HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 06/10/1996 (2)Report
p0W�
J
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE SOUTH LEMAY BIPROVEMENTS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE SOUTH LEMAY BIPROVEMENTS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
May 9, 1995
Prepared for:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-5922
RBD Job No. 504-010
Revised April 30, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION I
A. LOCATION 1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I
II. DRAINAGE BASINS I
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1
B. SUBBASIN DESCRIPTIONS I
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2
A. REGULATIONS 2
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2
E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 2
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 3
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3
V. EROSION CONTROL 4
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 5
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 5
C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 5
REFERENCES 5
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP
2
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
4
DESIGN OF STORM SEWER AND INLETS
8
DRAINAGE SWALE FLOW CALCULATIONS
35
EROSION CONTROL DESIGN
40
CHARTS, TABLES, GRAPHS
44
TniDINC.
' Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
' 970/482-5922
FAX: 970/482-6368
April 30, 1996
' Mr. Basil Harridan
City of Fort Collins
' Utility Services, Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
' RE: Resubmittal of Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study
for the South Lemay Avenue Improvements
' Dear Basil:
' We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this proposed Drainage and Erosion
Control Study for the South Lemay Avenue Improvements. All computations within this report have
been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. All
comments from the Stormwater Utilliy's original review to date have been addressed.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any
questions.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
i
1
' Craig oudeshell im Allen -Morley, P.E.
Proje Engineer, PE Project Engineer 0 Re
1 cc: Gary Nordick - Miramont Associates
' 24M6 r—i
a
Cs�
Denver303/458-5526
'
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND
' EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The location of the project site is along the existing alignment of South Lemay
Avenue, south of Harmony Road. The site location may be seen on the Vicinity Map
included in the appendix of this report.
B. Description of Project
A portion of South Lemay Avenue is being proposed to be widened to minor arterial
status (70 feet wide). Approximately, 3400 feet of South Lemay Avenue constitutes
the project length. The north end of the project is approximately 2700 feet south of
the intersection of Harmony Road and South Lemay Avenue. From this point the
project continues for approximately 3400 feet south to Fossil Creek.
Several Drainage Master Plans and Subdivision Drainage reports were used in the
design of the proposed improvements, these are stated on the table below:
1) Oak/Cottonwood Farm Master Plan
2) Miramont Development Drainage Report
3) South Ridge Greens Drainage Report
4) Fossil Creek Master Plan
II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
The northern 1400 feet of the project lie within the Mail Creek Basin with the
remaining 2000 feet in the Fossil Creek Basin.
B. Subbasin Description
The subbasins are defined as being between the street right-of-way (ROW) and the
crown of the street. Furthermore, subbasin boundaries are made at the high points of
vertical crest curves, the low point of vertical sag curves and at locations where inlets
1
' are needed. The subbasins are identified with the "100 series" numbers on the
Drainage Plan. Refer to grading, drainage and erosion plan for specific configuration
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
' A. Regulations
' The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the project
site.
' B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The 10-year and 100-year recurrence interval precipitation events are used for design.
' The catch basins and pipe systems are designed to carry the calculated 10-year runoff.
Because development has taken place adjacent to the project site, information about
' the off site street flow was referred to and those flows considered when designing the
South Lemay improvements. In general, the adjacent sites used the 2-year residential
requirement for the Minor Storm and the 100 year storm for the Major Storm (please
' see section, "IV Drainage Facility Design A. General Concept for more information).
C. Hydrologic Criteria
' The rational method for determining surface runoff was used for the project site. The
10 year and 100 year storm event criteria, obtained from the City of Fort Collins, was
used in calculating surface runoff values. These calculations and criteria are included
in the appendix.
' D. Hydraulic Criteria
' All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with
the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are provided in the Appendix.
E. Variances from Criteria
Requested is the use of curved vane combination inlets at the intersection of South
' Lemay Avenue and South Ridge Greens Boulevard. The variance is requested
because proposed inlets have more capacity on the street grade of 5-percent than the
Type R inlet. In this application, curved vane combination inlets can be constructed
more economically than Type R inlets with the required length to capture an
equivalent flow.
' A variance is also requested for the allowable freeboard of the existing swale west of
1 2
' The Villages at Southridge Greens. Our calculations show 0.17 feet of freeboard and
an excess capacity of 123 percent which is slightly below the City of Fort Collins
drainage requirements. The curb inlets in South Lemay Avenue which contribute the
project flows to the swale are placed there to intercept nuisance flows to prevent
icing. They are not necessary to the capacity of the street, but does stop nuisance
' flows from crossing the intersection.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
A drainage and erosion control plan has been included in the Appendix of this report.
The project site was divided into eight subbasins. The subbasins 100, 101 102, and
107 flow to the drainage easement in Oak Ridge Subdivision and subbasins 103, 104,
105 and 106 flow to Fossil Creek.
Offsite flows except as shown are not considered as all surrounding development will
be providing their own stormwater detention facilities.
The storm water from Basin 100 and 107 passes into a proposed 20 foot curb inlet.
The large size of this curb inlet is to facilitate the connection to the 3 existing 36 inch
diameter sewers. Offsite flows enter this structure from the north and west. The
flows from the north (57.3 cfs) were provided by Shear Engineering. A preliminary
estimate of flows from the west, the proposed Hamlet at Miramont PUD, are 46.2
cfs. The hydrology of this system is also being addressed in the McClellands Basin
100-Year Mater Plan Update. April 1 1996 by RBD Inc. and The Final Drainage and
Erosion Control Study for the Hamlet at Miramont PUD by RBD Inc.
The stormwater from subbasin 101 flows north to Keenland Drive then east to a catch
basin at the intersection of Wheaton and Keenland Drive.
The stormwater from subbasin 102 flows north to Boardwalk Drive then west to
' catch basins in Boardwalk Drive.
A portion of the 10-year discharge from subbasins 103 and 104 is intercepted by curb
inlets north of Southridge Greens and discharged from an existing 24 inch diameter
pipe to a drainage swale along the east side of South Lemay Avenue. The storm
water then flows along the swale and through an existing 42" culvert into Fossil
' Creek. The remaining portion of the 10-year discharge.is carried in the South Lemay
Avenue to curb inlets, design points 7 and 8, which discharge to Fossil Creek.
' The above mentioned drainage swale also carries flow from curb inlets in Southridge
1 3
J
Greens Boulevard, The Villages at Southridge Greens subdivision and the release
from the stormwater detention pond at the Saint Elizabeth Catholic Church. These
flows total 57.15 cfs(see calculations for detail) during the 100 year storm.
Calculations made from field survey information show that the swale has sufficient
' capacity (70.61 cfs) to pass these flows to the existing 42" culvert. As determined
from the previous South Ridge Greens drainage report the design capacity of the
existing 42-inch RCP culvert is 86 cfs.
Stormwater flows in South Lemay avenue from subbbasins 105 and 106 are
intercepted by curb inlets and discharged to Fossil Creek. Flows from South Lemay
Avenue south of Fossil Creek were not considered in the design as the shoulder sheds
storm flow down the embankment on the east side of the road before flows reach the
inlet. It was not within the scope of this report to consider future improvement to
South Lemay Avenue.
There is difficultly in reconciling the hydrology from the South Lemay Improvements
and the hydrology the adjacent developments because of the differences in recurrence
interval events used for previous analysis. The street improvements use a 10-year
recurrence interval for the Minor Storm design and the 2-year recurrence interval is
used for subdivision design. It is beyond our scope of the. South Lemay Street
Improvement Project to develop 10-year hydrology for the subdivision to analyze the
hydraulic performance in the drainage swale and culverts along South Lemay. For
the.purpose of including as much data as possible we have included the 2 year flows
from the drainage report in our 10 year flow calculations. These are noted in the
calculations.
' V. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concep-t
' This development lies with the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone and the Moderate
Rainfall Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The Erosion Control
Performance Standard (PS) for the site was computed to be 83.5% during
' construction and 98.3% after construction per the City of Fort Collins Erosion
Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. The Effectiveness (EEF) of the
proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 94.75% during construction and
' 99.00% after construction. Therefore, the erosion control plan as detailed in the
appendix and on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan meets the City of Fort
Collins requirements.
1
El
IVI. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
' All computations that have been completed within this report are in
compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual and the
Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual.
' B. Drainage Concept
' The proposed drainage concepts adequately provides for the transmission of
developed on -site runoff to the open channel along the eastern side of South Lemay
Avenue, Fossil Creek or drainage easement in Oak Ridge Subdivision.
The proposed drainage design incorporates the drainage pond outfall pipe designed
by Shear Engineering and the outfall pipe of the Miramont detention pond.
1 Variances are requested for the use of curved vane inlets and a reduction of the
allowable freeboard in the swale adjacent to South Ridge Greens.
C. Erosion Control Concept
' The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind
and rainfall erosion from the project site. Through the construction of the proposed
' erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standards will be met.
' 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, May 1984.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, January 1991.
1 5
APPENDIX
' VICINITY MAP
1
1
. I a
HORSETOOTH. RD."
4 M.
WARREN,,.�:
LAKE
R
TROU
0,
L
A
HARMONY RD.
6XYRIDGE DF
LL,
O hi
MCI-
..... .... .
PoR*ER,
::LAKE
Sow -HA LE M� -Zyv, ?aDi�EVI&6JS
F-07,f cAlivis i Colc)(L;%-Po
to - q 5-
�BD I n c .
Enaineerinq Consultants
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
,S
II
U
N
li
U
O
LL
❑
Q
z
E—
W
Y
<
M
Q C�
w
hcocovvc000
J ,-,
aocr)cnnneooN
Q U C N
z .- E .-
� v
Uz
w0
ogr
Z)
a-
J
OQ
UU
O O W W O M O M
.-.
6NN44661--
E o
v
f7 (D fD C) CM n n 0
� M cl) fV fV
^
OJ rn
W
gw
H
�
J
W
00000000
cnvvrnrnoo�
O
Cc'7 ch �t�NN�
>a.oc
H
N
=
O O O O O O O O
F
N N O CDv
C7vn
cO CONNm O�w aON
��
z
w
J
nnnnnnnn
N N N N N N N N
c
w
« .E c0
CD
Z
W
LUU)iN00 OOu000
goo
o-^
U)
66000000
Q
J v
wU
O=
tNLOLOu)U)NNN
I—
v�
H
Z
Z
w
J
O O O O O O O C O
CO CO CO COR O COO
U Cl)
o000000
QQ^
u")I�hc'7 chnnN
00o.-e-000
of
❑
..N
Q
z_
U)
O O O O O O O O
C)aaaaaaa
m
W
Z)❑
U)
N
U
U
L
U
f"
c
c
c
V
a)
a)
m
cc
c
❑
O
65
6
!) | ||
o
w\!�
ru
w.,,.
««<<« <<
15!!■|EE !n
K�
|
|
__
lG
deed d;
2!e
|!�
.doe !!!! |!
�i�
�q-qq�wwcl 00
,y
....�.�. ..
§2�
„a.lf°§ !§
.�����■
%®
!
N
LL
O
LL
0
Q
Q
Z
H
m
N
N
1-:
11
U
V
N
a
O
N
� (O
Z
O
N
O �
00
LU
r
F-
U M W
o COo
U
�.
W y
t— o
n
>.
m =
� U
}
m
W
F-
�g
W
U
wQ
dU
0
O
'S
O
N
4t
rn
Y
Q
r
w
m
000(O fOhNO
J i.
(ONNNN(O 00
z�Ecj
E
FL
UZ
LUO
cp g r
d = r
J
OQ
UU
0 c7 C) 00 w Mm
J C O
E r
v
M q c0 M MI-I�O
r MM'c*ttNNN
U v
O rn
W
J
gw
H
>
—iW
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u)�st 010?OO
Oo O
.
OC7MV fV r
>a.
=
O O O O O O O O
F,
oONNOONtOch
a OCONN0�a0N
Z �-
W
J
M W Of 0 0) C) 0) O
w«='(D
E
W
0NNZ
0NtNN0
O o
W
U
O=
cn LO cn LO c0 cn cn cn
Q~
r r r r r r r r
Z
W
J
O O O O O O O O D
0 W W 0 0 0 0 6
U
000c000
cnrrwoo(0w(O
Q
Q ^
cnhl�the?hhN
WvN
c o o r r o 0 0
Q
Q
Z
cn
orNr�v�ncon
Q
Ur'
00000000
m
r
r r r r r r r r
m
w
�
0
co
C
U
U
'c
L
U
N
F-
v
c
m
c
m
.y
N
a>
m
co
c
co
O
In
ON
§
§
. �
! !
.
Its
|| | |2
§�-
;,,,
<<<<<<<<
!!!m|!!|
\
0EZ
�
§
|!ss!!||
|
,--
|§§|!!!|
|
§�
addddd||
|
�.
�
§!2®§!!■
■
§::::::;
§
|"
E
DESIGN OF STORM SENVER
AND INLETS.
/0
INLETS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-
------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:17:43
' *** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 1 10 YEAR EVENT
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 10
' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
'
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
20.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
45.00
'
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.25.
' Note: The sump depth is additional
depth to flow
depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) =
1.10
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) =
2.00
STREET MANNING N =
0.016
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
1.50
'
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
2.00
' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) =
13.09
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) =
0.39
' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)=
3.27
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)=
1.84
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)=
50.00
' CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)=
10.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
36.47
'
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
6.00
FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
6.00
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
6.00
FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
6.00
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
12
1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDAAULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT: U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:16:17
' *** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 1 100YEAR
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
' INLET ID NUMBER: 10
' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
'
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
20.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
45.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.Q0
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.25
Note: The sump depth is additional
-depth to flow
depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) =
1.10
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) =
2.00
STREET MANNING N =
0.016
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
1.50
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
2.00
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
'
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) =
19.56
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) =
0.52
' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)=
4.08
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)=
3.95
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)=
50.00
' CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)=
10.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
41.28
'
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
16.00
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
16.00
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
16.00
FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
16.00
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
■�iNC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT LI I V 1�� ( �� �. JOB NO. S�
PROJECT Li MAw =r�7.��'J�1+�'✓TS CALCULATIONS FOR Q
MADE BY �DA7Eqi'�-J-L'HECKED BVDATE SHEET L OF
�,I
o
N..
,I
=
.N
N
n
c
m
a
wt
�1
r
' i
I � '
V1
V
Ioo 1
R-3067-LL '.Curb Inlet Frame, Grate'.Curb Box `
Heavy Duty
Unit shown is for flow -left.
' Totol Weight 485 Pounds
If flow -right is required,
order as R-3067-LR.
'
-
R3067-V
above except
with Type V Grate.
Heavy Duty
Total Weight 485 Pounds
'
CURB BOX ADJUSTABLE 6 TO 9
j
�---
-13)i
36 —i 171
35
Hm
'N .j IIII
33 I J I 15}
. 36 --i �F-� 24
43 31�
1
CAT. NO. - R-3067-LL
DESCRIPTION - TYPE L
'
COMP. CODE - 3067-0011
I fL"
�t�'�' D'iv�fn<gOrS
6
SI
'
K
'K-
30
Illustrating R-3067-LL
L
/i � CwRb to hok'1 S
LLII Z
C� = L� 11
20
1
10
0 .01 . .02 .03 .04
' ST
ST v TRANSVERSE CUTTER SLOP[
SL v LONGITUDINAL CUTTER SLOPE
' K v CRATE INLET COEfrIC1ENT
.05 .06
101
' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-----------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 04-28-1995 AT TIME 13:37:21
' *** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN
*** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING:
' *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
,p 10 -y 2—
' INLET ID NUMBER: PYniljl l 4 h�� C✓� lycy�1 I�
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. �1
' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.45
' INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 2.94
INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved Vane Grate
NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00
IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES
' Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 5.00
STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 2.00
' STREET MANNING N = 0.016 /
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00
' STREET FLOW -HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 8.89
' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.30
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 5.90
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.92
' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
' FOR 1 GRATE INLETS:
DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 5.40 �-,
' IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 3.55
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.20
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.78
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
1 INLET ID NUMBER: 10
' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
/5
V119
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
2.75
REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
32.17
'
IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY =
0.15
ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY =
0.12
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
0.33
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
2.20
FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)=
0.26
'
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
1.93
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
3.62
FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)=
0.26
'
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
3.36
*** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET:
' THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE
(cfs)=
5.40 ✓
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET
(cfs)=
3.20
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)=
0.26
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
3.47 -;:2---
CARRYOVER FLOW
(cfs)=
1.93j.----Yoh
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
'
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET
(Cfs)=
1
1.78 jzD Z�'crr" t
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING
(cfs)=
0.26
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
2.04
'
CARRYOVER FLOW
(cfs)=
3.36
/%
'----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 04-28-1995 AT TIME 14:36:15
'*** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN
*** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING:
*** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: .Y01 100-yCL NLT IXyi� 15
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.481-
INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 2.94
INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved Vane Grate
NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00
IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES
Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET
LONGITUDINAL
SLOPE (%) =
5.00
STREET
CROSS SLOPE
(%) =
2.00
STREET
MANNING N
=
0.016
GUTTER
DEPRESSION
(inch)=
1.50
GUTTER
WIDTH
(ft) =
2.00
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 12.81
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.38
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 6.90
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.77
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTIONNCAPACITY:
FOR 1 GRATE INLETS:
DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 12.10
IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.90
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.74
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.95
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 10
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
N
' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 2.74
' REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 50.89
IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.09
ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.08
' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 0.70
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
*** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET:
THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)=
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)=
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)=
' TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
7.36
0.56
6.80
9.15
0.56
8.59
12.10✓
4.74
0.56
5.30-*!t—
6 . 80 = Cj%1,.Ljj1 o\gk
2.95 To t>r �,.�f a
0.56
3.51
8.59
m
' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 04-28-1995 AT TIME 13:06:41
' *** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN
*** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING:
*** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
10
INLET ID NUMBER: I-0' [°a, 7� �.a i�m� Trlx'i a1 7 s�,S,h1 Fao"'J6
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.45
INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 2.94
INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved Vane Grate
NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 --,
IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES
Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET
LONGITUDINAL
SLOPE ($) =
5.00
STREET
CROSS SLOPE
($) =
2.00
STREET
MANNING N
=
0.016
GUTTER
DEPRESSION
(inch)=
1.50
GUTTER
WIDTH
(ft) =
2.00
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 9.78
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.32
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 6.12
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.08
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
FOR 1 GRATE INLETS:
DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 6.60
IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.04
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.55
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.02
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 10
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
.2J
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 2.75
REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 36.07
IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.13
ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.11
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 0.41
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
*** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET:
THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)=
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)=
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)=
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
3.05
0.33
2.72
4.58
0.32
4.26
6.60 ✓
3.55
0.33
3.88-4
2.72
2.02 IDS'
0.32{•
2.34
4.26
Z2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ..............................
ON DATE 04-28-1995 AT TIME 14:36:51
' *** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN
*** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING:
' *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: X0r joo-y(L A-r
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.48
' INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 2.94
INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved Vane Grate
NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00
IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES
' Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (t) = 5.00
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00
' STREET MANNING N = 0.016
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00
' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 16.47
' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.45
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 7.88
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.84
' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
' FOR 1 GRATE INLETS:
DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 22.40
' IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.05
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 6.17
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.02
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
' INLET ID NUMBER: 10
' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
oez
' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 2.74
' REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 71.59
IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.07
ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.05
' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 1.10
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
*** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET:
' THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)=
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:
' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)=
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD:
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)=
TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)=
16.23
0.88
15.35
18.38
0.88
17.50
22.40/
6.17
0.88
7.05-/
15.35--�+}�fL12y ov�yL
4.02
0.88
4.90
17.50
23
CLIENT � �{Q�F—t_it' �I Vl S JOB NO.
■AINC PROJECT L2 WIV_ It V� CALCULATIONS FOR F L� f CFv tG S
1 Engineering Consultants MADEBY<<H DATE4�l� I CHECKED BYDATE SHEETj—OF
1
1
D
- --- ---. R�_ G -
j I J
e
o.
N
on
Ioo-Y2
-4�zz�
,zv
-------------------------------------- 7---------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:20:19
' *** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 7 10 YEAR
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 7
' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
20.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
45.00
'
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.00
' Note: The sump depth is additional
depth to flow
depth.
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
15.01
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
5.60
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
5.60
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
5.60
'
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
5.60
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
125
----------------------------------------7-------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDAAULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:21:06
*** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 7 100 YEAR EVENT
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 7
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 20.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25
Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth.
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 50.17
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 44.10
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 44.10
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 44.10
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 44.10
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00
-------------------------------'-------------
------------------------------ -
--
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U.OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:25:26
' *** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 8 10 YEAR EVENT
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 8
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
Note: The sump depth is additional
20.00
6.00
45.00
2.00
0.25
depth to
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 37.28
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
flow depth.
4.90
4.90
0.00
4.90
4.90
0.00
,C?/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U,OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................
ON DATE 04-24-1996 AT TIME 17:23:09
' *** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 8 100 YEAR EVENT
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
' INLET ID NUMBER: 8
' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
'
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
20.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
45.00
'
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.25
' Note: The sump depth is additional
depth to flow
depth.
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
42.45
' BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
13.40
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
13.40
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
13.40
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
13.40
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
STORM SEWERS
1
1
T45K 33
CLIENT •TEM yOMES
JOB NO. -767-006
ItJC
PROJECT TyF/'%L'!
CALCULATIONS FOR GETS//T""I fG.!•Yi�w
Engineering Consultants
MADE BY%41 DATE • � CH ECKED SY_DATE
SHEETOF
UOSfWF1 /IALYS/S FUF,
D61TLr'7'
pEpK
11J4E7'
O
jN✓.__ yg57. 52.
K6=0.Yo :�l✓<oi7z9��C6C
9Y�fGP3x7,0
XCP�C.Q O.�/9.
' l963.0
OUTLET
'
�wv.=v9s� i
ISb' l•V
G4MO 9967•0
l UP5EwER PIPE
AV n6EA ;
' - Q 1/DSEWER_ Na ✓HOLE _//NM�ER_ ----` -
- _ _ -
--- -- - —
KJ' J<e /- a �: .fGR. S40GE�� ExPAv5/o,✓
/S.o7 FT 2.
Az = 3 Tr n
I H
i
1 KT /o /I- is.o ).A
l Vim /
;
30
' REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4
' DEVELOPED
BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
' URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
*** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............................................
ON DATA 01-15-1996 AT TIME 16:44:25
*** PROJECT TITLE :
Detention Pond 340 Outlet �QaIfrt 0)
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
...............................................................................
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION l�py�d d µ ��GYV
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET r
---......------------------------------------------------ . a,,k Esy y G- )
1.00 100.60 4962.00 4958.57 OK �`�
2.00 100.60 4963.00 4959.77 OK
3.00 46.20 4963.00 4959.84 OK
4.00 46.20 4963.00 4960.05 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
...............................................................................
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
(D NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
---------......................................................................
1.00
2.00
1.00
BOX
2.21
2.50
3.00
7.07
2.00
3.00
2.00
BOX
1.55
2.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
BOX
1.55
2.00
2.00
4.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
......................................................... I.....................
3/
' 1.0 100.6 115.3 2.21 6.45 1.85 7.71 4.74 0.77 V-OK
2.0 46.2 49.5 1.55 7.43 1.61 7.19 5.78 1.05 V-OK
3.0 46.2 49.5 1.55 7.43 1.61 7.19 5.78 1.05 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------........................-----------
' SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
K (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
' 1.00 0.21 4957.30 4957.10 2.70 1.90 NO
2.00 0.50 4957.52 4957.30 3.48 3.70 OK
3.00 0.50 4957.52 4957.52 3.48 3.48 OK
' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 94.00 0.00 4960.30 4960.10 4959.77 4958.57 SUBCR
' 2.00 44.00 44.00 4959.52 4959.30 4959.84 4959.77 PRSS'ED
3.00 0.10 0.10 4959.52 4959.52 4960.05 4959.84 PRSSIEO
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW
*'• SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
.ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT - FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 2.00 4960.12 1.20 1.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 4958.57
2.0 3.00 4960.36 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 2.00 4960.12 ' /n %f Lam+ 3.0 4.00 4960.57 0.00 0.40 0.21 0.00 0.00 3.00 4960.36.,� VyS,9C '2'
BEND LOSS =SEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K'INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
' FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
EXISTING CHANNEL D/S OF TRIPLE 36" RCP'S
' ELEVATION
(feet)
STA ELEV
0.00 4961.10 q, 1
16.00 4957.10 4 y
33.00 4957.10 I. '•
49.00 4961.10 1-7
'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
-----------------------
0.035 0.0040
AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE
(sq ft) (fps)--(cfs)-_ NO.
--------------- ------
4957.30
3.6
0.9
3.19
0.36
4957.50
7.4
1.4
10.28
0.40
4957.70
11.7
1.8
20.58
0.43
4957.90
16.2
2.1
33.87
0.44
4958.10
21.0
2.4
50.10
0.46
4958.30
26.2
2.6
69.27
0.47
4958.50
31.7
2.9
91.40
0.48
4958.70
37.5
3.1
116.54
0.49
4958.90
43.6
3.3
144.76
0.50
4959.10
50.1
3.5
176.12
0.50
4959.30
56.8
3.7
210.70
0.51
4959.50
63.9
3.9
248.58
0.52
4959.70
71.3
4.1
289.83
0.52
4959.90
79.1
4.2
334.53
0.53
4960.10
87.1
4.4
382.77
0.53
4960.30
95.5
4.6
434.63
0.54
4960.50
104.2
4.7
490.20
0.54
4960.70
113.2
4.9
549.54
0.54
4960.90
122.5
5.0
612.76
0.55
CLIENT �T�I c.>�— �' L JOBNO.
To DINC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR c _. r-_ ti (_ f
Engineering Consultants MADE SYII? DATES_ CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET—OF
i
{
I
so
31
F6�nt s�3 -
S 4yG SZ3
3
_
- T7-
-
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties 8 UDFCD Pool Fund Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:Kelvin Gingery..........................................................
ON DATA 04-24-1996 AT TIME 14:48:31 VERSION=12-29-1995
*** PROJECT TITLE :
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 5 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.00 57.30 4967.70 4963.32 OK
4.00 57.30 4967.70 4962.84 OK
3.00 57.30 4963.00 4960.45 OK
2.00 100.60 4963.00 4959.42 OK
1.00 100.60 4962.00 4958.60 OK
6.00 57.30 4967.70 4963.78 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE:
THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(R1SE)
D1A(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.00
6.00
5.00
ROUND
38.73
42.00
42.00
0.00
40.00
5.00
4.00
ROUND
38.73
42.00
42.00
0.00
30.00
4.00
3.00
ROUND
39.67
42.00
42.00
0.00
20.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
37.79
42.00
42.00
0.00
10.00
2.00
1.00
BOX
2.21
3.00
3.00
7.07
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
--------------------------- ... ....
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.0 57.3 71.3 2.37 8.25 2.37 8.27 5.96 1.00 V-OK
40.0 57.3 71.3 2.37 8.25 2.37 8.27 5.96 1.00 V-OK
30.0 57.3 66.9 2.49 7.82 2.37 8.27 5.96 0.91 V-OK
20.0 57.3 76.2 2.27 8.70 2.37 8.27 5.96 1.09 V-OK
10.0 100.6 115.3 2.21 6.45 1.85 7.71 4.74 0.77 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
%
. (FT)
(FT)
(FT)
--------------------
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------
50.00
0.50
4960.24
4960.19
3.96
4.01
OK
40.00
0.50
4960.19
4959.94
4.01
4.26
OK
30.00
0.44
4959.79
4957.77
4.41
1.73
NO
20.00
0.57
4957.53
4957.40
1.97
2.10
NO
10.00
0.21
4957.30
4957.10
2.70
1.90
NO
OK MEANS BURIED
DEPTH
IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL
COVER OF
2 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.00
10.00
0.00
4963.74
4963.69
4963.78
4963.32
SUBCR
40.00
49.00
0.00
4963.69
4963.44
4963.32
4962.84
SUBCR
30.00
459.00
0.00
4963.29
4961.27
4962.84
4960.45
SUBCR
20.00
23.00
0.00
4961.03
4960.90
4960.45
4959.42
JUMP
10.00
94.00
0.00
4960.30
4960.10
4959.42
4958.60
SUBCR
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.0 6.00 4964.45 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.25 0.41 5.00 4964.13
40.0 5.00 4964.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.41 4.00 4963.79
30.0 4.00 4963.79 2.23 1.02 0.56 0.00 0.00 3.00 4961.00
20.0 3.00 4961.00 0.00 1.62, 0.89 0.00 0.00 2.00 4960.11
10.0 2.00 4960.11 1.51 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4958.60
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
.3&
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT G •,'�, O� - L JOB NO.S C4-01y
` J
PROJECY• CALCULATIONS FOR Sc (s L
MADE BYL""WATE '1_1 I v CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
CLIENT JOB NO.
t INC - PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR U r -)
Engineering Consultants MADE BY i �L_VATE �C CH ECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
DWI
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4
DEVELOPED
BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER,.COLORADO
*** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............................................
ON DATA 04-24-1996 AT TIME 15:43:33
*** PROJECT TITLE :
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 5 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.00 3.50 4930.00 4929.60 OK
6.00 3.50 4930.00 4929.54 OK
5.00 7.40 4930.00 4928.85 OK
4.00 19.40 4926.00 4924.74 OK
3.00 21.40 4926.00 4923.51 OK
2.00 21.40 4924.00 4922.73 OK
1.00 21.40 4921.20 4922.50 NO
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
14AMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.00
7.00
6.00
ROUND
14.16
15.00
15.00
0.00
50.00
6.00
5.00
ROUND
14.16
15.00
15.00
0.00
40.00
5.00
4.00
ROUND
10.82
15.00
15.00
0.00
30.00
4.00
3.00
ROUND
25.80
27.00
18.00
0.00
20.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
17.48
18.00
24.00
0.00
10.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
18.36
21.00
24.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED
' 39
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
' -NUMBER- CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
------- -------- --'----- -------- ---'---- -'------ "--------"-----------
60.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 4.53 2.85 0.73 V-OK
50.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 4.53 2.85 0.73 V-OK
40.0 7.4 17.7 0.56 13.80 1.07 6.59 6.03 3.70 V-OK
' 30.0 19.4 7.4 1.50 10.98 1.44 11.13 10.98 0.00 V•OK
20.0 21.4 50.0 0.91 15.28 1.65 7.72 6.81 3.21 V-OK
10.0 21.4 43.9 0.99 13.87 1.65 7.72 6.81 2.78 V-OK
' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
' SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
(FT) (FT) (FT)
-------------------- --------
60.00 0.40 4928.10 4928.06 0.65 0.69 NO
' 50.00 0.40 4928.05 4927.79 0.70 0.96 NO
40.00 7.50 4927.78 4924.03 0.97 0.72 NO
30.00 0.50 4922.50 4922.15 2.00 2.35 OK
20.00 4.85 4921.86 4920.55 2.14 1.45 OK
' 10.00 3.74 4920.86 4919.55 1.14 -0.35 NO
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
60.00 10.00 10.00 4929.35 4929.31 4929.60 4929.54 PRSSIED
50.00 66.00 66.00 4929.30 4929.04 4929.54 4928.85 PRSS'ED
40.00 50.00 35.51 4929.03 4925.28 4928.85 4924.74 JUMP
' 30.00 70.00 0.00 4924.00 4923.65 4924.74 4923.51 PRSSIED
20.00 27.00 9.56 4923.86 4922.55 4923.51 4922.73 JUMP
10.00 35.00 25.38 4922.86 4921.55 4922.73 4922.50 JUMP
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
60.0 7.00 4929.72 0.03 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 6.00 4929.66
' 50.0 6.00 4929.66 0.19 0.40 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.00 4929.42
40.0 5.00 4929.42 0.91 0.40 0.23 0.35 1.67 4.00 4926.61
30.0 4.00 4926.61 1.63 0.40 0.75 0.00 0.00 3.00 4924.23
20.0 3.00 4924.23 0.50 0.40 0.29 0.00 0.00 2.00 4923.45
10.0 2.00 4923,45 0.23 1.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.00 4922,50
' BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
t FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
5//
Engineering Consultants
%00
CLIENT_ oe-- il. JOB NppO.So4 OU) _
PROJECT L-.'-� A-e CALCULATIONS FOR SLA--'r. Ye
i
MADE BV :DATE--f' CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Li -NA, Avg
4T s-ra s25
y2
R8D INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
Existing SwaLe west of The Village at Southridge Greens on Lemay
STA
ELEV
100.00
100.00
112.00
96.50
120.00
98.80
'N' VALUE
0.060
ELEVATION AREA
(feet) (sq ft)
--------- -------
SLOPE (ft/ft)
-------------
0.0210
VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE
(fps) (cfs) NO.
------- --------- ------
96.70
0.1
0.8
0.10
0.42
96.90
0.6
1.2
0.66
0.47
1 97.10
1.2
1.6
1.95
0.51
97.30
2.2
1.9
4.21
0.53
97.50
3.5
2.2
7.63
0.55
97.70
1
5.0
2.5
12.40
0.57
97.90
6.8
2.8
18.70
0.58
98.10
8.8
3.0
26.69
0.59
98.30
11.2
3.3
36.54
0.61
0.62
/
798,63 98.50
13.8
3.5
48.39
S % , 1!5 , �5
0
16.1
3.
62.39
0.63
,.,�
�.5 0A
T=r3=
1
9 •c. 2. 1 3 i 4-
n �'
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
Existing swale west of The Villages at Southridge Greens
ELEVATION
(feet)
96.70
96.90
97.10
97.30
97.50
97.70
97.90
98.10
98.30
98.50
98.70
98.90
99.10
99.30
99.50
99.70
STA
100.00
112.00
123.50
'NVALUE
0.060
AREA
(sq ft)
0.1
0.6
1.2
2.2
3.5
5.0
6.8
8.8
11.2
13.8
16.7
19.9
23.4
27.1
31.1
35.4
ELEV
100.00
96.50
99.80
SLOPE (ft/ft)
-------------
0.0210
VELOCITY DISCHARGE
(fps) (cfs)
-----------------
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
0.10
0.66
1.96
4.21
7.63
12.41
18.72
26.72
36.58
48.44
62.46
8.76
97.50
118.80
142.79
169.59
FROUDE
NO.
0.42
0.47
0.51
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
' file:504010FL
This is a Summary of the flows contributing to the Ditch west of The Villag
' along Lemay Avenue.
' Flows come from the Following point as follows:
0100
Location Flow (CFS)
5.' Curb inlet east Side Lemay 7.05 k S
5 'Curb inlet west Side Lemay 5.30 4-
5'curb inlet north side South Ridge greens 6.00�-��
'5'curb inlet south side South Ridge greens 1.90
detention pond outlet from Church 6.00
From Doral Court 10.00
From Deercroft court 16.70
' 15 inch CMP from Villages at South Green 2.20
TOTAL FLOW 57.15 CFS
•• (� EXIST. 1Z" OVTLET FROM CHURCH
H.
AuiV. SQV T.H.R!46 E_ .G �'-Ee-yz,yO ULc VAP-�
' �� I p�aui5.z cis---------------------- ----
IN'v°vMHiV(E
p _ .Rf[NS OLJO
¢- to - O -- - DA51N 12
' Iq °� ono: /_8O=fr i- - I — — 0. 57 Ac_ Harr. .:83 99.0_rr__
3 .0 n 6.c r �. '_-- L-ro-3
-
,"� //� 5•INLE>- .9�Si i o132
i Rz ELF_ _4TFB "I? . \
up2v III ':J \` N I p\ N - m \•` Oo ... y.
I'cd .II �i — L i1.5 IS.0 I IZ�iJ
Zb.G
LIE
31I
I�Z7z w I� ;o �\\ n \ � in � `t m o .�
T c
s H In c O I 1
r I 4c.v 0 / I \
I � 1
v
\ ',
cO.co ALL \ \ \ N N 970R L M LAC Look\I. 11
H4Il =
ZI.lO rl
77. l
Z 'Z3.0 N N J Nd n\ N N
D :IC 2s.V 11 2cs \ \c
DI MII it a t c -\ Rr
I• III ^ (4bA
III 4
ri �. II rS./
3 III • Iz ° ,i,� /� � \
s
t
m
It\
ItI — e
LEE 12`OCT LVVCT
!" In
r
Ih °
' o I'D cos' I2L5. _
p R
' - n In c i`� c D N ... (ff. _ .4• f ; ^ :" � N o (J
a Lot IA
_ N W
T P VI \� P
T ,N r1.0 / Ia.ON '3.ON lJ.v
' rq
m N /
m ne nZ 1��11 on o\ N I /� A �!• �/r i �y
Gni P
in ° 00 w Io-- W
a mac . Dom. 0p° " Ll
09.0 N 1� on
-
c A I'I
=.r- �J _
_0— --- _
=Z:2
F 31rtn./ a .\ —w
/-• � \,m.sr J°S O m.5
LvILFS , 1 I
5�'7 %/ �200 77 �
Y:74 OEM
�r3a.NN
v,r2 cfiR�c�W� <_- Ac —J
DESIGN OF EROSION CONTROL
1
1 RBD, Inc.
1
1 #504-010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: South Lemay Improvements STANDARD FORM
CALCULATED BY: JAM DATE: 04/24/96
DEVELOPE
ERODIBILIT
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBASIN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft
%
ft
100
moderate
0.55
495
0.5
101
moderate
0.71
635
3.4
102
moderate
0.71
635
3.4
103
moderate
1.38
1215
4.9
104
moderate
1.38
1215
4.9
105
moderate
0.76
965
2.0
106
moderate
0.78
875
2.0
107
moderate
0.26
245
1.1
Total
6.53
920
3.4
83.5
EXAMPLE GALGLILA I IUNS
Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) = (0.55 x 495 +... + 0.00 x 0)/ 6.53
= 920 ft
Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) = (0.55 x 0.50 +... + 0.00 x 0.00)/ 6.53
3.4 %
PS (during construction) = 83.5 (from Table 8A)
PS (after construction) = 83.5/0.85 = 98.3
y�
' RBD, Inc.
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
BSnd-nt n
PROJECT: South Lemay Improvements STANDARD FORM B
CALCULATED BY: JAM DATE: 04/24/96
Erosion Control
C-Facto
P-Factor
Comment
Number Method
Value
Value
9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
0.01
1
paved and constructed
38 Gravel Mulch
0.05
1
areas paved later
6 Gravel Filter
1
0.8
placed at inlets
8 Sift Fence Barrier
1
0.5
downwind/downstream
2 Bare Soil - Freshly disked
1
0.9
19 Established Grass Ground Cover - 100%
0.02
1
42 straw mulch with seed
0.06
1
all areas not paved
5 Straw Bale Barrier
1
0.8
swales and channels
SUB
PS
AREA
BASIN
%
ac
Site
83.5
6.53
SUB
SUB
AREA
Practice C'A P-A Remarks
BASIN
AREA
ac
DURING CONSTRUCTION
100
Total
0.55
Impervious
0.11
38 0.01 0.11 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.44
42 0.03 0.44 straw mulch with seed
101
Total
0.71
Impervious
0.57
38 0.03 0.57 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.14
42 0.01 0.14 straw mulch with seed
102
Total
0.71
Impervious
0.57
38 0.03 0.57 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.14
42 0.01 0.14 straw mulch with seed
103
Total
1.38
Impervious
1.10
38 0.06 1.10 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.28
42 0.02 0.28 straw mulch with seed
104
Total
1.38
Impervious
1.10
38 0.06 1.10 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.28
42 0.02 0.28 straw mulch with seed
105
Total
0.76
Impervious
0.61
38 0.03 0.61 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.15
42 0.01 0.15 straw mulch with seed
106
Total
0.78
Impervious
0.62
38 0.03 0.62 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.16
42 0.01 0.16 straw mulch with seed
107
Total
0.26
Impervious
0.21
38 0.01 0.21 Gravel Mulch
Remain.
0.05
42 0.00 0.05 straw mulch with seed
Cnet = [0.44x0.06+.. +0.05x0.06y6.53 """"""'
= 0.05
Pnet = [0.44x1.00+..+0.28x1.00j16.53
1.00 .............
EFF = (1-C-P)100 = (1-0.05-1.00)100
= 94.75
> 83.5 (PS)
Assume paving not constructed within 6 weeks
and building foundation will be constructed within 6
weeks; use silt fence at the downstream perimeter
and straw bale barriers in all swales
RBD, Inc.
' #504-010
I
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: South Lemay Improvements STANDARD FORM B
CALCULATED BY: JAM DATE: 04/24/96
Erosion Control
C-Facto
P-Facto
Comment
Number Method
Value
Value
9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
0.01
1
paved and constructed
14 Established Grass Ground Cover - 50%
0.08
1
15 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
0.06
1
All areas not paved
20 Sod Grass
0.01
1
SUB
PS
AREA
BASIN
%
ac
Site
98.3
6.53
SUB
SUB
AREA
Practice C *A P' A Remarks
BASIN
AREA
ac
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
100
Total
0.55
Impervious
0.11
9 0.00 0.11 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Remain.
0.44
19 0.00 0.44 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
101
Total
0.71
Impervious
0.57
9 0.01 0.57 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Remain.
0.14
19 0.00 0.14 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
102
Total
0.71
Impervious
0.57
9 0.01 0.57 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Remain.
0.14
19 0.00 0.14 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
103
Total
1.38
Impervious
1.10
9 0.01 1.10 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Remain.
0.28
19 0.00 028 Established Grass Ground Cover- 60%
104
Total
1.38
Impervious
1.10
9 0.01 1.10 AsphaUConcrete Pavement
Remain.
0.28
19 0.00 0.28 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
105
Total
0.76
Impervious
0.61
9 0.01 0.61 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
Remain.
0.15
19 0.00 0.15 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
106
Total
0.78
Impervious
0.62
9 0.01 0.62 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
Remain.
0.16
19 0.00 0.16 Established Grass Ground Cover-60%
107
Total
0.26
Impervious
0.21
9 0.00 0.21 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Remain.
0.05
19 0.00 0.05 Established Grass Ground Cover- 60%
Cnet = [0.11 x0.01+..+0.21 x0.01 y6.53
= 0.01
Pnet = [0.11 x1.00+., +0.21 x1.00]/6.53
= 1.00
EFF = (1-C'P)100 = (1-0.01'1.00)100
= 99.0
> 98.3 (PS)
0
CHARTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES
No Text
5.2
Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
.48jor and Minor Storrs
per city of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria
ARTERIAL w/ 611 Vertical curb and gutter Frepared by: RED, Inc.
0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1952
V is based on theoretical capacities
Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 47.52 sq.ft.
Minor Storm : Major Storm
Slope Red. . Minor . 0 V . Major . 0 V
(X) :Factcr : X . (cfs) (fps) . X . (cfs) (fps)
0.40 . 0.50 . 135.32 : 4.28 2.41 : 2031.62 . 64.25 2.70
0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 3.02
0.60 : 0.80 135.32 : 8.39 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.19 3.31
0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 3.19 : 2031.62 : 135.98 : 3.58 :
0.80 : 0.60 : 135.32 :. 9.68 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.E2 :
0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 3.62 : 2031.62 : 154.19 : 4.06 :
1.00 : 0.80 : 135.22 : 10.83 3.E1 : 2031.62 : 162.53 : 4.23 :
1.25 0.80 : 135.32 : 12.10 4.26 : 2031.62 : 1E1.71 : 4.78 :
1.50 0.80 : 135.32 : 13.26 4.67 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 5.24 :
1.75 0.80 : 135.32 : 14.32 5.04 : 2031.62 : 215.01 : 5.66 :
2.00 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.E5 : 6.05 :
2..25 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70.,: 6.41
2.50 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 6.03 : 2031.62 244.13 : 6.76
2.75 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 6.32 : 2031.62 249.31 : 7.09
3.00 0.72 : 135.32 : 16.68 6.60 : 2031.62 253.36 : 7.41
3.25 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 6.E7 : 2031.62 252.72 : 7.71
3.50 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 2031.62 250.E5 : B.OD
3.75 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 2031.62 247.E6 : 8.28
4.OD 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 2031.62 243.79 : 8.55
4.25 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 7.66 : 2031.62 242.92 : 8.81
4.50 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 8.09 : 2031.62 232.72 : 9.07 :
4.75 ; 0.52.: 135.32 : 15.34 8.31 : 2031.62 230.25 : 9.32 :
5.00 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 8.52 : 2031.62 222.60 : 9.56 :
5.25 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 8.73 : 2031.62 214.13 : 9.80 :
5.50 : 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 8.94 : 201.62 209.64 : 10.03 :
5.75 0.42 : 135.32 13.63 9.14 : 2031.62 204.61 ; 10.25 :
6.00 0.40 : 135.32 13.26 9.34 : 2031.62 199.06 : 10.47 :
53
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT e—'= C-1-e--nt 1 01-15, JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
W.A.DESY�:)A-,E ;7_-CZ CHECKEDEY—DATE —SHEET OF
QL
Lj
7,
`771- 7 1
T777-
T
5 4- /
MMML�Mmml,
INC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT ('I I -, -/ c=>;:= 17c) Z:r � t L-I %, Icy- JOE NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FCR,//Ni )T-r=- F, T:R L-.2�A�
W.1-DEEY �O DATE Z�Z Cl--ECKEDFY—DATE —SHEET Z OF 7-
J- ---------
7-
1 T.1 S. L
--7
QV 7
77 77
17-
_7
7
L
:2
Q
—7
-7- 7
L
-71 :7
kz
7 '1
4
77-
ro L
-7
-7
r
-.,7-777
7 7 `7
7
ti= T "._4 AT cm S
j
I i L_L_j _\jjA.,raZ -_L e, SLr=1j
or
j
&,4
H-
C*Q
j
I'D a. sva-_�-,
-77'
7--
6
771'.1 -il -74-:
T
C--:s
_c),C)Ig 4L ��Ty cn�a-
r J T '-
izd
-T I
.'T
T-� T�
—7
1
T-1•-1
IL I i. I
I I J
;-177