Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater ReportWATER DEMAND REPORT (FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS UNDER THE IFC AND THE B/CS UNIFIED DESIGN GUIDANCE MANUAL) Prepared f or MM&R Development, LLP c/o Lagrone Construction Company 4603 Caddie Court College Station, TX 77845 Submitted to City of College Station Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3407 Tabor Road Bryan, Texas 77808 November 1, 2006 °»'}.~:.Je ~# M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E., J.D. CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC . SUMMARY OF WATER DEMAND (INCLUDING FIRE FLOW) ANALYSIS (Code Analysis Per International Fire Code 2004 and B/CS Unified Design Guidance Manual) 1.0 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 1.1 GENERAL This report of water demand, including fire flows, was prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) for the proposed Lakeside Village Subdivision Development. 1.2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The site of the proposed Lakeside Village Subdivision is situated northwest of the intersection of Longmire Drive and Eagle Avenue in the southern portion of College Station, Texas, as illustrated on Figure 1 -Vicinity Map of Proposed Lakeside Village Subdivision in Appendix A to this report. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE The site extends over a total area of approximately 13. 79 acres as illustrated on Figure 2 - Proposed Site Development Scheme in Appendix A. The site is roughly rectangular in shape with approximate average plan dimensions of 412 ft by 1,362 ft. The site is roughly bisected by the right-of- way (ROW) for the planned extension of Eagle A venue. The present end of the paved surface of Eagle A venue is situated along the southeastern border of the proposed subdivision site. The site is bordered on the northeast by the recently completed Longmire Drive extension, on the southeast by the previously discussed end of Eagle Avenue and also by Phase II of the Springbrook- Cypress Meadow Subdivision. The site is bordered on the southwest and northwest by undeveloped property and further to the southwest by the western tributary of the South Fork of Lick Creek. A portion of the undeveloped property to the northwest is ultimately planned for development as the final phase of the Dove Crossing Subdivision. 1 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. 1.4 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT SCHEME The proposed development encompasses an area of approximately 13. 79 acres and consists of approximately 56 residential lots and accompanying street and utility infrastructure as illustrated on Figure 2. The proposed residences will be single-family structures that are one story to two story in height. The residences will be situated on lots with individual areas of approximately 5,000 square feet (sq ft). The ground contact area of the proposed residences on each lot will be in the range of approximately 1,800 to 2,200 square feet. The houses are expected to have conventional wood stud- bearing wall/frame construction with exteriors consisting of some combination of brick, stone, and wood. Therefore, we anticipate that the residential structures will classify as Building Type V construction under the 2004 Edition of the International Fire Code (IFC). The residences will not be sprinkled. As can be seen from a review of Figure 2, the proposed development will be divided by an extension of Eagle Avenue to the west. In addition, the existing Springbrook-Cypress Meadow -Phase II, Block Ten subdivision borders the proposed development to the southeast and contains a 20-ft-wide drainage easement along the common border (but not through the existing Eagle A venue ROW). Existing concrete drainage flumes or channels are present within the two sections of the drainage easements and are connected with existing drainage systems present along Longmire Drive, along the existing Eagle Avenue, or is connected to the existing western tributary to the South Fork of Lick Creek. The development to the northeast of the proposed extension of Eagle A venue was considered the Lakeshore section of the development. This Lakeshore section is also referred to as Phase I or the eastern portion of the development and has approximately 27 lots that will be situated around a proposed lake. Lakeshore has several proposed roadway names, such as Lakeshore Drive, Lakeshore Circle, and Lakeshore Court. The Lakeshore roadway network extends from the existing Longmire Drive and circles the proposed lake before ending in a cul-de-sac near the proposed Eagle Avenue extension. Phase II or the western section of the proposed development is located to the southwest of the proposed Eagle Avenue extension and contains approximately 29 lots positioned around a street that will be known as Creekside Circle. As can be seen from Figure 2, Creekside Circle extends from Eagle A venue to the south and forms a circle or loop within the Phase II portion of the proposed development. 2 t CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. 2.0 ANALYSIS CRITERIA Criteria used in the analysis of the water demands for the proposed development, i.e., both the fire water demand and the "normal" average and peak domestic water demands, were based upon the previously referenced IFC and the B!CS Unified Design Guideline Manual -Streets, Water and Sewer, Effective February 2000, Revised: 2006, and hereinafter referred to as the UDGM. 3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER LINE SYSTEMS A schematic of the existing and proposed water systems m the vicinity of the proposed subdivision development is illustrated on Figure 3 -Existing and Proposed Water Systems. As can be seen from a review of Figure 3, there is currently a 12-inch diameter water line along the northern side of Eagle A venue that extends to the southeastern boundary of the site of the proposed development. As can also be seen from a review of Figure 3, the existing 12-inch water line is part of the water distribution system of the City of College Station and ties into the remainder of the system at a junction with an existing 8-inch diameter line along Longmire Drive southeast of the proposed development and at a junction with a 24-inch diameter line further to the east-northeast along the State Highway 6 frontage road. Water for the proposed development for both domestic use and for fire fighting will be supplied by extending the existing 12-inch line for a distance of approximately 600 feet along proposed Eagle A venue extension through the center of the proposed development to the northwestern boundary of the site (Figures 2 and 3). Two 8-inch diameter lateral water lines will "branch off of' the proposed 12-inch water line extension. One 8-inch diameter line will extend as a lateral under Eagle A venue and along Creekside Circle in a southerly and southwesterly direction before looping around the Creekside Circle "loop" to connect with the middle portion of the lateral (Figures 2 and 3). The second 8-inch lateral line will extend from the north side of Eagle A venue to Lakeshore Court and then along the northern side of the proposed lake and Lakeshore Circle to the northern side of Lakeshore Drive entry road. This second 8-inch lateral line will then continue along the northern side of Lakeshore Drive to Longmire Drive and then along the western side of Longmire Drive in a northwesterly direction to end near the northern corner of the subdivision. A "looped" 3-inch diameter water line is also planned around the souther side of the lake to connect the different segments of the 8-inch lateral. 3 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. One proposed fire hydrant (FH) will be located on each of the 8-inch lateral lines as illustrated on Figures 2 and 3. Each fire hydrant will be located near the center of each of the phases or the east and west portions of the proposed development in order to service the entire development. The proposed 12-inch and 8-inch diameter public water lines will consist of PVC piping meeting the requirements of A WW A C909 pipe and will be constructed with a minimum of 4 feet of cover as specified in the UDGM (page 6 of Water section). The pipe excavation trenches will be backfilled with compacted soils in all landscaped areas not proposed for development. In areas of roadway crossings the pipe will be bedded and initially backfilled with granular soils with the final backfill consisting of either cement-stabilized materials or compacted native soils or imported select fill soils. All construction shall meet the current edition of the B!CS Unified Technical Specifications (2006) and the BICS Unified Standard Construction Details (2006). 4.0 CALCULATION OF REQUIRED FIRE FLOWS AND FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS PER UDGM CRITERIA 4.1 FIRE FLOWS The required fire flow for the proposed residential subdivision was determined from the Domestic Water Section of the previously referenced UDGM (page 5) to be "1,000 gallons per minute [gpm] for public hydrants in single family or duplex residential areas ... " In addition, as indicated in the "Fire Flow System Design Criteria" on Page 5 of the referenced Water Section of the UDGMI., the following criteria was employed in sizing the proposed water lines: 1. Under normal flow conditions the residual pressures in the area serviced by the proposed system must meet TCEQ requirements and at all times provide a minimum static pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi). 2. Under fire flow conditions, provide the required fire flow at the most hydraulically remote pairings of 2 adjacent fire hydrants in the system improvement in addition to the peak hourly flow. A residual pressure of no less than 20 psi is required. 3. Provide maximum velocities of 12 feet per second (fps) during fire flow in both existing and proposed mains. This maximum velocity may be increased on a case by case basis depending on the condition of the existing mains and if an engineering evaluation has been performed. 4. Conform to any area wide master plan, including oversizing for fature development. 4 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Since we anticipate that the fire flow demand will be significantly larger than the normal average and peak domestic demand requirements, the required sizing of the water line pipes was based on the required fire flows and residual pressures at the proposed FHs and the maximum pipe velocities in the system. 4.2 HYDRANT LOCATIONS As previously indicated, two FHs will be included in the proposed development. The requirement for FH spacing was determined from the UDGM (page 9). The UDGM guidance states that "Public fire hydrants shall be spaced 1,000 feet apart in single-family districts at locations so that structures (or undeveloped lots) shall not be more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant as measured along the right of way of a public street as the fire hose is laid off the fire truck." As can be seen from a review of Figures 2 and 3, the FH locations were selected near the central portions of the Phase I (eastern) and Phase II (western) developments so that the minimum 500 feet distance from any residential lot in either phase of development could be achieved. 5.0 CALCULATION OF DOMESTIC WATER USE The average and peak normal design flows for domestic water use for the planned residential lots were calculated based upon Method 2 -Land Use Determination procedure outlined in the Water Section of the UDGM (page 4). Table I of the referenced chapter lists the average unit water demand per capita to be eA'Pected for a variety of land uses and indicates that the average flow for residential use is 100 gallons per day per capita (GPD/CAP). The UDGM also states (page 5) that the population factor for residential land use is 2.67 persons per unit, which is applied to the actual number of units. Therefore, the number of people for which the domestic water demand was calculated is approximately 150 people (56 residential units x 2.67 people/unit= 149.5 people or -150 people). Consequently, the average water demand or Average Daily Flow could be calculated as the product of the number of people within the development (150 persons) times the average per capita consumption of water on a daily basis (100 gpd/capita). The average water demand was thus calculated to be approximately 15,000 gallons per day, which converts to approximately 10.4 gpm (15,000 gpd * 1 day/24 hours * 1 hour/60 minutes). Also, the previously referenced chapter of the UDGM indicated that the Peak Hourly Flow could be calculated from the Average Daily Flow based upon the following 5 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. equation: Peak Hourly Flow = Average Daily Flow * 4. The Peak Hourly Flow was thus calculated to be approximately 41.6 gpm (10.4 gpm * 4 = 41.6 gpm). Thus, it can be seen that the average (10.4 gpm) and peak (41.6 gpm) domestic water flows for the planned residential development are relatively small as compared to the fire water demand (1 ,000 gpm). The computed domestic flows were conservatively included in the subsequently described system modeling by assuming a 100 gpm domestic flow from selected nodes or junction points of the piping network. In addition, each of the fire hydrants was assigned a fire flow of 1,000 gpm and were also each conservatively assumed to be flowing at the same time. 6.0 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM PIPING 6.1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES As permitted by the UDGM, a water distribution computer model was utilized to determine the pressure and flow requirements for the proposed water line improvements. The computer model utilized is the WaterCAD Pressure Network Analysis Software developed by Haestad Methods (hereinafter WaterCAD). 6.2 PROPOSED AND EXISTING WATER SYSTEM LAYOUT AND FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TESTS The water system modeled in WaterCAD conforms to the previous assumed configuration that is outlined in Figure 4 -Schematic of Water System Used in Analysis. Figure 4 depicts the existing public water distribution system and depicts the proposed extension of the existing 12-inch diameter public water line to and through the center portion of the subject property, as well as the two previously described proposed 8-inch diameter lateral lines to the Phase I (eastern) and Phase II (western) portions of the proposed development. Also as previously mentioned, there are two fire hydrants associated with the proposed development with one hydrant being located on the eastern lateral and one located on the western lateral. The modeling was performed assuming that there would be sufficient water flow and pressure at the tie-in point of the extension of the existing 12-inch diameter water line on Eagle Avenue. Static and residual flow pressures in the main lines were determined from fire hydrant flow tests conducted by personnel from the College Station Utilities Department. The water pressure tests were performed for an 6 CSC ENGINEER.ING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. existing fire hydrant on the existing water system. The results of the Flow Test Report are presented in Appendix B -Fire Hydrant Flow Test Reports. As can be seen from a review of Appendix B, the flow hydrant was #Q-188 and the static hydrant was #Q-040. Also as can be seen from a review of the fire hydrant flow test data in Appendix B, a very high static water pressure of 108 pounds per square inch (psi) and a residual pressure of 106 psi were determined from the referenced flow test and were considered to be a reasonable "normal" value for the existing water system at the point of connection. The results of the hydrant flow test were used to determine both the static and residual pressures in the existing water supply lines that would be used in the analysis of the proposed water line eA1:ension to the proposed subdivision. The connections with the existing water lines along the State Highway 6 frontage road and at Longmire Drive were simulated in the model as reservoirs with immediately "downstream" pumps as recommended by the creators of the model. The pumps were simulated by a three (3) point pressure versus flow curve. Two of the three (3) points on the curve were determined from the previously referenced FH flow test. The third point was calculated using the data determined in the FH flow test in standard equations. The pipe network modeling of the proposed water lines was performed to determine flows, velocities, and residual pressures which could be expected for the design fire flow at various locations in the proposed pipe system. As previously indicated, the fire flow used in the analysis was 1,000 gpm value. The fire flow was assumed to be present for an extended time period, and therefore, the model was run using an extended period analysis. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that both hydrants were flowing at the same time and that the combined fire flow was 2,000 gpm. A conservative maximum daily domestic water flow demand of 100 gpm was also added to the fire flows to determine the total flows used in the analysis . Therefore, the combined fire and maximum normal flows were 2,100 gpm for the subdivision. Other system evaluation criteria were the previously specified minimum 20 psi residual pressure at the hydrant locations and a maximum velocity of 12 feet per second (fps) during fire flow conditions. 6.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS The results of the system analyses using WaterCAD are presented in Appendix C. Presented in Appendix C are three pages labeled as "Analysis Results -Scenario: Base -Fire Flow Analysis." These pages present some of the basic input information for the system used in the analysis, such as the number of pipes and the number of nodes or junction points between pipes used in the analysis, as well as the flows associated with the individual nodes. The sheets also indicate the basic 7 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. fire flow of 1,000 gpm plus the domestic water demand of 100 gpm for a total flow of 1,100 gpm for each of the two hydrants, which are represented by the junctions labeled as J-2 and J-17. The "Analysis Results -Scenario: Base -Fire Flow Analysis" sheets also present basic output information, such as flows and pressures at various junctions within the modeled network. Note that the proposed FHs represented by junctions J-2 and J-17 indicate the previously indicated simulated fire flows along with the peak domestic flows. An examination of the modeled results presented on the "Analysis Results -Scenario: Base -Fire Flow Analysis" sheets indicates that the flows, pressures, and velocities for the proposed network under full fire flow conditions are all within the previously discussed design criteria values. The residual pressure at the two FHs (junctions J-2 and J-17) under fire flow conditions are approximately 90.7 psi and 86.4 psi, respectively, which are well above the accepted minimum of 20 psi or the desired pressure of 30 psi. In addition, the velocities in all pipes in the system that were not part of the hydrant assemblies ranged from 0.28 to 10.2 f.Ps. The computed velocities are below the maximum velocity of 12 f.Ps. The 6- inch diameter piping that is part of the fire hydrant assemblies and which represents the short stub-outs from the lateral lines to the hydrants (pipe numbers P-2 and P-19) have maximum velocities under fire flow conditions of approximately 12.5 f.Ps, but such velocities are typically acceptable for the short stub- out lines. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the previously discussed analysis and design criteria, we believe that the proposed water system for the subdivision will function adequately to meet the fire flow demands and domestic water demands for the proposed residences and still maintain minimum required system pressures and maximum permissible velocities. 8 CSC ENGINEER.ING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . APPENDIX A Figures Figure 1 -Vicinity Map of Proposed Lakeside Village Subdivision Figure 2 -Proposed Site Development Scheme Figure 3 -Existing and Proposed Water Systems Figure 4 -Schematic of Water System Used in Analysis 11 c s c l.ngineenng & l.m·iromneJJta/ r Olllllltt111l5. /Ju or: MM&R DEVELOPMENT, LLP ROCK PRAIRIE 0 VICINITY MAP OF PROPOSED LAKESIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS PROJECT: LAKESIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVSION LOCATION: COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS APPR: MFC REV. DATE: DRAWN BY: MOK SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: 11/01/06 FIGURE NO.: 1 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIXB Fire Hydrant Flow Test Reports from the City of College Station Utilities Department 10 . . 0 -1 Ii Flow Test Report Date: s~ I!?·:{) b Time: j t ·· Io Test made by: 7. /lz,."4:µ£;;::.._Y.L...!, tfi.~-------------­ Location: ~,ft f-e"' ff~,. Wc.y ~ose of test: · Flow Test Representative: City of College Station Witness: /), tJ~1f;iYt5, Ji. 41,-/f).< t ( Flow Hydrant #: cO "'/ If Nozzle size: :1.., ) Pitot reading·. _ __.,_.9~---/ .--'~ _ ~ G.P.M.: .Yv0 I Static Hydrant#: _fl -o y_.a_ Static PSI: _JQ/j __ Residual PSI: / O_b_' __ Comments: COMPLETED OB-026 .... OB--01-1 6 .. "' . . Rick Conlin From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Spencer Thompson" <Sthompson@cstx .gov> "Charles Willis" <Cwillis@cstx .gov> < rco n Ii n@tx cy be r. com> Friday, July 07, 2006 11:53 AM Hydrant Fire Flow Can we get a test for a new subdivision goi ng in at Eagle and Longmire? The hydrant that looks best is Q-118 at Eagle and Puffin Way. This is for Ric w/ CSC. thx st College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. 8/J(J . )·I( CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIXC Pipe Network Computer Analysis Results Note: Analysis Results Scenario: Base Fire Flow Analysis The input data may have been modified since the last calculation was performed. The calculated resu lts may be outdated. Title: Lakeside Village Subdivision Project Engineer: MFC Project Date: 10/23/06 10:19:43 AM Comments: Lakeside Circle Loop Scenario Summary Scenario Base Active Topology Alternative Base-Active Topology Physical Alternative Base-Physical Demand Alternative Base-Demand Initial Settings Alternative Base-Initial Settings Operational Alternative Base-Operational Age Alternative Base-Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Base-Constituent Trace Alternative Base-Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Base-Fire Flow Capital Cost Alternative Base-Capital Cost Energy Cost Alternative Base-Energy Cost User Data Alternative Base-User Data Liquid Characteristics Liquid Kinematic Viscosity Water at 20C(68F) 1.0804e-5 ft2/s Network Inventory Pressure Pipes 23 Number of Reservoirs 2 Number of Pressure Junctic 18 Number of Pumps 2 -Constant Power: 2 -One Point (Design Point): 0 -Standard (3 Point): 0 -Standard Extended: 0 -Custom Extended: 0 -Multiple Point: 0 Number of Spot Elevations 0 Pressure Pipes Inventory Specific Gravity Number of Tanks -Constant Area: -Variable Area: Number of Valves -FCV's: -PBVs: -PRV's: -PSVs: -TCV's: -GPV's: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 3.0 in 6.0 in 8.0 in 428.00 ft 18.00 ft 2,490.00 ft 5,031 .00 ft 12.0 in 42.0 in 2,079.00 ft 16.00 ft Total Length Pressure Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Calculated PressurEf'ressure Demand Hydraulic Grade (psi) Head (Calculated) (ft) (ft) (gpm) Title: Lakeside Village Subdivision c:l ... lwtrc\lakesidevillagesubdivisionrenu/©~.WllM>INEERING &ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 11/01/06 11 :14:5~ntley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: MFC WaterCAD v7.0 (07.00.049.00] +1-203-755-1666 Page 1of3 . . . ' Pressure Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Calculated PressurEf'ressure Demand J1 J2 J3 J4 JS J6 J7 JS J9 J10 J11 J12 J13 J14 J1S J16 J17 J1S Hydraulic Grade (psi) Head (Calculated) (ft) (ft) (gpm) 4S9.S9 90.SS 210.06 4S9.4S 90.71 209.6S S23.S1 107.59 24S.6S S1 S.46 104.03 240.46 479.6S S7.10 201 .32 4S4.6S SS.SS 20S.3S 4S9.SS 90.S1 209.SS 497.61 94.SO 219.11 497.29 94 01 217.29 S02.64 96.76 223.64 497.30 94.66 21S.SO 4 79.SO S6.39 199.67 520.41 106.1 S 24S.41 479.S4 4S9.SS 4S9.SS S6.7S 200.S1 91 .24 210.SS 91.67 21 1.SS 100.00 1,100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10000 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 000 0.00 479.02 S6.40 199.69 1, 100.00 479.S4 S6.4S 199.SS 100.00 Analysis Results Scenario: Base Fire Flow Analysis Pressure Pipes @ 0.00 hr Label ControDischargeVelocit\iJpstream Struc()awnstream Structl.1lelculate<f:alculatecPressura-leadloss Status (gpm) (ft/s) Hydraulic Grade Hydraulic Grade Friction Minor Pipe Gradient P1 P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 PS pg P10 P11 P1 2 P1 3 P14 P1 S P16 P17 P1 S P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 Open 1,466.S3 Open 1, 100.00 Open 6S.90 Open 3,300.00 Open 1,933.47 Open 100.00 Open 1,600.00 Open 1,S00.00 Open 3,200.00 Open 1,300.00 Open 200.00 Open 100.00 Open Z,033.47 Open Z,033.47 Open I ,S66.S3 Open I ,S66.S3 Open 1 ,431. 1 O Open 231 .10 Open 1, 100.00 Open 7.02 9.36 12.4S 3.13 9.36 S.4S 0.2S 10.21 S.11 9 OS S.30 1.2S 0.64 0.47 0.47 0.36 0.36 9.13 1.4S 12.4S 0.04 Open 7.02 0.04 Open 100.00 0.64 Open 7.02 0.04 Title: Lakeside Village Subdivision (ft) (ft) Head loss HeadlossHeadlos~ft/1 OOOft) S23.S1 4S9.S9 4S4.6S S1 S.46 S20.41 497.30 497.30 497.61 S02.64 497.61 479.6S 479.S4 S20.41 279.00 S23.S1 279.00 4S4.6S 479.S4 479.S4 4S9.SS 4S9.SS 4S9.S9 4S9.SS S1 S.46 4S9.4S 479.6S S02.64 S1 S.46 497.29 4S4.6S 497.30 497.61 4S9.S9 479.S4 479.SO S20.41 279.00 S23.S1 279.00 479.S4 479.6S 479.02 4S9.SS 4S9.SS 4S9.SS 4S9.SS (ft) (ft) (ft) S.06 0.41 S.03 12.S1 4.96 0.01 12.62 0.32 S.03 7.72 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.S4 0.1 S O.S1 0 00 0.00 0.01 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 S.06 0.41 S.03 12.S1 4.96 0.01 12.62 0.32 S.03 7.72 0.12 0.03 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.S4 0.1S O.S1 000 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2S.4S 67.S9 11 .7S 17.7S 6 .S9 0.03 33.46 S.7S 16.76 22.7S 0.71 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 27.22 0.93 67.S9 0 00 0.00 0.20 0.00 Project Engineer: MFC WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.049.00] c:\ ... \wtrc\lakesidevillagesubdivisionrenul©8'fl.Wtll£1NEERING &ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 11/01/06 11 :14:5~ntley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1 -203-755-1666 Page 2 of 3 ... Pumps @ 0.00 hr Analysis Results Scenario: Base Fire Flow Analysis Label Control lntakeDischarge Intake DischargtDischarge Pump RelativeCalculated Status Pump Pump Pump Pump (gpm) Head Speed Water Grade Grade PressurePressure (ft) Power (ft) (ft) (psi) (psi) (Hp) PMP-1 PMP-2 On On :79.00 520.41 120.71 225.16 2,033.47 '.41 .41 :79.00 523.51 120.71 226.50 1,566.53 '.44.51 Reservoirs @ 0.00 hr Label Calculated Inflow Outflow Hydraulic Grade (gpm) (g pm) (ft) R-1 279.00 2,033.47 ,033.47 R-2 279.00 1,566.53 ,566.53 Title: Lakeside Village Subdivision 1.00 123.94 1.00 96.71 c:\ ... lwtrcllakesidevillagesubdivisionrenui©OO.WllM>INEERING &ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 11/01 /06 11: 14 :5~ntley Systems. Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: MFC WaterCAD v7 .0 (07.00.049.00) +1 -203-755-1666 Page 3 of 3