, I CLh I 9 - 9 CoiST/CcJ�' FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 9 ! I n Sv��vrhn�, �alr��(c IorI rU✓� I , 0en-�o - kai rO 1 Me�l•�� r� 3 it b,ab Z.4 = 15064 5c, _ /. 070 ( Jla S linrci S x::e) 7JCCGhi' � Cie fe5 Loc: /0041 t F- H,SGripS L or- = Bob'-( 5 op: L E 3cc FP ; 5c, = 6,cl% ; 5f reef Fk,,j 5 Jbbci5(n F?= a•D. acres (F�,��:'; � o,asa� ; A;�r.��,.�y�.135ac� + (1.35)�b•4o� _ 01 7 / I 9.0 L OF = SbP ; 5p� = aYSo L c = g5bff ; I� 5� j S4�Prfi 5Jbbci5fn E F SA Gr re5 (h,w;.,5) 47ae ; R(ooe,) c 0, 7ac) L of of =190 L G ,L)bbclSin R = 8,a acre5 C. = C40 L or-;: 375•F4 Le, _ (000ff f 5oF= 8% j SF -- •0.$5o � (7ro5S Linecl S vl e 1 VI. REFERENCES 1. Engineering Professionals, Inc., March 1988. "Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan". ' Prepared for the City of Fort Collins. 2. Lidstone & Anderson, Inc., January, 1994. "Preliminary Drainage Report for the Windtrail P.U.D.". Prepared for City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3. National Flood Insurance Program, July 16, 1979. "Flood Insurance Rate Map for the ' City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Community Number 080102, Panel Number 0003 and 0004". U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance ' Administration. 4. RBD, Inc., February, 1987. "Drainage Report for the Centre for Advance Technology ' S.I.D." 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, September 1990. "HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles". 1 1 1 1 26 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS FOR THE WINDTRAEL P.U.D. STD —ET CAPAc3rY REDVC� G i%C TQIZS BaI, i 1 ' MAY 1984 W 9 0 7 3 2 rlsl06°/ F= 0.8 I-N F-0.5 I I BELOW ALLOWABLE STREET MINIMUM GRADE I 411 .0 0 a _ 2 .4 6 8 10 12 14 d o SLOPE OF GUTTER (%) Figure 4-2 REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain allowable gutter capacity. (From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, 1965) 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. TYPICAL STREET SECTION. 98.57, 2 137.43, 2 98. 0.39 118, 0.45 137.4 , 0.39 10 .17. o. 83, 011 1 ,o 90 100 9 110 120 130 140 150 * HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES '* * Version 4.6.0; February 1991 * *' w * RUN DATE 03DEC93 TIME 07:53:26 xx,fRR*#w*wfw##wwR**#fxfff,f„w#R#*wwwfxw#w, t 03DEC93 07:53:27 ' HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 2-YR Ev5Nr CUR6 FULL CAPACITIES x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx #fR*R#f#f,#R#*R#f,#f##RRR*R*R#f#f#ffR*f ' U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER ' ' 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D ' * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687 ' * (916) 756-1104 ##www:wwwrwww#wwrw*wrwwfwwwww#wwwwwww:w PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 03DEC93 07:53:27 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 IT2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 2-YR DEPTH (CURB FULL) LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. T3 SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR SHADOWMERE CT.) ,J1 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 WSEL FO 2 0 0.0040 .50 112 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE t -7 02 T 4 4.6 6.7 6.7' C 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1 X1 1 6 98.58 118.01 GR 2 98.58 0.39 98.59 #R 2 118.01 03DEC93 07:53:27 - 5.5 0.3 10 10 10 0 100.00 0.11 101.17 0.45 118.00 PAGE 2 D SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB 0CH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR [TRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 1.000 .39 .39 .00 .50 .44 .05 .00 4.6 .0 4.6 .0 .0 2.7 .0 .0 00 .00 1.73 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .003981 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 03DEC93 07:53:27 jlT1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 T2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 2-YR DEPTH (CURB FULL) LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. �T3 SLOPE=0.95 PERCENT (BETWEEN SHIRE COURT AND SHADOWMERE CT.) J1 ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 3 1 0.0095 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 1 2 -1 - 03DEC93 07:53:27 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ' SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR [TRIAL IDC 1CONT CORAR *PROF 2 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 1.000 .39 .39 .40 .50 .49 .11 .00 6.7 .0 6.7 .0 .0 2.6 .0 .0 .00 .00 2.62 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 009432 0. 0. 0. 0 15 6 .00 03DEC93 07:53:27 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 T2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 2-YR DEPTH (CURB FULL) LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. T3 SLOPE=0.97 PERCENT (BETWEEN SHIRE CT AND SHADOWMERE CT) i OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.59 16.61 115.20 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.60 16.28 114.88 155/1 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 11 ICHECK ING NINV ID1R STRT METRIC HVINS 0 1 4 1 _L009.7 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 1 3 1 1 03DEC93 07:53:27 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 3 'CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 1.000 .39 .39 .40 .50 .49 .11 .00 6.7 .0 6.7 .0 .0 2.5 .0 .0 .00 .00 2.64 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .009625 0. 0. 0, 0 15 6 .00 1 03DEC93 07:53:27 IT1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 T2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 2-YR DEPTH (CURB FULL) LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. T3 SLOPE=0.64 PERCENT (WEST OF SHIRE CT.) 1 ICHECK 1NG NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 5 0 0.0064 �12 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 15 -1 ' 03DEC93 07:53:27 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR PROF 4 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 I*SECNO 1.000 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM [TRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.61 16.21 114.82 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ]TRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST PAGE 6 PAGE 7 PAGE 8 1.000 .39 .39 .00 .50 .46 .07 .00 .00 2.00 5.5 .0 5.5 .0 .0 2.6 .0 .0 .0 2.00 00 .00 2.15 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .00 98.60 .006354_ 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 16.28 114.88 03DEC93 07:53:27 PAGE 9 THIS RUN EXECUTED 03DEC93 07:53:31 HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 i*ii#w***i***iri#wr*****i*ifiii#rr*rr NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 i SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10*KS VCH AREA .01K 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.60 .39 .00 .44 39.81 1.73 2.67 .73 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 6.70 .39 .40 .49 94.32 2.62 2.56 .69 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 6.70 .39 .40 .49 96.25 2.64 2.54 .68 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.50 .39 .00 .46 63.54 2.15 2.56 .69 1 . 03DEC93 07:53:27 THEo¢KErIG�I MLLEI OVZ Cu R6HE14NT CP.PAtkT1ES I:02 PAGE 10 SLAPEs = O.00L( FT/FT SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR 0.0095 0. Oo't 7 0.00(P4 SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKSS TOPWID XLCH ' 1.000 4.60 .39 .00 .00 -.11 16.61 .00 1.000 6.70 .39 -.01 .00 -.11 16.28 .00 1.000 6.70 .39 .00 .00 -.11 16.21 .00 1.000 5.50 .39 .00 .00 -.11 16.28 .00 03DEC93 07:53:27 PAGE 11 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES *ffrt##wfi*t##wfift*t*rt#*ft*i*ifw#rt#*fififi#t lOa'�f LQ/ �/(�1� * * HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES * 5W4 eapauf�e5 * # Version 4.6.0; February 1991 # * RUN DATE 181AN94 TIME 10:08:46 '###fi*t##rt#kwtwtrt#wfwfftt##rtrtwftffftt##wft*t X X xxxxxxx xxxxx XXXXX 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 1 18JAN94 10:08:46 rtrt*#i*tftrt##i*tft*rt#rt#wfffifw#rt**f*ft HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 ***#trtrtf*f*####rt#*f*f*##rt#rt#*fiff#i#rt T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 NT2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 100-YR DEPTH (6" OVER CROWN) LIDSTONE & ANDERSON T3 SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR SHADOWMERE CT.) J1 ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 2 0 0.0040 F2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 1 1 02 4 121.5 184 186 152 'OT NC 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1 0.3 X1 1 9 98.57 137.43 10 10 10 2 98.57 0.39 98,58 0 100.00 0.11 11R GR 0.11 134.83 0 136.00 0.39 137.42 2 1 18JAN94 10:08:46 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL iffrt#rt##ffrt#*f#ifwrt#*#***f#rt#*#i#i*#rt## * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687 * (916) 756-1104 ##tft####**t##rt#wfft*#rt###t*t#t*###ww#t PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 10:08:46 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE 101.17 0.45 118.00 137.43 OLOSS L-BANK ELEV PAGE 2 13 9/11 0 OL08 OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 1 ,CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 1.000 .95 .95 .00 .50 1.27 .32 .0( 121.5 .0 121.5 .0 .0 26.9 .0 ( .00 .00 4.51 .00 .000 .016 .000 .00( 004006 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 OC 18JAN94 10:08:46 1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 100-YR DEPTH (611OVER CROWN) LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, T3 SLOPE=0.95 PERCENT (BETWEEN SHIRE COURT AND SHADOWMERE CT.) �1 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 3 1 0.0095 112 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 2 -1 1 18JAN94 10:08:46 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL '0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 2 �CHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 1.000 .95 .95 1.14 .50 1.69 .74 .00 184.0 .0 184.0 .0 .0 26.7 .0 .0 .00 .00 6.90 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .009515 0. 0. 0. 0 20 6 .00 181AN94 10:08:46 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 12 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 100-YR DEPTH (6" OVER CROWN) LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON 3 SLOPE=0.97 PERCENT (BETWEEN SHIRE CT AND SHADOWMERE CT) 1 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.58 38.85 137.42 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.58 38.85 137.42 WSEL F0 a PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 1 4 1 .0.0097 �J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 3 -1 18JAN94 10:08:46 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL D GLOB DCH GROB ALOB ACH ARDS VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR (TRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR I*PROF 3 �CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 1.000 .95 .95 1.15 .50 1.70 .76 OC 186.0 .0 186.0 .0 .0 26.7 .0 C .00 .00 6.98 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .009715 0. 0. 0. 0 .20 6 .00 18JAN94 10:08:46 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 1T2 FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 100-YR DEPTH (6" OVER CROWN) LIDSTONE & ANDERSON 3 SLOPE=0.64 PERCENT (WEST OF SHIRE CT.) J1 ICHECK ING N1NV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 5 1 0.0064 2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 15 -1 1 ' 18JAN94 10:08:46 'SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 OLOS OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 4 1CHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 ' 1.000 .95 .95 1.04 .50 1.45 .50 .00 .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.58 38.85 137.42 WSEL FD .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 PAGE 6 PAGE 7 PAGE 8 152.0 .0 152.0 .0 .0 26.8 .0 .0 .0 2.00 .00 .00 5.68 .00 .000, .016 .000 .000 .00 98.58 006410 0. 0. 0. 0 17 6 .00 38.85 137.42 18JAN94 10:08:46 PAGE 9 THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 10:08:46 rrrrxrrrrxrxrxrxrxxrxxxrrxrxrxrxrxrxr HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 rrrrrxrxrxrxrxrxrxxrxrxrrrrxrrrxrxxxr . NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 6 nail SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10*KS VCH AREA OlK 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 121.50 .95 .00 1.27 40.06 4.51 26.94 19.20 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 184.00 .95 1.14 1.69 95.15 6.90 26.66 18.86 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 186.00 .95 1.15 1.70 97.15 6.98 26.66 18.87 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 152.00 .95 1.04 1.45 64.10 5.68 26.76 18.98 Gi1 d►[/C/OvJ/1 ', 18JAN94 10:08:46 Full 5fat� 60pc(� fog lov-fe6re evchf Cc-(s) PAGE 10 SLOPE=0.4 PERCENT (NEAR rSUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 ' SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH 1.000 121.50 .95 .00 .00 .45 38.85 .00 ' 1.000 184.00 .95 -.01 .00 .45 38.85 .00 1.000 186.00 .95 .00 .00 .45 38.85 .00 1.000 152.00 .95 .00 .00 .45 38.85 .00 18JAN94 10:08:46 ' SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES PAGE 11 tFSYNC;8bFSYNC;abFSYNC; 19JAN94 'xx###rt#*wrt*txx##rt**wwttxx######w*wrtwrt HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES 'Version 4.6.0; February 1991 txt*wt##*rt*w*t*twt###*wit*twtwtt###*# 15:40:47 -3Niq , our H66-4 Ao(ob(btA 41u(pi-5 on Nil( pond QcJ. G4-56-e N. +oen5ore 4q+ - (Ow does m4 e4c,- SKIRT Coo1e7. �T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 T2 SHIRE COURT CROSSPAN ANALYSIS 100-YR ACTUAL DEPTH LIDSTONE & ANDERSON IT3 SLOPE=0.67% HILL POND ROAD, NORTH HALF AT SHIRE COURT J1 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 2 1 0.0067 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV 1 -1 0100 1OT 1 27.9 NC 0.016 0.016 0.016 1 5 60.4 �X1 GR 7.50 77.0 6.98 51va-0. Algk a ink 19JAN94 15:40:47 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CR1WS 0 OLOB OCH OROB TIME VLOB VCH VROB ' SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR I*PROF 1 XSECH FN ALLDC IBW THIS RUN EXECUTED .19JAN94 15:40:47 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE 0.1 0.3 118.0 10 10 10 97.0 6.93 100.0 6.98 103.0 7.34 WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 1.000 CROSS SECTION 1.00 EXTENDED .04 FEET �280 Ice.y. WSGL . :. No 046" +pp inl 1.000 .45 7.38 7.39 .50 7.52 .14 .00 27.9 .0 17.6 10.3 .0 5.6 3.7 .0 .00 .00 3.11 2.76 .000 .016 .016 .000 .006663 0. 0. 0. 0 45 7 .00 .00 7.50 .0 6.98 6.93 81.60 38.40 120.00 120.0 PAGE 2 19JAN94 15:40:47 PAGE 3 rrxxwwxwwxwxrxrxrxrxrrxrxrxrrxrxrwwrr THIS RUN EXECUTED 19JAN94 15:40:48 HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 rrwrwwwwrrxrxrxrxx:wrwwrrrxrrrrrxrxrx NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST SLOPE=0.67% HILL POND R SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10*KS VCH AREA 0lK 1.000 .00 .00 .00 6.93 27.90 7.38 7.39 7.52 66.63 3.11 9.38 3.42 19JAN94 15:40:47 PAGE 4 'SLOPE=0.67% HILL POND R ' SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH 1.000 27.90 7.38 .00 .00 6.88 38.40 .00 r19JAN94 15:40:47 PAGE 5 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES 19JAN94 16:24:09 wrrwt*txexxxxwwr#w#wxetefefxffwwrrw*w HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 #*#f#txwxwww*f#f#f#wwww#w#w#ff#tifitf 59ADW - o0T NEC-.2 f o+, 5ha�o�mtie C4. 4D Ac.f fop) In rbf ' T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 11/30/1993 T2 SHADOWMERE CT. CROSSPAN ANALYSIS 100-YR ACT. DEPTH LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON T3 ' SLOPE=0.4411 HILL POND ROAD, FULL STREET AT SHADOWMERE COURT J1 ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS G ' 2 0 0.0044 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 0100 lGT 1 60.7 NC 0.060 0.060 0.016 0.1 0.3 1 9 35.0 139.4 10 10 10 'X1 GR 5.44 35.0 4.90 97.0 4.85 100.0 4.90 GR 4.90 136.83 4.79 138.0 5.18 139.4 5.68 ' 56J"t/l 01• 411h Poldf. 19JAN94 16:24:09 SECNO DEPTH G GLOB ' TIME VLOB SLOPE XLOBL PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= tSECNO 1.000 1.000 .55 60.7 .0 ' 00 10 .004396 10.. PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 19JAN94 16:24:09 WSEL FO 5.50 CHNIM ITRACE 103.0 5.24 164.4 CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV GCH GROB ALOE ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST .300 No o✓0vpp► n y. / 5.34 .00 5.50 5.44 .10 .00 .00 5.44 60.5 .2 .0 24.1 .6 .0 .0 5.18 2.51 .31 .000 .016 .060 .000 4.79 46.44 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 100.98 147.42 120.0 PAGE 2 1 19JAN94 16:24:09 PAGE 3 THIS RUN EXECUTED 19JAN94 16:24:09 ##*x******#######*x*#*#*#*#####x#*xxx HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 ,NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 'SLOPE=0.44% HILL POND R ,SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 ' SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10*KS VCH AREA .01K 1.000 .00 .00 .00 4.79 60.70 5.34 .00 5.44 43.96 2.51 24.79 9.15 19JAN94 16:24:09 PAGE 4 'SLOPE=0.44% HILL POND R 'SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKSS TOPWID XLCH 1.000 60.70 5.34 .00 .00 -.16 100.98 .00 ' 19JAN94 16:24:09 PAGE 5 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES I 11 I ' APPENDIX C CURB INLET HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1 I [1 1 L�d�lone & Anderson_ Inc. r.u. •.wwo .w m�.....w e.wr,ru `+JItvpTRfkIL I?U0 SA 12 i 93 I CO-TST-I`A•1 FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF C,jPI3 INLET 7FSIGrI �LD 1a-5-q3 I lI0 INLET A70, A L:ESIho 7'o.I,-r Zg ( Z)/% DP=Z INCIUDIN( gtlNpFF F2oM i lE UPP.l PACT OF D y ON G¢A�,-E FILET Z-W- P\C'TUAL ` !%C`-+ACI: CfS --op ZYV 'c'VE0T (6,5cbai5e6t+b.R ab = T 3c15 ivy a -yea. eve„t) RF\DvC.E .—� C U;z cAPAc (T� = y • N C <S LOM,ITUp,.9\Z Sl6pc o 0.00(04f rrlcr C0,05s 51oPF, Sx = p •oz rTjFs In = O N (o CuI2G Ne1c H- = 0.39 PClUAL CZ ' .)(QEF05 CA?/ ( ITj' 3Y Z 3 cFS q+b,P. as 9,9 eF-5 a+ D,a. ab "rO�Gv/OTH or i'La �- = /7 rT �F�'o r, #FC z ,'�.k7°��v?L :-_=-.y Ar.rA(Ys�s��ggC qll&) t%Er'1 r o G FLo J, co ,, = 0, y ( FQa- i/Ec-Z) JJ SEE t30M042A?f-1 %G Z/ IPco,jolo/`% FNoge (PA 5-8 SOOC MGYnG FoR AN B FT INLET (0.53)(6,-7)(0,05) = 3,9 cfs 1 GL — I here4Ce : the o,i 8-{oc+onq fore rrief ,,f D,?. as (NE eo(,Ier Of 611y414a WaV on Hdl Mond (ZJ) Tn order--o reAxe dnrj( , ye fomee� cejfe✓(u of A,A. a b. 1=oe A 10 FT rN(.iT� q 0.63 bL = D L>3 ((-,'1)(0.85i = 3• is CF5 foC Al 12 ET INLET O -0.69, => ©i = 0.6Q i6.'7)(0.85) _ 3.4 CFS G7 No Text L tcfbtonc & nndcrson. Inc. M«« e.wnn.. w 4.11wN.U1 Cw.MwU i�rnt"(ark I�U,D . CAD 12 I rM eoT57- 10,1 EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF Curb � n W ! miclrl 3 I in cr' Det(in P>,r+ aC Longr %#v%l5loec OjOO`I e(m5 51cfe = 0,oa n= va1& ewb herghf= ojW F4, Subbas n C Tnieng4ed by f n lei G at D.P. aQ a-yeardfSc�Cv9e = 5,`IriS r I,Scfs - 5,OcfS = 4,7c�S '�bubba�rn li+Iibu}o,�}ehle� (arm wegM}ed� eekced 5+reed co, C I C�5 IopwlAft, o-- -(oi = Ib•7ti From dec-a MorMal Dee k hint i-3, eto /b ^e((IJr%ed Ir�e�ce��lon = y,�cf5 - 2,3cfs t I.Nc�S (IorQl,n�i�D�5o�lnle�') 3.aefs See Norno jrgp For an S-{oaE rfl(d ror G 10 4:11-4 In(e% O.ci Qi = (0,ID) (!'i•7cfs) (0,85) i No Text i ffw.,. A... w �..Y.r•MN cw••YW. ffw.,. A... w �..Y.r•MN cw••YW. WNER-PROJECT W iNQ TRAIL P.IJ.1 BY SAH DATE 1z 1 93 PROJECT NO. CO- TST- 1$,1 EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF CU-G INIFr Zr1LET Z}� DESI(rN PorrVT 1b LOr,4. TgoIrn1AL 5LDPE = O•oo95 fl/rT C-17o5S SLOPE = O.oZo FT�( r o = o • 0 %(o Cu?1: F1i • L Y2 Q = jy,0 C�ovm 591(e Cf., 50bbailn 3) c.. U_7o CUQa C.NQ PRcI _ 7-.3 Req�rredln�-eicepf�onc' • I`IOc{5- $,`/cis �.GC�S_. To w � K _ IgF �- Frem HEC•a No.malbepfk AmlySls, 5ee �e 11Ap DrPTH o.Ll � rr = ti 5._. rrcv�� 4Fc�F'y P4 11 / ror C4 la r INLET CJ: = 0.59 = o.�9 (I`i'�10.65) _ �.a cps 0 rof .I(n' INLGl Q�/a = lJ,(c(a ai, 0,&G �IN�Cv�go) _ ��3 c 's fore ei0 INLET 'gala = 0,-7 0,14 (14) (0,10) = q,3 4s wk No Text L �clslone & Aiida son. Inr.. Mqw IIwM••• W �xYww,M CrMW V.111WTRAI R U. i--) s IZ / 93 CO -isT - /9.I EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF C UPT INLET DES 1C1N 7 b 1-0NCI fTUOfN L sLOGE - O. =L( F71ir Qes> >LCPC 0.0Z T/FT Y-) -- 0. CW1m cuc_ �-IT = 39 �D+tJeA by L�le4 2 Reduced s+iee%c4paa%j = Z.3eFs TbrwlpTlr - 1 Ft _Aja,%gfC-J#161YSG J2equ'(-,Ki lnVcrceo 611 q.7 -Z.3 t o.Sy kO Fr j Sec pole t2/u. 1 = Z. 9 crrr K FT INLF = D.3�{ G;,; FT I NLt_T (� - �,i9J �; O.tas7.�I•, �U .GJs J a iFS Lx IZ FT INLET 0 = 0.73 q� = D.��(y.l�(o.85� = Z.9 (F-s VsE A 12' 1NLP-T No Text tFSYNC; 18JAN94 13:07:50 966-9 Normal DeP-l� &(fl)(5 �o�a-yeaiexi5{7n� Con�i�lvn5 �wwwwwrrwrr:wrwwwwwwrrrrrrr:wrwwwwrwww HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 rrrrwwwwwwwwwrwwrrwwwwwwwwrwwwwwrwrr ti WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- INLET 1A ANALYSIS 1/18/1994 T2 ACTUAL 2-YEAR FLOW DEPTH FOR INLET SIZING LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. ,T3 SLOPE=0.64 PERCENT (DESIGN POINT 2A) J1 ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 2 0 0.0064 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 02 T 4 6.7 4.7 8.6 4.7 NC 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1 0.3 t1 1 6 98.58 118.01 10 10 10 R 2 98.58 0.39 98.59 0 100.00 0.11 GR 2 118.01 18JAN94 13:07:50 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XL08L XLCH XLOSR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 Depth 1.000 .41 .41 .00 .50 .49 .08 .00 6.7 .0 6.7 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 00 .00 2.26 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .006382 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 13:07:50 WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE 101.17 0.45 118.00 OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.59 17.47 116.06 -�7opWldfh G/i& PAGE 1 PAGE 2 18JAN94 13:07:50 1 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- INLET 2C ANALYSIS 1/18/1994 �T2 ACTUAL 2-YEAR FLOW DEPTH FOR INLET SIZING LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. T3 SLOPE=0.40 PERCENT (DESIGN POINT 2C) 111 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 3 0 0.0040 'J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 2 -1 18JAN94 13:07:50 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR *PROF 2 ■CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 Depth 1.000 .40 .40 .00 .50 .44 .05 .00 4.7 .0 4.7 .0 .0 2.7 .0 .0 .00 .00 1.74 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .003983 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 r i r �i WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.59 16.74 115.33 \ TopW -91 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 18JAN94 13:07:50 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- INLET 28 ANALYSIS 1/18/1994 IT2 ACTUAL 2-YEAR FLOW DEPTH FOR INLET SIZING LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. T3 SLOPE=0.95 PERCENT (DESIGN POINT 1B) J1 ICHECK ING NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 . 4 0 0.0095 ,J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 3 -1 18JAN94 13:07:50 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 'D QLOB OCH GROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR I*PROF 3 tCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 y� 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMEDDepl 1 1.000 .44 .44 .44 .50 .53 .09 .00 8.6 .0 8.6 .0 .0 3.5 .0 .0 .00 .00 2.47 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .006822 10. 10. 10. 0 15 0 .00 WSEL - FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.59 18.88 \117.47 lop wOff, PAGE 5 PAGE 6 IN& 18JAN94 13:07:50 1 T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- INLET 2D ANALYSIS 1/18/1994 �T2 ACTUAL 2-YEAR FLOW DEPTH FOR INLET SIZING LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. 3 SLOPE=0.40 PERCENT (DESIGN POINT 1) �J1 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 5 0 0.0040 �2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW 15 1 1 18JAN94 13:07:50 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL 0 OLDS 0CH OROB ALOE ACH AROB VOL TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR PROF 4 tCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 Dew, 1.000 .40 .40 .00 .50 .44 .05 .00 4.7 .0 4.7 .0 .0 2.7 .0 .0 .00 .00 1.74 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .003983 10. 10. 10. 0 0 6 .00 r r r r r r WSEL FO .50 CHNIM ITRACE OLOSS L-BANK ELEV TWA R-BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID ENDST .00 2.00 .0 2.00 .00 98.59 16.74 115.33 Tvp Wlcl4h PAGE 7 PAGE 8 18JAN94 13:07:50 PAGE 9 �w«rrrrrrwrw«www«wrwrwrwr:rrrrwrwrwrw« THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 13:07:50 HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 wrwrrrrrrrrwrwww«w«w«r«rrrrrwrwrrrwrr NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10*KS VCH AREA 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 6.70 .41 .00 .49 63.82 2.26 2.96 1.000 .00 .00 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.70 8.60 .40 .44 .00 .44 .44 .53 39.83 1.74 68.22 2.47 2.71 3.48 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.70 .40 .00 .44 39.83 1.74 2.71 18JAN94 13-:07:50 PAGE 10 (MKARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH r1.000 6.70 .41 .00 .00 -.09 17.47 .00 1.000 4.70 .40 -.01 - .00 -.10 16.74 .00 1.000 8.60 .44 .04 .00 -.06 18.88 .00 1.000 4.70 .40 -.04 .00 -.10 16.74 .00 18JAN94 13:07:50 PAGE 11 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES RAUTION SECNO= 1.000 PROFILE= 3 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED .01K .84 .74 1.04 .74 1 Lidalone & Anderson. Inc. M.M �. W .Mr. w EW..Yr. DATE Trile- Tnkf #1q (North encl oT SHlie Cf•� 5omp Coed -61, Qa= l,eclf'S 62,OJ _ �,0&f5 RowabIt fl wclepfh d jr : 0,39 F4 (+o-po-r curb) I00-yr =6,51 C4 (bvk a wa(k, flow 15con44lntJ wAin 5ufparea) heilhf d openin9: 6,5-P — a -year inl of Cal cvle, I OA5 ; Yo /h , dl3glo,5 = 0178 See /omoyraph , paye aAz 0,-7 8 cfs / ff For e4I-('wA m1d ; a = (0,78A/R) (�faf) (0,0) = a,SCT5 ✓ q to k 4--a-y,- - IDc7-yr inlef ecdcoka o 5 yo Ih , �,S/o•so = I,aa See nomograph I pdk9e / P P Fora 4-f«rflnlef 61- (1,1 cr,510) Wed) (bi8� = 3,5 ct5 - no+Soffieie4, For an S-GLA 166 Q: (1,1 CF5/o) (8fed) (0185) - 1,SefS t/ v'ok br 100-yr• Use an 0-foo+ e0rb role+ fo eonvey bA ie Pt cinj 100- year d l5cl►n . Gnd Tvd,4 4 1B 1.0 -- 12 5 10 4 9 II 8 3 10 6 .8 4- 2 9 � 4 � i i��� 8 w i 1.5 a L 10 6 7 et � w P v e,- z 1.0 5 p e Part a I.0 z .9 J w 5.5 o D.7g o 8 .6 w 5 i z 0 7 U .4 z w '4 = 6 z ' — z 0 4.5 3 w U. _ 4 r 0 2 0 .5 0 0 z z 0 r w '3 3.5 w w 4 a n, .0 a_ w ow 0 .08 .25 3 t- p .06 (D .3 ' _ = 0 z c� w w w Cr .04 Cr .25 = 2.5 = w w ' 2 ° .03 a r � F- a .02 0 .2 a 2 U CL 15 0 .15 -.01 0 0 ya 1.5 --- -- - -- -- a a-2h .10 I 1.2 Figure 5-2 NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2- Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA I% n L;dMonc & Anderson. Inc. W.I. Mti . W b.�w CM�. WNER—PROJECT BY DA-r PROJECT N0. W(r irad -P,U,b. CAD la -I -11q CoT5T Isl I EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF Zn 0 ']De5iI YI I ,� b 1 � In let 113 (544 end &( 5Wo�nere Cf � S)mp (pn�fion G'A= a,A ifs (1j wo-- �,q L�5 f }Ilwo,61e floc 1bep�h a-yr - 0,31 P (lop 0� curb) IDd-yam =d,51 �4 (kbckof Hulk, f lwts eon4-nwA mfhItOe 5u p vea) Flellkf o� opentri, = o,5 Pf . wlef eal eokhov j Vo 1 h _ (;" ,50 = b,76 62 /L = 0,78 d-5 /f� F�rQtiP-40vji,l4, 0- (0,70C-sIP)(6-P)(Q16S): 5.3cf,5 ✓6'1nle�okfla-jr - loo-yeGt- rule ee;jCL)6h0n5. I yolk = QISso- 1,09 0/L; 1,1 cf5p. Fr,run 6-4,oFIh(ef (e44) Ca,aS)- 76d; MMA ✓ S 'Irn ref A foi 100- yr: on I APPENDIX D PIPE HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1 1 I r I I I I I INITIAL PIPE DESIGN E1 I pi Li 1 Pi Lidstone & Anderson. Inc. W(NO TVAIL V.ID 5A4 1 12111rya Co-TYI-/?.� EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF H Y eAvuc PIPE C)i-S16" I. I I 1 ,3 PIPE �:,cpM INLET zA rotAH 5T5Lq Oz!rHEo\ — 3,ocT5/(0435) = 3,5c(5 A5-)V i"IE VN,m�,JM 5(.4)PF1 5 = 0.4 /p LENc,v4 ) L MANNm/V EOUAT 1OM SIMPLI:IEO F&f- Fit% t�Il-� T=p p �eF41 Q rj 136 _ /(3,5 0,013) \�: II V4 " 05c AYI 15 IIDIQ, ICC17 min= 0.110 PIPE ckpr, _ INL[T Zb ToM� S.TS:3 Qa (THEo) = q,3cf51 (0Ad) = to, 3cf( 05wrae /i7i mon slope , S= !. o; 5a Z- 17rey. - /(�0,3) (a.b13) �3/16 = 1-gi9 Use arl I3° Dict- RCP l(,q&5)5min% 1107o -P1rpetron M950T53 +o MO 5T5'I Ql)P51H,J= 3.S�f5+ In;3cf5 = 13,Scfs PSyJme m1mulum 51opc , 5 = U- q `o I; = Daq 63,00(6,013) 1 S - 0.7 P ; Use Na RCS (,'}G3�(o W43 see/ min = 0. 4-3v 1 Ld�lone & Anderson. Inc. h11NojQAIL 5AM I IZ I C'3 I Go-TST-)?,I FEATURE CHECKED BY I DATE SHEET OF 4- yDeipaLlc PIPE 9r--)lLIi1 1 1 Z 3 rlPt Fe6m IKLET mac- To Nli 0Z �y�oP� = 3,� C-fs /0;9 = qJ cf---7 L- = 3-, n 1 de,=� �4,a: (.C13i `�\ = i..a�'�'f � �5e A 1S Vlq, ►�Gf 463 5mm : 0,q �o ?i-qe From .Inlet 4 as 4o MY 5r5-1 Qa 6rlme0) = 219 cis A/f35� = 3, `i c,Fs 0100 L= Use a IS" a14. IPCa Sens(= D, 00 STS-1 5wale ov4le+. PI NE FeoM MN # c) 13.8c-r5 cFs 5 �� 0 - Lf L 3 Dkti I,�i '..0�31 1 = ar3o1 r f% Irer,d�e +v ewer Ilm+f4flon,, f 5m,n = 62-1010 ilm �(�vicec� tacc��ot �elr��et5 �ciJe�o itavc{7on �ac�ors� is Qa= 310c,41:i 5w5.r 5,$45 Ock L�ci�lone & nnde�son. Inc. � we.. 11...w.•. w 4.U....ao c«•.Mw. Uvyl4rm l'P,U.% . C`D ia- i-f9g3 evrS-n8,1 EATURE CHECKED BY --JDATE SHEET OF QrGollc-?Ie be5i h. 3 3 Pipe from To!et 1 P 'o 500tIe, 0100 = 6 G75 Nei r fee U52an �� 17ia•.P17S l 5M1n = Qr� /p O 'Pipe Prone Smell -�' 113 +o Svxle 6?foo = (o+q cis SIh ir1: 01410 C(ra��,vt1) 3Ag I,4 3 feU5e Gh 19 r I I I ' UDSEWER ANALYSIS (FINAL PIPE EVALUATION) I [1 lindtrail Townhomes Storm Sewer Anal. for Hill Pond Road COTST18.1 12-4-93 L&A Inc. CLD File: WIND-1.DAT 1 12 , 20 2 2 , 1 , .85 , 500 500 .2 , N 1 100 1.4 , 28.5 10 .786 13 '3 , 5001.1 0 1 , 34 , 0 , 0 , 0 L Oo+1e4 io SoAein Svatide 21.4 , 0, 18.8, .60, 0, 0, 0 0 0 4 , 5005.5 , 34 , 3 , 45 , 46, 47, 0 Mun hole 21.4, 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 5 , 5005.1 , 45 , 1 , 555, 0 , 0 , 0 Ihle Iq� 3.4 , 0, 18.8, .6 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 7 T �55, 5005.1 , 555, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0SY� 3.4 , 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 6 , 5005.4 , 46 , 1 , 656, 0 , 0 0 1 IQ # C 4.2 , 0, 18.8 ,"60 , 0, 0, 0 0 0 56,5005.4, 656, 0, 0, 0, 0 4.2 , 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 7 , 5006.1 , 47 , 1 , 78 , 0 , 0 0 �13.8, 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 0� M�nhde ST5 8 , 5006.7 , 78 , 2 , 89 ,810, 0 , o Mav�hole Sri -3 13.8, 0, 18.8, .60 , 0, 0, 0 0 0 9 , 5006.7 , 89 , 1 , 959, 0 , 0 , 0 'l l eta B 10.3, 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 59, 5006.7 , 959, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,0 I 10.3, 0 , 18.8, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 o , o In lei 1.05- 4a4- a3 10, 5007.8 , 810, 1 ,1011, 0 0 0 l�a/�hDle 5 "► 3.5, 0, 18.8, .60, 0, 0 0 0 0� 11, 5007.6 ,1011, 1 ,1162, 0 0 0 1 3.5 , 0 , 18.8, .60 0 0 0 0 0� �nlefaA 62, 5007.E ,1162, 0 0 0 0 L I' �/A 3.5 0 18.8, .66 --ro(4 L05 a0 0 0 0 0 0� T F2 4 ,315.0, 0.4, 5004.57 .013 ,0.05 0 , 1 27 , 0 — +?ipe -from 3 xll +o MN' I 45 ,30.0 , 0.4, 5003.89 , .013 ,1.00 , 0 , 1 , 15 , 0 — Pipe From MFI-I +, Snlef#AD 555 , 1 , 0.1, 5003.89 , .013 ,0.25 0 1 15 0—:4Tnitt L05-.Af $al) L6 ,10.0 , 0.4, 5003.81 .013 ,1.00 0 1 15 0 — P,pefroM Ms4-1 +o fKWOae 56 , 1 , 0.1, 5003.81 .013 ,0.25 0 1 15 0 — y Z IefLa55 a+$ae 47 ,132.8, 0.4, 5004.85 .013 ,0.08 , 0.25 1 24 , 0 — P,pe Born MFI-1 to MN Z F8 ,76.4 , 0.4, 5005.15 .013 ,0.08 0 1 24 o Plpe-Prom MH-9loMH-3 9 ,25.0 , 1.0, 5005.10 .013 ,1.00 0 1 18 0 — P,pe -Prom Mg-$fo Snl?4-MB 959 , 1 , 0.1, 5005.10 , .013 , 0.25 , 0 1 18 , 0--V�Snle+ LO5,5a+ # A B 10 ,201.6, 0.4, 5005.21 .013 ,0.08 0.25 1 15 0 — PVefiom M4-3+o Mu-4 1011, 5.0 , 1.0, 5005.46 , .013 ,1.00 0 1 15 0 — Pyc-Fron, M(N-� +D srile+4 AA 1162, 1 , 0.1, 5005.46 , .013 ,0.25 0 1 15 0 — 'i11I�2i�p55A7 $at3 1 - WIND-1.DAr la/mke-ad To-jrihoml5 llD5e,jlr %final o 1111 pond RMCsyS4(rn i 4/& --------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL 2-10-1993 DEVELOPED BY ' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH ' URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** EXECUTED BY LIDSTONE AND ANDERSON................................................... ON DATA 01-13-1994 AT TIME 14:37:53 * PROJECT TITLE Windtrait Townhomes Storm Sewer Anal. for Hill Pond Road r* RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN r* SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN 1 PEAK FLOW D NUMBER AREA * C -----"'------------'--------'--"------------------'------ To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) INCH/HR CFS 3.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 4.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 '5.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 55.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 490.60 0.30 3.40 6.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 56.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 372.59 0.37 4.20 ' 7.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 8.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 11,28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 '9.00 59.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 112.20 0.91 10.30 10.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 11.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 53.56 62.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 472.48 0.31 3.50 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES WZND-1.OUT Wncl f /aI l 1 aohonv5. L)Mewee- p+krilysl5 A II Pbrd goad 5y�ir;�1 3�Iro DENVER REGIONAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA WAS NOT USED TO CHECK �HE COMPUTATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION ** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION Wafe' 5u/face ----- MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 5teAehn, ije�wJ b� miwa(Je��A to 5waieGC 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.40 5001.10 5002.70 NO J'wIke Do leW, 4.00 0.00 490.74 0.00 21.40 5005.50 5003.05 OK ( / GM�fiO✓� ' 5.00 0.00 490.61 0.00 3.40 5005.10 5003.61 OK `�D�P�V���C 55.00 11.28 490.60 0.30 3.40 5005.10 5003.74 OK See 6.00 0.00 372.60 0.00 4.20 5005.40 5003.67 OK 56.00 11.28 372.59 0.37 4.20 5005.40 5003.82 OK 7.00 0.00 473.64 0.00 13.80 5006.10 5004.80 OK 8.00 0.00 473.40 0.00 13.80 5006.70 5005.07 OK 9.00 0.00 112.21 0.00 10.30 5006.70 5005.61 OK ' 59.00 11.28 112.20 0.91 10.30 5006.70 5005.75 OK 10.00 0.00 472.50 0.00 3.50 5007.80 5006.11 OK 11.00 0.00 472.48 0.00 3.50 5007.60 5006.25 OK 62.00 11.28 472.48 0.31 3.50 5007.60 5006.28 OK K MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION /� kycvaolic ArJeline 1 1�6k : Wciie# 5J/fG[C I,.) be ' ele�ahon afall ultonhUle� ,� �hlets. *** 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(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 34.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 27.92 30.00 27.00 0.00 45.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 14.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 55.00 5.00 ROUND 18.16 21.00 15,00 0.00 '555.00 46.00 6.00 4.00 ROUND 15.16 18.00 15.00 0.00 656.00 56.00 6.00 ROUND 19.66 21.00 15.00 0.00 47.00 7.00 4.00 ROUND 23.68 24.00 24.00 0.00 '78.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 23.68 24.00 24.00 0.00 89.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND 17.87 18.00 18.00 0.00 959.00 59.00 9.00 ROUND 27.52 30.00 18.00 0.00 10.00 8.00 ROUND 14.16 15.00 15.00 0.00 '810.00 1011.00 11.00 10.00 ROUND 11.92 12.00 15.00 0.00 1162.00 62.00 11.00 ROUND 18.36 21.00 15.00 0.00 'IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET IEQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. UGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, IXISITNG 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 CIS CIS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 34.0 21.4 19.6 2.25 5.38 1.59 7.11 5.38 0.00 V-OK 45.0 3.4 4.1 0.87 3.73 0.74 28.21 2.77 0.74 V-OK 555.0 3.4 2.0 1.25 2.77 0.74 4.48 2.77 0.00 V-OK 46.0 4.2 4.1 1.25 3.42 0.83 3.94 3.42 0.00 V-6K 656.0 4.2 2.0 1.25 3.42 0.83 4.87 3.42 0.00 V-OK 47.0 13.8 14.3 1.57 5.20 1.34 1.88 4.39 0.72 V-OK 78.0 13.8 14.3 1.57 5.20 1.34 6.19 4.39 0.72 V-OK 89.0 10.3 10.5 1.20 6.79 1.23 8.89 5.83 1.06 V-OK 959.0 10.3 3.3 1.50 5.83 1.23 6.64 5.83 0.00 V-OK 810.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 13.34 2.85 0.73 V-OK 1011.0 3.5 6.5 0.65 5.38 0.75 4.53 2.85 1.31 V-OK 1162.0 3.5 2.0 1.25 2.85 0.75 4.53 2.85 0.00 V-OK IROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS 1--------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM 1----------------- %------- (FT) (IT) (FT) (FT) 34.00 0.40 5002.32 5001.06 0.93 -2.21 NO 1 45.00 0.40 5002.64 5002.52 1.21 1.73 OK 555.00 0.10 5002.64 5002.64 1.21 1.21 OK 46.00 0.40 5002.56 5002.52 1.59 1.73 OK '656.00 0.10 5002.56 5002.56 1.59 1.59 OK 47.00 0.40 5002.85 5002.32 1.25 1.18 OK 78.00 0.40 5003.15 5002.84 1.55 1.26 OK 89.00 1.00 5003.60 5003.35 1.60 1.85 OK 1 959.00 0.10 5003.60 5003.60 1.60 1.60 OK 810.00 0.40 5003.96 5003.15 2.59 2.30 OK 1011.00 1.00 5004.21 5004.16 2.14 2.39 OK 1162.00 0.10 5004.21 5004.21 2.14 2.14 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET r* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED ------------------------------------------------- CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW D NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------- FEET -------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 34.00 315.00 0.00 5004.57 5003.31 5003.05 5002.70 PRGS'EB 45.00 30.00 0.00 5003.89 5003.77 5003.61 5003.05 SUBCR 555.00 1.00 0.00 5003.89 5003.89 5003.74 5003.61 PR68z9 46.00 10.00 0.00 5003.81 5003.77 5003.67 5003.05 -PRSS*ED-° 656.00 1.00 0.00 5003.81 5003.81 5003.82 5003.67-PRSS*ED, 47.00 132.80 0.00 5004.85 5004.32 5004.80 5003.05 SUBCR 5/10 78.00 76.40 0.00 5005.15 5004.84 5005.07-5004.80 SUBCR 89.00 25.00 25.00 5005.10 5004.85 5005.61 5005.07 PRSS'ED 959.00 1.00 1.00 5005.10 5005.10 5005.75 5005.61-PRSS*ED 810.00 201.60 201.60 5005.21 5004.40 5006.11 5005.07 PRSS'ED 1011.00 5.00 5.00 5005.46 5005.41 5006.25 5006.11 PRSS'ED 1162,00 1.00 1.00 5005.46 5005.46 5006.28 5006.25 PRSSJ-EB- "PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW ** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS niaF� Eyiet, q G(Jel.a Is belvo t e Ploolme el ev-i lon ct -411 mlefs. -------------- � -------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT j34.0 4.00 5003.50 0.78 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 5002.70 45.0 5.00 5003.73 0.11 1.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 4.00 5003.50 # D 555.0 55.00 5003.86 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 5.00 5003.73 SA w- 46.0 6.00 5003.85 0.17 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 4.00 5003.50 I�1C�aC 656.0 56.00 5004.00 0.10 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 6.00 5003.85 47.0 7.00 5005,10 1.21 0.011 0.02 0.25 0.37 4.00 5003,50 78.0 8.00 5005.37 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 7.00 5005.10 89.0 9.00 5006.13 0.24 1.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 8.00 5005.37 959.0 59.00 5006.27 0.01 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 9.00 5006.13 810.0 10.00 5006.23 0.59 0.08 0.01 0.25 0.27 8.00 5005.37 1011.0 11.00 5006.37 .0.01 1.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 10.00 5006.23 a �� 1162.0 62.00 5006.41 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 11.00 5006.37 TNIFf BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE = 1 --------------- ---------------------------------- MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE �D NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT FT FT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.00 5001.10 5001.06 0.04 4.00 5005.50 5002.32 3.18 5.00 5005.10 5002.64 2.46 55.00 5005.10 5002.64 2.46 6.00 5005.40 5002.56 2.84 56.00 5005.40 5002.56 2.84 7.00 5006.10 5002.84 3.26 8.00 5006.70 5003.15 3.55 FL 51&_ So05,1 F�. Elet/ : 50os.41 1'1- Elegy z 1-o0(9 FL Eler - Soo7. 4o 9.00 5006.70 5003.60 3.10 59.00 5006.70 5003.60 3.10 10.00 5007.80 5003.96 3.84 11.00 5007.60 5004.21 3.39 62.00 5007.60 5004.21 3.39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH �D NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD 34.00 5.57 4.79 -0.71 4.79 315.00 3.25 191.0 45.00 5.29 3.63 6.33 3.63 30.00 2.25 16.4 555.00 5.29 3.63 5.30 3.63 1.00 2.25 0.5 46.00 656.00 6.05 6.05 3.63 3.63 6.33 6.06 3.63 3.63 10.00 1.00 2.25 2.25 5.9 0.6 47.00 6.00 4.50 5.86 4.50 132.80 3.00 95.8 78.00 6.60 4.50 6.01 4.50 76.40 3.00 58.4 89.00 6.28 3.92 6.78 3.92 25.00 2.50 16.9 959.00 6.28 3.92 6.29 3.92 1.00 2.50 0.6 810.00 8.05 3.63 7.47 3.63 201.60 2.25 159.1 1011.00 7.16 3.63 7.65 3.63 5.00 2.25 3.7 1162.00 7.16 3.63 7.16 3.63 1.00 2.25 0.7 TAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 549.6436 CUBIC YARDS WER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER IRTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH=DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 ' B B=ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES �IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT 1 SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EOIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES I I a I Indtrail Townhomes Storm Sewer Analysis for Inlet #1A COTST18.1 12-4-93 L&A Inc. CLD File: WIND-2.DAT 12,2022, 1,.85500500, .2,N 100 1.4 , 28.5 10 .786 t , 5002.0 , 0 , 1 ,2021, 0 , 0 , o Ghtle}+o Noif�e�n `7�a�e 0, 0, 2.0 ,. 6 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 21, 5006.0 ,2021, 1 ,2122, 0 , 0 , 0 Inlei ,M0 , 0 , 2.0, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 '2, 5006.0 ,2122, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 6.0 , 0 , 2.0, .60 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 , 0ZNIPi 2021, 140 , 0.4, 5004.06 , .011 , 1 0 1 , 18 , 0 — f iOerw n5v-v-1e fuLile44 I A 2122, 1 , 0.1, 5004.06 , .011 .0.25 0 1 18 0 1, 11 I I I I t I WINO -a, Di-T I� klfndfia I 1pwnHanle5 UIMewei Armlrt5 J-o k-4d A 4-o 50ale I I 1/� ,. ---------------------------------------------- REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 2-10-1993 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH ' URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** EXECUTED BY LIDSTONE AND ANDERSON................................................... ON DATA 12-06-1993 AT TIME 12:34:44 ** PROJECT TITLE IWindtrail Townhomes Storm Sewer Analysis for Inlet #1A ' RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS �_.- ______________________________________________________________y TIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN ERLAND GUTTER BAST! IN I PEAK FLOW D NUMBER AREA * C To-(------Tf (MIN) MIN) INCH/HR CFS 21.00 1.20 0 0.00 0� 5.70 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 5.70 2 1.20 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES NVER REGIONAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA WAS NOT USED TO CHECK T E COMPUTATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION I* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES g1mb-aI0L)T Wln8+rev 1 Toujnlionv5 uNevier &C'[ 15 Tnk+-i1B+0 Swale J�ls��ai�esis7�i'a59i�en bel��a, MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL ' DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ----------------- ------------------------------- 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 5002.00 5002.98 NO 21.00 22.00 0.00 1.20 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 5006,00 5006.00 5003.72 5003.86 OK OK y 'raj(ic C-(&V'F of 'let eFl 9 MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS INOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 2021.00 21.00 20.00 ROUND 16.28 18.00 18.00 0.00 2122.00 22.00 21.00 ROUND 21.11 24.00 18.00 0.00 11MENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES tMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET QUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. GGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, �ISITNG SIZE WAS USED SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 12021.0 6.0 7.9 0.98 4.91 0.94 5.13 3.40 0.93 V-OK 2122.0 6.0 3.9 1.50 3.40 0.94 5.13 3.40 0.00 V-OK JOUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS t ----------------------------------------^----7-------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT'ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS 1D NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM �--------------------------------------- % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 2021.00 0.40 5002.56 5002.00 ------------ 1.94 ----------------- -1.50 NO 2122.00 0.10 5002.56 5002.56 1.94 1.94 OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1' FEET t* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW IG ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 2021.00 140.00 0.00 5004.06 5003.50 5003.72 5002.98 SUBCR 2122,00 1.00 0.00 5004.06 5004.06 5003,86 5003,72 PRSSIED �RSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW ** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ---------------------------------"'------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 2021.0 21.00 5003.90 0.74 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 20.00 5002.98 2122.0 22.00 5004.04 0.10 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 21.00 5003.90 /t�Ade GEC A� T�I�LT1� Ehe�� J BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD 1N SEWER. 1erj5h �yIIC���Oc%�Ine �S�U�O'�, LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. ISUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE?1 ------------- ---- - - MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT �ID ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FT FT FT 20.00 1002,00 1002,00 0.00 21.00 5006.00 5002.56 3.44 22.00 .5006.00 5002.56 3.44 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME 11D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD 2021.00 6.96 3.92 0.08 3.92 140.00 2.50 70.8 2122.00 6.96 3.92 6.97 3.92 1.00 2.50 0.7 TAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 71.50898 CUBIC YARDS WER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER �RTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE li BOTTOM WIDTH=DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B '(C BONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EGIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH112 +1 IN INCHES I rl I I I r r [I I I lindtrail Townhomes Storm Sewer Analysis for Inlet #18 COTST18.1 12-4-93 L&A Inc. CLD File: WIND-3.DAT 1 12,2022, 1, .85,500500,.2,N �1 100 1.4 , 28.5 10 .786 3 '30, 5000.7 0 1 , 3031, 0 , 0 0 Nor -, &-ti 5we4le 6.9 , 0, 2.0 ,. 6 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 31, 5004.0 ,3031, 1 ,3132, 0 , 0 , 0 6.9 , 0, 2.0 ,. 6 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 32, 5004.0 ,3132, 0, 0, 0 0 0 6.9 , 0 , 2.0, .60 , 0 , 0 0 0 0 IY{leE54r L{1���r 2 i3031, 118 , 0.4, 5002.67 , .011 1 , 0 , 1 , 18 , 0 — Pipe F/oin 5,-)ale �o _r,ti,' 3132, 1 , 0.1, 5002.67 , .011 ,0.25 , 0 , 1 , 18 , 0 _fie+IC7,55 r I I i I I I WIND- 3, akr Vi/i4(n, / owr-, 6ne7 0leu)Ir4,14(5i5 ,7�Iefi�13 to 5�+� 1 i l l� ---------------------------------------------------------- - REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL 2-10-1993 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- *** EXECUTED BY LIDSTONE AND ANDERSON................................................... ON DATA 12-06-1993 AT TIME 12:38:34 ** PROJECT TITLE IWindtrail Townhomes Storm Sewer Analysis for Inlet #1B r* RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS ------------- MANHOLE BASIN D NUMBER AREA * C 30.00 31. 1.20 W,2.00 1.20 OVERLAND GUT BASIN RAIN I PEAK FLOW To (MI! f (MIN) Tc CFS 0.00 0.00 0.00 --INCH/HR 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 5.70 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.75 6.90 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES INVER REGIONAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA WAS NOT USED TO CHECK THE COMPUTATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION * SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES W iND- 3,ovr ( nJn rmf Too)Aorne.5 Zn Itr' 416 f05�'Ae 11.5c�a�yCs inp,46t5 gNenbefo%4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS (yl ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 5+6({wy) Watlr 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.90 5000.70 5001.79 NO 1 31.00 0,00 5.00 0.00 6.90 5004.00 5002.50 OK ��{/pJI�CCj(OdBiIfie A+Z,1jef-#13 32.00 1.20 5.00 5.75 6.90 5004.00 5007 66 OK JJ MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS INOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 3031.00 31.00 30.00 ROUND 17.15 18.00 18.00 0.00 3132.00 32.00 31.00 ROUND 22.24 24.00 18.00 0.00 11MENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES MENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET QUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. GGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, �ISITNG 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 3031.0 6.9 7.9 1.09 5.02 1.02 5.42 3.90 0.87 V-OK 3132.0 6.9 3.9 1.50 3.90 1.02 5.42 3.90 0.00 V-OK �lOUDE 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) 3031.00 0.40 5001.17 5000.70 1.33 -1.50 NO ' 3132.00 0.10 5001.17 5001.17 1.33 1.33 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET i I* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW (� �(o ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 3031.00 118.00 0.00 5002.67 5002.20 5002.50 5001.79 SUBCR 3132.00 SS'ED=PRESSURED 1.00 FLOW; 0.00 5002,67 5002.67 5002,66 5002,50 JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL PRSSIED FLOW 9 * SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------------------- =--------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 031.0 31.00 5002.73 0.71 1.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 30.00 5001.79 3132.0 32.00 5002.89 0.10 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.00 31.00 5002.73 �j,4&bnet 1-olf4d<S(0},00 F„e,9� (FIo Jl�ne> BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K'INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. ISUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE _ 1 ----------------- MANHOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT �D -------------------------------------.----------------------------------------- FT FT FT 30.00 5100.70 5000,70 0.00 31.00 5004.00 5001.17 2.83 32.00 5004.00 5001.17 2.83 ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- SEWER UPST TRENCH WIDTH DNST TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH WALL EARTH NUMBER ON GROUND AT INVERT ON GROUND AT INVERT LENGTH THICKNESS VOLUME �D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------= FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD 3031.00 5.74 3.92 0.09 3.92 118.00 2.50 51.2 3132.00 5.74 3.92 5.75 3.92 1.00 2.50 0.6 TAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 51.77663 CUBIC YARDS WER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER IRTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH --DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B BONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES 1F BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EIIIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH112 +1 IN INCHES r r i I r I I I I I I I APPENDIX E HY-8 OUPUT FOR FINAL CULVERT DESIGN 1 1 '16 URRENT DATE: 01-14-1994 FILE DATE: 01-12-1994 �FileT44- PIN URRENT TIME: 11:06:21 FILE NAME: WTTH-2 AY- 8 0*} fd/ A tt4exi n 5333Aaaasaaaa55A33Aaaaaaaaag55�S35ASaAa3AA3AA&6656aa833&3AgAA6aafia53&3AAA&6g5aa Wljeo(4 e'✓mml YU(TY11I� aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAaa FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS -j M)gle 0,-C. 55a3aAeaaasaaaaa3&AAaaaaa HY-8, VERSION 4.0 aaSS&AAAAbfiaaaaa86A&AgAaaa oAeabaaaaaa33a66a5aaaaaaaa6AAAfi666a55aaaa65�ggAAgA33AA�g6g5A&a3&AA3A666&6��`aSAa¢ C SITE DATA ° CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET ° U G3AaaaaaaaaaaAA3Aaaaaaas66g655583aaA5AA6gAAAgAaaaa885�A&AA6aaaaaaa�3A&AgAA6t; ° L ° INLET OUTLET CULVERT ° BARRELS ° V ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH ° SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET ° ° (FT) (FT) (FT) ° MATERIAL (FT) (FT) n TYPE ° ° 1 05000.47 5000.33 35.00 ° 2 RCP 2.00 2.00 .013 CONVENTIONAL° < - 2 - a Ll RCP S ° 2 3 4'0 ° ° ° 5 ° ° ° S .o.410 6 0° 35aeaaaaaaaaaaAA3Aaaaaaaaaa5g8e3A33A3A336gAg655�8�aAb633gAgg6g5a3a336AAAAb$6g5i 6AAaAaaaaaaaa�&A&Aaaaeaaa6a65g5S�AAA�3AA&AA6g6gg6683&�6AAgA6ga6&��&3&�6AA666&5g UMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILE: WTTH-2 DATE: 01-12-1994 ELEV (FT) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITR 5000.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5001.12 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5001.39 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5001.62 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5001.81 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5001.99 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1 5002.16 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 5002.32 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5002.42 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 so0z.65 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 U"'` i•9 5 �f 5002.80 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5003.50 41 41 0 0 0 0 0 OVERTOPPING QIOD�yI 1, 2 J3 30Gf5 3a&AAaaaaaaaaaaa53A333A3A6A6AgAA6A5aaaaaAa3ag6&A6aaeaaaaaS�ggAgAa3aa5655aa5A3&&A i °�'� ��' 'A655a3aaAaaaa566AA5Aaaaaaaa888&S43&53aa5g&g66aB88A&aS6gg6&6gA6AaeaaSa66g6A66aaa SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: WTTH-2 DATE: 01-12-1994 HEAD HEAD TOTAL FLOW % FLOW ELEV(FT) ERROR(FT) FLOW(CFS) ERROR(CFS) ERROR 5000.47 0.00 0 0 0.00 ' 5001.12 0.00 3 0 0.00 5001.39 0.00 6 0 0.00 5001.62 0.00 9 0 0.00 ' 5001.81 0.00 12 0 0.00 5001.99 0.00 15 0 0.00 5002.16 0.00 18 0 0.00 5002,32 0.00 21 0 0.00 5002.42 0.00 23 0 0.00 5002.65 0.00 27 0 0.00 5002.80 0.00 30 0 0.00 �a55aaaaaaaaa3as5a5aaaaaA33AA66gaaaaaA3A&A6665a&5aaa333AAg�g555a36AA6&6g�grig6a <l> TOLERANCE (FT) = 0.010 <2> TOLERANCE M = 1.000 aaSAA&aaaaaaaaaa&A66&aaaaaaa5a6&A&ofi�&aa5a6aA6AA&6666a�&ag�6�6agA&Sg6f�&6&g�AA&A6 F, IURRENT DATE: 01-14-1994 CURRENT TIME: 11:06:21 FILE DATE: 01-12-1994 FILE NAME: WTTH-2 PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR CULVERT # 1 - 2 ( 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) a�aaaaaaaaa3Aaa5g5aAaaAAAAe66aaaaaaaa5a3AAAAa6aaaaa5��g>;AAAaesaa5gg5AEiAaaaaaaaa 0 5000.47 0.00 0.00 0-NF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 5001.12 0.51 0.65 3-M1t 0.43 0.42 2.36 0.51 0.84 0.51 6 5001,39 0.80 0.92 3-M1t 0.62 0.60 2.85 0.74 1.02 0.74 9 5001.62 1.04 1.15 3-M1t 0.77 0.74 3.24 0.91 1.15 0.91 12 5001.81 1.24 1.34 3-Mlt 0.90 0.86 3.59 1.05 1.24 1.05 15 5001.99 1.43 1.52 3-M1t 1.03 0.97 3.92 1.17 1.32 1.17 '18 5002.16 1.59 1.69 3-M1t 1.15 1.07 4.24 1.28 1.39 1.28 21 50D2.32 1.76 1.85 3-M1t 1.27 1.16 4.54 1.38 1.45 1.38 23 5002.42 1.85 1.95 3 M1t 1.35 1.21 4.72 1.44 1.48 1.44 lJ�r V 27 5002.65 2.08 2.18 3-M1t 1.55 1.32 5.15 1.56 1.55 1.56 30 5002.80 2.25 2.33 3-M2t 1.75 1.40 5.44 1.64 1.59 1.64 El, inlet face invert 5000,47 ft El. outlet invert 5000,33 ft El. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft EL. inlet crest 0.00 ft AAasaaaaaaaaaaAAaaaaaaaaaaa�63At3aaaaaeAA6g88i3A33AA&6A6a�Se8�i3633A6Ag6668583aaAE **** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT INVERT INLET STATION (FT) 0.00 INLET ELEVATION (FT) 5000.47 ' OUTLET STATION (FT) 35.00 OUTLET ELEVATION (FT) 5000.33 NUMBER OF BARRELS 2 SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT) 0.0040 ' CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE (FT) 35.00 ***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY *******************w•*w: ' BARREL SHAPE CIRCULAR BARREL DIAMETER 2.00 FT BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE BARREL MANNING'S N 0.013 INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL INLET EDGE AND WALL SQUARE EDGE WITH HEADWALL INLET DEPRESSION NONE aa55aaaaaa3aaAAaaaaaaaaaAA333gaAaaaaaaaSa5A3AA3AAaAAA6A68S53&3i3A3&AA&6&aaaaaaaa I (ioo-yue-) [1 .9 315 IURRENT DATE: 01-14-1994 CURRENT TIME: 11:06:21 FILE DATE: 01-12-1994 FILE NAME: WTTH-2 �d34AAaaaaaaaaaAAAgaaaAaaSS TAILWATER A3AfiaaagaaAgg8g68366AA33AA 3AaaaeaAaAaaaaAaa�aaaaAaA3A3A3AAAg666g�5aaaaS555AaAAA6AaAaaa�a55g&A&A6AA&aaA666a REGULAR CHANNEL CROSS SECTION BOTTOM WIDTH (FT) 5.00 SIDE SLOPE H/V (X:1) 4.0 1_ /�� CHANNEL SLOPE V/H (FT/FT) 0.004 TCitIW4Te/ t,.0AAAvo) (2, LtMed by MANNING'S N (.01-0.1) 0.060 Mannoryls equaiTo-i (stoode C-C) CHANNEL INVERT ELEVATION (FT) 5000.33 CULVERT NO.1 OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION 5000.33 FT ******* UNIFORM FLOW RATING CURVE FOR DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL ' FLOW W.S.E. FROUDE DEPTH VEL. SHEAR (CFS) (FT) NUMBER (FT) (FPS) (PSF) 0.00 5000.33 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 5000.84 0.206 0.51 0.84 0.13 6.00 5001.07 0.210 0.74 1.02 0.18 9.00 5001,24 0.212 0.91 1.15 0.23 12.00 5001.38 0.214 1.05 1.24 0.26 15.00 5001.50 0.215 1.17 1.32 0.29 18.00 5001.61 0.216 1.28 1.39 0.32 21.00 5001.71 0.217 1.38 1.45 0.34 22.80 5001.77 0.217 1.44 1.48 0.36 27.00 5001.89 0.218 1.56 1.55 0.39 30.00 5001.97 0.219 1.64 1.59 0.41 ROADWAY OVERTOPPING DATA AAaasaaaa66g&6AAGAAaaaaAsa WEIR COEFFICIENT 3.00 ' EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH (FT) 20.00 CREST LENGTH (FT) 20.00 OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION (FT) 5003.50 �g68853535a6a3aaAAA6g6aaa6aaa66ag88S63&��6aa3�3gA5gAAAgAaaAAa6&6S8GgS6&AAa6aAAA I 1 RRENT DATE: 09-26-1993 FILE DATE: 09-26-1993 RRENT TIME: 19:27:31 FILE NAME: WINDTR3 6&aa3a63aAaaaa5a3653AAA3A3aa366a656ag5653aa6566666&665SSaa3aA3g33AgA6666663ag3AA aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3333AAaa FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS aaaa3a33AA36AgAAaA56aaa63A aaaASaaaaaaaaa3a565aa&aa HY-8, VERSION 3.2 aaaaaaaa&6366a65a5aaaa3636 055a6AAA3aaaa&aAaa553A33AaA36AA6a656AaaAAa3aa3aAa3A3A666aaaaaaa3AAaA3A33aa5aaaaa C ° SITE DATA ° CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET ° U uaaaaaaaaa6A3A36aaaaaaaaaaae56566a5&Saaaaa666&66&aa3a3aa333A666356aa633A6S6� ° L ° INLET OUTLET' CULVERT BARRELS ° Ttk� f:rNAL DE5((,N OF -rlt� -Rlc� e.>ofmr--r- 1r 1 L`F %a I PlIsvu S. 'P'Rwi ° V ° ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH ° SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET ° (FT) (FT) (FT) ° MATERIAL (FT) (FT) n TYPE ° 1 04996.00 4995.50 35.00 ° 2 RCS 12.00 4.00 .013 CONVENTIONAL' Q IZMI x�}F1`Q� 2 °=0.013 4° ° ° °5° ° ° �i 6 ° ° v(s 1av�r �+. � �995. OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILE: WINDTR3 DATE: 09-26-1993 ELEV (FT) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITR 4997.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4996.41 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4996.62 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 56 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 '4996.81 4996.99 74 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4997.14 93 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4997.29 112 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 §4997.43 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1• 4997.50 140 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 lad aaw - 4997.60 4997.69 167 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 e FS 4997.82 186 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 820 5001.50 820 820 0 0 0 0 0 OVERTOPPING a5ae3336aaaaaaaaa6a6655aaaaaaa66Ag65aa55aaaaaaa5a53g3gAg33A336AA56556&3A3A3a&A3A _ l.33f Quo = I S� oPs SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: WINDTR3 DATE: 09-26-1993 HEAD HEAD TOTAL - FLOW % FLOW ELEV(FT) ERROR(FT) FLOW(CFS) ERROR(CFS) ERROR 4997.40 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 19 0 0.00 '4996.41 4996.62 0.00 37 0 0.00 4996.81 0.00 56 0 0.00 4996.99 4997.14 0.00 0.00 74 93 0 0 .0.00 0.00 4997.29 0.00 112 0 0.00 4997.43 0.00 130 0 0.00 4997.50 0.00 140 0 0.00 4997.69 0.00 167 0 0.00 4997.82 0.00 186 0 0.00 TOLERANCE (FT) = 0.010 22> TOLERANCE (%) = 1.000 2 RRENT DATE: 09-26-1993 FILE DATE: 09-26-1993 RRENT TIME: 19:27:31 FILE -NAME: WINDTR3 3aaaaSaaaaaa6363a3aaaaaaaaaaaa3S63A33Aa33A6666666a5Aaaaa5aa6`a6A6A5aaaaaaAA66665 gA65a5aaaaaaa3afi5aaaaaaaa CULVERT # 1 SaaAaaAaaa6g6aa5aag666g5fi5 5�a3aA�53aaaaaaaaAa55aa55aa356a6aA3aA6aaa5a5555g&AaA3AAA365g6&5AA366Sa66563aAA66 ' PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR 2 BARREL(S) 0 HWE TWE ICH OCH FLOW CCE ICE TCE - VO (CIS) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) TYPE (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) 0 4997.40 4997.40 0.00 1.40 0-NF 0.00 4996.00 DAD 0.00 19 4996.41 4997.40 0.41 -0.66 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.38 37 4996.62 4997.40 0.62 -0.64 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.53 56 4996.81 4997.40 0.81 -0.61 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.12 74 4996.99 4997.40 0.99 -0.59 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.63 93 4997.14 4997.40 1.14 -0.56 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 4997.29 4997.40 1.29 -0.54 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.75 '112 130 4997.43 4997.40 . 1.43 -0.51 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.11 140 4997.50 4997.40 1.50 -0.50 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.21 167 4997.69 4997,40 1.69 0.46 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.60 186 4997.82 4997.40 1.82 -0.43 5-S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.89 El. inlet face invert 4996.00 It El. outlet invert 4995.50 It El. inlet throat invert 0.00 It El. inlet crest 0.00 It 33366aaa3aaaaaa3AA3A5aaaaaaaaSS&6a�655a3aaaa565666663AA3AAAA66a65gaAa3a33A566656 *** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT INVERT **********rrrw INLET STATION (FT) 0.00 ' INLET ELEVATION (FT) 4996.00 OUTLET STATION (FT) 35.00 OUTLET ELEVATION (FT) 4995.50 NUMBER OF BARRELS 2.00 SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT) 0.0143 CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE (FT) 35.00 *** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY ****************wwwrrrwr BARREL SHAPE BOX BARREL SPAN 12.00 FT BA:;_--! ..i5c 4.00 FT ' BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE BARREL 14ANNINGIS N 0.013 INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL ' INLET EDGE AND WALL 1:1 BEVEL (45 DEG. FLARE) INLET DEPRESSION NONE laues eo I+ L� IS IS�'eae+s� Fos- A-U_ a%%00A=&Z S URRENT DATE: 09-26-1993 URRENT TIME: 19:27:31 3 FILE DATE: 09-26-1993 FILE NAME: WINDTR3 TAILWATER 3gA6S33A33a�36sig68Ati�a533� CONSTANT WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 4997.40 \.J6Gt- 0—mus �3gAaaaa5a333Aa5a553A3aAA3AaAAAg3aaaaAii333aA3Agfiaaaaa6a��33A{iaaaaa5aa3EitiAtiAaa55a aaaa�aaaaaaaaaaSaaaAaa3aaa ROADWAY OVERTOPPING DATA a(i55&aAaaaaaaaaaa3AAfi�aaaa ROADWAY SURFACE PAVED EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH (FT) 35.00 ' CREST LENGTH (FT) 35.00 OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION (FT) 5001.50 �AaFiAriAaaaaaaaa3333Aaaaaa�6��(iga�5fiaaaaaS��3gtiti�a55aa33a3AA��55aa3a3A&rig�6fi5aaa3 1 1 I I APPENDIX F RIPRAP SIZING CALCULATIONS n 1 1 1 I 1 L ul,tonc 8 nndeison. Inc. W.I. A... v U No TlzAlL p 0. 0 1 shyl I i z. 1,71 93 l�o-737-/61,1 EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 6:�Rbs/DnI Pc-o7,Ec7/o1v A7 oU7GE75 I I I F' it 2% RCP OUTLET" Fe®M IN1,E-1 16:12-E Qz (crsIL") = I'7.tj cFS /EQoIRED e(jc.< S/2E DZ� Z.25z.s T�1c wq�i e SkPrN _ u n known Q = 17.Li D1. s �aM FiG v2� R4. z� TAQLE 5.I P4 3/ Kehl yn per SI)DC RGF�2ENc� UP -BA" MPM' P'eAIN 1 e1e1TE-'/R MAIWAt Vol-. z ) /9(Oq MEETS to, Tc-r7IA r1� �'a Cr.Cef q IASB it I RIP ec0v11eef C450 = 9 iNc f/Cs = o. y CHL"CK fL)(-< St2E FRor, EQ. S_5 =% dgo = D(0-OZ3)(Q/D`'�= �.1S�O.U23YZ.31 = 0.36 FT • ExPANs o� FActof, THEeE �D�r C" I?IPRr�Ia C� = 17 Z. pz.s 2,zs`'s b FRoM rit,uR _ S,rj '/(ZLi LCQC,TH o= PtP 9A% pl�0TEC.TIuN' Qt = fe Vileol careo, CA vlow aE ANWQl \e 'jcloc,F. Q I rT 1 = 3 Z FT - V 5.5 \�QOStU v-;_ SOILS (vELOCJ,y FRor'1 uSO(,M MAn4� J LenS�-1 of- proFcc�i� (Fr) � w,ot�{ ac eorvo�.r (3.ZZ.2-s) = r/, Pr WE log LEKTH L �ctstone 8 Anderson. Inc. w.W ••• .. w •........m e....•w• Y �,JI rjpT12AI,t] &AN 1 IZ Z 53 1 cc- TST-1YI EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF tl2US1ori PR0T[c-TIon1 I I I r- It tt MINIMvl'` • COEcK tr MAXimum tb r ;T Govc'prS cF Q L �=.o p 7.5 Lmuy = 10 D = 10(2.Z5- ) • M/ix� rn uM Q,P'eAP pCPTt( , Q rT- 1�3 20r�N N LETS 1a ' Y{ = 7 FT Nc�evrn� oFgTH flPot,2Arh Ye = G_7 = 0, `I7 - = 3 .$ —.s I.5 ' I_ F16LvZr= s,7 N Z/ TYP E L eeQv%fZEQ o - l Per 500cMawc-it, f 63es a Fgt,m c4 s .s > Gise _ (�.5`,i,023-(Z.Z0. 19 FT Lo.`i'7j .z w i �� djc A,DEQVAT� £X PANstonl 171\C't0p F2or. FtG�eE 5,9 i,�74 `�� ��(2tan0) - 6.1 i WHER-PROJECT - Y DATE JECT NO. SA+-t 1Z(2 93 Co-757--c)I EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF EPOStJN PRUTF_�?IO•� I'3 If 8 • ��rv4TH a+- QtP CAP 172v"tr_cTlon1 0 v 5.5 L = G•1 ( l•1'i Fr • t^".xlvvkur-x LcNCarH aF aeOlFcTi6Q L-V"a - l o gy = t o (1. s) = 19 Fr U5,E Io L-ENCrFI • MANir\uM Rie eAP !�>CPTP( , = Z 650 = Z4(O.5) = I. o Fr WHER-PROJECT - Y DATE JECT NO. SA+-t 1Z(2 93 Co-757--c)I EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF EPOStJN PRUTF_�?IO•� I'3 If 8 • ��rv4TH a+- QtP CAP 172v"tr_cTlon1 0 v 5.5 L = G•1 ( l•1'i Fr • t^".xlvvkur-x LcNCarH aF aeOlFcTi6Q L-V"a - l o gy = t o (1. s) = 19 Fr U5,E Io L-ENCrFI • MANir\uM Rie eAP !�>CPTP( , = Z 650 = Z4(O.5) = I. o Fr L�cl�lone & Anderson. Inc. Wind rGl( iojnhane5 COT)TIv • I EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF t✓0510c1 f rOieAdn OL�Ilef -f-3 U-a4eolve,-f5� ovo 6e5iyn� = as-SefS. c a•s = - ok �oAelVe(oct4y -5ee IFpFeJtxC-. 0,11 �-�roJ5e tec7lvn is n� necE554rIr � fUe% bor�eiline -Fv /�✓✓�w� �IuSS (n ✓rPrup• There 6e, C'Ia55 & ✓Ip•Up , Len Jf, 1047eel. 51ope -tyof6�fion a+4e ev� v4 Flill -Rnci ieooc Qloo -- &D, 7 CA C✓I{ C41 dep+k 615500AA cif erICI Of N(II ?o(d Goad (,1 slop +o-St4ele) From NEC -a C✓&eJ Deafh hwlpi5 6ce Fallo--)t +PbpAi e•y,, ifoo : 3., � 4o 5 �.�" - 3, , a b,17 - Jig (ClGss pipe Pi iAerefo(e u5c CIa 56 (iprip -For cxdjt) -ance of 5Feei upOreGwi q�,d dovivi4reutn of+he 51ope AprGp po+ec6l of end o• pavemeof oo NiIlRncl lload -Pe✓ Slope proledwrl anoly515, -Vivo= 3,�-p5 65ervAvelyh4A vel°cli a4eelb«I deo) V °'t' 55-I)•u = (JO'S_I\,mo �r4?prof e4on 15 rlo+neee55uvy Flo,oever, ►mtall C65 to ripryp ; L.e►f SRe Wf•H = %4 18JAN94 11:52:47 14t5N eeificai Dep-[ ► hAlp5 G�V,wlof'HIlIPoi leoad. I««YYYYYYYYYYY««R«««««YYYYYYYYYYYY«««« HE -2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 t T1 WINDTRAIL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- RIPRAP ANALYSIS 1/18/1994 T2 CRITICAL DEPTH AT END OF HILL POND ROAD 100-YEAR LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON T3 �J1 1CHECK IND NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 2 0 -1 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN 0100 ' OT 1 60.7 NC 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1 0.3 ,X1 1 9 98.57 137.43 10 GR 2 98.57 0.39 98.58 0 GR 0.11 134.83 0 _ 136.00 0.39 18JAN94 11:52:47 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG 0 OLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH ' TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC l*PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 SECNO 1.000 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 1.000 .68 .68 .68 .50 .90 60.7 .0 60.7 .0 .0 16.5 .00 .00 3.69 .00 .000 .016 ' 005083 10. 10, 10. 0 10 ALLDC IBW F15/rf PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 11:52:47 WSEL FD .50 CHNIM ITRACE 10 10 100.00 0.11 101.17 0.45 118.00 137.42 2 137.43 PAGE 2 HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST .21 .00 .00 2.00 .0 .0 .0 2.00 000 .000 .00 98.58 0 .00 38.84 137.42 18JAN94 11:52:47 PAGE 3 THIS RUN EXECUTED 18JAN94 11:52:47 ##f#tits#tiff#ti***tittttiti*t#tit#f# HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.0; February 1991 i##***#tt#t##*#t#titi#t#t#tttttttii** NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 'SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN O CWSEL CRIWS EG * 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 60.70 .68 .68 .90 ' 18JAN94 11:52:47 lUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO O CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKSS TOPWID XLCH 1.000 60.70 .68 .00 .00 .18 38.84 .00 18JAN94 11:52:47 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES CAUTION SECNO= 1.000 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 1 10*KS VCH AREA 50.83 3.69 16.45 lco- - laITj� PAGE 4 PAGE 5 01K 8.51 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP f t 0—j CD SN. N � D: O U � O zn_ , Z a x w • • A = Expansion Angle mommmmmm mommmomm orAWi'Air mummas WA 15 WAwm MANOR FAINNIMEN .1 .2 .3 .4 N11.5 .6 .7 .6 TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT a F S/II I i lJ 1 11 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE Table 5-1 CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP Riprap % Smaller Than Intermediate Rock d50 Designation Given Size Dimension By Weight (Inches) (Inches) Type VL 70-100 12 50-70 9 35-50 6 6** 2-10 2 Type L 70-100 15 50-70 12 35-50 9 9** 2-10 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 18 18 2-10 6 Type VH 100 42 50-70 33 35-50 24 24 2-10 9 *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 fashioned into almost any shape that can be 11-15-82 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL INTERMEDIATE ROCK DIMENSION— INCHES RIPRAP FIGURE 5-1. GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ry Lul>tonc & Anderson. Inr,. WNER—PROJECT _-- - — _— _ Y PROJECT NO. W%"o-vRNu P. L). sAH 12 z/c,3 Co-TST-1,9- EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF ee0510m) PC.OTECTION AT Box CVLVV-er I I I r- 10 11 R£F : sTo¢M DRAIniA4E nFslyN C.2aTCYL I� A NY-) CaNST• STgNpAF>�S CNA/YlVEC 41N/N4 OA OF `3OX Cul.vE2t JNDr-rZ PEp. PATH. a- 12 w X 4 H RCS L = 35 y- v/S IaIJECt ELEU = y996.0 1 5 HV4 ELEV• "7. 50 FT Lot q1(�o = i4a cF.s (C20 M OV7PUT) Cw,,,3 oc--Pr4 = 499a, so - DES14 'EQ VATIoti =y S �i S = CHAK1NFl. SLuDE (55 _1)o.C6 Ss = 5PScrF1c 4,rAvoTY car A204K V = MEAN) VELOCIT`( V = Q. /A = 14o/Cl.s(�z>Ca)= 3�9 FPs 17 FY 0 OLIO OLI) _ .(p => CLL�SS C� Pro?AP GG SEE. TA(�,Lr I 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 % of Total Weight Smaller than the Stone Size deot Riprap Designation Given Size (in pounds) Cinches) 70-100 85 Class 6 tt 50-70 35 6 35-50 10 2-10 <1 70-100 440 Class 12 50-70 285 12 35-50 2-10 3 100 1275 Class 18 50-70 655 35-50 275 18 2-10 10 ' 100 3500 Class 24 50-70 1700 35-50 655 24 2-10 35 ' t dso = Mean Particle Size. At least 50 percent of the mass shall be stones equal to or larger than this dimension. tt Bury on 4 to 1 side slopes or grout rock if slopes are steeper. I 11 Table 8-2 summarizes riprap requirements for a stable channel lining based on the following relationship: VSo.» (d5o)0'5 (Ss-1)0.66 = 5.8 in which, V = Mean channel velocity in feet per second S = Longitudinal channel slope in feet per foot Ss = Specific gravity of rock (minimum S. = 2.50) d5o = 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 need to be increased for steeper channel side slopes, provided the side slopes are no steeper than 2h:1v. Rock lined side slopes steeper than 2h:1v are not recommended. Table 8-2 RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL LININGS tt VS°'"/(S; 1)o.ee t Rock Type tt 0 to 1.4 No Riprap Required 1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 Riprap 4.1 to 5.8 Class 12 Riprap 5.9 to 7.1 Class 18 Riprap 7.2 to 8.2 Class 24 Riprap t use S, = 2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design. tt Table valid only for Froude number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no steeper than 2h:1 v. 8-2 t DESIGN CRITERIA MAY 1984 I 1 i 1 i 1 APPENDIX G SWALE DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 H i 1 1 1 ufJ4ru ( CL l I eat St10 FEATURE J7F5�:ari- C-,(;.� CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF r g D9511'U�fnb i1n S��ra5n� pc 1 0100 = ab,5 cf5 ODfl,64 = 1,33-f 6),o,3 cf5 �n 17olfif 3 CoAf(ibAiei 5tkke.,,in5 ; P.IF, C, D or�sife56�;eN5 From Rq-;d"1u; l`1�rhod ,'j a&,D 7 04&CD C5eep51jo) Therefore o�e Q6�D 4--de 5r1 , a1,0 cf5 CXDPS�cn; = 1,33 -yr Qico = 104,9' ifs lgrl T01(4 �c, Cott ribufn) 5ubba5in : E (Moos 9a.8 cf-> f ij 0(:51GN = 1. 3 3 * atop - 3013 c f5 'De5ilo ►moo, 4 4 �u*i, <; 5uW c(-5 : A , r3, c ,D F, ofI'S'fe 5l,� .lj5 . = aa,gcfs (A�>�,�.r��l✓)+ 3,& bhleOs) - 61,f� e-(s C�DES16,N > 106 ,5 Cf5 bc5iyh-Po,#14 4 (onfi-lbArg 5ub(A-)tos - F ,ofc5de 5WItJ5 Qa = t9 .J (h-F)+ 0 = A�,a Cf5 Qoo - °5, 5 46-F)+ 3,6 NveNs) = 99,1 cos QDe51614 = 151 • Sr-f.5 I kA rxw Ilx.r•.. w .xrw..l•1 C...Mnn. tf(A I I I co) - COT5Tid FEATURE 1, CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF (U�c,r��no�S�Uv!SGG��i?5 J Qa = Nke(A) af3,7c,(5 CJcoo3,( NieQz- IDF3,y45 QDES160 = M, a 6f5 D"5ic)vl Po1A+ 8 (�i}ribc 7 0 (5i,,� 5) = 3 7.3 Oloo = 13�piaCA-j�+3,6 (5kie05) = 135,f3c�S QDCSIGN = ISS-cl CT5.. I WINDTRAIL PRELIM.- SWALE DESIGN FRO 100-YR EVENT (INCLUDING FREEBOARD) INPUT DATA: 41/0 Swale �iom p P U�S,�iokr/Ey �3v4 gyro%-Sec-hon A -A DISCHARGE 10.500000 CFS — 0.160 BOTTOM WIDTH - 5.000000 FT $ 4l BED SLOPE - 4.000000E-03 FT/FT — 5= 0.4 i0 SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 A4P : 1V MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 nsO.OG Poe- 5DDCcrife/11 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.364648 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.436420 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 8.966153E-01 FT TOP WIDTH 15.917180 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.673317E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.396687 FT ,1 ' INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 27.300000 CFS QDLS�gA BOTTOM WIDTH = 5.000000 FT BED SLOPE 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE 4.000000 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 ' RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.564731 FT ' FLOW VELOCITY = 1.549727 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.005603 FT TOP WIDTH = 17.517850 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.723416E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.602024 FT i 1 1 1 4410 INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 22.800000 CFS - Q(OL) BOTTOM WIDTH = 5.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.436159 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.477628 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 9.357680E-01 FT TOP WIDTH = 16.489270 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.691864E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.470062 FT INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 30.300000 CFS - QDC-516N BOTTOM WIDTH = 5.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 NANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: FT NORMAL DEPTH = 1.643627 FLOW VELOCITY = 1.592826 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.048144 FT TOP WIDTH = 18.149020 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.741763E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.683023 FT 5► &kAm A, `ia 08 41vvy h 5Jbf A5vl G (krfP15041e) &o95-5e,cfion &C G s/0 INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 81.600000 CFS Qlov BOTTOM WIDTH = 20.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH - 1.643965 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.867613 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.317944 FT TOP WIDTH = 33.151720 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.866887E-0t SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.698126 FT INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 108.500000 CFS - QDE5164 BOTTOM WIDTH = 20.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 14ANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: INORMAL DEPTH = 1.922249 FTJ FLOW VELOCITY = 2.038432 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.504528 FT TOP WIDTH = 35.377990 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.928655E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.986771 FT NAleProwl IW4b 05toa.1>3 *b-o» Section 5-6 6Mo 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE 108.400000 CFS BOTTOM WIDTH = 30.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH - 1.575803 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.894928 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.342646 FT TOP WIDTH = 42.606420 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.881935E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.631560 FT INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 1".200000 CFS — Q Des 1 n BOTTOM WIDTH = 30.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.852685 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 2.080561 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.546317 FT TOP WIDTH = 44.821480 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.948515E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.919901 FT 5 wale An" D.P 5 cl/5 >o D. P. � �(ot,g 5ecfon D-D I INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 139.800000 CFS BOTTOM WIDTH = 35.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 14ANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH - 1.680990 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.993181 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.447722 FT TOP WIDTH = 48.447920 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.919283E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.742679 FT INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 185.900000 CFS - Q x51t7 BOTTOM WIDTH = 35.000000 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 14ANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.977593 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 2.190638 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 1.669813 FT TOP WIDTH = 50.820740 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.987506E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 2.052110 FT 5wa le -1ronj D. P. 8 u/5 to Croce 5Pdholl E-E WINDTRAIL PUD, TOWNHOMES -- OVERFLOW SWALE DESIGN INPUT DATA: Ser4on F-� q'-�rAc�56,c L'f ' DISCHARGE = 6.000000 CFS ��pp BOTTOM WIDTH 0.000000E+00 FT BED SLOPE = 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE 4.000000 ` MANNINGS N 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: ' NORMAL DEPTH - 1.178961 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.079238 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 5.894470E-01 FT TOP WIDTH 9.431685 FT FROUDE NUMBER = 2.477233E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.197047 FT ' INPUT DATA: ec' on V - 9 4 �i{1gC71 �I�iQAJW1!/L l i DISCHARGE = 6.900000 CFS Qioo BOTTOM WIDTH 0.000000E+00 FT BED SLOPE 4.000000E-03 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 4.000000 1 MANNINGS N = 6.000000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.242401 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 1.117626 FPS HYDR. DEPTH = 6.211564E-01 FT TOP WIDTH = 9.939208 FT 1 FROUDE NUMBER = 2.499010E-01 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 1.261797 FT I 11 I ' APPENDIX H EROSION CONTROL PLAN CALCULATIONS I [1 I I I I 11 I ' RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION ------------- -------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: 5P,1{ DATE. Iz 93 --------- --=--------------------------------------- ----------- 3� ----- ISUBBASINDiEROZONELITY ---------I----------- Ez I II E3 II D jTa�l t Asb I Lsb I Ssb I I (ac) I (ft) i (%) I(f I l.os � 310 i I.O ►.Z� ass +.° 3.3 ig5o i �,O IZ. o 11030 1.57 loon I I I I I � I i I I i I I I I I I I Lb I Sb I PS eet) I I I I I I 35 3•a s0.1 I-------------------- _________________________________________________i ' HDI/SF-A:1989 JANAR`! 1991 8-18 DESIGN CRITERIA I 1 1 1 I L^7 1, CO 1 1 m =c c c C O 1 1 C to L"1 lt7 to tf1 Ln 1 c I A g C q O C q q q q I I 1 C 1 pC1 Ct G1 m C111 C1 CN CI CT C% C CD I t 1 I r I t. 1 I M I A CO p g q C A C p C q q A CO CO 1 C I V., m a% (n C� C) m C1 m C) C1 (n Ct Ct C� m C1 1 C 1 C C C c c c c c c c c c c C c c C c c c t N I g A p C q q A q co q p p w p A p C A q p 1 I I C r O m C tL'1 t0 t0 t0 IC r, r� r� r� 1 C 1 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C c C C c c c C CO CO q q C q A C COCO C C g A C A= C q A A' 1 1 1 C 1 g N M c In Ln tn•t0 tC t0 t0 t0 tC f�, t\ n n f� f\ f\ n r', n p g p C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I c 1 c.1 M c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C i f COCO p p C O A C g C A q p A A C C q q A A A A q A C C t C 1 t0 C N MCC LC Ln Lo LC'f t0 t0 tC t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 r\ r\ n r\ r\ _ 1 1 C 1 q I M C C C C C C C C c C c C C C C c C C C C C C C C C U I 'I p g C q C C q q q C p q C C q q O q q q A C q q A q 1 I I I - I C 1 Ln to to �. Ln to Ln Ln tO to to to to to � i ' N . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 11 I m m c -C, Mr c c c -C, c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c I �-+ 1 I g q q C A q CO A q q A p q q q p O A q q A q q p A p l J 1 t I J I C I Ot0 p C.•+.•-f N Nm m m mC C Q Q C C C G to Ln un Ln t0 t0 I C C-)1 1 1 . t tC I enf"9 t"'1cccCccccccccccccCcccCcc 1 1 1 A A C g C q CO A q A C A C A C A q A A C p q C A q A H 1 I Ln N to r� C% M M M MC` C C C C 1 1 1 ¢L I vtn I Nm M m MM CC' C C CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC t ' I C a0 4= I W i g C C p co co A C A A q G C C A q q q C q q q q q q G 1 .- =Ln 1 .A..M c Ln uO w tO r� r� t�gAgAgq Ct CI G)CCCOO L i 1 1 J C 1 N N m M M m M M M m m M m m M M m m M M M C C C C C I tN I (A I g co A A q C q q A C q A q C q q q A A C q A p q C C 1 C C t 1 I (r C 1 O 1 tO tCtA O.-- INmcCtn Ln LC'f tp t0 t0 t0 t0 r� C% CI I G I 1 . . . . . . . . . . I C I C I r N N M M M M M M M M M M M M m M M M m M m m m m M 1 I I COq=CO qq CCACJ =======COCAAC== 1 C 1 1 1 H 1 to I .-+ .-. V'1 n g C C .--� N N M m M C C C C C tt� to to tO tD tO fi n 1 N 1 I I 1 M I .-+ N N N N m M m M M m M m M m M m m m m M M m M m M I ' w 1 I A C C p g C q q g q p q p q q q p p C A A CO C A p CO 1 Z 1 C 1 MNtO q C1C.--�NNmMMCCCCC Ctn In Ln to tC tC to tO 1 G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I • • • 1 1 m I C .-• • NNNN N NNNN N CV N NNNNNNN NN 1 C 1 1 g q p q A C A A q A C q C CO C C C p q q A q A q A A I C •, I I 1 L 1 L'7 I u^. L. to r�t�nACpC�C C�C+GI C%CCCOOO I C-I . . . .Ln I •- .4 .+ r•. r•+ .•+ .+ .-. r•+ 1 .r .••f '.+ .•t N N N N N N t I l r. C^Aq C;p Q4 CM cc CpgCp CO C^, CO:-^ppC^.0 I I 1 I CtI: CMtn tOCCC1r.NNNNMmMMMM t 1 N I CO M O O O O C C C.-..--� .-.....-+ .•+ ..+ .., ,-.....-..--I r. 1 1 1 r, r\ C Co Co Co A p A p A C q CIq C Co CC Co = Co 1 1 1 I I t:. 1 pNq�Ctn r�r�gGNC. CC�� �.-+.—NNNMMMm I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 1 Ct Cl CI Ct Ct CA C'� C'.'1CC O OO O C C O OOOC 00 1 1 I I�1�t�r�r�r�1�I�r�r�r�ggpqpp pppAggA qC0 1 1 I l 1 C I tD M O C I� C1 0 r-f N M m C C to to to LC: tC t0 t0 t0 I� t� t0 l0 t0 1 1 1 1 CtO r�r�r�r�AggF q-q G7 ACgpgAgq q00 I t tr\nr`r\r\�� I�r\r\r`r\r\r\r,nr\r\r\r`r`r�I�r.r� 1 I 1 I 1 Ll 1 01O Cco t0 C C M N t0 r� C 11, rr� t0 t0 to m NC1 t0+ -cr C%tC 1 . . . 1 C I C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .--f .r .•+ O O 1 r`1\ f\r., ;1 r\ r\ t\f\n fin 1\f`1%, nr�r., 1\ ^r\ 1 1 CCCOCOOOCCCOOCCCCOCOOOOO 1 I C CA F— I C C C C C C C O O O C C C C C C C C O O O C C O 0 1 I JZLL I .--i NmC L7 ZI-, MC t.FZ-5 CC: C LF O L7 C L^.O 1 I L L 1 .--. .•+ ------------------+ ^-..--. ,-. N N m M C C to I 1 J I 1 r- JANAR`: 1991 8-6 DESIGN.CRITERIA d 3/69 1 1 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS ------------------------------------------- PROJECT: WrrupTRA1L P. u, ci STANDARD FORM B 1COMPLETED BY: SAW DATE: tz Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment gAec- SOIL 00 C61NIST2Ur-Tr0N AREAS RU��, WgLKs O.o� I.ao Gv/�vEl 41LTt(Z5 I.ao 0.80 SILT AeouNo %WALE AeEAs. ----=---------------------------- MAJORI PS. I SUB I AREA ----------------------- -------------- BASIN (p) 1BASINI (Ac) CALCULATIONS ..... ------ gp.l ----- E I - I Los ---------� P1ver,en• ------ - - A�eq -- jo% x l o� r-,efs---o•53acs 1 Qoce So \ `7-- `7,�, .= 0,S3 AcT. i Fccv-�,c I.O t 4pc, 7 E Z i 1. 22 I Pcwer,'tr' ArecA � 1. Z2 k (S = 0.61 AC5 = So Z2 O. 6I Ac s Wicl C FFckor = (O.pl x 0, 1 +I.a xc,61 )11.22 Q- Fcac-Lror 1=FF �xmo i E 3, 3.3 �X"�e So,1 ��On�V'ucl cr�rec)= I>V, he.Scc-�A '.Mkl.c� �5,.>cl,e' E'ecrcclwlF•�o:� "35?u X 3.3 nrs = Z. glAcs /-Nr.0urr1 �o r 303P,(s. = 0.5a A(S. vTcJ C- Fao�nc=(1•aor.so+ ZO F- PF = �l - O.So x 0 Zp���.O i!o = . g0.0'70 I--------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ' HOI/SF-B:1989 JA2IUARY 1991 8-19 DESIGN CRIi73: � 4�f7 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------EFFECTIVENESS-CALCULATIONS ----------------------------------- PROJECT: 9 1,.F l L P. o STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: S AH DATE: I Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor i Method Value Value Comment ---------------------------------------- ----------- ------- . . L1 -3.0 r7 vU AsSw''Y'� To -;ivc (Z on c a N P L',,-s 6 0 1�� Sa%, CavC-C o= EsTA� us =- IC�rAv�� FICtEws C)c> b.go SILT FENCES 1.00 0.50 I--------------------------------------------- IMAJORI PS. I SUB I AREA I .I •G �:=Th�.T10�J /kC O., i•1 SWPL r. (BASIN (o) IBASINlI (Ac) CALCULATIONS ------_----- [� �0•-, -- I Z.O I PGve er P.re� _ 5o°7o 1 O ACS !II I'�?orC 5o.'f 5070 K o F,cS C.r�✓ v�C tILrE Z.c) Aes w+d C- Fauber = o.o 1 ,.o+Voxl.a��2.�=0. o C�o,O% I �� (I I �8. rJ I P�sCct,I ✓ of ; LI Swc!e Area I i I /S -7b le, 7 _ 2. 9/ 4cs I I V rld Sl: a, UeA L c Ad; g5%h IQ.7 = r5•So ACS / vJ�G C - { ac*.r -(o.oa x 0.01 o.o'l NrS•'I�1 ��•7 Wed_ J_ Fcc4or (.S 94.+ I.Wx�7.���lu.i tF� 0 Ci.98xU.oi)<reo = �13•I 07o 2(. 3 Er-Fv)ek _ (5% 7% x t.o5 + S lea= ' + 90.0 _. ('o.ox 2,0 + �r3,I kl13.°7.) 5i,1ce 8"7-d `moo > 8a ) �fc{oscol r\cv� is.O K / ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ HOI/5F-B:1989 JLITUAR7 1991 8-19 DESIGN CRI7RI 1 �y� Table 8-8 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. 1 1 i Treatment BARE SOIL C-Factor P-Factor Packed and smooth 1.00 1.00 Freshly disked. . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 Rough irregular surface 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50(1) STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG. . 1.00 0.80 f- " , SILT FENCE BARRIER .. _ 1.00 0.50 E- ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT. . 0.01 1.00 t- ' _. ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS. . .sSee Figure* 1.00 1 SOD GRASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS . . . . 0.45(2) 1.00 ' HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE. .`. 0.10(3) 1.00 SOIL SEALANT ... . . . 0.01-0.60(4) 1.00" EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS. ... 0.10 1.00 HAY OR.STRAW DRY MULCH After planting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons acre minimum).and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. Maximum Slope Length (feet) to 5 400 0.06 1.00 6 to 10 200 . . 0.06 1.0 11 to 15 150 . ..:. 0.07 1..00 1 16 to 20 100 . 0.11 1.00 21 to 25 75 . 0.14 1.00 25 to 33 50 . . . . . . . . 0.17 1.00 ' > 33 35 0.20 1.00 NOTE: Use of.other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported i.n this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1)". Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table .11-4, thus dry ' or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. ' (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. JMUARY 1991 8-8 DESIGN CRITERIA Pb1t, 0.40 0.35 0.30 o a.Z Q a.ZC LL �J . _ 0.05 ESTABLISHED GRASS AND C—FACTORS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO : 1 ............ ............. ............. Y ......................_....... ....... 1.............: t � ! 1 ! 1 1 1 I _._. ► ...._._......_ ---... _.... ... ... _..... ► _ I _ .... I � ESTABLM GRASS GROUND COVER (i) FIG'JZE 8—A JANUARY 1991 8-10 DESIGN CRITERIA r7 a 0�[e Flav9u ASMn'[n PoNu. 0.1p� Yplll 6io °E =i b) Tneunq Arm Isms) _wmrc CoeBinw C 94MA1 Wmnlyr 4ueeu Ise mu.): 2 ym NNFWym na 2a A R.5 O30 125 J 6520.5B I2l 0.W 19 5.5 N]2 C !S OW2.2 C7 UA26 0 2A B.TI 12 1D12526 gc.0 lee I61 L9 5.5 ne3AB I.IsIts 3.0733EI Lw 065 2.61 7.0 .6.0y0 m L" 0.65 2.72 1.06.9FJ D.s SM L9e 5.31204 Es, ES, In 5.6 0.]6 1.95 5.620.9 5 G 105 Olt L5 61 35 I33 5 AZ 656 O55 1.25 I65 EB.7 IM! 6 N 3.6 0.50 1a 50 Le 3 1 IJ om 2.5 l.0 39 S B,I e.s ow 1a s0 5.e6u j 1 6.9 050 20 6.0 686, IT Is.l oSs IJ 5.0 11.6A-1 el o2v Lm l65 n2 j4 U I E ~ Z I 4\\ a a + - L CONCRETE WEIR—>• • PER FEMA NT���DPLAIN CREEK c, 1(P•pING, 1979 (NOTE IT 15 ANTICIPATED THAT / C _ A REVISED FLOOOPLAIN WILL BE APPROVED BY TEMA IN SPRING 4. `*-_ - J• / \ ` 6_ OF THE E'PRIOR SINGLEP 6 MIILY PHASE) I• la THOG DIP Y,#t o; - T �� •• • BOX CULVERT 14 PROPOSED CONCRETE .a l 4 47 DP 6 °os r >.< D t \�: y -•►,� P 5 of �- nd MAJOR _ i pj v (PgOPOSEALE I ARTHUR'S DITCH N y DP 2 D) f I 's �. OFFSITE FLOW FROM SHIELDS ST. 02=0cfs 40 3.6cfs ' �l DP 4 i t i I DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY DP 1 m� p G / / n5 lA / 7 — /UP r DP 3 � r t --B 5 Ina. SPIRE CT. — — t — 8�— — — — PROPERTY BOUNDARY � y I EXISTING CURB INLET p t t .� .� n^-max h neel�_ .. __._ i w Q Z r- N$ Q SHEET 1 of 3 ^a .wi men rk es of m..rom, a '..n^.. ^^ rn,. an..r z u SO, . \ M M BARE FLODD E. F'611OX8 BXOYIN H/LL PON /N �nccn �!, 0, CORREBPDXD TO IRE Wo- MDY. W0-YE/�R FLOODPLAIN %^'<^'a'er =r^^a �`FMM SMWA CREEK REVI8ED ROOD �IN e DYE APPROVAL pEXDIXp l _ , "W/LDERLAND-CONDOS i��,`- AY SPq/NG�� _ __ _ - ---- -- -=_- --� � ♦ I �' - -- CAEE - _ � MPELOPED --- �----- --- "Y --- - 1CONDRKNN =- - lm ec ttnDwn/ 01 5.9 cfs DRMU AY fuR Eft sN) ° 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN DON SPR G f 1171) FLOOD IX AME BIDDY Olga20.6 cfs 03 �Dp _. _- OPEN SPACE ___ _ .. = 36. _ ;3 cts cfs FUT!/RE H4COT ALES�_��serr �l� Z T , `• DP 7 FUTUBE ?4CKLOT 9WALE r --- , r-- - - - �9A� P 19 cc 47 I k12 Onnn may'_'- ".��% / 33 L 7 �` _��ia. « yam' _ -_— srcr / c=,=. 7 E i� }I e u .� ` u �►.�.=—.1�K.ea .ss�a r�:C I 117 �II I I _.' J--'Yrae1 / 201 a If I L t9 , E _ r a^crvwc - - / t SHADO RE w. �? /D 1a "% 0s a' • On DP 2b ,. > o-! a1 Zoe 5/51 XIy a TWA. � S>AP 02 I - - - Orw f cw an-xu p` F 1 PEfAi L?AJ 3a iLEGEND SU19B4S/N /DENT/F/CAT/ON SUBHAS/N AREA "' EaA'fA1 rDrJ '� >R DES/GN PD/NT SUNDER/NG TO WNH ES _ _ _ _ % _ �. ILOW D/RECRON ARROW EX/ST/NG CONTOUR - - - PROPOSED CONTOUR NOTE: FOR DELINEATION OF OFF -SITE BASIN I. M m . - - . . . . . . . . . WETLAND BOUNDARIES, SEE DRAINAGE REPORT, SHEET 1 OF 3. —.-- SILTFENCE - - - - - -------- ---------- TOWNROME✓ - ----- —------------------- — — — •— DEIELOPMENT AREA • . . . . . . . . . O ELEVATION CONTROLI • - MARKER LOCATLON • - �P1O 1979 FIRM BASE CSU RESEARCH • F. . ...ION �,y — FL00D £LEVAT/ON - wu Z� +d , �te mm..`M uvYmF mcdded ,C 1aYAoflhBL 9pgApmmvW On Fee 0 F/R7S/aM CYAYTMX AVIM- I 4vM mw aw ar. e. s xb d wv b b M IN3 'FmiM.0 IGW�I ' SY lw,n 4 b M Ju/uV bxriNrhy ,..wbe mr muwre e...,.nuubp F,eVwg - rtw,.a.yoey �� dl.. m, ,T.✓/ m nwvwy 0OPOV .4,r� 4 I I o z Q z 1 W i Qa z J I R 0 Z z Q z C9 cl) O � Q W z LL AIANOE REPORT SHEET 2OF3