HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 07/23/2001PROPERTY OF
FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
pop
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
J
J R ENGINEERING
July 6, 2001
1
Mr. Basil Hamdan
'
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
'
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
1
t
1
1
ft)
J•R ENGINEERING
A Subsidiary of Westrian
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Elizabeth Street Apartments.
Dear Basil,
We are pleased to submit to you for your approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control
Report for Elizabeth Street Apartments, zoned MMN (Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood).
The site is located in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin.
This report addresses Stormwater review comments dated May 7, 2001. All computations within this
report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design
Criteria. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Prepared by,
William F. Strand
' Project Engineer, P.E.
attachments
1
1
Reviewed by,
Davi . Klocl
Division Manal?
.E.
' 2620 Fast Prospea Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-491-9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • w jrengineering.00rn
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TRANSMITTALLETTER.............................................................................................................. i
TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Existing Site Characteristics...........................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report ..........................................................................................1
1.4 Design Criteria................................................................................................................1
1.5 Master Drainage Basin....................................................................................................2
2. HISTORIC (E)USTING) DRAINAGE................................................................................2
3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN...................................................................3
3.1 Method............................................................................................................................3
3.2 General Flow Routing.....................................................................................................3
3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................3
3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions............................................4
3.5 Detention Pond Sizing....................................................................................................5
4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................6
4.1 Swale Capacity Analysis.................................................................................................6
5. EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................................7
5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures........................................................................7
5.2 Dust Abatement...............................................................................................................7
5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets.........................................................................................7
5.4 Maintenance....................................................................................................................8
5.5 Permanent Stabilization..................................................................................................8
6. VARIANCES...........................................................................................................................8
7. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................9
Appendix
1
I
1]
1
11
I
1
J
I
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Elizabeth Street Apartments is a proposed development in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is
located north of the Elizabeth Street, west of City Park Avenue, and south and east of the
Larimer #2 Canal. The site is located in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin and
contains 1.9 Acres. The site is zoned MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
The project is the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. A vicinity
map is provided in the Appendix.
1.2 Existing Site Characteristics
According to the "Soil Survey for Larimer County Area, Colorado" (USDA) soils for the site
are Nunn clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes (74). Runoff is slow to medium. Wind erosion is
slight and water erosion is moderate. A soils map is provided in the Appendix. The site is
within the moderate wind erodibility zone according to the Wind ErodibilityMap for the City
of Fort Collins.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report
This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for Elizabeth Street
Apartments. The plan includes consideration of all on -site runoff and the design of all
drainage facilities required for this development.
1.4 Design Criteria
This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City
of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS),
dated May 1984. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of
Governments have been utilized.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 1
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
I
I
I
1
1]
1
I
1
I
I
t
1.5 Master Drainage Basin
Elizabeth Street Apartments lies in the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin. The
master plan for the Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin requires detaining the 100-year
developed release rate to the 2-year historic release rate. Releases from the site must not
cause negative impact to downstream drainage facilities and adequate conveyance must be
shown from this site. A new development fee of $6,181 per acre is required, which is subject
to runoff coefficient reduction. A total of 1.2 acres of the site is being developed. Water
quality and detention are being provided.
2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE
The historic flows from the Elizabeth Street Apartments site consist of overland flow and
flow in the Larimer County # 2 canal. The drainage pattern for the property is generally from
the center of the site toward the perimeter of the site and toward the canal. The site has an
average slope of approximately 2.7 percent. The site has a good ground cover of native
grasses and weeds.
According to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Index for Fort Collins, the site
is located in panel 080102003C, which is not printed and is all in Zone X (Outside the 500-
year floodplain. The City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University have defined
floodplains around the site. The "Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan" (Draft
Report) shows the site as a dry island surrounded by the 100-year floodplain (See map in
Appendix). The "Colorado State University International House Drainage Protection" plans
define a 100-year floodplain on the west, north, and east sides of the site. The 100-year
floodplain defined for the International House is shown on the drainage plans because it is
based on detailed analysis of the existing spillway at the northeast corner of the site.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Elizabeth Street Apartments
July 6, 2001
1
1
I
I
H
I
1
I
I
I
3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN
3.1 Method
Since the subbasins are less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used to determine both
the 2-year and 100-year runoff rates for the sub -basins indicated in this drainage report.
Drainage facilities were designed to convey the 100-year peak flows. A detailed description
of the hydrologic analysis is provided in Section 3.4 and the Appendix of this report.
3.2 General Flow Routing
Flows within this site will take the form of sheet, gutter, and pipe flow. The existing
drainage patterns have been maintained as much as possible. Flows are being detained to the
2-year historic level. Water Quality will be provided for the site. A system of gutters, inlets,
and pipes has been designed to carry peak 100-yr flows on site.
3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan
A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design
point is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussions of the detailed design of drainage
facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections.
Subbasin 101 contains a portion of the roof. Flows are in roof drains to the inlet at
Design Point (DP) 1.
Runoff from Subbasin 102 will be conveyed via sheet and gutter flow to Design Point
(DP) 2. Flows are collected at DP 2 in a Parking Lot Storm Drain and routed to the
detention pond.
Runoff from Subbasin 103 will be conveyed via sheet and gutter flow to Design Point
(DP) 3. Flows are collected at DP 3 in a Parking Lot Storm Drain and routed to the
detention pond.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
'
Subbasin 104 includes the detention pond and flows will be conveyed via sheet flow
to Design Point (DP) 4. The detention pond consists of two vertical walled detention
areas connected by a pipe capable of passing the 100-yr peak flow into the pond.
Runoff from Subbasin 105 is conveyed via curb and gutter to a sump inlet at Design
'
Point (DP) 5. Flows collected by the inlet are conveyed via storm sewer to the
detention pond.
Runoff from Subbasin 106 sheet flows undetained to Elizabeth Street. The area
tributary to Elizabeth Street was minimized due to the fact that it can not be detained
onsite.
3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions
The Rational Method was used to determine both 2-year and 100-year peak runoff values for
each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS Manual.
' The Rational Method is given by:
' Q = CtCIA (1)
where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is
' the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall
intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The
frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100-
year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics.
! The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort
Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves,
the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time
of concentration
' to = t1 + tt (2)
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
I
I
1
U
where t, is the time of concentration in minutes, t; is the initial or overland flow time in
minutes, and t, is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time
is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation:
t1= [1.87(1.1 - CQL9.5j/(S)0.33
where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the
average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cr are as defined previously.
All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage
plan are included in the Appendix. A summary of these calculations for the basins is
included in Table 3.1 below.
kXI
Table 3.1 Drainage Summary
n' dg
Pdnr
TrIWW
S1bbaln
am
04
epa
c(100)
cc(2)
(MN
1o110q
ln1N
oR"
ldsl
WOopa
04
1
101
0.16
0.955
1.00
50
50
0.4
1.6
2
102
0.33
0.84
1.00
50
50
0.8
32
3
103
Q40
0.86
1.00
50
SO
1.0
39
104
0.10
0.10
0.13
10.1
0..9
0.0
Q1
5
1051
0.08
0.82
1.00
50501
0.2
Q8
4
PUq llihv
1.W
97
6
106
0.14
0.21
0.26
65
6.2
0.1
0.3
Detention Pond Sizing
A detention pond is proposed at the north edge of the site. The pond will abut the existing
International House spillway along the Larimer #2 Canal. The detention pond has been kept
out of the 100-yr floodplain for the spillway. Structural retaining walls are proposed to
maximize the detention volume.
The detention pond has been sized using the FAA method to detain the entire site to the 2-
year historic release rate. By calculating the required detention volume for the entire site, the
pond overdetains for Basin 106, which releases directly to Elizabeth Street. The 100-year
water surface elevation is 5039.8 FT with a peak discharge of 0.4 CFS.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 5
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
1
The detention pond has been sized using the FAA method to detain the entire site to the 2-
historic By detention
year release rate. calculating the required volume for the entire site, the
pond overdetains for Basin 106, which releases directly to Elizabeth Street. The 100-year
water surface elevation is 5039.8 FT with a peak discharge of 0.4 CFS.
' Water quality detention will be provided in the detention pond. Calculations are included in
the Appendix. An emergency spillway has been provided in the event the pond outlet plugs.
1 The spillway uses a Cipolleti weir in the retaining wall. In an emergency flow can also spill
over the grade break on the south end of Sub -basin 105 onto Elizabeth Street.
1 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
4.1 Swale Capacity Analysis
' Swale capacity was calculated using Flow Master, developed by Haestad Methods, Inc.
Flow master uses Manning's equation to calculate normal depth for a given cross section.
' A triangular section was used for the swale from the detention pond outlet to the
International House parking lot. The swale was designed to carry 133% of the 100-year flow.
A trickle channel was not provided because the swale carries 0.4 cfs and has a longitudinal
slope of 1%. The swale is across a grass lined spillway and a concrete pan would detract
1 from the natural look of the area. The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria provides
for swales without trickle channels with slopes from 1-2%, provided the swales are certified
after construction. Capacity calculations are provided in the Appendix.
4.2 Storm Sewer System
' Flow Master was used to size pipes on the site. All pipes have uniform slopes and minimal
bends so a normal depth analysis is sufficient. Inlets were sized for sumps. Riprap is
provided at all pipe outlets. Pipe, inlet, and riprap calculations are provided in the Appendix.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 6
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
I
1
1
1
11
0
5. EROSION CONTROL
5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of inlet filters, silt fences, straw
bale barriers, gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are
designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the
City of Fort Collins. During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and
furrowed perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along
proposed swales. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a
construction schedule are provided in the appendix.
5.2 Dust Abatement
During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations
appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the
contractor shall famish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor
shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce dust nuisance,
and to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from his operations from damaging crops,
orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor
will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under
these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere.
5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets
It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of -
way unless so approved by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction
vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize
the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. A
stabilized construction entrance is required per the detail shown in the improvement plans,
with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for
clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
5.5 Permanent Stabilization
' A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-half years on disturbed areas and
' soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered
established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to
control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather
conditions.
' 6. VARIANCES
One drainage variances is being requested with this proposal. It is requested that Basin 106
be allowed to release undetained to Elizabeth Street (100-year discharge = 0.3 cfs). The site
is surrounded by development, which constrains site grading. As much of the site as possible
was drained to a detention pond on the north side of the site. The detention pond releases at
the 2-year historic rate for the site (0.4 cfs). The area of Basin 106 has been minimized and
' contains only a small amount of impervious area.
d
L
I
L
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 8
' Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
L
1
1
7. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards"
(SDDCCS), May 1984.
2. FIRM Panel 080102 001-0031 Revised, March 18, 1996.
3. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980.
4. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March 1969, and Volume 3, dated September
1992.
5. Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan (Draft Report), Anderson
Consulting Engineers, September 21, 2000.
6. Colorado State University International House Drainage Protection, Ayres
Associates, August 1999.
7. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Colorado State University, University
Village Expansion Southeast Site, RBD, January 10, 1994.
I
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page-9
Elizabeth Street Apartments July 6, 2001
r-,
I
I�
L'
F
APPENDIX
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 10
' Elizabeth Street Apartments June 14, 2001
No Text
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
Prepared for:
Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC
Mike Marini
320 Golden Shore, Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90802-4217
(562)256-2051
Prepared by:
JR Engineering, LLC
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 491-9888
February 7, 2001
Revised: April 3, 2001
Revised: June 14, 2001
Revised: July 6, 2001
Job Number 9212.02
`r 73
! lV3 , l..
S 22 1
AMC
r r ' •''C
,
.�4.. 1 ',.}.4 ->f �"� _t: sY C � e}'4S• .. � (��.� r �:y. K` F"`f"4r �"' �'� •s ,.:'7t,� Ti,.1[• � .t. • -.
r j.E : 1 '"'ICE 1 "{ � ♦�si}�f - � �.y,�.,,,`wi', �� r
+ '', '+ •. � 7•, v LI �. Asi a 4� � it _ 81•-^n 4
�MA
t r° !- _ �iL'�7 � y` • 4 �.D���Mi!i��i' f:+4`n� '.r'_ rr ' Eye A 6.
• � 11 , LIU {_ r• �-:.. z�. ��SF �•ws' .f..: 4 fN o�. �Rs C'n � v `"sti'r'gi` e W [
�- I(t � lr rQ'p�.��`f J t �i..i.N.� � -•µ t * . � f 10
4 .64
i. r_ cos,- ,� �++(v,• ��sr��✓• r. �' .{�� a _ - ..e��.1" K •: �
' r ' 'r � �. �' �''`�1CoQ,�tp•�T) .� tY "i4'r n E..�' � c. 9shtw Y <-
RI Y r
•�� i � .r,. � , r5�fd_.. ^/bi''�.3.'`�+2-:t'.�L:'�'" .mac+ ��a•4- .: . i .':e� ! ti .
7b^ � y;.y, �-r•w � �' �r �-�r�!�N - i n-i tj `5c a �. �! Fwl - " Mt Y i
�_ t � i T ���.• S.. �Tr^i_ it t A^jf44 k -.,.1 •.l�r•t ✓?i ..:• 1
�1aG� i 74 .\ I 1 G F'`2 FrfS'p,c n'St i.,.a�' �i r2•__, .J '(Z6
.v. _
Ty
6. - --v' "aAi. �- ... 5' li f •r�' ....,pr' n 7 �.I1._1•—�w�ry.r�.:.�: .
36
u t 3 b3 15 3 1 a<
76
94
. � c
4 e =• ..i, e .t i
.�/
h
Im
3 1 r� 76 95
81
_ _ �.•�Z� r
74
r V .
i
74 T3
35
73 74
-� 73 .-- .. ..
63
m
a
3a V 35 6 y - �•
' 4
74 ^ 73 C4ry f
\1 9t
11
1
42
SOIL SURVEY
4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse
prismatic structure parting to moderate
medium subangular blocky; very hard,
firm, very sticky and very plastic; thin
nearly continuous clay films on peds;
noncalcareous ; mildly alkaline; clear
smooth boundary.
B3ca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3)
clay loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist;
weak medium subangular blocky struc-
ture; very hard, firm, very plastic; few
thin patchy films. on ped faces; visible
calcium carbonate occurring as small
nodules; calcareous; moderately alka-
line; gradual smooth boundary.
Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown
(10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; very
hard, firm, sticky and plastic; visible
calcium carbonate occurring as nodules,
thin seams, and streaks; calcareous;
moderately alkaline; gradual smooth
boundary.
C2ca-47 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown
(2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/3) moist; massive; very hard,
firm, sticky and plastic; some visible
calcium carbonate but less than in the
Clca horizon; calcareous; moderately
alkaline.
The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to
12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick-
ness of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40
inches. The 132t horizon is heavy clay loam or light
clay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 10 to
30 inches. Sand and gravel are below a depth of 40
inches in some profiles. Some profiles have substrata
with a redder hue.
73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent elopes. This
level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a
profile similar to the one described as representative of
the series, but the combined thickness of the surface
layer and subsoil is about 35 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas
of soils that are more sloping. Also included are a few
small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils and
a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and
subsoil of silty clay loam.
Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets,
beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. Under dryland
management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is also
suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units
IIs-1, irrigated, and IIIc-1, dryland; Clayey Foothill
range site; windbreak suitability group 1.
74—Nunn clay loam, I to 3 percent slopes. This
nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil
has the profile described as representative of the
series.
Included with this soil in mapping are a few small
areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and
a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and
subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small areas
of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils.
Runoff is slow to medium, the hazard of wind erosion
is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets.
beans, barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under drylanc
management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also
well suited to pasture or native grasses '(fig. 10)
Figure 10.—Alfalfa balm on Nnnn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.
LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO
43
' Capability units IIe-1, irrigated, and IIIe4, dryland;
Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suitability group
1.
'75—Nunn clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This
gently sloping soil is on high terraces and fans. This
soil has a profile similar to the one described as rep-
resentative of the series, but the combined thickness
'of the surface layer and subsoil is about 24 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas
of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a few
small areas of soils that have a surface layer of light
'clay. Also included are a few small areas of Satanta
and Ulm soils.
Runoff is medium. The hazard of water erosion is
moderate, and the hazard of wind erosion is slight.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, alfalfa, and
'wheat and, to a lesser extent, corn, sugar beets, and
beans. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat
or barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native
'grasses. Capability units IIIe-2, irrigated, and IIIe-7,
dryland; Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suit-
ability group 1.
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This
nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is on low
terraces and alluvial fans, commonly adjacent to
drainageways. This soil has a profile similar to the one
described as representative of the series, but a seasonal
high water table is at a depth of 20 to 30 inches during
'part of the growing season.
Included with this soil in mapping are a few small
areas of soils that have a strongly alkaline surface
layer and a few small areas of soils that are moderately
well drained. Also included are a few areas of soils
that have a surface layer of loam or clay and a few
areas of soils that are less sloping.
Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight.
This soil is suited to pasture and hay. If the water
table is lowered by management practices, corn, sugar
beets, wheat, and barley can be grown. Capability unit
IIIw-1, 'irrigated ; Wet Meadow range site; windbreak
'suitability group 5.
Otero Series
The Otero series consists of deep, well drained soils
that formed in alluvium and wind -deposited material.
These soils are on alluvial fans and terraces. Elevation
ranges from 4,800 to 5,600 feet. Slopes are 0 to 15
percent. The native vegetation is mainly blue grama,
needlegrass, bluestems, and some forbs and shrubs.
Mean annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 15 inches,
rean annual air temperature ranges from 48' to 50'
, and the frost -free season ranges from 135 to 150
ys.
In a representative profile the surface layer is brown
sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying
material is pale brown sandy loam about 13 inches
thick over light brownish gray sandy loam.
Permeability is rapid, and the available water ca-
,pacity is medium. Reaction is mildly alkaline above a
depth of about 4 inches and moderately alkaline below
that depth.
These soils are used mainly for native grasses and
for dryfarmed crops. A few areas are used for ir-
rigated crops.
Representative profile of Otero sandy loam in an
area of Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent
slopes, in native grass, about 300 feet south and 1,420
feet west of the northeast corner of sec. 11, T. 10 N.,
R. 68 W. :
A1=0 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) sandy
loam, dark brown (10YR 3/3) moist;
weak very fine granular structure; soft,
very friable; calcareous; mildly alka-
line; clear smooth boundary.
C1ca-4 to 17 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3)
sandy loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist;
weak medium and coarse subangular
blocky structure; hard, very friable; cal-
careous; visible calcium carbonate as few
soft spots; moderately alkaline; gradual
smooth boundary.
C2ca-17 to 60 inches; light brownish gray
(IOYR 6/2) sandy loam, dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) moist; massive; hard,
very friable; calcareous; visible calcium
carbonate as few soft spots; moderately
alkaline.
The A horizon is sandy loam or fine sandy loam 8 to
12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The C horizon is
sandy loam or fine sandy loam. The soil is generally
calcareous throughout, but the surface layer is leached
in places. Distribution of lime in the profile is erratic.
Soft sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches in some
profiles.
77—Otero sandy loam, 0 to .3 percent slopes. This
nearly level soil is on uplands and fans. This soil has a
profile similar to the one described as representative of
the series, but the surface layer is about 10 to 12
inches thick.
Included with this soil in mapping are some small
areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam or fine
sandy loam. Also included are some areas of soils that
are redder and a few small areas of Ascalon, Nelson,
and Kim soils.
Runoff is slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight,
and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, barley, sugar
beets, wheat, and beans. Under dryland management
it is suited to pasture and native grasses and, to a
lesser extent, wheat and barley. Capability units
IIIe-5, irrigated, and IVe-5, dryland; Sandy Plains
range site; windbreak suitability group 2.
78—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This
gently sloping soil is on uplands and fans. This soil
has a profile similar to the one described as representa-
tive of the series, but the surface layer is about 8
inches thick.
Included with this soil in mapping are a few small
areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping.
Also included are some small areas of soils in which
sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches and a few
small areas of Ascalon, Nelson, and Kim soils.
Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is
moderate.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, wheat,
alfalfa, and pasture and, to a lesser extent, corn and
beans. Under dryland management it is well suited to
pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-4,
irrigated, and VIe-2, dryland; Sandy Plains range
site; windbreak suitability group 2.
a r
}Y ii �? W i n5: ikz a- `a'-^E'�' �i �Y -�'S �c Yi x N a.' .�Y �'Yi1<l.�f}`S,t•f^ry?M ,,• 2:
•Az' � .. _ -'� .. _. it ���
vi
I
1
1
1
1
1
2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOWS
LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts.
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand
DATE: 4/2/01
Recommended Runoff Coefficient from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil):
Lawns (average, 2-7%, sandy soil):
Runoff
%
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.10
0
0.15
0
A Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190
Fort Collins, CO 8525
DESIGN
POINT
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(ac.)
TOTAL
AREA
(sq.ft)
Length
(ft)
(4)
Slope
(%)
(5)
ti
(min)
(6)
i
(inlhr)
0 (2)
(cfs)
1
1-11
1.19
51,659
154
2.7
15.2
2.10
0.4
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=E(Ci Ai)/At
Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai
Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci
n = number of different surfaces to consider
At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's
Q=CtCIA
92120ow.xls
Q = peak discharge (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient
Ct = frequency adjustment factor
I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve
A = drainage area (acres)
ti=[1.87(1.1-CCt)L051/S1fd
I = 26 / (10+ tif-7m
I
[1
I
1
0
«
p
f0
N
m
O)
m
O
CD
O
h
O
l0
O
d
N
d
�
O
OR
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O C
E
p
ui
0
ui
0
ui
OI
of
O
vi
N
co
u
C C
u E
0
ui
0
ui
0
ui
7
o
0
ui
u)
u5
0
O
0
0
0
7
0
co
u
O
O
.N^..
V
m
O
V
CD
G
fO
GO
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
�
m
co
M
0
a
o
g
q 0
v
r�
WW
7 a
o
0
0
0
0
o
c
o
H �
H
o
a
c
� c
a
c
m
m
a
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS
LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts.
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand
DATE: 4/2/01
Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
Streets, parking lots (asphalt),
Sidewalks (concrete),
Roofs:
Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil):
Runoff
%
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.95
100
0.95
96
0.95
90
0.10
0
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190
Fort Collins, CO 8525
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(ac.)
TOTAL
AREA
(sq.ft)
ROOF
AREA
(sq.ft)
PAVED
AREA
(sq.ft)
SIDEWALK
AREA
(sq.ft)
LANDSCAPE
AREA
(sq.ft)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
(C)
%
Impervious
101
0.16
7,104
7,104
0
0
0
0.95
90
102
0.33
14,204
3,598
8,059
712
1,835
0.84
84
103
0.40
17,255
4,384
9,882
1,082
1,907
0.86
86
104
0.10
4,389
0
0
0
4,389
0.10
0
105
0.08
3,575
118
Z380
549
528
0.82
84
106
0.14
5,910
0
332
411
5,167
0.21
12
101-1 66
1.20
52.437
15,204
20,653
2,754
13,826
0.73
71
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=E(Ci Ai)/At
Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai
Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci
n = number of different surfaces to consider
At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's
92128ow.xls
B
Ix
z�
{f
I
Tlw�
§Z�
x4�
mmAm4
l��,00
f
,{/
w�wwww
2
mmF
s
�
.
■
t�E
"
k■��
}¥a
,,..ww
�§o
«
k■
4«&§
\
}
0
§
}
/
\
-
\
\
k
I
91
}
i
0
r
�.1
R
L
i
ay.
a
l)
t
Oc
h
N
W n m v
11
U
Im
O
zz¢
OFF
o
'
F W a
ur
U p
�
p
O
a 0. U Q
Y
Q
f
♦Y.
O
O
O
O
N
Q
N
N
N
N
IA
m
z
LL
O
�
0—
—
0
0
H
� E
m
O
ILI
_ _
N
u �
Cn
m
m
m
O
N
o
o
o
0
Oz
E
LL
V
m
O
O
Y
WO
_
N0
N
NN
M
z
,
V
O�
N
t0
t0
t0
t0
t0
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
O
O
O
aD
N
w
f
N
h
(O
fO
f0
m
J
LU
L
V
a
J
K Z
V
u�
m
ro
in
r
o
o
o
o
o
m _
O
0
O
lV
tV
lV
tV
CV
o �
c a
o
0
0
o
N
z
5
�0
0
�
U
�
�
0
N
W
avD
N
F
Mn
o
7
v
o
v N
G
O
O
G
O
O
z
4}
O
N
O
M
O
O
O
0
0
Q
m
m
m
Z_
z H
N
m F
N 0
W a
N O
�
m
Z
U
U LL
m O
U p
C �l
m E
a
O
N 7
7 C
C IA
m I I
U
`o E
E
E
.E
U
m
C
1
1
1
1
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF
(City of Fort Collins, 2-Yr Storm)
LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts.
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand
DATE: 4/2/01
2 yr storm, Cf = 1.00
DIRECT RUNOFF
CARRY OVER
TOTAL
REMARKS
Design
Point
Tributary
Sub -basin
A
(ac)
C Cf
tc
(min)
i
(inrnr)
Q (2)
(CIS)
from
Design
Point
Q (2)
(cfs)
0(2)tot
(CIS)
1
101
0.16
0.95
5.0
2.85
0.44
0.44
2
102
0.33
0.84
5.0
2.85
0.78
0.78
103
0.40
0.86
1 5.0
2.85
0.97
0.97
11
0.10
0.10
10.1
2.21
0.02
0.02
5
105
0.08
0.82
5.0
2.85
0.19
0.19
6
1 106
0.14
1 0.21
6.5
2.59
1 0.07
0.07
92128ow.xls
Q=gCiA
Q = peak discharge (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient
Cr = frequency adjustment factor
i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99)
A = drainage area (acres) i = 24.221 / (10+tc)o.m8
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF
(City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm)
LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apts.
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B.Strand
DATE: 4/2/01
100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25
DIRECT RUNOFF
CARRY OVER
TOTAL
REMARKS
Des.
Point
Area
Design.
A
(ac)
C Cf
tc
(min)
I
(ir✓hr)
Q (100)
(cfs)
from
Design
Point
Q (100)
(cfs)
Q(100)tot
(cls)
1
101
0.16
1.00
5.0
9.95
1.62
1.6
2
102
0.33
1.00
5.0
9.95
3.24
3.2
103
1 0.40
1 1.00
5.0
1 9.95
3.94
3.9
104
0.10
0.13
9.9
7.80
0.10
0.1
5
105
0.08
1.00
5.0
9.95
0.82
0.8
6
106
0.14
0.26
1 6.2
1 9.20
1 0.32
0.3
Q=CiA
9212f1ow.xls
Q = peak discharge (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient
i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99)
A = drainage area (acres) i= 84.682/(10+tcf'°
Pond Outlet Pipe
Cross Section for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Pond Outlet Pipe
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
Depth
0.25 ft
Diameter
15.00 in
Discharge
0.40 cfs
0.25 ft
1
VD
H 1
NTS
15.00 in
04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15
04:40: 10 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
' Pond Outlet Pipe
Worksheet for Circular Channel
' Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Pond Outlet Pipe
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
'
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
'
Diameter
Discharge
15.00 in
0.40 cfs
'
Results
Depth
0.25
ft
Flow Area
0.17
ft2
I
Wetted Perimeter
1.16
ft
Top Width
1.00
ft
Critical Depth
0.25
ft
'
Percent Full
20.00
Critical Slope
0.005377
ft/ft
Velocity
2.29
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.08
ft
'
Speck Energy
0.33
ft
Froude Number
0.97
Maximum Discharge
4.91
cfs
1
Full Flow Capacity
4.57
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.000038 ft/ft
'
Flow is subcritical.
1
04102/OI FlowMaster v5.15
04:40:05 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
' Revised Pond Outlet Swale
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
'
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Revised Pond Outlet
Swale
'
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve For
Water Elevation
Input Data
'
Channel Slope
1.0000 %
Elevation range: 99.83
ft to 101.00 ft.
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Start Station
End Station
Roughness
4.00
101.00
4.00
0.00
0.060
0.00
100.00
0.00
2.00
0.016
1.00
99.83
2.00
6.00
0.060
2.00
100.00
6.00
101.00
Discharge
0.40 cfs
/00
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.027
Water Surface Elevation 100.06
ft
Flow Area
0.30
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
2.51
ft
Top Width
2.47
ft
Height
0.23
ft
Critical Depth
100.02
ft
'
Critical Slope
0.014955
ft/ft
Velocity
1.33
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.03
ft
'
Specific Energy
100.09
ft
Froude Number
0.67
'
Flow is subcritical.
I
1
07/11/01 FlowMaster v5.15
11:08:17 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Pond Outlet Swale
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Revised Pond Outlet Swale
'
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve For
Water Elevation
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient
0.027
Channel Slope
1.0000 %
'
Water Surface Elevation
Discharge
100.06 ft
0.40 cfs
1
1
c
01
m
a�
W
1
1
1
1
'07111101
11:
11:08:31 AM
1
11
99.8'
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Station (ft)
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
I
1
1
1
Revised Pond Outlet Swale
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet Revised Pond Outlet Swale
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Input Data
Channel Slope
1.0000 %
Elevation range: 99.83 ft to 101.00 ft.
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Start Station
4.00
101.00
-4.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
1.00
99.83
2.00
2.00
100.00
6.00
101.00
Discharge
0.53 cfs
/ -J 3 0%
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient
0.032
Water Surface Elevation
100.10
ft
Flow Area
0.41
ft2
'
Wetted Perimeter
2.87
ft
Top Width
2.81
ft
Height
0.27
ft
Critical Depth
100.05
ft
Critical Slope
0.020025 ft/ft
Velocity
1.28
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.03
ft
i
Specific Energy
100.13
ft
Froude Number
0.59
'
Flow is subcritical.
End Station
0.00
2.00
6.00
Roughness
0.060
0.016
0.060
'07/11/01 FlowMaster v5.15
11:08:52 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Pond Outlet Swale
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Revised Pond Outlet Swale
'
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve For
Water Elevation
'
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient
0.032
Channel Slope
1.0000 %
Water Surface Elevation
Discharge
100.10 ft
0.53 cfs
100.E
1 oo.E
C
' 2100.4
m
to
W
07/11/01
11:08:5
11:08:57 AM
100.2
100.0
0051
-4.0
-2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Station (ft)
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666
We
FlowMaster v5.15
Page 1 of 1
' Pipe Between Ponds
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Pipe Between Ponds
'
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
'
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
'
Diameter
Discharge
24.00 in
9.50 cfs
Results
Depth
1.11 ft
Flow Area
1.79 ft2
'
Wetted Perimeter
3.36 ft
Top Width
1.99 ft
Critical Depth
1.10 ft
1
Percent Full
55.48
Critical Slope
0.005116 ft/ft
Velocity
5.31 ft/s
Velocity Head
0.44 ft
Specific Energy
1.55 ft
Froude Number
0.99
Maximum Discharge
17.21 cfs
Full Flow Capacity
16.00 cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.001764 ft/ft
'
Flow is subcritical.
I
04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15
04:42:03 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Pipe Between Ponds
Cross Section for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Pipe Between Ponds
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
Depth
1.11 ft
Diameter
24.00 in
Discharge
9.50 cfs
1.11 ft
1
V L
H 1
NTS
24.00 in
'04/02/01 FlowMaster v5.15
04:42:06 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1
1
1
1
Outlet
P-4
'Inlet 1
P-3
MH-2
P-2
Inlet 5
Project Title: Elizabeth Street Apartments Project Engineer: JR ENGINEERING
x:\3920000.aIR3921202tdrainage\elizpipe.stm JR Engineering, Ltd StormCAD 0.5 (158]
07/10/01 11:27:08 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
I
JR STANDARD PIPE TABLE
Pipe
Section
Number
Length
Constructed
Discharge
Capacity
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Size
Section
(ft)
Slope
(cfs)
(cis)
Invert
Cover
HGL
Invert
(ft/ft)
Elevation
(ft)
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
(ft)
P-1
15 inch
1
8.77
0.005701
2.40
4.88
37.09
1.96
39.83
37.04
P-2
15 inch
1
88.73
0.004959
2.40
4.55
36.94
1.71
39.78
36.50
P-3
15 inch
1
76.32
0.004979
2.40
4.56
36.40
' 5.35
39.62
36.02
P-4
18 inch
1
7.74
0.005168
5.60
7.55
35.92
4.58
39.42
35.88
1
Ci
1
Project Title: Elizabeth Street Apartments Project Engineer: JR ENGINEERING
' x:t3920000.aIh3921202tdrainagetelizpipe.stm JR Engineering, Ltd StormCAD v1.5 [158]
07/10/01 11:24:05 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
JR STANDARD NODE REPORT
Node
Total
Additional
Rim
Sump
HGL In
HGL Out
Upstream
Flow
Elevation
Elevation
(ft)
(ft)
Added
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(cfs)
Inlet 5
0.00
0.00
40.30
37.00
39.86
39.83
MH
0.00
N/A
39.90
36.00
39.81
39.78
MH - 2
0.00
N/A
43.00
36.00
39.66
39.62
Inlet 1
0.00
3.20
42.00
35.00
39.52
39.42
Outlet
3.20
N/A
42.00
35.00
39.40
39.40
1
Project Title: Elizabeth Street Apartments Project Engineer: JR ENGINEERING
' x:%3920000.aIA3921202kJrainage%elizpipe.stm JR Engineering, Ltd StormCAD v1.5 [158]
07/10/01 11:24:24 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
i 0 (DF,
4� Z N ~O
1 `�
> W N m
W aoa
I�f`ti-C din
$ CM C'7 ti U
Lo0=0 I CO-
4, p 4-N N..to W
O C)O O O O C) C)L O O > >�
�McO C:) C)O C:)O O O O C C �.. o
C O M N c- O O 06 IZ Co. In O O.0 C N a`
't i � v- 't c7 CM CM co C'7 + .N
N
00
J�(A O
+ 0)LO
0O MM~ UQD
= (B CD ((D N C � OpLn
CM
CO Q. � � > > � � N
N.. �CCO.
1
Q'(/) (� ac
N
JJ��J
m
0
I O U
+
C �N
Nvo O O =3
OO O m
=OCD + e
�MM r c �°
1W C)
ccL CC)
Y
M �VJ O
♦V C) ON= 00
�O CO
O N
(D CD CD M t CS
CM C•IO U
O CV).... (0 c v
0
' O > >L�
+ �CCO.. o
+ . — C CV Ca
O J(/) _
O N e
�+ O O +
EOln O CD00$
00
CCO O lD��t
J�(n O CO 00
dN�.*CO nm
$, > >� Q o,
a)CCCm*
U
WHO -0 Q.0 C N h 9
+'00 JDQJ(/� N
�Oui N GI Q
0CVCV) No
Cb
^` W �N
( y �
Q H p
M.- O O
—j w ymo
' a x 0
DP #3 Pipe
Cross Section for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
DP #3
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.020000 fdft
Depth
0.57 ft
Diameter
15.00 in
Discharge
3.90 cfs
1
04/03/01
09:58:15 AM
0.57 ft
1
V L
H 1
NITS
15.00 in
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
I
1
1
1
DP #3 Pipe
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
DP #3
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
'
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.020000 ft/ft
'
Diameter
Discharge
15.00 in
3.90 cfs
1
1
11
1
Results
Depth
0.57
ft
Flow Area
0.55
ftz
Wetted Perimeter
1.85
ft
Top Width
1.25
ft
Critical Depth
0.80
ft
Percent Full
45.63
Critical Slope
0.006691 ft/ft
Velocity
7.15
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.79
ft
Specific Energy
1.36
ft
Froude Number
1.90
Maximum Discharge
9.83
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
9.14
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.003645 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
'04/03/01 FlowMaster v5.15
09:58:05 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Roof Collection System
Cross Section for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Roof Collection System
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.009
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Depth
0.50 ft
Diameter
8.00 in
Discharge
1.60 cfs
1
1
1
1
1
10.50 ft
1
v
H 1
NTS
8.00 in
04/04/01
' 07:36:06 AM
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
' Roof Collection System
Worksheet for Circular Channel
' Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
'
Worksheet
Flow Element
Roof Collection System
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
'
Mannings Coefficient 0.009
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter
8.00 in
'
Discharge
1.60 cfs
1
t
7
1
Results
Depth
0.50
ft
Flow Area
0.28
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
1.40
ft
Top Width
0.57
ft
Critical Depth
0.59
ft
Percent Full
75.34
Critical Slope
0.007560 ft/ft
Velocity
5.67
fus
Velocity Head
0.50
ft
Specific Energy
1.00
ft
Froude Number
1.43
Maximum Discharge
1.88
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
1.75
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.008403 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
04/04/01 FlowMaster v5.15
' 07:35:40 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Sidewalk Culvert
Cross Section for Rectangular Channel
'
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.all\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Sidewalk Culvert
'
Flow Element
Rectangular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
'
Solve.For
Channel Depth
'
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Depth
0.09 ft
'
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
Discharge
0.40 cfs
1
1
1
1
04/03101
02:36:44 PM
2.00 ft
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666
0.09 ft
1
VD
H 1
NTS
FlowMaster v5.15
Page 1 of 1
Sidewalk Culvert
' Worksheet for Rectangular Channel
'
Project Description
Project File
x:\3920000.ail\3921202\drainage\9212fm.fm2
Worksheet
Sidewalk Culvert
'
Flow Element
Rectangular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
'
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
'
Discharge
0.40 cfs
1
1
1
Results
Depth
0.09
ft
Flow Area
0.18
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
2.18
ft
Top Width
2.00
ft
Critical Depth
0.11
ft
Critical Slope
0.005934 ft/ft
Velocity
2.19
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.07
ft
Specific Energy
0.17
ft
Froude Number
1.28
Flow is supercritical.
04/03/01 FlowMaster v5.15
' 02:36:36 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1
Elizabeth Street Apartments
100-yr Event, Inlet Capacity
LOCATION: Elizabeth Street Apartments
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand
SUBMITTED BY: JR Engineering
DATE: 4/3/01
Inlet Grate Capacity:
release rate is described by the orifice equation,
Qo = CA, sgrt(2g(h-Eu))
where Qo = orifice outflow (cfs)
Co = orifice discharge coefficient
g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 ft/s
Ao = effective area of the orifice (ftz)
Eo = geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft)
h = water surface elevation (ft)
IN THIS CASE:
0.5' of ponding allowed over inlets giving (h-Eo) = 0.5'
Ao = Open area of one inlet grate = 1.76 square feet
Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering)
Co = 0.6
Qo = 6.0 cfs per inlet
In parking lots, 80% of theoretical capacity due to clogging (FTC Stormwater Design Manual; 5-9)
Qo (80%) = 4.8 cfs per inlet
DP #
Q100 (cfs)
Q100 /
Qo (80•/)
INLETS
REQUIRED
2
3.20
0.7
1
3
3.90
0.8
1
5
0.80
0.2
1
orifice -.100 yr, inlet capacity.xis
I
I
280 5 Closed Conduit FlowNr2g-Ah d.
K
10tos up M4
S�l�N�l1l�l1l�l1l�N
L ��>•Itil.�t�t�
a5Kr 10, 106
Re,4Q
11rdy
Figure S-21 Flow coefficient K and Ref/K versus the
Reynolds number for orifices, nozzles,
and venturi meters (20, 23)
top scale with the slanted lines to determine K for given values of d, D, Ah and
Y. With K, we can then solve for Q from Eq. (5-31).
The literature on orifice flow contains many discussions concerning the
optimum placement of pressure taps on both the upstream and downstream
side of the orifice. The data given in Fig. 5-21 are for "corner taps." That is, on
the upstream side, the pressure readings were taken immediately upstream of
the plate orifice (at the corner of the orifice plate and the pipe wall), and the
downstream tap wits at a similar downstream location. However, pressure data
from flange taps (1 in. upstream and 1 in. downstream) and from the taps shown
in Fig. 5-19 all yield virtually the same values for K—the differences are no
greater than the deviations involved in reading Fig. 5-21.•
• For more precise values of K with specific types of taps, see the ASME report on fluid meters (20).
EXAMPLJ
and a water-r
the deflector,
Assume the x
SOLUTIO
either enter F
in piezometri(
the equation
Writing t
Ah =
The kinemati
compute df
d
v
From Fig. 5-:
Q=t
The(
however, the ;
ment in a pi)
1
1
.1,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
17 01 03:1Sp C&C Supply
421
-3516
B
0000a
A A
000ao
aaaao
B
GRATE
TOP VIEW
1 1/41 r i r 7/e-
L_
2j—
GRATE
SECTION A - A
1 G1' 1
FRAME
TOP VIEW
CAST IRON to conform to ASTM
A-48, CLASS 35B
H-20 Wheel Loading
1-3516 MAY 1994
303 286 0051
Single Unit with Curb Box
I I
Hun
I3/4'J HUH
6 E
H H
ooaoo
GRATE
SECTION A B - B BOTTOM VIEW
11 /4'
AV
L
3/B'T
3/4J J Li
CURB HOOD
FRONT, BACK. AND SECTION VIEVS
I r/4'
5
D&L No. 1-3516
Est. Weight 530 lbs.
D&L
FRAME
SECTION
p.2
D6L Fountlry
Phone:
509
Fax:
P.O.Oox1319
Moses Lake. WA 98037
552
76524
w
sw«M.m.
r.uan..e
1' = 16 114'
1
1
Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage
LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand/D. Mockeman
SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING
DATE: 7/10/01
Invert.
WQ WSEL-
100-yr WSEL-
top of wall -
9212pond.xls
V = 1/3 d (A + B + sgrt(A'B))
where V = volume between contours, ft3
d = depth between contours, ft
A = surface area of contour
POND NAME
Stage
(ft)
Surface
Area
(ft2)
Incremental
Storage
(ac-ft)
Total
Storage
(ac-ft)
5035.5
0
5036
1122
0.00
0.00
5037
2660
1 0.04
0.05
5038
4389
0.08
0.08
5039
4389
0.10
0.18
5039.4
4389
0.04
0.22
5040
4389
0.10
0.28
5041
4389
0.10
0.38
5041.9
4389
0.09
0.47
5042
4389
0.01
0.39
5043
4389
0.10
0.57
5043.15
4389
0.02
0.41
5044 1
4389
0.09
0.66
— W Q 110 /qwe,
DQ74e/l 74 67i7
U o /u.,we
[_1
1
1
1
1
DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method
100-Year Event
LOCATION:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
PROJECT NO:
39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY:
B. Strand
DATE:
4/2/01
Equations:
Area trib. to pond =
1.06
Developed flow = Qo = CIA
C (100) =
0.91
Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qo
Developed C A =
0.96
Vol. Out = Vo =K Qpo T
Release rate, Qpo =
0.4
storage = S = Vi - Vo
K =
0.9
Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve
with updated (3.67") rainfall
JR Engineering
acre
acre
cfs
(from fig 2.1)
Storm
Duration, T
(min)
Rainfall
Intensity, I
(in/hr)
Qo
(cfs)
Vol. In
Vi
(ft)
Vol. Out
Vo
(ft)
Storage
S
(ft)
Storage
S
(ac-ft)
5
9.95
9.6
2879
108
2771
0.06
10
7.77
7.5
4495
216
4279
0.10
20
5.62
5.4
6506
432
6074
0.14
30
4.47
4.3
7758
648
7110
0.16
40
3.74
3.6
8658
864
7794
0.18
50
3.23
3.1
9358
1080
8278
0.19
60
2.86
2.8
9931
1296
8635
0.20
70
2.57
2.5
10415
1512
8903
0.20
80
2.34
2.3
10836
1728
9108
0.21
90
2.15
2.1
11208
1944
9264
0.21
100
1.99
1.9
11542
2160
9382
0.22
110
1.86
1.8
11845
2376
9469
0.22
120
1.75
1.7
12123
2592
9531
0.22
130
1.65
1.6
12379
2808
9571
0.22
140
1.56
1.5
12618
3024
9594
0.22
150
1.48
1.4
12841
3240
9601
0.22
160
1.41
1.4
13050
3456
9594
0.22
170
1.35
1.3
13248
3672
9576
0.22
180
1.29 1
1.2 1
13436 1
3888
9548
0.22
Required Storage Volume: 9601 ft3
0.22 acre-ft
1
9212pond.xls, FAA-1 00yr Trib
I
[1
Detention Pond
Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing
LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand
SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING
DATE: 04/02/01 top of term
Equation for flow over a broad crested weir
Q = CLH3r'
where C = weir coefficient =
H = overflow height
L = length of the weir
3.367
� b
* spill elevation
' The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond
Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft
Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged.
1
Q (100) = 10 cfs (peak flow into pond)
' Spill elev = 5039.8 ft = 100-year WSEL
Min top of berm elev.= 5040.8
Weir length required:
' L= 8 ft
Use L = 8 ft
1
.1
v = 1.59 ft/s
spillway, 9212pond.xls
r
r0I,,.CRETE INLET` OR 0
,,uz, $A 101 "
'0 PIPE INLET SHOWN
RECTANGULAR INCL'Nro ')pOr' Uet
Technology Pertaining
fytfr
..........
"pr IVier R
UNITED
,,, ?" EP!;oe i
ACITIVIENT C
-BUREAU OF F
dip" 1 4
Plot WAit
prplrft
1pq't�
117-
1!� F1 A -MLYM
7—
R B. -a-y-e-9-
W of
H. J. WaffeAn
pfrAIL
Pr�lt - -
vo,
secw;O4 A
5 rCr;0N
oipt
pf VISION SOX WIT -if AO
NOrE 5
D. L 'AFT
R. B.
Mplh C
Iv
'o
1;oo< ;l
go OUTLET'
t
r.
e,,1K AND j,g jpisrxu11TfjjS Enhanced Version
If A-tt
w
OF EARTH 0HI
is
CNNECT
O
Water; Fiesources Publications-i -L LC
�
available from
R I E I u I RED .
M LI I . .........
C
........ .. .
9,!g,
TER MEASUREMENT STRUCTURES
weir pool should be at least twice the head
on the weir and never less than 1 foot for all
weirs. The distance between the corners of
the weir crest and the sides of the approach
channel should also be at least twice the
head on the weir and never less than 1 foot
for all standard contracted weirs.
(d) Head on Weir. —The head on the weir is
the difference in elevation between the weir
crest and the water surface upstream. The head
ii is measured by:
(1) Either a staff gage in the weir pool or
a gage in a measuring well located upstream
�:. of the weir a distance of four times the
maximum head on the weir.
5-20. Head - discharge
Relationship. —(a) Rectangular and Cipolletti
Weirs. —The discharge in cubic feet per second
of these standard weirs depends on the crest
length and the head on the weir. Knowing the
weir length and head on the weir, the free -flow
discharge can be read directly from tables 5-4,
5-5, and 5-6.
The minimum head on standard rectangular
and Cipolletti weirs is 0.2 foot. At heads less
than 0.2 foot the nappe does not spring free of
the crest and measurement error results.
The maximum head on standard rectangular
and Cipolletti weirs is one-third of the crest
length. For the weir structure shown in figure
5-18, the maximum head (h max.) on the weir
should not exceed the values given in the table
because in uniined canals excessive channel
erosion may occur immediately downstream of
the structure. If this structure is used in a hard
surface lined canal where erosion is not a
problem, the head on the weir can be one-third
the crest length and the discharge computed
from the appropriate weir formula.
(b) V-notch Weirs. —The discharge in cubic
feet per second of a standard 901 V-notch weir
is determined only by the head on the bottom
of the V-notch. Table 5-7 gives the discharges
for various heads. The V-notch weirs are
usually limited to flows of 10 cfs or less. More
head is required in V-notch weirs to pass a
given discharge than in rectangular and
:.Cipolletti weirs but for flows up to 1 cfs they
are generally more accurate. The reason for this
is that the nappe springs free from the V-shaped
section even for small heads, whereas the nappe
273
clings to the crest of other weirs. The minimum
head on a V-notch weir should be 0.2 foot.
5-21. Design Example of 'Selecting and
Setting a Weir. —(a) Requirements. —Select and
set a Cipolletti weir structure to measure a
maximum flow of 40 cfs. The weir structure is
to be constructed in a trapezoidal earth canal
which has the following hydraulic properties:
Q = 40 cfs; bottom width = 6.0 feet; side slopes
1-1/2 to 1; normal water depth upstream (d, )
and downstream (d,) of weir = 2.0 feet;
velocity = 2.22 feet per second; and canal bank
freeboard = 1.5 feet. Assume a 3-foot drop (F)
between upstream and downstream normal
water surfaces has been provided in the canal
profile.
(b) Weir Selection. —The table of weir
structures in figure 5-18 gives some standard
weir lengths with their corresponding
maximum discharges, Q max., and minimum
and maximum drops, F, between upstream and
downstream water surfaces. Select the
structure having the least weir length for a
design discharge of 40 cfs and F = 3.0 feet.
Structure No. 6A (from table on fig. 5-18), has
a crest length, W, of 6 feet which meets this
criteria. The maximum design capacity of this
structure is 57 cfs and a maximum allowable F
= 3 feet. Table 5-5 shows that for a 6-foot weir
and a discharge of 40.1 cfs, the head, h, equals
1.58 feet.
(c) Weir Setting. —Set the weir pool invert so
that elevation B shown in figure 5-18 is 3h
below the upstream normal water surface
(NWS) elevation. Assume the upstream canal
invert elevation is 100.00 feet. Then
El. B = Canal invert elevation + d, — 3h
El. B = 100.00 + 2.00 — 30.58)
= 97.26 feet
Since 2h = 3.16 feet is greater than the 12-inch
minimum, El. B is satisfactory. The. elevation
of the top of weir wall (El. T) is given by the
following equation:
El. T= El. B+2h-2 0+G
12
El. T=97.26+3.16-2 f+3.21
El. T = 103.42 feet
In the above calculation, 2 20 is the weir blade
IT
(Lateral
side sb0e
i
FLOW
l
ymm
o
ou
about f
_.fAA
this diinensgn 1s L in
1•
fables 5-4. J-5. and 5-6
I
'
I
I
I
I i
10' Earth
trans Ition(Min ,
x
V
Earth transition
lr~
e PLAN
rep of bank El. weir Crest
i N w 5
El r
/a y
z•
„7•
1•'
rl Go tree!
too of bad"
4:1 Star.
[I B
Level ?h sot never.
=
r
N w s
' test than 12
w✓
_
_ _
ea MOr �
M1
>f
�Sd, Mn
Pool length•fs h(M�'/f1
s<�
��
1cprotecton
32 N01eS, ct4 /Or t1d! }"Zinc cooled
w4,2,2
6"Fdfer
rivets. Orfve rivers cold odd chin
fbnrinuous in woos one floor
SECTION A -A &net ero flu/loth
flush on for side
SPLICE DETAIL
64 Le K
M
M
for ?'to ?� WtI! °/piles, splice near the
,:�
center of the wefr between
1.
Onchor bolts. Q'to f6'Wefr blades.
1.4
.ey
��
,,
$Price neor the third Points
Der weelr anchor bolts
b
7
ffa
6 I •
i
12 Go Steel
o 2
C
=
:+
C
wa FrOm .01m1
4 LID 12
12
I
A
B Spaces ��A —.
Ez tend cutoff vertically or hOrizOnt011y
f•Mdes
with unremforced confrere as required
remove burrs
Mi 7"
SECTION B-B
WEIR DETAILS
NOTES
<,C
tfwlffwll dbw0ate drop in water surface. F. is 10 feet for discharges up to to cfs.
WEIR
STRUCTURES am is feet for discharges greater than 70 cfs
musmium drop a water surf"e. F, rs equal to the head. h. on
STR. NO.
W
MAX
cfs
Al
MAX
MR
o1IN
a NIX
IIMAX...-O'
l6
I.66'
f.66'!A
3'_e
J6
1.66'
6
6'-0'
S7
2.Oo?.00'6A
6'-0'
37
2.00'
7
7'-0"
r0
?.or'
?.07'
lA
7'-O'
70
2.07'
J. 00'
s
s'-o'
70
11.89,
1.89'
OA
8'-o"l
r0
1.89
3.00
9
9'-0'
r0
1.75'
1.75'
9A
9'-0'
70
1.75'
5.00'
10
t0.-0'
r0
1.63'
f.61'
IOA
/O'-O'
r0
1.63'
5.00'
'f1
If'-0'
r0
1.5J'
1.53,
1IA
17 _o•
ro
I.sJ
too
/2
fr-o'
74
1.50'
1.50,
1.50'
IJ
lJ'-O"
so
0.50'
/.So'
1.50'
11
14'-0' 1
417 1
1.50'
1. 50'
1.50'
15
fs-0'
9l
I.SO
1.50
J. 50'
/6
15 -0"
99
X o'
0.50
1.50'
1 rs Machine.
the weir for design discharge bait, .1th 34. "' -
Weer blade to be galvanized by the hot did Process offer fabrication head, her. out -
j4?
ANCHOR BOLT AND WEIR BLADE DATA a`CUI rasher I}" ;
7}a
W
HW
G
M
A
B
S
C
D
3 -0'
?e'
7-/0 '"
5 -9 `
12 �"
3 /e"
•
2-?
102"
ON
6-0'
7-e'!-2"
T-N1'
I/"
e(IJ 1e"
7-6 M"
is
/OJ"
to'
7-0"
2-6'
J-2'"
e'-r/�"
1011
31(1i16'
7-6
10}'
10'
B -0'
2 -1'
! - 7
9 -l1
f6"
S /5"
Y-6
107"
10'
9-e
2'-e'
J- t "
10-1/J"
It 1'
6LQ 15"
2-6 Wo
fowl"
t0'
10-0'
24'
2-10 r'
Il'-g f'
N 1'
7LO14'
2-2
107"
6"
le-0'
te'
2-f0 "
I2,-9
131'
9 1e'
t-2 IUA "
/01i
a'
I?-0'
IP
7-/0 iIJ-91
1? '
9@14"
?-2 '
10J'd888
I! -0'
2�
? -10
fe - 9
11 1'
/O /6'
2-I
/O'"W-0'
2g'
1-101'
15' 9J,
101"
II l6a
I-7I-"
/01"l3
-0-
2e'
t-10
/6-9 "
1/'
11 13.?-2
to16
-0
26'
2-/0 1"
f'- 9 1'
15
/J /!
2 -2/0
Figure 5-18. Cipolletti weir structures-5 feet to 16 feet. 103-13-1238
(Figure enhanced by Water Resources Publications, LLC)
Reinforcement
nor shown L'
SECTION C-C
WATER MEASUREMENT STRUCTURES
Table 5-S.-Discharge of standard Gl'polletti weirs in cubic feet per second. Values below and to
the left of heavy lines determined experimentally: others computed from
thn fnrmuia n - 3967 1.012. 103-D-1246-1
281
Read
Length of weir, L, feet
h,
feet
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.20
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.20
1.51
1.81
2.11
.32
.65
.97
1.30
1.62
1.94
2.27
.21
.35
.70
1.04
1.39
1.74
2.08
2.43
.22
.37
.74
1.11
1.48
1.86
2.23
2.60
.23
.40
.79
1.19
1.58
1.98
2.38
2.77
.24
.25
.42
.84
1.26
1.68
2.10
2.53
2.95
.45
.89
1.34
1.78
2.23
2.68
3.12
.26
.94
1.42
1.89
2.36
2.83
3.31
.27
.47
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.49
2.99
3.49
.28
.50
1.05
1.58
2.10
2.63
3.15
3.68
.29
.30
.53
.55
1.11
1.66
2.21
2.77
3.32
3.87
1.16
1.74
2.32
2.90
3.49
4.07
.31
.58
1.22
1.83
2.44
3.05
3.66
4.27
.32
.61
1.28
1.92
2.55
3.19
3.83
4.47
.33
.64
7
1.34
2.00
2.67
3.34
4.00
4.67
.34
.35
1.39
2.09
2.79
3.49
4.18
4.88
.70
1.45
2.18
2.91
3.64
4.36
5.09
.36
.73
1.52
2.27
3.03
3.79
4.55
5.30
.37
.76
.79
1.58
2.37
3.16
3.94
4.73
5.52
.38
.82
1.64
2.46
3.28
4.10
4.92
5.74
.39
.40
.85
1.70
2.56
3.41
4.26
5.11
5.96
1.77
2.65
3.54
4.42
5.30
6.19
.41
.88
1.83
2.75
3.66
4.58
5.50
6.41
.42
.92
1.90
2.85
3.80
4.75
5.70
6.65
.43
.95
.98
1.96
2.95
3.93
4.91
5.90
6.88
.44
.45
1.02
2.03
3.05
4.06
5.08
6.10
7.11
.46
1.05
2.10
3.15
4.20
5.25
6.30
7.35
7.59
1.08
2.17
3.25
4.34
5.42
6.51
.47
1.12
2.24
3.36
4.48
5.60
6.72
7.84
.48
1.16
2.31
3.46
4.62
5.77
6.93
8.08
.49
.50
1.20
2.38
3.57
4.76
5.95
7.14
8.33
2.45
3.68
4.90
6.13
7.36
8.58
.51
2.52
3.79
5.05
6.31
7.57
8.84
.52
2.60
3.90
5.20
6.50
7.79
9.09
.53
.54
2.67
4.01
5.34
6.68
9.02
9.35
9.61
.55
2.75
4.12
5.49
6.87
8.24
.56
2.82
4.23
5.64
7.05
8.47
9.88
2.90
435
5.80
7.24
8.69
10.1
.57
2.97
4.46
5.95
7.44
8.92
10.4
.58
3.05
4.58
6.10
7.63
9.15
10.7
.59
.60
3.13
4.69
6.26
7.82
9.39
11.0
3.21.
4.81
6.42
8.02
9.62
11.2
.61
3.29
4.93
6.57
8.22
9.86
11.5
.62
3.37
5.05
6.73
8.42
10.1
11.8
.63
3.45
5.17
6.90
8.62
10.3
12.1
.64
.65
3.53
5.29
7.06
8.82
10.6
12A
3.61
5.42
7.22
9.03
10.8
12.6
.66
3.69
5.54
7.38
9.23
11.1
12.9
.67
5.66
7.55
9.44
11.3
13.2
3.81
•68
3.90
5.79
7.72
9.65
11.6
13.5
.69
.70
3.98
5.92
7.89
9.86
11.8
1 13.8
' ®�® 8311 W. Carder
�^ Littleton, CO 80125
(305) 791-1600 �1 �7 ���/�✓> �7 �� Qw
(303) 791-1710 Fax i
(800) 285-2902 (Colorado Only)
3340 East Las 1%ga5 5t.
NOW �y Colorado Springs, CO 80931
(719) 392-0030 '
' Bvy if, 6vey 1f, never look back. (719) 392-3502 Fax
ofI
Dare—( Q Pace
o.n.`rl�(�
F
u
i
i
Y
12.,gc.�S
www.carderconcrere.corn
Circular Non -Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Circular Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Elliptical Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections
SlDrmceptrr G
"THE ENGINEERED SOLUTION FOR
STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT"
I
' DETENTION POND
100-yr Event, Outlet Sizing
' LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
PROJECT NO: 39212.02
' COMPUTATIONS BY: B. Strand
SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING
DATE: 04/02/01
Submerged Orifice Outlet:
release rate is described by the orifice equation,
' Qo = COA, sgrt( 2g(h-Eo))
where Qo = orifice outflow (cfs)
' Co = orifice discharge coefficient
g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 ft/s
A0 = effective area of the orifice (ft)
' Eo = greater of geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft)
h = water surface elevation (ft)
Qo = 0.40 cfs (2-year historic)
outlet pipe dia = D = 15.0 in
' Invert elev. = 5035.30 ft (inv. "D" on outlet structure)
Eo = 5035.55 ft (downstream HGL for peak 100 yr flow - from FlowMaster)
h = 5039.8 ft - 100 yr WSEL
' Co = 0.65
t solve for effective area of orifice using the orifice equation
Ao = 0.037 ft2
= 5.4 in
' orifice dia. = d = 2.62 in
Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering )
' d/ D = 0.17
kinematic viscosity, v = 1.22E-05 ft2/s
Reynolds no. = Red = 4Q/(7rdv) = 1.91 E+05
Co = (K in figure) = 0.6 check
Use d = 2.6 in
Ao = 0.037 R2 = 5.31 in2
Qmax = 0.4 cfs
' orifice - 100yr, 9212pond.xis
1
:1
1
1
1
280 5 Closed Conduit Flow
O.E
0.7
0.5101 102 103 104 105
Red = 4
Figure 5-21 Flow coefficient K and Red/K versus the
Reynolds number for orifices, nozzles,
and venturi meters (20, 23)
Red = � d
K
10' 102 103 104
105 106
NVenturi
��
terszzles
and
no:
_::■��
IN
1.0990
,
.
,
�
._.
�11
INS
n
,,.,;,,
no
;MIN
INININI
106
Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility
WATER QUALITY POND
Project Name:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
Project Number:
39212.02
Company:
JR Engineering
Designer:
B. STRAND
Date:
4/2/01
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=la/100)
B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area)
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
(WQCV=1.0'(0.91'i3-1.19'i2+0.78i))
D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12' Area' 1.2
2. Outlet Works
A) Outlet Type (Check One)
B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowevst Perforations (H)
C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao)
(Figure EDB-3)
D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only)
i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR
ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width
E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum)
F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (Ao)
G) Number of Rows (nr)
H) Total outlet Area (A J
3. Trash Rack
A) Needed Open Area:
A, = 0.5' (Figure 7 Value)' Aa,
B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One)
C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a)
'
i) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (W.aJ
from Table 6a-1
ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR)
'
= H - 2" for flange of top support
iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H)
Describe if "other"
'
iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension,
Describe if "other"
v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.)
Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2)
la= 72 %
i = 0.72
A = 1.19 acres
WQCV = 0.28 watershed inches
Vol. = 0.03 ac-ft
x Orifice Plate
Perforated Riser Pipe
Other:
H = 1.5 ft
Ao = 0.12 square inches
D =
112 inches, OR
W =
inches
nc =
1 number
Ao =
0.2 square inches
nr = 4 number
Arn = 0.8 square inches
A, = 27.2 square inches
x < 2" Diameter Round
2" High Rectangular
Other:
Wwnc = 3 inches
HTR = 16 inches
x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter)
Other:
x 0.139" (US Filter)
Other:
3/4 inches
#156 VEE
' Page 1
1
1
1
1
vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2)
3/8" x 1.0" flat bar
D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b):
1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W =
inches
ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") W� =
inches
iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopem"a =
inches
from Table 6b-1
iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR =
inches
v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H)
KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum
(Describe if "other)
Other:
vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP
inches
Grating). Describe if "other"
Other:
vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2)
(Based on depth of WQCV surcharge)
4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 3 (UW)
5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values
A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) 0 acre-feet
B) Surface Area acres
C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches
(Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control)
D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yestno
6. Two -Stage Design
A) Top Stage (Dwo = 2' minumum) DM = 0 feet
B) Bottom Stage (DBs = Dwo + 1.5' min, Dwo + 3.0' max.
Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV)
C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of
0.5'Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet)
D) Total Volume: Volai = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B
Must be > Design Volume in 1 D
7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical)
Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred
8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver
. Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred
9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other")
Page 2
Storage =
acre-feet
DBs =
1
feet
Storage =
0.05
acre-feet
Surf. Area =
0.06
acres
Depth =
0
feet
Storage =
acre-feet
Surf. Area =
acres
VOILA =
0.05
acre-feet
Z = 0 (horizontal/vertical)
Z = 0 (horizontal/vertical)
x Native Grass
—Irrigation Turf Grass
Other:
' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3)
1
1
1
' 1
1 w
m
1 m 0.4
E
1 m
0.2
' U
0
0.1
' 0.0
0. �3
' 0.02
' 0.010
STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
SOLUTION: Required Area er
WQCv
in which,
IN
I
.... UAU U.6U 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
� Or
4. 2 Area per Row,a (in.2 )
FIGURE EDB-3
Water Quality Outlet Sizing: /
Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume
9-1-99
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
S-43
Note: Size 2— through 100—year overflow
trash racks with the aid of figure 7.
Overflow Ou
w/ Trash F
100—YR or Larger Flood Water Surface
ocl— WQCV Water Surfac_�
Orifice Plate
H Permane:-3
t Water (See Figure 4S
Surface _
or4 Trash Rack 1 (See Figure 6)
Overtopping
Protection
Emergency Spillway
for Larger Floods
Finished Grade
100—YR Orifice
,,'—Control Outlet
Outlet Pipe = 120% of 100—YR Capacity
Around
(Optional)
Drop Box ❑uttet Option
Overflow and Emergency
Spillway
100—YR or Larger Flood Water Surface_
WQCV Water Surface_
Orifice Plate
HwQcv (See Figure 4
Permanent Water 3or4
Surface, 1
e
Overtopping
Protection
10—YR Orifice
/— Control Outlet —
Outlet Pipe = 1207. of 10—YR Capacity
Overtopping Sgillwa,v_O,ption
Around
(Optional)
I Urban Drainage and Figure 1
Flood Control District
Typical WQCV Outlet Structure Profiles
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Including 100—Year Detention
F.a Datats.d.q
Toe of Slope
Slope (Varies)
Plan View —Straight Winawall Option
Toe of Slope
Generally 30e to 60e
of Slope (Varies)
For either a Vertical or Adverse —Slope Trash Rack
a handrail may be required.
Plan View —Flared Wingwall Option
r
Urban Drainage and Figure 3
Flood Control District
i Typical WQCV Outlet Structure
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) wngwall Configurations
Fte: oetme.dy
F
1
[]
1
Orifice Perforation Details
A---*--]
Structural Steel Channel
Formed Into Concrete, To
Span Width Of Structure.
See Figures 6—a, 6—b
Wplate = Wconr + 6 inches (minimum)
Permanent
Water Surface
Circular Openings: Wconc. Obtained From Table 6a-1
Rectangular Openings: Wca„c. = (Width of Rectangular Perforation W) + 12"
Rectangular Openings: Wppefing (see Figure 6—b) Obtained From Table 6b-1
Sa, see Sa, see
figure 5 gure 5 w
0 0 0 00
a g a
O
O 00 000 l�
0 0 0 00 0 0 00000 o o
0 00 000 t�
0 0 0 000
0 0 0 0000 °O00° 000
O 0 0 000 L�
0 O O 000
0 C; 0
Example Perforation Patterns
Note: The goal in designing the outlet is to minimize the number of columns of perforations
that will drain the WQCV in the desired time. Do not, however, increase the diameter of
circular perforations or the height of the rectangular perforations beyond 2 inches. Use the
allowed perforation shapes and configurations shown above along with Figure 5 to determine the
pattern that provides an area per row closest to that required without exceeding it.
IUrban Drainage and Figure 4
Flood Control District
Orifice Details for
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Draining WQCV
F7c DetaleAag
H
1
1
t
I
Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing
Circular Perforation Sizing
Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet.
ale Dia
(in)
Min. Se
(in)
Area per Row (sq in)
n=1
n=2
n=3
0.250
1
0.05
0.10
0.15.313
2
0.08
0.15
0,23
0.375
2
0.11
0.22
0.33
.438
W
2
0.30
0.45
.500
2
0.20
0.39
0.59
.563
3
0.25
0.50
075
.625
3
0.31
0.61
0.92
.688
3
0.37
0.74.
1.11
.750
3
0.44
0.88
1.33
13 16
0.813
3
0.52
1.04
1.56
7 8
0.875
3
0.60
1.20
1.80
15 16
0.938
3
0.69
1.38
207
1
1.000
4
0.79
1.57
236
1 1 16
1.063
4
0.89
1.77
2.66
1 1 8
1.125
4
0.99
1.99
2.98
1 3 16
1.188
4
1.11
2.22
3.32
1 1 4
1.250
4
1.23
2.45
3.68
1 5/16
1.313
4
1.35
2.71
4.06
1 3/8
1.375
4
1.48
2.97
4.45
1 7 16
1.438
4
1.62
3.25
4.87
1 1 2
1.500
4
1.77
3.$3
5.30
1 9 16
1.563
4
1.92
3.83
5.75
1 5 8
1.625
4
2.07
4.15
6.22
1 11 16
1.688
4
2.24
4.47
6.71
1 3 4
1.750
4
2.41 1
4.81 1
7.22
1 13 16
1.813
4
2.58
5.16
7.74
1 7 8
1.875
4
2.76
5.52
8.28
1 15 16
1.938
4
2.95
5.90
8.84
2
2.000
4
3.14
6.28
9.42
n a Number of columns of perforations
Minimum steel 1
plate thickness
_
1/4 5/16 ' 3/8 "
uesigner may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch
to better match the required area, If desired.
Rectangular Perforation Sizing
Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed.
Rectangular Height = 2 inches
Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in)
2"
Rectangular
Hole Width
Min. Steel
Thickness
5"
1 4
6"
1 4
7"
5/32 "
8" 1
5/16 "
9"
11 32 "
10"
3/8 "
>10"
1/2 "
r
Urban Drainage and Figure 5
Flood Control District
WQCV Outlet Orifice
I Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Perforation Sizing
Ft= Detale.dwp
' Note: Vertical WQCV Trash Racks are shown in Figures 6, 6—a, and 6—b for suggested standardized
outlet design. Adverse —Slope Trash Rock design may be used for non —standardized designs, but must
' meet minimum design criteria.
Structural Steel Channels Stainless Steel Bolts
Formed Into Concrete or intennittant Welds,
' See Figures 6—a, 6—b A See Figures 6—a, 6—b
O
t
H
Varies 2'-0"
to 6'-0'
' B B
2'-4-
(minimum)
A*—J
' WQCV Trash Racks: Elevation
1. Well —screen trash racks shall be stainless steel and shall be attached by intermittant
' welds along the edge of the mounting frame.
2. Bar grate trash racks shall be aluminum and shall be bolted using stainless steel hardware.
3. Trash Rack widths are for specified trash rack material. Finer well —screen or mesh size
than specified is acceptable, however, trash rack dimensions need to be adjusted for
materials having a different open area/gross area ratio (R value)
4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero
' head downstream of the rack.
Overflow Trash Racks:
1. All trash racks shall be mounted using stainless steel hardware and provided with
' hinged and lockable or boltoble access panels.
2. Trash racks shall be stainless steel, aluminum, or steel. Steel trash racks shall be hot
dip galvanized and may be hot powder painted after galvanizing.
' 3. Trash Racks shall be designed such that the diagonal dimension of each opening is
smaller than the diameter of the outlet pipe.
4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero
' head downstream of the rack.
Urban Drainage and Figure 6
Flood Control District
' Suggested WQCV Outlet Standardized
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Trash Rack Design
Fie: Detad&dwg
1
l�l
C808.75 American Standard
Structural Steel Channel.
Trash Radc Attached By Welding
4
13r
H
Varies
2'-0'
U.S. Filter* Stainless
to
Steel Well —Screen
(or equal) Per Tables
6a-1. 6a-2
8' 4'-0' 8'
Bolt Down or
dock Down
CM808.75 American
I
Standard Structural
2'-4-
Steel Channel Formed
Minimum
Into Concrete Bottom
Trash Rack Att cried
And Sides Of Meld
By Intermittent Welds.
Section A —A
Tubular
Trash Rack
On 6'
4- Centers
T =
Steel Perforated ,
Flow Control
Plate
4-
Minimum
From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only
Well —Screen Frame
Attached To Channel
By Intermittent Welds
Steel Perforated
now Control
Plate
Flow
Trash Rack Attached 6-
By Intermittant Min
Welding All Around
Section B—B — Plan View
From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only
Limits for this Standardized Design:
1. All outlet plate openings are circular.
2. Maximum diameter of opening = 2 inches.
*U.S. Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3)
fie: Detalcdwg
Stainless Steel
Support Bars
No. 93 Stainless
Steel (U.S. Filter*
or Equal) Wires
Rack Swivel Hinge
now Control
Orifice Plate
Outlet Pipe 18' Min.
---- +
f
Flow
- 13 0~090
Section. C—C
From Figure 6, Circular Openings Only
R Value = (net open area)/(gross rack area)
= 0.60
Figure 6—a
Suggested Standardardized Trash Rack
and Outlet Design For WQCV Outlets
With Circular Openings
Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
' Minimum Width (Wc,=.) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack.
See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms.
1
[1
Maximum Dia I dth of Trash Rack Ooenina (W__._ 1 Per rnhimn nfu„IAa
o Circular
—'— .m..a
uc w[r
Opening
Maximum
(inches)
H=2.0'
H=3.0'
H=4.0'
H=5.0'
H=6.0'
Number of
Columns
< 0.25
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
14
< 0.50
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
14
_< 0.75
3 in.
6 in.
6;_
6 in.
6 in
7
< 1.00
6 in.
9 in.
9 in.
9 in.
9 in.
4
< 1.25
9 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
15 in.
2
< 1.50
12 in.
15 in.
18 in.
18 in. I
18 in.
2
< 1.75
18 in.
21 in.
21 in.
24 in.
24 in.
I
< 2.00
21 in.
24 in.
27 in.
30 in.
30 in.
r
' Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
US FilterTM Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design
Specifications.
1
max. wraul
of Opening
bcreen #93 VEE
Wire Slot Opening
Support Rod
Type
Support Rod,
On -Center,
S acin
Total Screen
Thickness
Carbon Steel Frame
Type
0.139
# 156 VEE
'/: '
0.3 P
'/,'kl.0'Tlat bar
*30"
0.139
TE .074"x.50"
I"
0.655
%"x 1.0 an le
0.139
TE .074"x.75"
1"
1.03"
1.0"x 1%"anle
0.139
TE.074'x05"
1"
1.03"
1.0"x 1%:"angle
0.139
TE.074"xl.0"
1"
.1551,
1'/.`k 1%"anle
3�"
0.139
TE .074"x1.0"
1"
E1.15511
i '/.`k 1'/2"an le
0.139
TE.105"x1.0"
1"
1.155"
1'/.`k 1%"anle
I N Filter Rt
Pa.,1 1\d:.. a r TO e
DESIGN EXAMPLE:
Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings.
Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet.
Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame.
Solution: From Table 6a-I with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch
actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The
minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches.
The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the
flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus,
Trash rack dimensions within the mounting frame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high
From Table 6a-2 selet;t the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US
Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0.139" openings between wires, TE
.074" x .50"support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and %" x 1.0" welded
carbon steel frame.
Table 6a
LI
LOCATION:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
ITEM:
RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLETS
COMPUTATIONS BY:
B. Strand
SUBMITTED BY:
JR ENGINEERING
DATE:
4/2/01
From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969
(Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section)
Q = discharge, cis
D = diameter of circular conduit, ft
Y, = tailwater depth, ft
V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel,
fills
= 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils
= 5.5 ftts for erosive soils
From
From
Design Tailwater
Allowable
Fig. 5-7
Table 5-1
Type of Flow Diam. Depth
Velocity
�Q,L
YL
Riprap
d5o
LOCATION
Pipe Qt t (Cfs) D (k) Yt (ft)
V (ft/s)
D'.5
D
Type
(in)
Pond Outlet
RCP 0.4 1.25 0.25
5.5
0.29
0.20
Type L
9.0
Pipe Between Ponds
RCP 5.4 2 1.11
5.5
1.91
0.56
Type L
9.0
DP #2
RCP 5.4 1.25 0.7
5.5
3.86
0.56
Type L
9.0
DP #3
RCP 3.9 1.25 0.57
5.5
2.79
0.46
Type L
9.0
921202riprap.xls
I
1
LOCATION:
ITEM:
COMPUTATIONS BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
1
DATE:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLETS
B. Strand
JR ENGINEERING
4/2101
1 From Urban Strom Drainage Cntenal Manual, March 1969
(Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section)
Q = discharge, cis
D = diameter of circular conduit, ft
1 Yt = tailwater depth, it
V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, Ws
= 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils
= 5.5 ills for erosive soils
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Figure 5-6
From
Riprap
Riprap
Figure 5-9
Min. L
Depth
Depth
Width
Expansion
L = (1/(2tanq))
from
to L/2
L12 to L
of Riprap
g
Factor
At = Q/V
•(At/Yt-W)
Figure 5-8, L
Use W
Use L
LOCATION
(in)
(in)
(ft)
6"
11(2 tan B)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Pond Outlet
18.0
13.5
3.75
0.2
6.7
0.07
-6.43
3.75
4.00
4.00
Pipe Between Ponds
18.0
13.5
6
1.0
6.7
0.98
-7.47
6.00
4.00
4.00
DP #2
18.0
13.5
3.75
3.1
6.5
0.98
0.99
3.75
4.00
4.00
DP #3
18.0
13.5
3.75
2.2
6.2
0.71
-0.04
3.75
4.00
4.00
1 921202riprap.xls
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
4/2/01
LOCATION: ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
ITEM: RIPRAP CALCULATIONS FOR OVERFLOW SPILLWAYS
COMPUTATIONS BY: B. STRAND
SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING
DATE: 04/02/01
Riprap requirements for a stable channel lining are based on the
equation from Storm Drainage Design Criteria, City of Fort Collins, CO, May 1984
V S°'17 = 5.8
(d5o) (Ss - 1)
where: V = mean channel velocity (ft/s)
S = longitudinal channel slope (ft/ft)
SS = specific gravity of rock (minimum Ss = 2.50)
d5 = rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller
Determine if riprap is required using Table 8-2
Longitudinal Specific Class of
d50 Min. Riprap
Velocity Slope Gravity V S°." Froude Is Riprap
Table 8-1 Thickness
LOCATION (ft/s) (ft/ft) of Rock (Ss-1)°'88 Number F < 0.8 ? Table 8-2
(in) (in)
Detention Pond Spill 1.59 0.25 2.5 0.96 0.40 TRUE 0
0 0
USE TYPE L RIPRAP ON BACKSIDE OF SPILLWAY
f ' -
921202riprap.xls
[1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
0
I 1-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
n
i
Ij
RIPRAP
t
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
Tt/U
RIPRAP
Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel.
**Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.
FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
P
A = Expansion Anale
EMFIEMMME
' MM
M
Ad
Ed,
Avg
PAPM-am
!
Mumma
UN
EVARENEXIMIN
MrAFREEMEN
NEWAAMMEME
v
MOMMEMEM,
Rawl-
.I z .a .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D
RIPRAP
FIGURE`5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
JR Engineering, Ltd
I
1
[1
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: Elizabeth Street Apartments STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: B. Strand; D. Mockeman DATE: 02-Apr-01
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
At • Li
At • Si
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBASIN(s)
ZONE
(AC)
(Ft)
(%)
(FT)
(%)
(%)
101
MODERATE
0.16
259
0.9
42.2
0.2
102
MODERATE
0.33
90
2.7
29.7
0.9
103
MODERATE
0.40
197
2.0
78.0
0.8
104
MODERATE
0.10
197
1.2
19.8
0.1
105
MODERATE
0.08
197
1.2
15.3
0.1
106
MODERATE
0.14
110
2.6
14.9
0.4
Total
1.20
200.04
2.40
166
2.0
79.2%
Asb = Sub -basin area
Lsb = Sub -basin flow path length
Ssb = Sub -basin slope
Lb = Average flow path length = sum(Ai Liysum(Ai)
Sb = Average slope = sum(Ai SiySum (Ai)
PS is taken from Table 8-a (Table 5.1, Erosion Control Reference Manual) by interpolation.
An Erosion Control Plan will be developed to contain PS% of the rainfall sedimentation
that would normally flow off a bare ground site during a 10-year, or less, precipitation event.
tErosion.xls
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
11
1
LI
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY:
B. STRAND
DATE: 02-Apr-01
EROSION CONTROL
C-FACTOR
P-FACTOR
METHOD
VALUE
VALUE
COMMENT
BARE SOIL
1.00
1.00
SMOOTH CONDITION
ROUGHENED GROUND
1.00
0.90
ROADS/WALKS
0.01
1.00
GRAVEL FILTERS
1.00
0.80
PLACED AT INLETS
SILT FENCE
1.00
0.50
SEDIMENT TRAP
1.00
0.50
STRAW MULCH (S = 1-551)
0.06
1.00
FROM TABLE 8B
STRAW BARRIERS
1.00
0.80
EFF = (1-C°P)° 100
MAJOR
SUB
BASIN AREA
EROSION CONTROL METHODS
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
101
0.16
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.16 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.00 Ac.
SILT FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
1.00
NET P-FACTOR
0.45
EFF = (1-C°P)° 100 =
55.001.
102
0.33
ROADS/WALKS
0.20 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.08 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.05 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER, SILT
FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.27
NET P-FACTOR
0.39
EFF = (I-C°P)° 100 =
89.5%
103
0.40
ROADS/WALKS
0.25 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.10 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.04 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER, SILT
FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.27
NET P-FACTOR
0.39
EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 =
89.6%
104
0.10
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.10 Ac.
SILT FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.50
EFF = (I-C°P)° 100 =
97.00%
105
0.08
ROADS/WALKS
0.07 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.01 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.05
NET P-FACTOR
0.40
EFF = (1-C°P)° 100 =
98.00/.
9212er.xls
' JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
[1
u
PROJECT:
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY:
B. STRAND
DATE: 02-Apr-01
EROSION CONTROL
C-FACTOR
P-FACTOR
METHOD
VALUE
VALUE
COMMENT
BARE SOIL
1.00
1.00
SMOOTH CONDITION
ROUGHENED GROUND
1.00
0.90
ROADS/WALKS
0.01
1.00
GRAVEL FILTERS
1.00
0.80
PLACED AT INLETS
SILT FENCE
1.00
0.50
SEDIMENT TRAP
1.00
0.50
STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%)
0.06
1.00
FROM TABLE 8B
STRAW BARRIERS
1.00
0.80
EFF = (I-C•P)' 100
MAJOR
SUB
BASIN AREA
EROSION CONTROL METHODS
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
106
0.14
ROADSIWALKS
0.02 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.12 Ac.
SILT FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.05
NET P-FACTOR
0.50
EFF = (I-C•P)' 100 =
97.3%
TOTAL AREA = 1.20 ac
' TOTAL EFF = 86.9% ( E (basin area' eft) / total area
REQUIRED PS = 79.2%
Since 86.9% > 79.2%, the proposed plan is o.k.
1
9212er.xls
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
STANDARD FORM C '
PROJECT: Elizabeth Street Apartments
COMPLETED BY: B. Strand DATE: 02-Apr-01
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an
approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer.
MONTH
1
1 2
1 3
4
5
6
7
8
1 9
1 10
11
12
Demolition
Grading
mmm
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 Banners
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
Vegetative:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blankets
Other
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: DEVELOPER
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID
DATE SUBMITTED: APPROVED BY CITY ON:
9212er.xls,4/3/01
1
1
1
1
1
ELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
JOB NO. 9212.02
EROSION CONTROL MFASITRES
COMPLETED BY: B. STRAND
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
UNIT COST
IQUANTITY
I TOTAL COST
1
TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH
ACRE
$ 655.00
0.00
$ -
2
SILT FENCE
LF
$ 3.00
1,013,��:";
$ 3,039.00
3
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EACH
$ 500.00
1
$ 500.00
4
INLET PROTECTION
EACH
$ 250.00
3
$ 750.00
5
STRAW BALES
LF
$ 3.25
0
$ -
6
SEDIMENT TRAP
EACH
$ 500.00
0 Is
COST $ 4,289.00
CITY RESEEDING COST FOR TOTAL SITE AREA
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
I UNIT COST
IQUANTITY
I TOTAL COST
1
IRESEEDMULCH
ACRE
$ 655.00
1.2
$ 788.48
COST $ 788.48
SECURITY DEPOSIT
.00
REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 6,433.50
Revised 7/17/01