HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 01/04/2010City of Ft.'000' p ved Plants
' Approved BY
hate
FINAL HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLEGE AVENUE AND
HARMONY ROAD
Prepared for:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared by:
Interwest Consulting Group
1218 West Ash Street, Unit C
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 674-3300
December 23, 2009
Job Number 1046-012-02
INTRRWBBT® CONSULTING GROUP
INTERWEST M CONSULTING G R O U P
' December 23, 2009
t Mr. Glen Schlueter
Mr. Wes Lamarque
City of Fort Collins
' Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Final Hydraulic Design Report for Improvements to College Avenue and Harmony Road
Dear Sirs,
I am pleased to submit for your review this Final Hydraulic Design Report for Improvements to College
Avenue and Harmony Road. Hydraulic and Hydrologic calculations are per the City of Fort Collins Storm
Drainage Manual. The Outline of this report is per CDOT requirements.
Approximately 0.5 acres of impervious area has been added to this project. However, because the area is
well developed and per the City's comment that detention would be a hardship, this project does not intend
to provide detention. Please note that in order to achieve the State MS4 requirements, water quality will
be provided for this project via SNOUT Stormwater Quality Systems. It will be the City's responsibility to
maintain these structures.
I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Erika Schneider, P.E.
Reviewed by,
Michael Oberla P.E., LEED AP
�o
wr
Z'9/0,*4�AL ENC'K
' 1218 WEST ASH, SUITE C WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
TEL. 970.674.3300 • FAX. 970.674.3303
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Location.......................................................................................................I
' 2. HYDROLOGY
2.1 Master Basin Description.........................................................................................I
2.2 Basin Description.....................................................................................................2
' 2.3 Channel Description.................................................................................................4
2.4 Precipitation Data.....................................................................................................5
2.5 Flood History ...........................................................................................................5
' 2.6 Design Flood Frequency..........................................................................................5
2.7 Prediction of Design Discharge...............................................................................5
' 3. EXISTING STRUCTURE
3.1 Description...............................................................................................................5
' 4. DESIGN DISCUSSION
4.1
General Concept.......................................................................................................6
4.2
MS-4 Requirements.................................................................................................6
' 4.3
Erosion Control........................................................................................................7
5. RECOMMENDED DESIGN
'
5.1
Compliance with Standards....................................................................................7
5.2
Drainage Concept.....................................................................................................8
' 6. REFERENCES
....................................................................................................................8
' APPENDIX
A
Vicinity Map and Drainage Plan
B
Hydrologic Computations
C
Hydraulic Computations
D
Permanent BMP Calculations
' E
Erosion Control Plans
1. INTRODUCTION
1 1.1. Project Location
' The College Avenue and Harmony Road intersection is a main intersection in south Fort
Collins, Larimer County. Specifically, the project is situated within the Southeast Quarter
' of Section 35 and the Southwest Quarter of Section 36 in Township 7 North as well as the
Northwest Quarter of Section 1 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 2 in Township 6
' North of Range 69 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado. Adjacent
development is mainly commercial areas including Harmony Centre, Arbor Plaza and
The Gateway at Harmony Road. Please refer to Appendix A for a vicinity map.
' The College Avenue and Harmony Road intersection improvement project involves
' geometrical changes and updates such as the addition of or modification to curb and
gutter, sidewalks and raised medians to improve the operation and safety of the
intersection. The limits of the project are 500' north and south of Harmony on College
' and 1,000' west and 500' east of College on Harmony. College Avenue is US 287.
2. HYDROLOGY
2.1. Master Basin Description
This project is within the City of Fort Collin's Mail Creek master drainage basin. The
Mail Creek Basin is located in southwest Fort Collins. The basin drains to Mail
Creek/Fossil Creek and ultimately to the Fossil Creek Reservoir. The project is
specifically located in the South Tributary reach of the Mail Creek Basin.
The Mail Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan outlines the needs for the basin and does not
' show the need for significant improvements to the current system. Most of the existing
drainage systems in the area have been designed using the old 100-year rainfall criteria of
' 2.89 inches. The current and updated estimate for the 50-year storm rainfall is 2.91
inches. Therefore, the existing drainage systems that were designed using the old criteria
are currently designed to provide protection for the 50-year storm and the existing
drainage systems in the area are generally considered functional by the City Stormwater
Department. According to the City Stormwater Department, because this area is almost
' completely developed, no additional detention will be required for the road
improvements; however, modifications and extensions of the system will be needed with
' 1
this project in order to provide water quality which is required by the CDOT MS-4
discharge permit within CDOT Right of Way (College Avenue). The design minimizes
impacts to other utilities and properties and maintains the existing functional drainage
system with minimal improvements.
2.2. Basin Description
The basin used for the project encompasses the ROW of Harmony Road and College
Avenue. On College Avenue, it extends north to Kensington Drive and south, about 250'
' north of Mason Street. On Harmony Road, it extends west to the railroad and east to the
existing box culvert crossing.
' The project's basin has been divided into 9 sub -basins for discussion in this report.
Existing flow paths have been maintained. Please refer to the Drainage Plan in Appendix
' A for identification and location of these basins.
' Sub -basin A — is 0.6 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the ProBuild lumberyard property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east
along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road to Mason Street where it then travels north in
' the curb and gutter to an existing 10' Type R sump inlet. This storm system conveys
flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert which is the main Mail Creek channel.
Sub -basin B — is 0.8 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the Mc Donald's property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east along
the curb and gutter of Harmony Road to S. College Avenue where it flows a short
distance north in the curb and gutter of College to a new 15' Type R sump inlet. This
water will be conveyed via new Storm System A to an existing storm system that conveys
flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert. This 15' Type R inlet replaces the existing
10' Type R sump inlet located at the curb return. The 15' Type R inlet must be relocated
a short distance north, due to the intersection improvements. Sub -basin B is City ROW
but is presently planned to be treated to CDOT MS-4 standards.
2
' Sub -basin C — is 0.7 acres, includes the west half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
' the Gateway at Harmony Road McDonald's property. This area maintains current
conditions and flows south along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to the 15'
Type R sump inlet mentioned above, currently a 5' Type R inlet is at this location. This
' water will also be conveyed via new Storm System A to an existing storm system that
conveys flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert. The first half -inch of runoff will be
treated for water quality via a SNOUT train system in order to meet the CDOT MS-4
requirements. This basin is within the CDOT ROW.
' Sub -basin D1 — is 0.6 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road. This area
maintains current conditions and flows east along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road
' to Mason Street where it then flows south along the curb and gutter of Mason Street to an
existing storm system in Arbor Plaza.
' Sub -basin D2 — is 0.7 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the Arbor Plaza property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east along the
' curb and gutter of Harmony Road to S. College Avenue where it will then join with sub -
basin E. This basin is City ROW but currently planned to be treated to CDOT MS-4
' standards with Basin E.
Sub -basin E — is 0.6 acres, includes the west half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
' the Arbor Plaza property. This area maintains current conditions and flows south along
the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to two new on -grade single, Type 13
' combination inlets (design point El and E2). This water will be conveyed via new Storm
System B to an existing storm system that conveys flows north to the Arbor Plaza box
' culvert. The intent of these inlets is to collect the first half -inch of runoff from sub -basins
D2 and E to be treated for water quality, via a SNOUT train system, in order to meet the
' CDOT MS-4 requirements.
ki
' Sub -basin F — is 0.5 acres, includes the east half of College Avenue and is adjacent to the
' property on the southeast corner of the intersection. This area maintains current
conditions and flows south along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue. Due to an
intense network of utilities on both sides and under the curb of College Avenue, it is not
possible to collect the first half -inch of runoff to be treated for water quality via a new
inlet and storm system. However, in order to meet the intent of the CDOT MS-4
' requirements, sub -basins D2 (0.7 acres) and B (0.8 acres) will be treated for water quality
in place of sub -basin F and G.
Sub -basin G — is 0.5 acres, includes the east half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
the Harmony Centre property. This area maintains current conditions and flows south
' along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to a new on -grade double, Type 13
combination inlet (design point G). This water will be conveyed via new Storm System
' C to an existing storm system that conveys flows south to Mail Creek. Currently, a 5'
Type R on -grade inlet is located at this location but must be replaced and moved a short
' distance north, due to the intersection improvements and existing utility locations. This
basin is not treated, but rather traded with sub -basins B and D to meet intent.
Sub -basin H — is 0.6 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
t the Harmony Centre property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east
' along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road.
Sub -basin I — is 0.5 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the property on the southeast comer of the intersection. This area maintains current
conditions and flows east along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road.
2.3. Channel Description
' This project will not cause a change to current conditions and therefore, no adverse
effects will occur to existing channels.
4
2.4. Precipitation Data
' This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria Manual' specifications and the Master Plan. Where applicable, the
criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual' (UDFCD), 2001,
developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used.
Improvements to College Avenue will conform to the intent of the CDOT MS-4
discharge permit requirements.
' The rainfall intensities used in the computation of runoff were obtained from the Rainfall
Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Collins, Figure 3-1 of the City of Fort
' Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. Please refer to Appendix B for this
figure.
' 2.5. Flood History
This project is not within any designated floodplain.
2.6. Design Flood Frequency
As recommended by the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual the
initial storm design frequency was based on the ten-year storm. The major storm design
frequency was based on the 100-year storm.
' 2.7. Prediction of Design Discharge
Runoff computations were prepared for the 10-year minor and 100-year major storm
' frequencies utilizing the Rational Method. All hydrologic calculations associated with
the basins are included in Appendix B of this report.
' 3. EXISTING STRUCTURE
' 3.1. Description
This project will not cause a change to current conditions and therefore,. no adverse
effects will occur to existing channels.
1
5
4. DESIGN DISCUSSION
' 4.1. General Concept
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the
City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in Appendix C of this report. All
' new storm sewers and inlets have been sized based on the WQ flow determined from the
volume of the first half -inch of runoff. An exception to this is the new inlet and storm
system (Storm System A) at design point C which was sized to convey the 100-year
' storm.
4.2.. MS4 Requirements
CDOT MS4 treatment will be required for the improvements in CDOT ROW. This
' requires that storm water discharges within the CDOT ROW have permanent best
management practices (BMP) to protect water quality. One hundred percent of the
' volume of the first half -inch of runoff will be treated for water quality. This volume was
calculated thus:
Volume of first''/z" of Runoff = A * C * ''/z" *(1 ft/12") * 43560 cf/1 ac-ft
Where: A = Basin Area in acres C = Runoff Coefficient
The required volume of the first half -inch of runoff for this project to meet the MS-4
' requirement is 2567 cf. Due to an intense network of utilities in College Avenue, it is not
possible to collect sub -basin F and G's first half -inch of runoff for water quality
treatment; therefore, sub -basins D2 (0.7 acres) and B (0.8 acres) are proposed to be
treated for water quality in place of sub -basins F (0.5 acres) and G (0.5 acres). Thus, the
volume of the first half -inch of runoff treated for the project is 3302 cf. The actual area
' treated will be greater than if the CDOT-MS4 were strictly used and only CDOT ROW
was treated. We feel this meets the intent of the CDOT requirement. Most arterial
' intersection reconstructions will likely have a similar scenario with drainage facilities
only on the upstream side of the intersection.
1 6
' The recommended permanent BMP for this project are SNOUT® Stormwater Quality
Systems. This system is based on a vented hood that can reduce solids from storm water
discharges. The vented hood is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other
stormwater structure which incorporates a deep sump, permitting heavier solids to sink to
' the bottom.
Storm systems A and B capture 100% of the volume of the first half -inch of runoff (3302
cf). According to the manufacturer, given favorable site conditions, proper maintenance
and a multi -structure treatment train, up to 89.5% of the required pollutants can be
' removed via these permanent BMPs. Manufacturer's documentation states that each
structure on average removes 56% TSS. In tandem, 80% is reached. This number can be
' achieved with these systems because both systems incorporate a treatment train and the
City of Fort Collins street sweeps major arterials and bike lanes, improving site
' conditions for these systems. The City of Fort Collins will maintain these systems.
Please refer to Appendix D for the sizing and example of this type of BMP.
' 4.3. Erosion Control
' This site lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort
Collins and into adjacent properties. Potential also exists for tracking of mud onto
existing streets which could then wash into existing and proposed storm systems.
' This project will utilize a variety of Erosion Control devices including Vehicle Tracking
' Pads, Silt Fence and Wattles for Inlet Protection. There will be erosion control on
adjacent developments that may take runoff from this project. Erosion Control is shown
on the Erosion Control Plans located in Appendix E. A Stormwater Management Plan
' (SWMP) and State of Colorado Stormwater Discharge for Construction Activities permit
will be required during construction. The SWMP will be maintained by the contractor.
5. RECOMMENDED DESIGN
5.1. Compliance with Standards
' The previous section is the recommended design for this project. All computations that
have been completed within this report are in compliance with the Storm Drainage
Design Criteria Manual.
1
5.2. Drainage Concept
The project will drain to Mail Creek/Fossil Creek and ultimately the Fossil Creek
Reservoir through a combination of existing and proposed facilities. The design
minimizes impacts to other utilities and properties and maintains the existing functional
drainage system through minimal improvements. The intended requirements of the MS-4
permits will also be achieved through this design.
6. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", (SDCM), dated March,
1986.
2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001 and Volume 3, dated September
2001.
3. Sear -Brown, "Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan Hydrology Technical
Appendix", dated April 22, 2002
4. URS, "Selected Plan for Mail Creek Basin", dated March 2003.
5. City of Fort Collins, "Stormwater Basins Map", dated June 1, 2004.
6. Colorado Department of Transportation, "Drainage Design Manual", 2004.
8
APPENDIX A
VICINITY MAP
AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
Z
d
2
WW
�o
3nN3Av 3031 ; 00 a
f
OOOOOFP
.L33a.LS
NOSVW
UN xISNS
HU ASNS
DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR SUBMITTAL
Design
Tributary
Sub -basin
Area
C(10)
C(100)
tc(10)
tc(100)
Volume of
Rrst Half -Inch
YVO
Flow
g10)tot
O(100)tot
�!
=
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Point
(ac)
(min)
(min)
ofRunoff (cf)
cfs
(cfs)
(cfs)
A
B
A
0.6
0,84
1.00
5.0
5.0
929.5
0.7
2.5
6a
84
;
-
B
0.8
0.82
1.00
5.8
5.0
1251.3
0.9
3.2
C
C
0.7
0.81
1,00
5.3
5.0
977.0
0.7
2.5
6.6
f _
D1
D1
0.6
0,88
1,00
5.0
5.0
983.0
0.8
2.6
6.0
D2
02
0.7
0.88
1.00
5.0
5.0
1118.9
0.9
3.0
7.0
E
E
0.6
0,80
1.00
5.0
5.0
824.8
0.6
2.2
5.7
I
F
F
0.5
0.79
0.99
5.0
5.0
759.8
0.8
2.0
52
.
G
H
G
05
0.78
0.98
&0
5.0
647.3
0.5
1.7
4.4
5.8
I��I
H
0.
0.8
1.00
5.0
5.0
902.3
0.
2.4
I
C
I
0.5
0.88
1 W
5.0
0.0
758.0
0.8
2.0
1 8.4
14A
1
S+C
1.5
0,82
1.00
5.3
5.0
2228.3
1 1.7
5.8
E
02+E
1.3
0.84
1.00
5.0
50
1943.7
1.5
5.2
12.7
l-I
seem
I
/
ISTORM
SYSTEM A
C •�
o.7 1 00
STORM SYSTEM CI
/
H7
•. - -
4+00
�. �,,,
' --
.. 00
A __;jp
�,,r, .. ,)J -t
'�
.i n,.�il. 06
0 0
,9�00 20+00 21,00
D1
w
s
-
-
0.6
1.00 HA RMONY ROAD
_
'-
..
- _ Q7D�
.
I
.. i
-
..
-..
_., ".
D
r-
HARMONY ROAD
L
�
I
F
N�,.7 I
I
I
E
o s
o 99
'I j
_
I
I
I
0.6
, DO
�,111
C:__
J Z
>��
1
LEGEND
F
PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN DIVIDE LINE _ ��I - \•b� -
Y
1 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBER STORM SYSTEM B eI I 1�
MAJOR STORM RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
DRAINAGE BASIN AREA
PROPOSED DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW \ \ o E
A DESIGN POINT NOTE: 60 0 120 �xraxwu♦ care ui nxa axoun
1. ALL STORM SEWER SHALL BE CLASS III RCP WITH WATER TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443). SCALE: r = 120
Computer File Information Index of Revisions 10T As Constructed DRAINAGE PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Dote: 2/14/09 Initiois: Es Fort Collins
Last Modification Dote: 12/23/09 Initials ES oEo.x,..x�,wµsPo
No Revisions: STA 4+50.00 TO STA 21 +00.00 STU M455-077
1420 2nd Street
Full Path: 281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Designer. E. SCHNEIDER 16136
9 y, Revised:
Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR-DR Harmon .dw Detailer; E. SCHNEIDER
Phone: (970) 05 FAX: (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number 01
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:120 Units:ENGLI$H FAX: (970) 221-6378-6378 Region 4 PdG Sheet Subset: DRAINAGE Subset Sheet:: 7 of 1
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
No Text
s
d
r
O
m
N
(V
fh
N
N
l7
fV
N
�
N
N
In
m
L
� u
O $
G
E i0
m
N
V
tmV
V
C
N
m
r
tmD
6
0�
O 0
o
y, O
0 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
vi
vi
ui
ui
vi
¢i
�i
vi
ui
o
iri
vi
U
C
O
m
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t7
O
o
0
0
0
0
o
W
W
o
0
0
0
o
0
V
O
<
N
m
m
O
W
m
m
m
N
C
m
m
i0
m
m
m
n
n
m
m
m
m
U
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
a�
¢
m
U
`p
p
w
LL
C7
2-
+m
+
m
C
N G
¢
m
U
p
p
W
LL
(9
U
W
a IL
17,
U-
0
d
I
C �
rr
�
N
� u-
J
J
W
,n
L
�f1
s
^�
V
9
4
-70
..
V
1.
�L
co
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS
LOCATION: Harmony and College
PROJECT NO: 1046-012-01
COMPUTATIONS BY: es
DATE: 1212312009
Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
Single Family:
Paved streets (gravel):
Paved streets, parking lots (asphalt):
Sidewalks (concrete)
Roofs
Lawns (flat <2%, heavy soil):
Runoff
%
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.60
50
0.50
40
0.95
100
0.95
96
0.95
90
0.20
0
Interwest Consulting Group
1218 W. Ash Street, Sufte C
Windsor, 00 85550
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(ac.)
TOTAL
AREA
(sq.ft)
SINGLE FAMILY
OR ROOF AREA
(sq.ft)
PAVED
AREA
(sq.ft)
SIDEWALK
AREA
(sq.ft)
LANDSCAPE
AREA
(sq.ft)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
(C)
%
Impervious
-
A
0.61
26W
0
19,617
3,074
3,757
0.84
85
B
0.84
36655
0
26,059
4,208
6,388
0.82
82
C
0.66
28781
0
21,473
Z117
5,191
0.81
82
D1
0.61
26380
0
21,069
Z711
Z600
0.88
90
D2
0.70
30653
0
24,480
3,151
3,022
0.88
90
E
0.57
24859
0
16,476
3,288
5,095
0.80
79
F
0.53
22998
0
17,743
432
4,823
0.79
79
G
0.45
19800
0
15,156
275
4,367
0.78
78
H
0.58
25390
0
21,806
299
3,285
0.85
87
1
0.48
20695
0
16,494
Z242
1,959
0.88
90
B+C
1.50
65436
0
47532
6325
11579
0.82
82
D2+E
1.27
55512
0
40956
6439
8117
0.84
85
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=T(CiAi)IAt
Cl = 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
' FC Drainage CaImAls
C N
Y
N
Z
0
r
N
N r
Z
W
oU
❑ Z
QU
z LL
aO
i cW
6_
r
Y
Q
W
R'
O
m f7
o O
o O
O O
O
-] o
ZO
C p
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N
V
LL
O
h N
N 10
N b
b b
O
yy
E
m"
U
I❑I��
J
Y ly
U =
J
W
S a
m C �'
N
N
O Ol
fp
O O
OI N
O N
OI b
N V
b OI
V
N
~
uJ
N
m t7
10 O
T Y
C N
r
�� �
vvi
vi
oiavvvvv
U i �
C
LL
W
�
h
n 10
r I.
O O
b m
b
NN'-NNNN�
Q
x
V
m
b
b b
fO b
t0 O
O b
f0
O
o
c c
c c
c
c c
c
W
o
0 0
o c
o cs 0
0 0
0
b
b b
b b
O O
b b
b
N _
W
�
0Ch
«NMOMNNNM
q
�z
J
h
Oi
(7 t7
r� N
N N
O
C
�- N-
� N
-
E 1O
m
O
fV
O O
N fV
o O
N N
O o
N lV
0 0
tV N
0
tV
O e N
Q'
O ��+
U
m
m m
m m
091�
m m
m
ro m
Q
O
O O
O O
C C
G O
O
O C
FW
z_ E
m
mm
ur
v
v
m m N
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
z
_
Q
Q
C1U��
W LLU'
x
w
mN
m
❑
7
W
z
Z
N
O
Q
m U
p p
W LL
C7 2-
U W
a
o
N O
r
0
r
Z
O
F
H
z
Z
W
oU
LL Z
00
QU
o LL
a0
v CW
G
H
m
O
U
q
TN O
00 n
C ?
O
�
n
U
{L
rn
O
E
gz�
1..
O
y
cUu a
t
Y
6
W
C
J
u
c a
o
m n
o 0
0 0
0 0
o
N o
r
E�
Id
N N
N N
N N
N Yl
N
N N
LL
O
i
=
m= to
Q
A m
N m
N fO
fD fD
O
m
j E—
N
N—
N N--
fV
m
V
y
Iy0Iy
Y N
U =
J
W Q
m N
m
O m
0 0
0 N
m m
N Q
m m
Z
U m
s
G
N
Q
m
m l7
m m
l7 Q
N N
N N
N
�.
d m
H
N
m CI
m O
m Q
Q N
A
d 4 �
Or
N N
N m
N
O
� E
N
t7 t7
N N
LL
Ij
-
Aml�AooQom
u
_
N
N �
N N
N fV
m
u
m
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m
K
c m
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
o
�
�
m
m m
m m
O o
m m
m
o
-
-
coo
W
y ._. `.
f
F
m
O Q
N N
N O
N Q
Q
A
O
m tmV
p
fAll Q
N
N N
p
t7
Z
J
A
m y
(�l N
A N
LP N
O
C .-.
N
�
tV
IT
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
d
[V
fV fV
tV N
N [V
fV N
CI
fA
=
J
rc
Q
Q
N
m m
O m
m N
m
N Q
m
m m
m m
m A
A m
m
m m
Q
O
O O
O O
G G
C O
O
O o
FW
2
m
d m N
m
Q m
m lem
O
A
A N
N N
N m
Q N
m
Q
o A
N N
O
C G
C G
G O
C G
C
z'
G
Q
m U
p p
W LL
U' 2-
W
a0 N
m
O
tll
z
Z
N
m
N
flow
6
N O
�
m
J
C
m
C
'm
m
0
C
U
C
0
LL
0
21
U
m o
{7
7 �
l
11 m
LL
O N
m 2
q
�
O Y U
N U LL
e �LmO
U O
N O
- m E
0 o m
C � C
o � E
v m
it
co Woo
c
c E
o
E
z
O
E `-
a E
H
m
QII
N
rs
W
m
c
0
LL
d
U
i o
� o
N p�
T CD
Lo
O O N
�6i.
N
�
i
rTi N
11
U
1 r
z
0
°-
0 ¢
€
F F
F W
i
bl
..
U p F
p
OaOQin
1
o
Y
w
C
J
m
C
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
z ••
E�
viN
vi
vi
vi vi
vi viN
Nvi
w
LL
O
2
m C
<
A
m
N
m N
m m
m 0
Q
mU
w
y
Y N
m
o
a
o
o pp
m m
o c
Y 7
N
m
A
q
Pl A
O m
m N
i
o
E
LqWrgp�rWRR
N
M
M
N
N l�l
lV lV
l7 Ol
.r...
LL
J
W
A
A
m
A
n O
O m
le m
a W
NtV
N
N N
lV
_
S
U
w
m
m
m
m
m m
m m
m m
0
= a
o
c
0
o
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
rc
am
e
W
H
m
GD
m
lV
GD O
O fp
m fG
m
W
r
J
L
LU
m
O
O
m
m m
O m
Q<
C n
v
Q
m
N
f7
p
O OI
N N
N f7
Q V
J
r r
n
n
n
m
m m
m m
m m
C
O
O
O
G
G O
0 0
0 0
E m
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O o YI
N
fV
fV
fV
fV N
fV N
[V N
t
C O
O
o
m
N
m m
m O
o 0
m ..
J
N
N
N
�
�
N �
000
o
gS
�aoo
'MC,.=oo�
O
z
U
J
O
N
m
m 0
Ol m
m m
N O
w
m
.0
CC!m
m m
n n
CO m
CC!
o
o
c
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
QW
r �
z�
m
m N
G
G
C
G
C G
C C
G C
Q v
m
Qm
w
m
�
m
z
z
LZ
Vl
6
Q
w a
N O
�
l0
7
C
f0
c
m
a)
0
m
QC
V
IL
`o
O
C?
(7
N N
7
O)
IL
II O m
m 2
V
C U
a -.c IL
p�o O
!n vc �
h o a
a)o
N y
(S A'D
r-
7 C
O
co
c w
n Q II
c0 W « U
m +
II co E
c E-
c
E
Z E c
p _ _o E
FQ+ �I�
0 II N m
W U >tc
Cl U U)
o m u)
O c0
c _O
c U r. m
.' O L
c fn N
O L 'O
U c
m
yak
m 00
C N 1
LL
LL ..
O
Z
0
OC
y'
Y
a�
W N
IL
1 C
O-
�.%
W �+
2 O
J LL
a -
Z
O
v
0
U
�o
a
co C
0
N O
6
M
cv
n
U
O
�
y
z
z
O F
N
O U ]
W C,
U Q F
O 0. u Q
N
Y
K
Q
W
K
0
J
N
N �
1n
m
IA
In
m
f7
N
O
R
N-
V
nj
�
Pl
f
O
v �
Qv
W
O
Y
�
E rn c
z
Q
on.
` �
U
w
IlI
m
In
W
e0
�
N
O
R
N
'7
O U
(7
l7
r
mmmin
In
In
In
�n
�nm
mm
�
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
fV
N
N
N
N
U C
O
m
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ci
0
E
Iri
Iri
vi
Iri
Iri
Iri
Iri
ui
Iri
Iri
0
Iri
N
CD
m
O
C�
m
m
m
N
R
U
mmaommmnnmm
mm
U
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
m
m
W
mrl�
m
IIL
V
N
V
U
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LL
LL
C
=
m
W
QmUpp
W
LLC7S—
m0
Fn
to
WLLI
G
c
dQtn
Upp
W
LL(�S
—
Uw
M
\ O
ZN
� N
U N
0 II
m
C
O
U
v
O
LL
0
`o U
U E
w O
w t
_ C U
N C 7
Co m C m
T m
O U N C Of
m c v m
° c
0 a 9 `
m o
II II II II
CJUU.°Q
o. U o
o m ILn
O CO
O
c U
m
m
C U) y
O L
L)
2N >a>
C
m OD
C N I
W
.4:
0
U
-0.-.
O
O
T
O
G
N O
�
m �
N
u
U
�
O
ti
z
O
o
O
zz¢
F
_O F
< W pw
O0:OQ
aaUL1
O1
Y
K
Q
f
W
lC
O
J
Q
U
O
N
f i
N
N
f7
N
N
N
N
Ip
Ip
F
O
O_
C
�
O
>
E p 5
z
Q ma
Q
` 0
U
O `
LLi
N
NCR
O
N
O
1�
v
O
W
N
QU
N
m
N
N
m
N
N—
N
N
Ip
O
.-.
—
A
eo
CO
In
N
Ir
C9
m
ao
m
eo
eo
m
rnm
r
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
c
v
v
c
v
E
Iri
vi
Iri
vi
vi
vi
vi
ai
vi
ui
Iri
vi
mm
cq
cq
°mm
U
co
cq
cNom
U
oococcooCio
00
oa
Q
M
cq
COU
q
q
W
V
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LL
LL
C
2
m m
W
Q
aoUp
p
W
LL
2—
m0
FS�
W
0
c
m
U
p
p
W
o a
U �
o a) u-)
O�Lr)
_O
c U
m
.7 m
c tn y
o v
t
U w c
2N Q
C 00
N 00
C N
u
U
C1
y
z
O
o
O F F
F W 0.
U p F
O 0. O OQ
w
Y
K
Q
f
w
rc
0
O N
0
0
f0
O
O
h
N
'Q
CO
\T
O!
A
Q
m
m
tC
tG
A
YI
1(l
O
1ff
m
a
tV
O
y
_O
U
�
Q
O
EO y C
a
U
O
O ui
O
V
t0
0
0
1�
N�
OD
V
Of
n
U
fD
CD
tG
fD
f,�
t6
L6
V
0
O
N
Q
m�
OI
O
O
W
W
O
m
O
=
D1
Q1
6
0i
m C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
E
iri
ui
iri
�
ai
iri
ui
ui
ui
o
�ri
ui
U
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
m
m
w
rn
o
o
0
o
O
O
O
O
N
Q m
m
O
O
O
O
R
h
V
Lq
N
G
C
C
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
LL
0
C
CK
Q 0
QmUpp
W
Irr
C72-
m0
U
W
s
Q 0I
LCO
p
N❑
W
LL
U
2-
U
W
0.
X
N
m
U
m
m
LL
APPENDIX C
HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
Harmony and College
C
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carty -over Flow
I SIE I
I
yOVERLAND
I STREET I �OVFLROWND Y
F GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY -,MOVER FLOW F tEHEJ1 F GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET
112 OF STREET
r_
r_
Design ow: ONLY if already determinedmug other me Minor Storm
Major Storm
(boa] peak Bow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q =1 5.80
14.80 as �s .
' If you entered a value here, sidp the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow)
Geographic Information:(Enter data in the blue calls):
Sub catchment Area =�Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
%
NRGS Soil Type =
A, B. C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/fl)
Length (it)
Site is Urban: X - Overland Flow =
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
Rainfalln rma on: latenstry I(mchlhr)=C,z + s Misr Storm
Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =
yes
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P r =
{riches
Ci=
Gz=
Ca=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined Syr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C s =
-
Bypass (Cary -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qp =1 0.00
0.00 cis
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Minor Storm
Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated Syr. Runoff Coefficient, C5
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T. =
Recommended T. _
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T,
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qp =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
=
=
=
=
=
=
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
5.80
14,90
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inddhr
cfs
cis
11.-A- C_
' LID Inlet C.As, Q-Peak 12117/2009, 8:37 AM
ALLOWABLECAPACITY FOR ONE -HALF -OF STREET,(Minor 8r'MajoCStorm)
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: Hannony and College
Inlet ID: C
'�-TBxcK TCROWN
SB^, T. TMAK
wT`
Street
_ Crown
y
HCURB d S x
a 5f
Gutter Geom Enter data in the blue cells
man Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
dng's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
se from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
hg's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
bet Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
w Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
barge outside the Gutter Section W, ranted in Section T x
"a within the Gutter Section W (OT - Ox)
iiarge Behind the Curb (e.g.. sidewalk. driveways, & lawns)
jmum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
oretical Water Spread
oretiral Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEG-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
oretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T x TH
ial Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T caowN)
3harge within the Gutter Section W (Od - Ox)
tharge Behind the Curb (e.g.. sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Stonn
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 8") Stomh
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
illant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
dtant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
Tewc =
15.0
ft
Seim =
0.0200
R ven. ! ft. horiz
rhB,ACK=
0.0130
HcuRe =
6.00
inches
TCROwe =
a =
inches
W=
460ft
ft
Sz =
R vert / R horiz
So =
R veR I R. horiz
n,,,u =
T. -
dmo
S. =
y=
d=
Tx =
E.
Ox=
Ow =
OB,,, =
OT=
V=
V'd =
Tm
TxTH
Ep
Ox TH
Ox
Ow
0"M =
O=
V=
V•d =
R=
Gd=
d=
Minor Storm Major Storm
z5.0 30.0
6.001 720
0.0873
0.0873
7.20
8.64
8.72
10.16
23.0
28.0
0229
0.190
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SUMP
SUMP
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Minor Stone Major Storm
= 15.6 19.7
= 13.6 17.7
= 0.371 0.292
- 0.0 0.0
= 0.0 0.0
= 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 JSUMP
0.0
SUMP
SUMP
i
i
ft
inches
X = yes
ft/H
inches
inches
ft
cfs
cis
cis
cis
fps
cis
cis
cis
cis
cis
fps
.is
nches
riches
MinorStorm Major Stone
towable Gutter Caoacity Based on Minimum of O , or O, O.row=I1SUMPI SUMP cis
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
' UD Inlet C.As, (}Allow 12117/2009, 8:37 AM
ft
inches
X = yes
ft/H
inches
inches
ft
cfs
cis
cis
cis
fps
cis
cis
cis
cis
cis
fps
.is
nches
riches
MinorStorm Major Stone
towable Gutter Caoacity Based on Minimum of O , or O, O.row=I1SUMPI SUMP cis
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
' UD Inlet C.As, (}Allow 12117/2009, 8:37 AM
' ,f Lo (C)—
H-Curb
H-Vert
W
W
' Lo lG1
Desion Information In
Type of Inlet Type'
Local Depression (additional to continuous guitar depression's' fmm'O-Allov7) a�
Number of Unit Inlets (Orate or Curb Opening) No'
Grate Info rnation
Length of a Unit Grate 4 (G)
Width of a Unit Grate W..
a Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.16-0.90) Ar. s
Clogging Fact rfor a Single Grate (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Cr (0) .
'
Orate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C. (G) _
Grate Orifice Coef lent (typical value 0.57) C. (0)
Curb Opening Information
Length of a Unit Curb Opening
Height of Venice) Curb Opening in Inches H, -
Hetght dCurb Ontbe Throat in Inches H. _
Angle of Thrust (see USDCM Figure ST-6) Theta =
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp =
'
Clogging Fecbrfore Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) _
Curb Opening WetrCxBiclent (typical value 2.303.00) C. (C) _
Resuhin, Gutter Flow Depth for Orate Inlet Capacity In a Sump
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units
Clogging Factorfor Multiple Units
Grate as a Weir
Flow Depth at Loral Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.8 cis curb)
This Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
Flow Depth e1 local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 5.8 cis curb)
his Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
' Grate as an Orifice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 5.8 ds curb)
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.8 cis curb)
Reauhins Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Deareaelon
Resuttina Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Oponina Inlet Capacity In a Su
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units
Clogging Factorfor Multiple Units
Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice
' Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 do grate, 5.8 cis curb)
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 5.8 cis curb)
Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 ds grate, 5.8 cis curb)
. Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.8 cis curb)
Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression
Reeulfant Street Conditions
Total Inlet Length
'Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from 045sak)
Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet 0-Allow geometry)
Resultant Street Flow Spread (Wald on sheet 0-Allow geometry)
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown
MINOR MAJOR
CDOT Type R Curb Opening
2.00 2.00 Inches
1 1
mlNnp t.re Imp
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
MINUK
MINOR MAJOR
Coef = N/A N/A
Cbg= N/A NA
d.i'
d d.
dame=
d.
d..
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MINOR
eat
set
nches
nches
nches
rohes
MINOR MAJOR
Ccef= 1.00 L00
Cbg= 0.10 0.10
MINOR MAJOR
3.061 5.74 inches
d..= 3.281 6.16 fnches
d. 2.581 4.E
do. = 2.68 5.1
MAJOR
L =
16.01
15.0
feet
0. =
5.8
14.9
ds
d:
126
4.16
inches
7=
12
92
bet
O1
(OK
ILID Inlet C.xls, Inlet In Sump
Lu�,(d= �cts
121172009, 8:37 AM
No Text
Calculation Results Summary
---------------------------------------------
Scenario: 10-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I I I Flow I Flow I M I (ft) I (ft) I
I I I I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I I
I-
------I---------------I----------------------I-------------I----------I------------ I--------I--------I
I I-C I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% I 0.00 I 0.00 I 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
I Label I Number I Section I Section I Length I Total I Average I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size I Shape I (ft) I System I velocity I Grade I Grade I
I I Sections I I I I Flow I (ft/s) I Upstream I Downstream I
I I I I I I (cfs) I I. (ft) I (ft) I
I-
------I----------I---------I----------I-------- I -------- I---------------------I------------I
I P-1 1 1 1 29 inch I Circular 1 24.00 1 5.80 1 6.53 I 21.85 I 21.38 I
1 P-2 1 1 1 29 inch I Circular 1 17.00 1 5.80 1 4.97 I 23.25 I 23.10 I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Label
I Total
I Ground
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I
I System
I Elevation
I Grade
I Grade I
I
I Flow
I (ft)
I Line In
I Line Out I
I
I - ------I--------
I (cfs)
I
I
-----------
I (ft)
-----------I-----------I
I (ft)
1 0-1
1 5.80 1
32.27 1
I
15.20
15.20 I
1 J-1 1
5.80 1
28.10 1
22.11
I 21.85 I
1 I-C 1
------------------------------------------------------
5.80 1
27.80 1
23.25
1 23.25 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/17/2009 09:38:19 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
x:l..Ndrainage%desigMstonncad\storm a.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 (5.5005]
12/17/09 09:39:12 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 32.27 ft
Sump:15.20 ft
Label: J-1
Rim: 28.10
Sump: 17.
Label: P-1
20..70It
DUP. .Inv
lnvert:
L: 24.00 ft
Size: 24 inch
S: 0.012500 ftlft
-1+00
35.00
Ift
30.00
Label: I-C
Rim: 28.30 ft
Sump: 18.00 ft
25.00
Label: P-2
jp. Invert: 22.40 ft
fin. Invert: 22.30 ft
L:17.00 Elevation (ft)
Size: 24 inch
S: 0.005882 ftlft
20.00
15.00
10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
xA..\drainage\desigMztorncad%storn a.stm Interwest Consulting Group StornCAD v5.5 15.50051
12/17/09 09:40:12 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Calculation Results Summary
------------------------------------
Scenario: 100-yr
' »» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATIONSUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
' I Label I
Inlet
I
Inlet
I Total
I Total
I Capture
I Gutter I
Gutter 1
I I
Type
I
Intercepted I Bypassed
I Efficiency
I Spread
Depth I
I I
I
I Flow
I Flow
I M
I (ft) I
(ft) 1
I-------I---------------I----------------------I-------------
(cfs),
I (cfs)
'I
I I
I
I I-C I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Inlet I Generic Default
I----------I------------I--------I--------I
100% I 0.00 1 0.00
100.0
1 0.00 1
0.00 1
' CALCULATION SUMMARY
FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
' I Label I
Number I
Section
I Section 1
Length I Total I
Average I
Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I
of I
Size
I Shape I
(ft). I System I
Velocity I
Grade I
Grade I
I I
Sections I
I I
I Flow 1
(ft/s) I
Upstream I Downstream I
I-------I----------I---------I----------I--------I--------I----------I-----------I------------I
(cfs) I
I
(ft) I
(ft) I
I P-1 1
1.1
24 inch
I Circular 1
24.00 1 14.90 1
8.38 1
22.39 (
21.88 I
1 P-2 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 1
24 inch
I Circular 1
17.00 1 14.90 1-----6_21-1-----23.83-I------23.69
I
----
I Label 1
Hydraulic I
Total I
Ground I
Hydraulic I
I I
System 1 Elevation 1
Grade I
Grade I
'
I I
Flow I
(ft) I
Line In I
Line Out 1
I I
I - ------I--------
(cfs) I
I-----------I-----------I-----------I
I
(ft) )
(ft) I
1 0-1 1
14.90 1
32.27 1
15.20 1
15.20 1
'
1 J-1 1
14.90 1
28.10 1
22.90 1
22.39 1
I I-C 1
------------------------------------------------------
14.90 1
27.80 1
23.83 1
23.83 I
Completed:
12/17/2009
09:39:16 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
x:l..klrainageldesignlstorrncad\storm a.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.50051
12/17/09 09:39:20 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 100-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 32.27 ft
Sump:15.20 ft
Label: A
\ Rim: 28.10
Sump:17.
Label: -1 ft
Up, Invert:
Dn. Invert: 20.70 ft
L: 24.00 it
Size: 24 inch
S. 0.012500 tuft
-1+00
35.00
t
lft
30.00
Label: I-C
Rim: 28.30 ft
Sump: 18.00 ft
25.00
Label: P-2
Jp. Invert: 22.40 ft
fin. Invert: 22.30 ft
L: 17.00 Elevation (ft)
Size: 24 inch
S: 0.005882 ftlft
20.00
15.00
10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
xA... \drainagekdesignlstormcadlstorm a.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 09:39:56 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Harmony and College
E1
II I Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow I
y OVERLAND
STREET I OSIDE VERLAND
y
®FGUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW F ® E— GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET 5 , irn1 e 717,1pe-
112 OF STREET (AM.b r �-An 01
v
Design ow: ONLY if already detemunedmug other methods: Minor Storm Major Storm
(local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): •Q =1 5.201 12.70 efs
• If you entered a value here, sldp the rest of this shoat and proceed to sheet Q-Allow)
Geographic Information:(Enter data in the blue cells):
Subcefchment Area - Acres
Percent Imperviousness = %
NRCS Soil Type = ]A, Bs
C, or D
She: (Cheek One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft) Length (ft)
She is Urban: X Overland Flow =
She Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
'[Kaintall Information: ens i = x + Mirror Storm Major Storm
Design Storm ReturnPeriod, T, = yew
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P r = inches
Cr=
Cx=
Cs=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C s =
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qp = 0.00 0.00 cfs
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, CS
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gunter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, tc
Calculated Time of Concentration, T. _
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, =
Recommended T. _
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, _
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Q, =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
=
=
=
=
=
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
5.20
12.70
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
mch/hr
cis
cis
UD Inlet E1.xls, Q-Peak 12/17/2009, 8:47 AM
(Based on Regulated Grlterla for Maximum Allowable Flow ueptn and Spread)
Project Harmony and College
Inlet ID: - Ell
T ..., TCROWR
T, Tanx
e•CK
W
LQ+ Tx
Street
_ Crown
y Qw Qx/ -�
HCURe d S x
a y:
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
dng's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Una
oe from Crab Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ng's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Per Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
:er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
charge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx
barge within the Gutter Section W (Or - DO
:large Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk. driveways, & lawns)
:imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
orebcal Water Spread
2retical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
:netcal Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T x TH
al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T cll W )
harge within the Gutter Section W (Od - DO
harge Behind the Curb (e.g.. sidewalk. driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6') Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
dtant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
dtant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
T �� = 15.0 ft
mm:Smm = 0.0200 ft. ved. / R hofz
r@nCK = 0.0130
HcuRa=
6.00
Inches
TCROWR =
52.0
ft
a =
1.52
inches
W =
2.00
ft
Sx =
0.0218
ft. vert. / R haft
So =
0.0111
R vem. I R honz
nerResr=
Trux =
cl u =
Sw =
y=
d=
Tx
Eo
Ox =
Qw=
QUCK =
Qr =
V=
V'd =
TTH
Tx H
Eo
Qx Tit
Qx=
QW =
Q.=
Q=
V=
Will =
R=
Old =
d=
dCROWR _
Minor Storm Major Storrs
25.01 40.0
6.00 9.60
0.0851
0.0851
6.54
10.46
8.06
11.98
23.0
38.0
0232
0.142
28.6
109.2
8.7
18.1
2.1
32.4
39.31
159.7
7.41
9.9
5.01
9.9
Minor Storm Major Storrs
= 17.1 30.9
= 15.1 28.9
= 0.343 0.186
= 9.4 52.6
9.4 52.6
4.9 12.0
0.0 9.2
142 73.7
5.9 8.4
2.9 6.7
1.00 1.00
142 73.7
6.00 9.60
0.00 0.00
ft
inches
X=yes
Itflt
inches
inches
ft
cfs
cis
cis
of$
fps
cis
cis
Cis
cis
Cris
fps
cfs
inches
inches
Minor Storm MajorStorm
lowable Gutter Capacity Based. on Minimum of Q Tor Old Q.e = 14.21 cfs
STORM meet. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max. allowable caoacty OK - Greater than flow Given on shest'Q-PeoW
UD Inlet E1.xis, O-Allow 12117/2009, 9:09 AM
ft
inches
X=yes
Itflt
inches
inches
ft
cfs
cis
cis
of$
fps
cis
cis
Cis
cis
Cris
fps
cfs
inches
inches
Minor Storm MajorStorm
lowable Gutter Capacity Based. on Minimum of Q Tor Old Q.e = 14.21 cfs
STORM meet. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max. allowable caoacty OK - Greater than flow Given on shest'Q-PeoW
UD Inlet E1.xis, O-Allow 12117/2009, 9:09 AM
INLET ON"A:CONTIN000S,GRADE „
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: E1
4�Lo (C)-,i
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
Wp
W
Lo (G)
of Inlet
Depression (addiOarW to wrifinuous guaer depresslon'a' from'D-AlloW)
Number of Units In the Inlet (Grate o Curb Opening)
h at a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
of a Unit Grate (canna be greater than W from O-Allow)
mg Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)
ina Factor for a Sinola Unit Cum Ocarina livoieal nun value = 0 11
gn Discharge for Haff of Street (from Sheet 04Wak)
v Spread Width
v Depth at Floadine (outside of local depression)
s Depth at Street Cmxm (or at T.�)
of Gutter Flow to Design Flow
targe outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T,
Large within the Gutter Section W
large Behind the Cum Face
I Flow Area
t Flow velocity ,
Water Depth for Design Condition
' Grate Analysis lCalcula tl
Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening
Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow
Under No -Clogging Condition
' Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
Interception Rate of Frontal Flaw
Interception Rate of Side Flow
Interception Capacity
Under Clogging Condition
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet.
Effective (undogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
' Interception Rate of Frontal Flow
Interception Rate of Side Flow
ketual Interception Capacity
Cary -Over Flow= 0.-Q. (to be applied to am opening or next ch
' rbor Slotted Inlet Ownina Analysis Calculated
Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carryover)
Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception
- Under No -Clogging Condition
' Effective Length of Cum Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L. LT)
Intemeplon Capacity
Under Clogging Conditton
Clogging Coefficient
' Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet
Effective (Undogged) Length
Actual Interception Capacity
Larr4)ver Flow= 0.,,...--M
Type=
a. =
No=
L. =
W.=
CrG =
CrC=
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
2.0
1
3.00
3.
1.73
1.
0.50
0.
0.10
0.
MINOR
MAJOR
T -
d =
duovm =
E, =
O,=
O. =
cis c =
A.
V. =
11.31
16.4
ft
inch
inch
cis
Cis
cis
sgft
fps
4.5
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.512
0.359
2.54
8.15
2.67
4.56
0.00
0.00
1.51
3.D4
3.441
4.18
L=1
3.001
3.D0
ft
F,.aun[ =
0.470
0.325
MINOR
MAJOR
V. =
fps
W=
R=
Q =
CIS
MINOR
MAJOR
GrateCoer=
1.00
1.00
GrateClog=
0.50
0.50
L. =
1.50
1.50
ft
V. =
3.86
3.86
fps
W =
1.00
0.97
R =
0.04
0.03
O. =
2.55
4.24
cfs
6.17
6.17
1.00
1.00
0.16
0.12
2.90
5.17
MINOR
MAJOR
S. =
0.0970
0.0744
ft/ft
LT =
11.80
22.52
ft
MINOR
MAJOR
L =
3.00
3.00
ft
Ch =
0.54
0.96
cfs
MINOR
MAJOR
CumCoef=
1.00
"00
CurbClog=
OLIO
0.10
L. =
2.70
2.70
ft
Q.
DA9
0.87
cis
Inlet Interception Capacity _
Inlet Cany-Over Flow(floi, bypassing inlet) io 114
ne Percentage = OLIO-
O
MINOR
LID
Inlet E1.x15, Inlet On Grade 12/17r2009, 9:09 AM
Harmony and College
E2
Design Flow= Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
OVERLAND FLOW
1 4 STRDEET I FLOW
® e GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW F ® t— GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET 5i JIB —r� 13
— 112 OF STREET Q (,pM=-4-�,��, /) �ryca�
WEEMENESa�
Design ow. ONLY if termn mug o r me Minor Storm Major Storm G
(local peak flow for 112 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): -Q =1 2.151 7.59 cis /O
• If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allo
aogmp c Information:(Enter data in theue oeltsy
Subcatchm ent Area = Acres
Percent Imperviousness = %
NRCS Soil Type =1 JA, B. C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft) Length (ft)
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow =
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
m n rma on: ens i = , , + a Minor Storm Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T, = yes
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = ids
C+=
C2 =
Ca=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C, =
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qb = 0.00 0.00 cis
Analysis of Flow Time (rime of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5
Overland Flow Velodty, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, Vo
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T. =
Recommended T. =
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, =
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, QP =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
= NIA NIA
= N/A N/A
= NIA NIA
= N/A N/A
= N/A N/A
= N/A NIA
= N/A N/A
NIA 1 NIA
NIA NIA
NIA WA
NIA N/A
N/A NIA
2.15 7.59
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
cis
cfe
LID Inlet E2.xls, Q-Peak 12/17/2009, 8:52 AM
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
cis
cfe
LID Inlet E2.xls, Q-Peak 12/17/2009, 8:52 AM
I� , ;ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Mirl Major Storm)'�I
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project Harmony and College
Inlet ID: E2
'- BACK TexcK TcaowN
ST, TNA
L
W T Tx
ESxStreet
_ noon
y Ow
Hcu Rs d
a 9�
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb Oeave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
iing's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow line
m from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
rig's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Gutter Cress Slope (Eq. ST-8)
Water Depth vi ti out Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
Water Depth with a Gutter Depression
Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, tamed in Section T x
Discharge within the Gutter Section W (OT - Ox)
Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section _
d Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
oretical Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
:er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-T)
oretiral Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carded in Section T x TH
kd Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T CROWN)
ttarge within tim Gutter Section W (Od - Qx)
tiarge Behind ft Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
i Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6-) Soren
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
ultard Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
infant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
TshcK =
15.0
ft
SBACK = ,
0.0200
R vert I R horiz
nBAcr`=
0.0130
Hcurm=
6.00
inches
TcaowN =
52.0
ft
a =
1.52
inches
W =
2.00
ft
Sx =
0.0242
R vent / ft. horiz
So =
0.0111
ft. wet. / ft. horiz
nsTKU =
T.
d&m
SIN
y
it
Tx
Eo
Ox
Ow'
QBACK'
QT'
V
V'd :
TTM
Tx TH
Eo
QK TH
Ox'
QW'
QBACK'
Q+
V
V'd :
R
Qd`
d=
dCROwN `
Adinnr CM/ Adainr QMi
25.01 40.0
6.00 9.60
0.0875
0.0875
726
17652
8.78
13.14
23.0
38.0
0.229
- 0.141
34.1
130.0
10.1
21.3
4.6
48.0
48.8
199.3
7.8
10.6
5.7
11.6
Minor SMnn Mamr SMrm
15.4
27.8
13.4
25.8
0.373
0205
8.1
46.4
8.1
46.4
4.8
12.0
0.0
9.2
12.9
67.5
5.9
8.4
2.9
6.7
1.00
1.00
13.0
67.5
6.00
9.60
0.00
0.00
t
riches
t=yes
V"
nches
riches
1
1s
fs
Is
1s
1s
fs
rs
is
1s
1s
3s
is,
iches
iches
Minor Storm Major Storm
Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of or Q.m.= 13.0 67.5 cfs
MINOR STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
UD Inlet E2.xls, O-Allow
12/1712009, 9:13 AM
....: INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE. _
Y:
project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: FZ
,t-Lo (C)-K
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
W
W p
Lo(G)
of Inlet
Depression (Ofttoral to wrd nuns gutter depressbn'a' from'O-Allow)
Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
th of a Single Unit Inlet (Crate w Curb Opening)
i of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from "low)
Ong Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value - 0.5)
Ong Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)
t Hrdrau0p; OK • O c maximum allowable from street'O-AIIoW
in Discharyp for Hall of Street (from Sheet 04-eak )
Spread Width
Depth at RoMine (outside or local depression)
Depth at Street Crown (or at TaAO
of Gutter Flow to Design Flow
arge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section T.
arge within the Gutter Section W
ame Behind the Curb Face
Length of Inlet Grate Opening
of Grate Flow to Design Flow,
r NOClogging Condition
ram Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
eption Rate of Frontal Flow
option Rate of Side Flow
eption Capacity
r Clogging Condition
ing Coefficient for Multiple nft Grate Inlet
ing Factor for Multiple,unit Grate Inlet
die (unctogged) Length of Muttiple-unit Grate Inlet
um Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
;p6on Rate of Frontal Flow
Mfion Rate of Side Flow
1 Irderception Capacity
Over Flow= O,-0, (to be applied to curb opening or nW dh.
)r Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis (Calculated)
Plant Slope S. (based on grate rarryo sr)
sd Length Lr to Have 100% Interception
No -Clogging Condition
✓e Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, Lr)
iption Capacity
Clogging Condition
ng Coefficient
ng Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet
re (Unctogged) Length
IMeroeption Capacity
m Capacity
,r Flow (flow bypassing Inlet)
=nn =
Type =
81. c =
No=
L. =
W.=
CrG =
CrC =
MINOR MAJOR
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
2.0
2.0
1
1
3.00
3.00
1.73
1.73
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.10
0, =
T=1
MINOR
_ 2.151
7.01
MAJOR
759
12.4
d =
dcamw =
E, =
O..
Ow =
Qa =
A.
V. =
it. =
3.51
5.1
Inc
inc
cis
cfs
cis
sq
fps
ind
0.0
0.0
0.734
0.461
0.57
4.09
1.58
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.71
1.98
3.01
3.83
5.5
7.1
MINOR MAJOR
3.00 ft
E sm =1 0.6851 0.420
MINOR MAJOR
V. =
R,=
R. =
Q =
GrateCoef =
GmInClog=
L. =
V. =
Rr=
R,=
6.17
6.17
fps
cis
It
fps
1.00
1.00
022
0.15
1.62
3.86
MINOR MAJOR
1.00 1.00
0.50
0.50
.1.50
1.50
3.86
3.86
1.00
1.00
0.05
'0.04
MINOR
MAJOR
S.
0.1319
0.0918
Nit
Lr =
5.41
14.86
ft
MINOR
MAJOR
L=I
3.00
3.00
it
=
025
0.71
cis
MINOR
MAJOR
CurbClog = 0.
�rl„ 61:1
LID Inlet E2.x1s, Inlet On Grade
121172009, 9:13 AM
No Text
Calculation Results Summary
-----------------------------
scenario: 10-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-2
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I
Inlet I Inlet
- Total
I Total
I Capture
Gutter
I Gutter I
I I
Type I
I
Intercepted
I Bypassed
I Efficiency
I Spread
I Depth I
I I
I
I
Flow
I Flow
I (8)
I (ft)
1 (ft) I
I I
I----------------------I
I
----------------------
I
(cfs)
-------------I----------I------------I--------
I (cfs)
I
I
I I
I I-E1 I
Generic Inlet I Generic Default
100% I
0.00
I 0.00
I 100.0
I 0.00
--------I
1 0.00 1
I I-E2 I
-------------------------------------------------
Generic Inlet I Generic Default
100% I-------0.00-I-
0.00
---------
I------100.0-1
0,00
-------------------
I 0,00 I
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH
ROOT: 0-2
I Label I
Number I Section I Section I
Length
I Total I Average I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I
of I Size I Shape I
(ft)
I System I Velocity I
Grade I
Grade 1
' I I
Sections I I I
I Flow I
(ft/s) I Upstream
I Downstream I
I I
I-------I----------I---------I----------I--------I--------I----------
I I I
I (cfs)
I
(ft) I
(ft) I
I P-4 1
1 1 15 inch I Circular 1
16.00
1 4.79 1
I-----------I------------I
8.19 .1
17.39 1
16.77 I
' 1 P-5--1--------1-1-15
------
inch I Circular 1
------------------------------------------------------
35.00
1 3.05 1
6.33 1
18.70-1------17.93-I
-
' I Label I Total I Ground I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I System I Elevation I Grade I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) I Line In I Line Out I
I I (cfs) I I (ft) 1 (ft) I
I - ------I-------- I -----------I-----=----- I -----------I
1 0-2 1 4.79 1 23.00 1 15.50 1 15.50 1
1 I-E2 1 4.79 1 22.60 1 17.72 1 17.39 1
1 I -El 1 3.05 1 22.60 1 18.70 1 18.70 1
------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
' Completed: 12/17/2009 10:00:36 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...tdrainagetdesigntstonncadtstorm b.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 10:00:40 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
Label: 0-2 Label:l-E2
Rim: 23.00 ft Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 15.50 Sump: 12.50 ft
Labe �b 50 IN
UP•\n vet 16 �0
Or•\n ,\6�Oft
\- 15 \nch
Sale 5000
S. 0 02
-1+00
25.00
Label: I-E 1
Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 14.00 ft
20.00
Label: P 8 00 ft
Jp. Invert: 40 ft
Din. Inve�:17 levation (ft)
L: 35.00
Size;15 In ft
15.00
1 10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:l..\drainage\designlstormcadlstorn b.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 10:00:48 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 100-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-2
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter 1
I I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I I I Flow I Flow I M I (ft) I (ft)
I I I ------------.I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I
I I-E1 I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% I 0.00 I 0.00 I 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
I I-E2 I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% I 0.00 I 0.00 I 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-2
I Label I Number I Section
I Section
I Length
I Total
I Average
I Hydraulic I
Hydraulic I
I I of 1 Size
I Shape
I (ft)
I System
I Velocity
I Grade I
Grade I
I I Sections I
I
I
I Flow
I (ft/s)
I Upstream I
Downstream I
I 1 I
------I----------I---------I----------I--------I--------I----------I-----------I------------I
I
I
I (cfs) I
I (ft) I
(ft) I
I-
I P-9 I 1 1 15 inch
I Circular I
16.00 I
9.10 I
9.41
17.66 I
17.10
I P-5 I 1 1 15 inch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Circular 1
35.00 1
5.11 1
7.22
1 18.92 1
18.39 1
I Label I Total I Ground I Hydraulic I Hydraulic 1
I I System I Elevation I Grade I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) I Line In Line Out I
I (cfs) I I (ft) I (ft) I
I-------I--------I-----------I-----------I-----------I
1 0-2 I 9.10 I 23.00 I 15.50 I 15.50
I I-E2 I 9.10 I 22.60 1 18.39 1 17.66 1
I I-E1 I 5.11 I 22.60 1 18.92 1 18.92 1
------------------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/17/2009 10:00:54 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interest Consulting Group
x:\..tdrainagetdesignlstormcadtstomn b.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 15.5005]
12/17/09 10:00:59 AM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
-1 +00
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 100-yr
Label: 0-2 Label:l-E2
Rim: 23.00 ft Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 15.50 Sump: 12.501
0
25.00
Label: I -El
Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 14.00 ft
20.00
Label: P 5 ft
)p. Invert:A8
Al 40 ft .
On. IL 35.00levatton (ft)
Size A 1itlfc
S: 0 01743
15.00
1 10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...\drainage\design\stormcad\storm b.stm Interest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 10:01:06 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Harmony and College
G (Existing 5' Type R inlet)
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
OV LROLW ND I I STSIEREEET I I OVERLAND
Il ®E-yGUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW F ® yE- GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET
112 OF STREET
Design ow: ONLY it alreadyteam mug Other me Minor Storm
Major Storm
(local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): •Q =1 1.701 4.40 cfs
• If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this shoat and proceed to shoot Q-All0
Geographic n rm on:(Enter data in the bluece :
Subcatchmerd Area =1 0.81 JAcres
Percent Imperviousness =1
77.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =1
CIA, B, C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft)
Length (ft)
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow = 0.0200
10.0
Site Is Non -Urban: GufterFlow.=l 0.0060 1
484.0
Kaintall into.on: intensity I (mch1hr)= 2 + a Minor Storm
Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T, =
yes
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, =
ids
C,=
Cz=
Ca=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C 6 =
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qe = 0.00
0.00 cfs
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) fora Catchment: Minor Storm
Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, CS
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T.
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, -
Recommended T, _
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, _
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Q. =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
= NIA NIA
= N/A N/A
= N/A NIA
= N/A N/A
= NIA NIA
N/A N/A
= N/A NIA
- NIA N/A
N/A NIA
NIA NIA
N/A NIA
N/A N/A
1.70 4.40
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
irdVhr
cfs
cis
LID Inlet G.xls, Q-Peak 1211712009, 9:28 AM
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
irdVhr
cfs
cis
LID Inlet G.xls, Q-Peak 1211712009, 9:28 AM
FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: . Harmony and College
Inlet ID:
G (Existing 5' Type R Inlet)
RA
SaACK
y
HCURB d
a
TCROW�N .Y
T. TMAX
W TX Street
_ Crown
J
SX
94
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
ce from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression,
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump Condition
hg's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
:er Cross Slope (Eq. ST-6)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
Arable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
#large outside the Gutter Section W, canied in Section TX
barge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Ox)
barge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Rowline Depth
ioretical Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
ter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
oredral Discharge outside the Grater Section W, Carried in Section T XTH
W Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T cR.)
forge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Qr j
:barge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
al Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
v Velocity Within the Gutter Section
product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
le -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
ultant Flow Depth at Gutter Fiowline (Safety Factor Applied)
ultam Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
TeACK = ft
S= = R. vert. / R.horiz
m1ACK =
Hcu,,=
6.00
inches
TcaowN =W0.0
ft
a =inches
W =ft
SX =R
vert / R horiz
So =it
vert. / R horiz
nu =
Tom:
Timm:
Sw =
y=
d=
TX =
E. =
QX=
Qw=
ABACK =
Qr=
V=
V•d =
TTH =
TX TH=
Eo =
QX TH=
QX=
Qw=
QB m=
Q=
V=
V•d =
R=
Qd=
d=
dCROVM
Minor Stomp Major Stonn
25.0 25.0
6.00 6.00
0.0&21
6.00
5.64
5.64
7.16
7.16
23.0
23.0
0237
0237
24.1
24.1
7.5
7.5
0.0
0.0
31.6
31.6
7.31
7.3
4.41
4.4
Minor Storm Maior Storm
19.9
19.9
17.9
17.9
0.302
0.302
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
5.3
5.3
0.0
0.0
17.6
17.6
6A
6.4
3.2
32
0.70
0.70
122
12.2 i
5.39
5.39 i
0.00
0.00 1
ft
inches
X =yes
ftfll
inches
inches
it
cis
cis
cis
cfs
los
cis
cfs
cis
cis
:is
bs
cis
riches
riches
Minor Stodn Major Storm
towable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of O . or QA Q,udM=1122 122122 cis
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max. allowable Capacity, OK - areater than flow aiven on sheet'O-Peak'
UD Inlet G.xls, Q-Allow 12117/2009, 9:29 AM
INLET; ON�AZON,TIN000S GRADE
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: G (Existing 5' Type R Inlet)
-Lo (C)
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
Wp
W
Lo (G)t C2�
V
Desi n Information In MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening
Local Depression (additional to mrbinroin gu0er depression 'a from n4ulow) 13 � = 2.0 2.0 inches
Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L, = 5.00 5.00 it
Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. = WA WA it
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value - 0.5) CrG = WA WA
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Cum Opening (typical min. value - 0.1) CrC = 0.10 0.10
Street Hydraulics; O - Q < maximum allawrable horn sheet 0oW
MINOR
MAJOR
1.70
4.40
Design Discharge for Hall of Street (from Sheet Q-PeaA) Q. =
cis
7.9
12.3
Water Spread Width T=
it
Water Depth at Rawlins (outside of local depression) d =
3.4
4.5
inches
Water Depth at Street Crown (or at Twv) rl m =
0.0
0.0
inches
0.696
0.483
Ratio of Gutter Row to Design Row E. =
Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T, Q, =
0.52
228
cis
Discharge within the Gutter Section W C. =
1.19
2.13
cis
Discharge Behind the Cum Face =
0.00
0.00
cis
Street Rev Area A, =
0.75
1.62
sq it
2.281
2.71
Streel Flow Velocity V.=
to.
Water Depth for Design Condition d
5.41
6.5
inches
Grabe Ana Is Calculate MINOR MAJOR
Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L=1 8
Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E�w _
Under NOClogping Condition MINOR MAJOR
Minimum Velocity Where Grate SpashOver Begins V. = fps
Interception Rate of Frontal Row Rr=
Interception Rate of Side Flow R =
Interception Capacity 4 = ds
Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Mulfipleunit Grate Inlet GmteCoef =
Clogging Factor for Mulliplermit Grate Inlet GrateClog =
Effective (unciogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = it
Minimum Velocity Where Grata SpashOver Begins V. = fps.
Interception Rate or Frontal Flow Rr = .
Intercalation Rate of Side Row R. =
at Interception Capacity 0. = NIA WA cis
Carry -Over Flow= Q,-0, (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Qn = !!AL_MI cis
Curb or Slotted Inlet OninninaAna Is(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Equivalent Slope S, (based on grate carryover) S. =1 0.12211 0.0909 Itm
Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception L. = 7.43 1322 it
Under No Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR
Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, Lr) L = 5.001 5.00 it
interception Capacity D, = 1.47 2.53 cis
Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef= 1.00 1.00
Clogging Factor for Multipl"nit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.10 0.10
Effective (Unctogged) Length L. = 4.50 4.50 It
Actual Interception Capacity Q. = 1.38 2.32 cis
Carry -Over Flow = 0 aw -% OD = 0.32 2.08 cis
Surnmant
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity ' / Q =
Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow, bypassing Inlet) A.,o EA� � 0e =
cis
cfs �-
1.38
2.32
0.32
2A8
81.31
52.7
Capture Percentage = OJC6 = CX =
%
' LID Inlet Gals, Inlet On Grade
12/1712009, 9:29 AM
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: G
X-Lo (C)-,�
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
W
Wp
of Inlet
Depression (additional to continuous gutter depnisslon'a' from'O-nlow)
Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
h of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
i of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from O-Nlow)
ling Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)
lino Factor for a Single Unit Curb Ooenmo (hnical min. value=0.11
In Discharge for HaM of Street (from Sheet 04 eak)
Spread Width
Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)
Depth at Street Crown (or at 7v)
of Gutter Flow to Design Row
arge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T.
arge within the Gutter Section W
arge Behind the Curb Face
Row Area
Flow velocity
Length of Inlet Grate Opening
of Grate Flow to Design Row
r No -Clogging Condition
am Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
option Rate of Frontal Flow
option Rate of Side Flow
epbon Capacity
r Clogging Condition
ing Coefficient for MuMple-unit Grate Inlet
ing Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
ive (unclogged) Length of Mulbple,unt Grate Inlet
um Velocity Where Grate SpastWver Begins
eptian Rate of Frontal Flow
option Rate of Side Flow
ti Interception Capacity
-Over Flow= O.-O. (to be applied to curb opening or next dh.
or Slotted Inlet Ooenino Analysis (Calculated)
dent Slope S. (based on grate canno ar)
red Length LT to Have 100% Interception
No -Clogging Condition
ve Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, Lr)
;ption Capacity
Clogging Condition
ng Coefficient
ng Factor for Mulliplewnit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet
re(Unctogged) Length
Interception Capacity
Over Flow - O„=e.,.. L
Inlet Interception Capacity
Inet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing Inlet)
aL- = 2.0
No = 2
L. = 3.00
W.= 1.731 1
CrG =1 0.501 0
CrC =1 0.101 0
T =
d =
do =
1-
O. =
O. =
O . =
A =
V. =
7.01
112
ft
inch
inch
cis
cis
cis
sp ft
fps
3.1
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.762
0.533
0.41
2.06
1.30
2.35
0.00
0.00
0.58
129
2.92
3.41
MINOR MAJOR .
L=1 6.001 6.00ft
0.716 0.492
MINOR MAJOR
V. _
Rr =
R, _
Oi =
fps
cis
MINOR MAJOR
GraleGoef = 1.501 1.50
GrateClog = 0.38 0.38
R.
O.
9.98
9.98
1.00
1.00
0.53
0.46
1.47
3.19
7.
MINOR
MAJOR
S.
0.7305
0.0970
RRl
=
4.41
3Li
It
MINOR
MAJOR
L=1
4.40
6.00
ft
a =
0.18
0.69
cis
MINOR
MAJOR
CurbCoef=
1.25
125
CurbClog =
0.06
0.06
L. =
4.40
5.63
0
MINOR
LID Inlet G.xls, Inlet On Grade
'12121l2009, 7:40 AM
c
1
r
0
M
0
a^�
0 O 0
0o
con 0
�- N a
N >
0
U U
E
m0
N
0
m
W
m
0
a
m
co
N
Lh
N
n
M
0
N
F
U
U
E
`o
Lr39
9
LL
Im
0 O
Lo
Oa
N
Ta)o
o 0n
mo
_ � o
v
m N
H K �
Calculation Results Summary
------------------------
Scenario: 10-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I I Flow I Flow I (8) I (ft) I (ft) I
I I I I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I I
I-
------I---------------I----------------------I-------------I----------I------------I--------I--------
I 1-G I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% 1 0.00 0.00 I 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
I Label I Number I Section I Section I Length
I Total I
Average
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size I Shape I (ft)
I System I
Velocity
I Grade
I Grade I
I I Sections I I I
I Flow I
(ft/s)
I Upstream
I Downstream I
I I I I I
I-------1---------- I --------- I---------- I--------
I (cfs) I
I --------
----------
I (ft)
I (ft) I
I P-1 1 1 1 18 inch I Circular 1 22.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
1 1.52 1
I-----------
4.09 I
I
23.50 I
------------I
23.50 I
I Label I Total
I Ground
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I I System
I Elevation
I Grade
I Grade I
I I Flow
I (ft) I
Line In
I Line Out I
I I (cfs) I
I - ------I--------
I
-----------I-----------
(ft)
I (ft) I
I
I 0-1 1 1.52 1
27.50 I
23.50
-----------I
I 23.50 I
1 1-G 1 1.52 1
------------------------------------------------------
27.10 1
23.50
1 23.50 1
-----------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/21/2009 07:45:39 AM,
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
' x:V..tdrainage\designlstonncadlstorrn c.stm Interwest Consulting Group StomnCAD v5.5 [5.5005)
12/21/09 07:45:48 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
-1+00
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 27.50 ft
Sump: 22.20 ft
Label: P-1
ljp. Invert: 22.40 ft
Dn. Invert: 22.20 ft
1-92.00 ft
Station (ft)
30.00
Label:1-G
Rim: 26.60 ft
Sump: 22.40 ft
25.00
20.00
Size:18 inch 0+00
S. 0.009091 wft
Elevation (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...\drainage\design\stormcad\storm c.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07:46:33 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1
Calculation Results Summary
------------
Scenario: 100-yr
' »» Info: Subsurface Network
Rooted by:
0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis
iterations:
1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
i
' I Label I Inlet I
Inlet
I Total I Total
I Capture
I Gutter
I Gutter I
I Type I
I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency
I Spread
I Depth I
I I I
I Flow I Flow
I M
1 (ft)
I (ft) I
' 1 I I
I-------1---------------I----------------------
I (cfs) I (cfs)
I
I
I I
11-G I Generic Inlet I Generic Default
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I------------- I----------
100% 1 0.00 I 0.00
I------------
I 100.0
I--------
1 0.00
I ----- _--I
1 0.00 1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
tI Label I Number I Section I
Section I
Length I Total I Average I
Hydraulic I Hydraulic
i I of 1' Size I
Shape I
(ft) I System I Velocity I
Grade I
Grade I
I I Sections I I
I
I Flow I (ft/s) I
Upstream I Downstream 1
' I I I
I-------I----------I---------I----------I--------
I
I (cfs) I I
I -------- ----------
(ft) ' 1
(ft) I
I P-1 I 1 1 18 inch I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circular 1
I I
22.00 1 3.32 1 5.09 1
-----------I------------I
23.50 I
23.50 I
I Label I Total I Ground I
I Hydraulic I
Hydraulic
I I System I Elevation 1
Grade
I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) 1
Line In
I Line Out I
I I (cfs) I I
- ------I--------
(ft)
1 (ft) I
I I-----------I-----------I-----------I
1 0-1 1 3.32 1 27.50 1
23.50
1 23.50 1
' 1 1-G 1 3.32 1 27.10 1
------------------------------------------------------
23.50
1 23.50 1
---------------
Completed: 12/21/2009 07:46:07 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
' x:l..XdrainageXdesigntstormcadlstorm c.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07:46:10 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
-1 +00
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 100-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 27.50 ft
Sump: 22.20 ft
Label: P-1
Up. Invert: 22.40 ft
Dn. Invert, 22.20 ft
Station (ft)
30.00
Label:1-G
Rim: 26.60 ft
Sump: 22.40 ft
25.00 Elevation (ft)
►[►[ ►► 20.00
Size-.0cwft0+00
S. 0.09091
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...\drainage\design\stormcad\storm c.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07:46:20 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1 I aI - ;•-
/ Al
EX 1 r t
1 L — 6 0 SDMH - .1
STA 10+00=
CL STA 116+16 77, 75.45LT
A3
5' 0 SDMH W/ 30" R SNOUT
STA 10+24.0=
4 CL STA 116+09, 9, 52.62' LT
•° o i .LP
A2 24" RCP
y A4 24" RCP. J W(
°
o ` A5
4 -15' TYPE R INLET W/ 30" F SNOUT
° SEE NOTE 8.
STA 10+47.5=
CL STA 115+87 88. 61.12' LT
HARMONYROAD [ HARMONY LFL STA 14+63 52, 0 37 LT
♦ I G
14+
STORM SYSTEM A
5035
IIIIIIIII411116rol
5025
5020
5015
� h
Z
I—
S�>>>>
Z Z Z Z
>
Z
Q W
r
EA
N 3+1N
nL�O
a z
-+i0
nni O
O
NN01�
oof
+knaeo
m 11 O
N II N O
QNNZDn
-Oa
�aL4o
n
it
mNa
Ina
II
In
U M
Q InKZZ
1n
Q .-I-U�N
EXISTING
GRADE
,y
2
��I W
PROPOSED
GRADE
II
k
�
k
100-YR HGL
A4 16 LF
24" RCP
® 0.6%
A2 24 LF
24" RCP—
0 1.3%
10+00 10+50
Computer File Information
Creation Dole: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL
Last Modification Dote: 12/23/09 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
e Nome: 104601202FOR-PP STORM.dwg
2007 Scale: 1:50H 1:5V Units: ENGLISH
5035
5030
5025
5020
5015
Index
it
5030
5025
5020
5015
5010
B5
TYPE 16 SPECIAL INLET
W/ 18" F SNOUT
STA 10+51.3=
/ e CL STA 110+48.07, 51.88' LT
_ LFL STA 10+48.01
63
Ilee TYPE 16 SPECIAL INLET -JJII
B4`15" RCP09 = o W/ 18" F SNOUT
ee STA 10+15.3= r
CL STA 110+11.74, 51.90' LT
9 LFL STA 10+11.68
4 L
I. �I WJ
— _j B2 15" RCP w
4
• SEX SDMH
STA 10+00=
CL STA 110+11.58. 66.93' LTJ
� I�11 II'II II
STORM SYSTEM B
1-
1—
O
Z
Ln
In
3
F
3
F-
Z
Z
gbh
MQ
rOQ
t0
Z�V10
�kn
O+
1
N1hh
O+ a
�N
Jln I
N 11.
N 100�
J)0a
�in
Ow
LO
II <�Ln
a
NIt
Inn11
kg»>>
to
rlim>>
um -
w
M. 11)
11M
>>
411u�222z
m��U?
In m
I-Uz V)
Ili
VG
_ C"s TING
g
100- YR HGL
RAISE
q
EX COMCAST
84
36 LF
82
15" RCP
15 LF
15" RCP
® 1.7%
0
® 2.7%
W
J
10+00
Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins. CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: (970) 221-6378
10+50
0
5030
5025
5020
LONAL
r:�-p5015c;��r'\
5010
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Phone: (970) 350-2126
FAX: (970) 350-2198
Region 4 PJG
As Constructed
No Revisions:
Revised:
Void:
IF W
o
yW
F .
6 W
� o
e
A -A'
9�� vwurm
e OPI`/E
25 O 25 50
HORIZONTAL
SCALE: I^= 50
VERTICAL
SCALE: 1"= 5'
NOTE:
1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
2. RCP STORM SHALL BE CLASS III WITH WATER
TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443).
3. CL STATIONING AT TYPE R INLET IS CENTER OF
FACE OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
4. CL AND FL STATIONING AT TYPE 16 INLET IS
MIDPOINT OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
5. ALL OTHER STATIONING IS CENTER OF STRUCTURE
6. EX UTILITY INFORMATION TO BE VERIFIED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. "SNOUT" DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMENDATIONS.
8. 15' TYPE R INLET WITH DROP BOX
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ........ .°.•... •° °•
STORM SEWER Project No./Code
PLAN & PROFILE STU M455-077
Designer: M. OBERLANDER 16136
Detoilec J. LOfTON
Sheet Number ]]
Sheet Subset: STORM Subset Sheet:: I of I
7
_ W
• ' ® • r _ W 2
° d • J f� W
°° — £m <
° V • i • / Q W
m u
U
v I W C
M yi
HARMONYROAD
'°° e (� j- • • C4 DOUBLE TYPE 16 INLET
J�. \ '0• STA 10+22.8=Po•rs veA
J W CL STA 16+08.24. 48.78' LT=
O ° • , • LFL STA 16+07.55
° C3 18" RCP-— ,-
e ' C2 ° °
° °' ° I� •G 4' 0 SDMH 6�G
STA 10+00.0= _ E
° CL STA 15+86.95, 39.23' LT, °
15+00 ° ° '16+004 ° 17_+00 °
1 I +
c1 Ex 1a" HARMONYROAD
e° ° SEE NOTE B °
° .•---. I ... ..� °
STORM SYSTEM C
5035
5030
5025
5020
H
W
J
Z_
O
N a7 to
O
NN NW
-H
O+='n
Nto O>O
a
<�NOII
NIIN
N
¢
O II ~ ¢ tat
Z)
0
I_-
n- In
0
It
0V)a
u
UItMKZ
DU
UOm
X:
Z
100-YR HGL
I�
C3
23 LF
18" RCP
® 0.9%
--N-Cl
EX 7B"®26Z
10+00 10+50
Computer File Information
Creation Date: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL
Last Modification Date: 12/23/09 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
Drowing File Name: 104601202FOR-PP STORM.dwq
Acad Ver, 2007 Scale: 1:50H 1:5V Units: ENGLISH
5035
5030
5025
YlYZe1
Index of Revisi
25 0 25
HORIZONTAL
SCALE: 1"= 50'
VERTICAL
SCALE: 1"= 5'
NOTE:
1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
2. RCP STORM SHALL BE CLASS III WITH WATER
TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443).
3. CL STATIONING AT TYPE R INLET IS CENTER OF
FACE OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
4. CL AND FL STATIONING AT TYPE 16 INLET IS
MIDPOINT OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
5. ALL OTHER STATIONING IS CENTER OF STRUCTURE.
6. EX UTILITY INFORMATION TO BE VERIFIED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
�POO ....
•
7. "SNOUT" DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
O ; •F
QpUL
FP'• mac^
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMENDATIONS.
o
34288
8. CONNECT EXISTING 18" PIPE TO NEW MANHOLE C2.
•; ���
1Do� .,•••
•
FS G�
S�••�•••�••ONAL E�
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION •• < ••
lOT
As Constructed
STORM SEWER
Project No./Code
FortC011ins
_
No Revisions:
PLAN & PROFILE
STU M455-077
281 North College Avenue
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Revised:
Designer: M. OBERLANDER
16136
Detailer: J. IOFTON
Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126
Sheet Number 78
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198
FAX: (970) 221-6378 Region 4 PJG
Void:
Sheet Subset: STORM
Subset Sheet:: 1 of 1
APPENDIX D
PERMANENT BMP
CALCULATIONS
SUBJECT: SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
This document pertains to the potential suspended solids removals by the SNOUT
Stormwater Quality System installed per manufacturer's recommendations.
The SNOUT system will have a positive impact on the reduction of suspended solids.
The total efficiency of removal will vary depending on the constituent nature of the solids
found in the sto.rmwater runoff and the size distribution_of.those solids. as typified by the
native sediment and soils., As is the case in all stormwate.r quality improvement designs,
the largest particles will be most easily removed and the smaller particles are more likely
to stay suspended. Without a"detailed analysis of the suspended solids entrained in any
given storm flow, and the exact parameters of any given installation,.the total. percent
removal is difficult if not.impossible to .estimate.
However, according to generally accepted engineering practices -,-the range of theoretical
solids reductions will vary widely. For a single SNOUT equipped inlet with a deep sump
and proper maintenance, suspended solids -removals from 30 to over.50 percent have
been shown. Given favorable site conditions, proper maintenance and a multiple structure
treatment train, up to 89.5 percent removals could be possible.
Please contact Best Management Products,.lnc. if you have further:questions.
u
— Princeton Hydro � �.,�� �•
13 November 2007
Mr. T.J. Mullen
Best Management Products, Inc. .
53 Mount Archer Road
Lyme, Connecticut 06371
Dear Mr. Mullen:
As part_ of the 2002 — 2003 watershed project for Lake Peekskill, SNOUT stormwater retrofits
were. installed in the Town of Putnam Valley. These retrofits. were chosen since large, structural
Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be difficult to install. these residential areas. On 9
May 2003, the Putnam Valley Department of Public Works installed two SNOUT devices into
two previously, identified catch basins. The SNOUTS were monitored four times during 2003; 18
September, 25. September, 12 December, and 29 December. Stormwater samples were collected
entering and exiting the SNOUT retrofitted catch basins and were analyzed for total phosphorus
(TP) and total suspended_ solids (TSS). _In order to estimate the pollutant loads entering and
exiting the _ devices, rainfall data (Northeast Regional Climate Center:
http://cimod..nr&c.comell.edu/), measured pollutant concentrations, and the immediate drainage
area were used. Specifically, the following equation was used to estimate the pollutant load
entering and exiting the SNOUT devices:
L=R*A.*C
Where L = Pollutant load (lbs)
R = Rainfall during sampling event (meters)
A = Drainage area (mZ)
C.= pollutant concentration (mg/ L)
It should be noted. that. rainfall data during the 29 December 2003 sampling. event was not
available through the .Cornell Climod. database; thus, Princeton Hydro estimated the amount of .
rainfall to be 0.1 inches. In addition, the area of land. draining into the SNOUT devices were
estimated to be 880 mZ, using,ArcGIS and the limited existing topographic data. The SNOUT.
devices removed both TSS and TP from stormwater _entering the SNOUT .devices from the
surrounding drainage. area. On:average"the SNOUTs reduced TSS by 56% and TP by 46%.
Please refer to the figures at the end of this document for additional removal data. Please note
that these are rough estimates since the exact drainage area and amount of rainfall were
approximated.
Based on these data, the SNOUT -modified catch basins demonstrated the potential.to remove the
TSS and TP pollutant loads originating from surface runoff. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact us at (010) 52474220.
Sincerely;
Mary Lambert
GIS Specialist/ Scientist
SNOUT TSS Removal
0.35
S TSS Entering SNOUT
0.3 ■ TSS Exiting SNOUT
0.25
0.2
H
F 0.15
0.1
0:05 .
0
18-Sep-03 25-Sep-03 12-Dec-0329-Dec-03 " !Average
Date
SNOUT TP Removal
' _ Yal4µvlgam.i .
Introduction to Design and Maintenance
Considerations for SNOUT° Stormwater Quality Systems
Background:
.The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based
on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other
solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT, hood
' is installed over the outlet pipe of:a catch basin or -other stormwater quality,
structure which :incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The.
SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils
on the surface of the. captured' stormwater; while permitting heavier solids to sink
to the.bottom of the sump.The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the
structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming
flow. The resultant discharge contains' considerably .less unsightly trash and
othergross. pollutants, and can also -.offer reductions of free -oils and finer solids.
' As with any structural stormwater quality BMP (Best Managementpractice),
design. and maintenance considerations.will have a.dramatic impaction SNOUT
system performance over the life of the facility. The. most important factor to
' consider when designing structures which will incorporate.a SNOUT. is the depth
of the sump (the sump is defined as the depth from. beneath the. invert of the
' outlet pipe, to the bottom of. the structure). Simolv put, the deeper the`sump, the
more effective the unit will be both in terms of pollutant removals and reducing
frequency of maintenance:. More volume in a structure means more quiescence,
' thus allowing the pollutant constituents a better chance to separate: out;'*
Secondly, more. volume means fewer cycles between maintenance operations,
because the structure has a greater:capacity:. Of equal importance to; good'.
performance.is putting SNOUTs in every inlet whenever possible. The closer
one captures _pollution ,to where it enters the infrastructure (e:g. at the inlet), the
less mixing of runoff there is, and the easier it will be to separate out pollutants.
' Putting SNOUTs and:deep sumps in every inlet develops a'powerful structural
treatment train with a great deal of effective storage volume where even finer
particles may have chance to settle out.
' Design Notes:
❖ The.SNOUT size is ALWAYS greater. than the nominal.,pipe size. The
SNOUT should cover the pipe OD plus the grouted area around the pipe
(e.g, for a 12" pipe, an 18" SNOUT is the correct choice).
•2• As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based
on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size.
❖ Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for
all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID
is required if collection of finer solids is desired.
❖ . The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to.7 times the flow.
area of the outlet pipe.
❖ To optimize pollutant removals establish a "treatment train" with SNOUTs
placed in every inlet where. it is feasible to do so (this protocol applies to
most commercial; institutional or municipal applications and any.
application with direct discharge to surface waters).
❖ At a..minimum, SNOUTs should be used in every third structure for less
critical applications (less critical areas might include flow over grassy
surfaces, very low traffic areas in,private, non-commercial or non -
institutional settings, single family residential sites).
❖ Bio-Skirts"" (for hydrocarbons and/or bacteria reduction in any structure)
and flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can
increase pollutant removals: Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas
or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading
docks; marinas, beaches, schools or high traffic applications.
The W. series SNOUTs (12R, 18R, 24R, 30R, and 54R/72) are available
for round manhole.type structures of up to 72" ID; the "F" series SNOUTs
(12F,.18F, 24F, 30F, 36F; 48F, 72F and 96F) are available for flat walled
box type. structures; the "NP" series SNOUTs.(NP1218R, NP1524R,
NP.1830R, and NP2430R) are. available for PVC:Nyloplast® type
structures up to 30" ID.
Example. Structure Sizing.Calculation:
A SNOUT equipped structure with a 15 inch ID. outlet:pipe (.1.23 sgft.:flow area)
will offer best. performance with a minimum plan area of 7.4 sgft. and 48 inch
sump. Thus,_a readily available 48 inch diameter manhole -type structure, or a
rectangular structure of 2 feet x 4'feet will offer sufficient size when combined
with a sump depth of 48 inches or greater.
Maintenance Recommendations:
❖ . Monthly monitoring for the first. year of a new installation after the. site has
been stabilized.
❖ Measurements should be taken. after each rain event of .5 inches or more,
or monthly; as determined. by local weather conditions.
❖ Checking sediment depth and noting"the surface pollutants in the structure
Will be helpful in plan ning'maintenance.
❖ The pollutants collected in SNOUT equipped structures will consist of
floatable..debris and oils on the surface of the captured water, and grit and
sediment on the bottom of the structure.
' 4e It is best to schedule maintenance based on the solids collected in the
sump.
44- Optimally, the structure should be cleaned when the sump is half full (e.g.
.,when 2 feet of material collects in a 4 foot sump, clean it out).
❖ Structures should also be cleaned if a spill or other incident causes a
' larger than normal accumulation of pollutants in a structure.
❖ Maintenance is best done with a vacuum truck.
' ❖ If Bio-Skirts"' are being used in the structure to enhance hydrocarbon
capture and/or bacteria removals, they should be checked on a monthly
basis, and serviced or replaced when more than 2/3 of the boom is
submerged, indicating a nearly saturated state. Assuming a typical.
pollutant -loading environment exists, Bio-Skirts should be serviced* or
replaced annually.
In the case of an oil spill, the structure should be serviced and Bio-Skirts
' replaced (if any) immediately
❖. All collected wastes must be handled and disposed of according to.local
environmental requirements.
' ❖ To maintain the SNOUT hoods themselves, an annual inspection of the
anti -siphon vent and access hatch are recommended. A simple flushing
of the vent,, or a gentle rodding with a flexible wire are -all that's typically
' needed to maintain the anti -siphon properties. -Opening and closing the
access hatch`once a year: ensures.a lifetime of trouble -free service.
tFurther structural design guidelines 1ricluding CAD drawings; hydraulic
spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation
' inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc.
*To extend the service life of a.Bio-Skirt; the unit maybe."wrung out" to remove
accumulated. oils and washed in an industrial washing machine in warm water.
' The Bio-Skirt may then be re -deployed as long the material maintains it's
1..
structural integrity. -
1 .
' Fitment Guide: Based on SNOUT inlet area vs. pipe inlet area.
1
i
1
—>®Use "R" for round back SNOUT in cylindrical structure
' - Installation Drawings:
' TYPICAL INSTALLATION
d
'^ .E ANTI -SIPHON DEVICE
'' •a . •
tSNOUT
, . om "�� ,r:
a,fT , "I . OIL -DEBRIS .
HOOD
##JJjjffjjJJ OIL AND DEBRIS ....
whim WR
t Y Y
yy 1
air' a
SEE OTE
• SOLIDS SETTLE ON ' d
4' .. .BOTTOM ♦:
"NOTE SUKIP DEPTH OF 36" MI N. FOR <.OR= 12" DIAM.
' . OUTLET FOR OUTLETS �O� i5", DEPTH = 2.5.3X DIAtA
' . Contact Information:
Please contact us if We can offer further assistance. 53-Mt. Archer Rd. Lyme, CT
06371. Technical Assistance: T. J. Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@brripinc.com) or
Lee Duran (888-434 0277)
' Website: www.bmpinc.com
' The SNOUT' is protected by: US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146 .
SNOUT' is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc. Nyloplase.is a registered
trademark of ADS Structures, Inca -,
' Quick -Start Application Guide with
SNOUT° to Structure Ratio (STSR) Methodology
i
Background:...
' The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc) is based
on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris; free oils, and other
solids from stormwater discharges. In its most.basic application, a SNOUT hood
' is installed over the outlet,pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality
structure which incorporates.a deep.sump (see.lnstallation Drawing). The
SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils
'. on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink
to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate. layer is forced out of the
structure through.the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming
flow. The resultant discharge contains considerably, less unsightly trash and
other gross pollutants., and can also offer reductions of.free=oils and finer solids.
What follows are basic design .tips to optimize the performance of SNOUT
systems.
' Des ign.Recommendations for Site:
❖ Establish SNOUT to Structure Ratio (STSR) for site as follows:
1.. Heavy Traffic and Pollutant Load ingApplications (STSRR 1.1) This includes
gas,stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, vehicle repair facilities,. .
.stores with "drive through" service (e.g. banks, drug stores; dry cleaners, coffee
' shops), loading docks, distribution facilities, marinas;. hospitals, transportation
terminals (air, bus, train, sea,.shipping), school bus loading areas., maintenance
facilities, light industrial sites, waste disposal facilities or "dumpsterareas",
' parking and roadway areas of shopping centers close to the stores, etc. In
"Heavy Traffic and Pollutant Load" areas a SNOUT in every structure is indicated
(STSR 1:1)..The exception will be where an inlet cannot be maintained. In this
case, and where additional treatment is desired, non -inlet polishipg structures
can be added to the drainagenetwork prior to discharge' (e.g. with a cover not a
grate thus it receives no surface flow). An oil absorbing boom may also be
' deployed in structures that will receive heavy hydrocarbon loading and flow
deflectors maybe added to a polishing structure to increase solids removals.
'. Moderate. Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR1:2): This
includes office buildings, multi -residential complexes; schools (other than bus
areas), most shopping mall parking areas, mixed retail commercial'facilities,
municipal/government buildings, athletic/entertainment/recreational facilities,
non -fast food restaurants; special event/remote parking areas, etc. In "Moderate
Traffic and Pollutant Load" areas.a SNOUT in at least every other structure is
indicated (STSR 1:2). The downstream structures (prior.to discharge) are most
critical, and oil absorbing booms may be useful if heavier hydrocarbon loading is
expected. Flow deflectors may be employed in a polishing structure to increase
solids separation.
Low Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:3):: This includes
grassy or vegetated areas, single family residences, parks", parking for offices
within residences, flow excess from permeable paving areas, etc. In Low Traffic
and Pollutant Load areas one SNOUT in every three structures may be adequate
(STSR 1:3). The need for oil booms or flow deflectors is unlikely as such a need
would indicate a Moderate or Heavy Pollutant load scenario.
If discharge in a park setting is to a "high -value" water body; additional
treatment may be indicated even if it is otherwise defined as a low traffic low load
area.
STSR Note: A large site may have different STSR areas, just like it may have
different runoff coefficients. For instance, a shopping mall may have an STSR of
1:1 in heavy traffic roadways and loading/unloading areas, but may have a STSR
.1:2 in a:remote parking area. Therefore.apply the appropriate STSR to each
area of the site to arrive at the total numberof SNOUT.. equipped structures for
the project;
Design Recommendations for Individual Structures:
' . The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the nominal pipe size as the
• Y 99 P P
SNOUT must over the pipe. OD (e.g. use an 18" SNOUT for 12" pipe).
' As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based..
on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size.
(Special Note for Smaller Pipes:. A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for.
' all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 16-18 inches ID
is:.required if.collection of finer, solids is desired.)
❖ The plan ' dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow area of the outlet pipe:
Bio-Skirts (for hydrocarbon and bacteria reduction in any structure) and
' flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can
increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas.
or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading
docks, marinas, or high traffic applications. Bio-Skirts are most effective .
when used in conjunction with a SNOUT.
❖ The "R" series SNOUTs are available for round. manhole type structures of
up to 727.I131 with pipes up to 50" OD; the "F" series SNOUTs are available
' for flat walled box type structures for pipes up to 94" OD; the "NP" series .
.SNOUTs are available forPVC Nyloplast® type structures up to 30" ID.
Further structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic
spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation
inspection sheets are available from. BMP, Inc.
APPLICATION DRAWINGS:
' TyOicA-L o4sTAu.ATibN
It
y _N
pM am*
•�, 3 LR}1iLG Vl.1 .. ,ti
Contact .Information:
Please contact. us if we can offer further assistance. 53 Mt: Archer Rd. Lyme, CT
06371. Technical Assistance: T:.J..Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@bmpinc,com) or
Lee Duran (888-434-0277).. Websife: www.bmpin6.com
The. SNOUT® is protected by:
US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146
' SNOUT®. is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc.
Nyloplast® is a registered trademark of ADS Structures, Inc.
a
N. -
w co
Z e - p�� �.
to O
O ® LL W
Q N 0 (L
zn
MZ2 NOm
a : a=a 0 LLgco
® aw O❑
' O � N O� � Wi0 _ pLLp
W °
N a LL
w
in X�wp
W pz
> ® c
Q w
a
W Itw o O
`row -.�.. _ LU On -
F- LL y ~
CL
VJ c LL
e) .. ..
WOO
Er
a.
.. O - a J a
Oo- NZm
m
m
a LL
O
N. -. .
5 '] V7co
cq
EL
(p�_( N5z o F- .
- �-C tX.mLLp ¢ - - Wuiawa Dy
a
5 0��F—
zzzz
z��
O� a w ��O000 .°cj . mi4 ¢W
eoo w =IX
LU
WOOWWw y
Nei �� N �o.o-oo¢❑000 waaaa 30 .
in ,�.. covoo d �O
O ®a U F, °y°.�pnOO�Nco c� yo co p N QO
} Z a N~ J y m_�:2 n rn F FO- FO- FO- F F d y y
..Z _ O U. ' ' W W y W W ' W W IL. LL ILL LL. " d �.] �
mLLO W EEE:F HHaDC00 OOOOv �¢
N W LL LL' LL.LL LL LL � N M th a Z Z U) cn
d_ Cl �n m tf U U U. a 1
Z z�aaa��aaaa . LLxLLaO.
. Op.. '•. � W N��r ZZZ Z NN CO) LO�i,Z
Lo..
Harmony and College
E1 (WQ)
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
�OV LOWSTREETI ND SIDE
I FLOWND
® E—GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW EE— E- GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET ( rl
, � I�i r`' Z. 1 IJ c.
' 1/2 OF STREET
11 issfanFlow ONLi7 reaaTTv determined thmuoh other me „ Maiar St
' II (local peak flow for 112 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments):
• If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet
Geographic Information:(Enter data in the blue cells):
Submtchmen[Area= Acres
Pement Imperviousness = %
NRCS Soil Type =1 IA. B. C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft) Length (ft)
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow =
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
arm on: intensity I (InChIl1r)= , , + a Misr Storm Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T, _
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, _
C,=
Cz=
Cs =
User -Defined Storrs Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined Syr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C 5 =
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Suheatchments, Qb
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 =
Overland Flow Velocity, V.
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, tc
Gutter Flow Time, to =
Calculated Time of Concentration, T, _
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T. _
Recommended T, _
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, _
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qp =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
WA
=
=
=
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
1.50
12.70
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inctJhr
efs
cfs
ILID Inlet E1(WQ).xis, Q-Peak
12/17/2009, 9:09 AM
CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF
Storm) ,:.
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID:
E1 IWO)
y�
'I Te.
SSAC,
y
Hcuae d
a
TCHOWN
T. Tu �T W _^ Tx
Street
_ rown
Qw Qx
S Y
93
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
iing's Roughness Behind Curb
t of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
ce from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longibidinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Une for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (Jeave blank for no)
ter Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
ter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
Aharge outside the Gutter Section W. carried in Section T x
charge within the Gutter Section W (Or - Qx)
fharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
.imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
oretical Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W R - W)
ar Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
oretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section T x TN
cal Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T ci, w )
:barge within the Gutter Section W (Od - Ox)
harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
d Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
r velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6') Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
dtard Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
dtent Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
TsAm = 15.0 ft
.02 SMCK = 000 it verL / it. horiz
neACK= 0.0130
Hcum=
6.00
inches
TcaowN =
52.0
ft
a =
1.52
inches
W =
2.00
ft
S. =
0.0218
it. vert. / ft. horiz
So =
0.0111
R vert / fL horiz
nsra =
Minor Storm Major Storm
TiAAx=1 25.0 40.0 ft
d. = 6.00 9.( inches
X = yes
Minor Storm Major Storm
Sw =
y=
d=
Tx =
Eo =
Ox=
Qw=
ABACK =
QT=
V=
V'd =
TTH
TxT
Eo'
Qx TH`
CIA
Qw=
ABACK =
Q=
V=
V'd =
R=
Cl. =
d=
dcaovm =
0.0851
0.0851
6.54
10.46
8.06
11.98
23.0
38.0
0232
0.142
28.6
109.2
8.7
18.1
2.1
32.4
39.3
1NJ
7.4
9.9
5.0
9.9
Minor Storm Major Storm
17.1
30.9
15.1
28.9
0.343
0.186
9.4
52.6
9.4
52.6
4.9
12.0
0.0
9.2
14.2
73.7
5.9
8.4
2.9
6.7
1.00
1.00
142
73.7
6.00
9.60 i
0.00
0.00 i
ft/ft
inches
inches
ft
cis
Ufa
cfs
cis
fps
Cis
cis
cis
Cis
cis
fps
cis
riches
inches
MinorSorn MajorSorm
lovable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q T or Q. Q.1, 1 14.21 73.7 cis
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than Flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max. allowable cavaeity OK - areater than flow oivan on sheat'D-Pack'
UD Inlet E1(W%xls, O-Allow
12/17/2009, 9:10 AM
"+ INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet 10: El (WO)
,h-Lo (C)�I'
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
Wp
W
Lo (G)
of Inlet
I Depression (additional to continuous g" depesson'a' fmm'Q-AWW)
I Number or Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
Ith of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
A of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Cl Allow)
ging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)
ging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value - 0.1)
A Hvdrau0cs: OK - O < maximum allowable from sheet').AIIoW
gn Discharge for Had of Street (from Sheet )-peak)
r Spread Width
r Depth at Flowline (outside or lost depression)
r Depth at Street Crown (or at T.)
, of Gutter Flaw to Design Flow
large outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T.
large Within the Gutter Section W
large Behind the Curb Face
QRow Area
t Flow Velocity
r Depth for Design Condition
t Analysis (Calculated)
Length at Inlet Grate Opening
of Grate Row to Design Flow
r No -Clogging CorrMon
win Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
option Rate of Frontal Flow
eption Rate of Side Flow
option Capacity
r Clogging Condition
Ong Coefficient for Multlple�unit Grata Inlet
Ing Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
ive (unciogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
,um Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
option Rate of Frontal Flow
option Rate of Side Row
it Interception Capacity
-Over Flow - Q.-Q. (to be applied to curb opening or next tits inlet)
or Slotted Inlet Openina Analysis (Calculated)
alent Slope S. (based on grate carryover)
red Length LT to Have 100% Interception
No -Clogging Condition
ve Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum N L, LT)
tption Capacity
Clogging Condition
ng Coefficient
ng Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet
ve(Undogged) Length
I Interception Capacity
Over Flaw=)-.......Q
Inlet Carty -Over Flow (flow bypassing Inlet) 1 p 1 IJ
Type =
au� =
No=
L. =
W.=
CrG =
CrC =
COOT/Denver 13 Combination
2.0
1
3.00
3.
1.73
1.
0.50
0.
0.10
0.
G.=
T=
d=
dcaona =
E. =
MINOR MAJOR
1.50
12.
62
1(
3.1
0.0
0.802
0.3.
O� =1
0.001
0.00
cis
A. =
0.54
3.04
sq ft
2.79
4.18
V.=
fps
5.1
7.8
dui =
inch,
MINOR
MAJOR
L-I
3.00
3.00 it
E. n =1
0.7551
0.325
MINOR
MAJOR
V. = 6.17 6.17 fps
R=
1.00
1.00
R =
022
0.12
Q=
121
5.17 cis
MINOR
MAJOR
atecoef=
L00
t.nd
GrateClog
L.
V.
R,
R.
Q.
d
S. =1
0.1395
0.0744
Nit
Lr =
4.04
22.521ft
MINOR -
MAJOR
L =
3.00
3.00
ft
Q =
0.16
0.96
cis
MINOR
MAJOR
CurbCoef =
1.00
1.00
CurbClog=
0.10
0.10
L, =
2.70
2 770
ft
4 =
0.15
0.87
cis
MAJOR
5
7
UD inlet Et(WO)As, Inlet On Grade
12/17rzoo9, 9:10 AM
Harmony and College
E2 (WQ)
I Design Flow= Gutter Flow+ Carry-over Flow I
�OVFL❑WND J ERLAI d STREET I IOVFLOWND y
® GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW F 111 ® F GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET �rS I. �! j r! c`tl
1/2 OF STREET
(local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments):
If you entered a value here. sldo the rest of this sheet and orocead to shi
She: (Check One Box Only)
She is Urban: x
She Is Non -Urban:
'Q
Subcatchment Area = Aces
Percent Imperviousness = %
NRCS Soil Type =1 JA, B, C, or D
Slope (ft!ft) Length (ft)
Overland Flow =
Gutter Flow =
Design Storm Return Period, Tr -
' Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P m
Cm=
C2'
C3_
' User -Defined Storm Rrsroft Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C 6
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qb o
' Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T,
Recommended T.:
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T,:
Design Rainfall Intensity, I:
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qp :
Total Design Peak Flow, Q :
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
N/A
WA
WA.
0.20
7.59
It,, 1� E 1 eri� V't S 1. 3 C .1�s m i t � 1 /'2 r i N C 11
CA�, Am-x v-c (S- O. Z c -s o TS
C�vrt oA�
Ps
Ps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
tchlhr
is
is
' LID Inlet E2(WQ).xls, Q-Peak
12117/2009, 9:14 AM
' ALLOWABLE, CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
' Project Harmony and College
Inlet ID- E2 (WQ)
'Te+Cx TCHOWn
SaAC' T. Tu•x
W �- Tx
Street
_ Crown
OM
Hy
Cuae d S+
e 54
Gutter Geometry Enter data In the blue cells
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no Conveyance credit behind Curb)
' Manning's Roughness Behind Curb
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown
' Gutter Depression
Gutter Width
test Transverse Slope
Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
Manning's Roughness for Street Section
Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor 8 Major Stonn
' Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor 8 Major Stonn
low Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
T.= 15.0 ft
Ser,cx = 0205 ft. wit. / R horiz
ri a = 0.0130
Hcun =
6.00
inches
Tcnowe =
52.0
ft
a =
1.52
inches
W =
2.00
ft
Sx =
0.0242
ft wit / ft. hortz
So =
nsraear=
0.0111
fL vert. / R horiz
0.0150
Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Sw
'
Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) y
Theoretical Water Spread
Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carried in Section T x Tn
1 al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T CRcwrr)
the Discharge within Gutter Section W (Qd - QX)
Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, 8 lawns)
otal Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section
' d Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for. Major 8 Minor (d > 6') Storm
Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
TT:
Tx1ii'
Ep,
QxTH-
a.-
QW-
OB
Qx
V=
V'd =
R=
Qd=
d=
dm� _
Mirror Storm Major Storrs
25.0 40.0
6.00 9.60
=
Water Depth with a Gutter Depression=
Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Tx =
Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Eo =
' Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx Q. =
the Discharge within Gutter Section W PT - Qx) Qw =
Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, &lawns) Qgwr,=
Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread QT =
' Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V =
d Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V•d =
Theoretical Water Spread
Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carried in Section T x Tn
1 al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T CRcwrr)
the Discharge within Gutter Section W (Qd - QX)
Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, 8 lawns)
otal Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section
' d Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for. Major 8 Minor (d > 6') Storm
Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
TT:
Tx1ii'
Ep,
QxTH-
a.-
QW-
OB
Qx
V=
V'd =
R=
Qd=
d=
dm� _
Mirror Storm Major Storrs
25.0 40.0
6.00 9.60
= 0.0875 0.0875
d
7.26 11.62
8.78 1714
23.0 38.0
0.229 0.141
34.1 130.0
10.1 21.3
4.6 48.0
7 1993
7.8 10.6
5.7 11.6
Minor Storrs Major Storrs
15.4 27.8
13.4 25.8
0.373 0205
8.1 46.4
8.1 46.4
4.8 12.0
0.0 9.2
12.9 67.5
5.9 8.4
2.9 6.7
too 1.00
13.0 67.5 i
6.00 9.60 I
0.00 0.00 i
ft
inches
X=yes
ft/ft
inches
inches
ft
CIS
cfs
cis
CIS
be
cis
cfs
-is
cfs
-is
IM
:ft
riches
riches
MinorStorm MajorStorm
loveable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q , or Q. Q.1id+,01 13.01 67.5 cfs
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max- allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
LID Inlet E2(WQ).xls, Q-Allow 12117/2009, 9:14 AM
Minor Storrs Major Storrs
15.4 27.8
13.4 25.8
0.373 0205
8.1 46.4
8.1 46.4
4.8 12.0
0.0 9.2
12.9 67.5
5.9 8.4
2.9 6.7
too 1.00
13.0 67.5 i
6.00 9.60 I
0.00 0.00 i
ft
inches
X=yes
ft/ft
inches
inches
ft
CIS
cfs
cis
CIS
be
cis
cfs
-is
cfs
-is
IM
:ft
riches
riches
MinorStorm MajorStorm
loveable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q , or Q. Q.1id+,01 13.01 67.5 cfs
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max- allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
LID Inlet E2(WQ).xls, Q-Allow 12117/2009, 9:14 AM
ft
inches
X=yes
ft/ft
inches
inches
ft
CIS
cfs
cis
CIS
be
cis
cfs
-is
cfs
-is
IM
:ft
riches
riches
MinorStorm MajorStorm
loveable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q , or Q. Q.1id+,01 13.01 67.5 cfs
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max- allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
LID Inlet E2(WQ).xls, Q-Allow 12117/2009, 9:14 AM
=' .. t- INLET -ON A CONTINUOUS:GRAUE a-t- -_- " =-
Project Harmony, and College
Inlet ID: E2 (WO)
.�-Lo (C)-,t
H-Curb
H-Vert
Wo
WP
W
Lo (G)
of Inlet
Depression (additional to continuous 9" depres9bn'a' f bm'O-AIIOW)
Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
h of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)
of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from O-Allow)
Ong Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)
ling Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value - 0.1)
t Hydraulics: OK - O < maximum_allova ble from sheet G-AlluW
In Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet 04 eak)
Spread Width
Depth at Floviline (outside of local depression)
Depth at Street Crown (or at T. )
of Gutter Flow to Design Flow
arge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T,
arge within the Gutter Section w
arge Behind the Curb Face
Flow Area
Row Velocity
Length of Inlet Grate Opening
of Grate Flow to Design Flow
r No -Clogging Condition
wm Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
eption Rate of Frontal Flow
eption Rate of Side Flow
eption Capacity
r Clogging Condition
Ong Coefficient for Muttipleunit Grate Inlet
Ong Factor for Mullipleunit Grate Inlet
ive (unciogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
um Velocity Where Grate Spam -Over Begins
option Rate of Frontal Flow
aption Rate of Side Flow
J interception Capacity
lent Slope S. (hosed on grate carryover)
Do Length Ls to Have 100% Interception
No -Clogging Condition
a Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, 4)
obw Capacity
Clogging Condition
Ig Coefficient
ig Factor for Mul6pleunit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet
a(Unctogged) Length
Interception Capacity
Inlet Interception Capacity
Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing Inlet)
_.. omm...r=..., = e M =
Type =
CDOT/Dwwr
2.0
arm =
1
No-
L. =
3.00
W. =
1.73
CrG -
0.50
CrC =
0.10
MINOR
O.= 020
T=
1.5
d=
1.6
drno.a =
0.0
F.
1.000
0. =
0.0;
0. =
0.20
5.1
A.
0.10
1.98
sq If
V.
2.01
3.83
fps
dracu =
3.61
7.1
inchl
MINOR
MAJOR
L-I
3.001
3.00
fl
E.a m =
1.0211
0.420
MINOR
MAJOR
6.17
6.17
1.00
1.00
0.36
0.15
020
3.86
MAJOR
GrateClog
L.
V.
W
RR
O.
MINOR
MAJOR
S. =1
0.17091
0.0918
flM
LT =
0.00
14.86
it
MINOR
MAJOR
L=I
0.00
3.00
Ita
=
0.00
0.71
cis
Curbclog= 0.10 0.1
L. = 0.00 2.7
0. =1 0.001 0.6
O
Q.
C%
LID Inlet F2(WO).xls, Inlet On Grade
12117/2009, 9:14 AM
Project
No.:
Date: Jal I mo- l -o g By: 'F 5 r With:
1218 W. ASH, STE C • WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
TEi.970.674.3300 • fnx.970.674.3303
Project Name: Project No.:
Client: Subject:
Date: By: With:
ii
/. >S
it
1218 W. ASH, STE C • WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
TE1.970.674.3300 • FAx.970.674.3303
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL PLANS
NQTES
W
W
1, EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
H
i
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWAP AND STATE DISCHARGE
i
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REQUIRED.
m
2
J
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
w
u
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
X
I
I
c�
-SAWCUT LINE (TIYP.)
I I—
SAWCUT I
I I �
I
�,---�F
�20'
i UE
CORRECTED
SPEC/AL WARRANTYDEED
REC. N0. 2007006,4770
LNREAL ESTATELL C
LOT3
ARBOR PLAZA P. U.D.
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Computer File Information
Index
of Revisions
— 10T
Fort Collins
'�mm
1420 2nd Street
281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631
Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198
FAX: 970 221-6378 Region 4 PJG
As Constructed
Creation Dale: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL
No Revisions:
Lost Modification Date: 12 23 09 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
Revised:
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR—EC(Hormony).dwg
Void:
ACOd Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH
20
0
20 40
SCALE: 1"- 40'
LEGEND
f—
FLOW DIRECTION
EX STORM PIPE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
PROPOSED INLET
EX 1' CONTOUR
EX 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
4905
5• CONTOUR
SF
X
X SILT FENCE
O
'
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
v
P-1
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL
IwTEwwwtr cox au L I xa ouv
ARMONY EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
STA 4+00.00 TO STA 8+50.00 STU M455-077
signer: M. OBERLANDER 16136
-toiler. J. IOFTON
heet Subset: GRADING I Subset Sheet:: 1 of 4 Sheet Number 65
W2ry
NO1EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME. ii <
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWIAP AND STATE DISCHARGE j
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REQUIRED.2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT ANDCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
HARMONY ROAD
Ij
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
SAWCUT LINE (T
I
LOTf
o�6 THEGATEWAYATHARMONYROA
5 P. U.D., SECOND F/L/NG
6� 1
\ ��----------I------------------=
�f--------------------------
20 0
20 40
SCALE: 1"w 40'
LEGEND
FLOW DIRECTION
EX STORM PIPE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
®
PROPOSED INLET
-
— EX V CONTOUR
-- -
EX 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
5' CONTOUR
SF
X
X SILT FENCE
O '
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
v P-1
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL
Q r I c` .4eFes" LI �. o
' S0
35 FOR SUBMITTAL I 34288
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
��Fs••''•••• ••''•_`1:7
S�ONAL•E� xnxwuY caxxu rina anauv
Computer File Information Index of Revisions Creation Dote: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL Fort Collins As Constructed HARMONY EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
Last Modification Date: 12 23 09 Initials: JDL <��„µ,„,„, o; ,„„„„ No Recisions: STA 8+50.00 TO STA 13+00.00 STU M455-077
Full Path: 1a20 2nd Street Desi ner: M. OBERLANDER
281 North College Avenue Greeley. CO 80631 Revised: 9 16136
Drowin File Name: 104601202FOR—EC Hormon .dw Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Detailer: J. LOFTON
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number
Acod Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units:ENGLISH FAX: 970 221-6378 Region
4 PJC Sheet Subset: GRADING Subset Sheet:: 2 of 4 66
1. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REDUIRED,
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. MATCHLINE
/
- -
y z / (SEE
COLLEGE
AVE EROSION CONTROL
PLAN) =p-'
-
`
I�
\ /
qd q
W a
WARRANTYDEED •
REC. NO. 97087728
�/
Z
SAW UT LINE (TYPO I.
SCHRADER LAND CC, LLLP
i
d
\
°
a^ °
IP-1
e
q
i
°
O� °
4
d
4`- a n
4 �
°
.
°
° 4
a
°
4 °
4
1.1
Z
° n ° °
q �_� ^ I I°
°
a
4
^
^ 4
°
z
' _ 14+00•
°
15+00
4
1°I
-
z
U
4°
° e °
4° °
d ° e
° ° ° n '
a d
U
a e
a- 4
e
4
,
4 a
HARMONYROAD
a. q
a
°
Fe
27
a n
q
q
4 °
_ ° q
n e •
_
d a
° e
`
•
4 IL
4
•: -
e e
°
4 °P
a
-
—
PROPOSED ROW ,r--
q a ,.
4
4
d
D25 _
�O-
°d
�_ PROPOSED ROW
/
LOT 1 e
SOUNDTRACKAT
.
°T$F
° ,4 ^
4°
/
�WARR_-
�
(
9NTYDEED
ARBOR PLAZA PU.D.
�°
�i
REC. N0.20050044293
n
115EHARMONYROAD, LLC
=0 6
6
u
W
0 u
9 "0 PAIMER
�1 pRNE
rc
N
m
O
20 40
SCALE: 1'• a 40'
LEGEND
-.a*
FLOW DIRECTION
EX STORM PIPE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
PROPOSED INLET
-- - - - - - - - - -
- EX 1' CONTOUR
-
EX 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
4905
5' CONTOUR
SF
X
X SILT FENCE
O '
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
V 1P_1
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL)
�RECiST
9.
•QpUL F
MATCHLINE
(SEE COLLEGE AVE EROSIONN
CONTROL PLAN)
i1:
34288
FOR SUBMITTAL
���
• •
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
���
�sS/ONAL•E�G\
'"•••••• ''
,......, OO«..I".. GROUP
Computer File Information
Index of Revisions
IjT
As Constructed
HARMONY EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
Project No./Code
Creation Date: 2/14/09 Initials:
JDL
Fort Collins
`"�.��
281 North College Avenue
_
.E,.;�„�„ ,;
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
STA 13+00.00 TO STA 1:7+50.00
Last Modification Date: 12/23 09 Initials: JDL
No Revisions:
STU M455-077
Full Path:
Revised:
Designer: M. OBERLANDER
16136
File Name: 104601202FOR-EC(Hormony).dwq
Fort Collins. CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: 970) 221-6378
Phone: (970) 350-2126
FAX: (970) 350-2198
Region 4 PJG
Void:
Detailer: J. IOFTON
-Drawing
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH
Sheet Subset: GRADING
Subset Sheet::
3 of 4
Sheet Number 67
11
I
I
1. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REQUIRED.
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
a w
I. y
m 0
u
HARMONY ROAD
a
a
z
m
VAL
,5023�
r
L
1 i�/�
i
--- — L -- _— z- �— --.-•� IL �� ----- —j _ I
20 c zo w
qr
EX C&G—/ LEGEND
W ° '° °
Z n. \Sow \ \ FLOW DIRECTION
J ° ° ° - 19+00 Ah,20+00 21+00
T° °°— ' ° F--I �— C&Zr — — _— — — — EX STORM PIPE
Z 1yi 00 �_------_ - - -----
V°a --- _ --- I" --- ---_ PROPOSED
-----_ _ _ _ � — — -- STORM PPE
Q a — -- PROPOSED INLET
SAWCUT �. Ex CeG i
G LINE(TYP.) / /—————— — — — — —— EX 1' CONTOUR
HARMONYROAD / - - - - -- — Ex 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
4905 5' CONTOUR
CD
Ex care — —77r — v_ — — _ I — — X X SILT FENCE
— — — —
2 WATTLES
x NLET PROTECTION
sF —_--- I I �('
� (NUMBER DENOTES
IP-t CORRECT DETAIL VYARR.4N7YDEED I h I I/ t 11` ` II III R V O
REC. NO.20050044293 fl I / ` 1����` lti = = ` _ _ �P�Q E �s ,
f f5EHARMONY o u�
ROAD, LLC c� . �g o
FOR SUBMITTAL 34288 �:
:� �. Q-
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ��Fs•••••N • '' �`��� I, eAo
S�ONAL E�
Computer File Informotion Index of Revisions _ 107 As Constructed HARMONY EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Dale: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL Fort Collins
Lost Modification Date: 12/23/09 Initials: JDL �-`�- o=rr�=1,- No Revisions: STA 1 7+50.00 TO STA 22+00.00 STU M455-077
Full Path:
1420 2nd Street Designer: M. OBERLANDER 16136
281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Revised:
Drawing File Nome: 104601 202FOR-ECHormon .dw Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Detailer: J. LOFTON
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number 68
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1 :40 Units: ENGLISH FAX: (970) 221-6378 Re .on 4 PJG Sheet Subset: GRADING Subset Sheet:: 4 of 4
LEGEND
„W
1. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
N fn i
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
FLOW DIRECTION PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REOUIRED. z
SF
offloo�EX STORM PIPE X X SILT FENCE 2 CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND m u
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE O ' WATTLES H FM°NY ROAD
P00 REG/S 20 0 20 4 ;
PROPOSED INLET p� , ......
jj� •r•�'••�, TF SCALE: r - ao' s��j°i °o"w
INLET PROTECTION p" '� Q 1p••
Ex 1' CONTOUR IP-1 (NUMBER DENOTES U ' m
EX 5' CONTOUR `! O CORRECT DETAIL) 34288:
1' CONTOUR FOR SUBMITTAL
4905 5CONTOUR F •••••"••
ss'orvAt "`'p NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LOT f 1 TRACTA U.OT I
FAZOL/ SATARBOR PLAZA P. D. ( PARKING ESMT, SOUNDTRACKAT ,
AE, UE & DE) ARBOR PLAZA P. U. D.
IE
IL
I AE, uE&�DE J� / ` 025-----I I--- °
—I — 1'I e x
I II
EX Row'Ipy Id
W IP-1 IP-1 — -- --- " O
IL
4. °
F, ° o "
O o °
•ate
110+00 yd� LYE .111+p0 ° ° U
.-I — `oa - \ ' 12.00 °.� • 1.13.00. ° 15 O
n
COLLEGE CL-
SECTION LINE " ° ° ° n �2 Z'
SAWCUT LINE O.O. o
O °
En
V' ♦ ) 0
.. n
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ W - W ..__ ._ o n °
e
EX C&G l
•
°
_ e
c
-- — - - —-- L
a
1>1
LAR/MER COUNTY
I I WARRANTYDEED I °
I I / /� I \ ' Z °
PARCEL NO. 960120582 1 REC. NO, 20050044293 _ Q 0
QWEST I 1 � f f5EHARMONYROAD� , LLC - ,
Qc o
ixeuv•♦ cox xuL Iixc cxou> Computer File Information Index of Revisions _ SOTI As Constructed COLLEGE EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Date: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL _FortCollins,
Lost Modification Date: 12/23/09 nisals: JDL ���� �o=, „, =- No ReYlsions: STA 1 10+00.00 TO STA 1 1 3+50.00 STU M455-077
Full Path: 1420 2nd Street Designer: M. OBERLANDER
281 North College Avenue Greeley. CO 80631 Revised: 16136
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR -EC (College).dwq Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Deloiler. J. LOFTON
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX:
ACad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1 :40 Units: ENGLISH FAX: 970 221-6378 R ion 4970) P•350-219PicVoid: Sheet Number Sheet Subset: EROSION Subset Sheet:: 1 01 2 69
LEGEND
FLOW DIRECTION
SF
EX STORM PIPE
X
X SILT FENCE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
O '
WATTLES
PROPOSED INLET
EX 1' CONTOUR
INLET PROTECTION
` IP-1
(NUMBER DENOTES
EX 5' CONTOUR
v,
CORRECT DETAIL)
1' CONTOUR
4905 5' CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME,
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REQUIRED.
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
PLO RECISr
OO .�Pp.UL x���.•F�
U_ 34288:
�o - �4,
,n
S�ONAL•��G
1=�
a
L w
»7
1
?0 0 20
9 C
F^
SCALE: 7"= 40' I ¢ t
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LOT I
Z THE GATEWAYATHARMONY 12' UE• f I 0
° O 'Q ROAD P. L1 D., SECOND F/L/NG .- w\ I& AF
I Q:
Q ° EX AREA l/V E7 �• — I.
° Z ° � ,. '• 4 �� I I
\ EX 12"SOI — J I ill ——-1-,
O — �.��i
_ _ r
�IXR�t���� 'I
EX �---�1'11
EX 5D MH I _ _ —_ =__�_---- IrJ— x
--- --- ---_ - -- - - --- -- -- r-
— ! yJ%
4?
- J• L
1
Ell- -
° °
°DEED
WARRANTY RNO. 97087728 —_� �� —_ — = '" 1 •. _ — —
II
SCHRADER LAND CO, LLLP
J
IXR x�ur cox xu Lilxa oxous
Computer File Information Index of Revisions _ ��i7 As Constructed COLLEGE EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Dole: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL Fort Collins STA 116+25.00 TO STA 120+50.00
Lost Modification Date: 12 23 09 Initials: JDL --�� nxf'r`P, o-'i�iiox No Revisions: STU M455-077
Full Path:
1420 2nd Street Designer: M. OBERLANDER 16136
281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Revised:
Drawing File Name: 104601202 FOR -EC Colle e .dwo Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Delader: J. 1OFTON
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number 70
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH FAX: (970) 221-6378 Region 4 PJG Sheet Subset: EROSION I Subset Sheet:: 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
Glen Schlueter - FW: 16136 Harmony at College HYDRAULIC CLEARANCE
From: "Mike Oberlander" <moberlander@Interwestgrp.com>
To: "Glen Schlueter" <gschlueter@fcgov.com>, "WesLamarque"
<WLAMARQUE @ fcgov.com>
Date: 12/28/2009 2:20 PM
Subject: FW: 16136 Harmony at College HYDRAULIC CLEARANCE
CC: "Dean Klingner" <dlingner@fcgov.com>
Hi Glen and Wes -
I hope you are having a good Holiday Season.
The email below is from CDOT and accepts the drainage design for Harmony and College with the SNOUT's. I
thought it would be good for you to have a copy for your files.
Mike
Michael Oberlander, PE, LEED AP
Interwest Consulting Group
970-674-3300 x102
970-631-2671 (cell)
Information contained herein is neither necessarily complete nor accurate. Final stamped and signed documents govern. Use of these
data is solely at the user's risk. By accessing the data contained in these files the user agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend
Interwest Consulting Group, their employees, officers and agents from any and all claims arising from the use of the data.
From: Tuttle, Tim [ma i lto:Ti m.Tuttle@dot. state. co. us]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:04 PM
To: 'Dean Klingner'
Cc: Mike Oberlander
Subject: FW: 16136 Harmony at College HYDRAULIC CLEARANCE
FYI
From: Griffin, Steven
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 12:22 PM
To: Tuttle, Tim
Cc: Phan, Long
Subject: 16136 Harmony at College HYDRAULIC CLEARANCE
Tim,
We have reviewed the plan set (12/23/09) and drainage report Final Hydraulic Design Report for Improvements to
College Avenue and Harmony Road (12/23/09). We have no further comments, questions, or clarifications at this
time.
Steve
file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gschlueter\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW }00001... 12/29/2009