Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWastwater Design Report & Water Design Report• WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 Richard Carter Survey, A-8 · College Station, Brazos County, Texas November, 2006 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering & Surveying 4101 Texas Ave., Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 (979) 846-6212 PURPOSE: WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 Richard Carter Survey, A-8 College Station, Brazos County, Texas November, 2006 The purpose of this report is to analyze the existing and proposed sanitary sewer collection lines' capability of handling the increased demand from Gateway Phase 4. The subdivision includes 78 condominium units in 15 separate buildings with associated parking and utilities. The proposed sanitary sewer system is composed of five separate lines that discharge into an existing sanitary sewer line at three different locations. The proposed sanitary sewer system is composed of approximately 1,470 LF of 611 PVC sanitary sewer lines. The proposed system will connect to an existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line running adjacent to the project site. As part of this analysis, contributing areas upstream of the proposed connection points were analyzed to calculate the existing flows through this system. Previous Wastewater Design Reports were used to obtain existing demands. This report is being conducted in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Sanitary Sewer. WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 2 DESIGN PARAMETERS: EXISTING CONDITIONS : Currently, a 12" PVC sanitary sewer line runs on the east side of the project site, flowing from south to north. The contributing area is approximately 95 acres. Information for the contributing flows was obtained from prior reports in the area. In addition, where information was not available, demand calculations were performed to determine the contributing demands. Within the contributing area, the known flows from previous reports include University Town Center, The Veranda, Cedarcreek Condominiums, Homewood Suites, Hawthorne Suites, Post Oak Forest, McAlister's Deli, M.D.W. Centre, and Grand Oaks and adjacent single family homes and duplexes (see Appendix 2 -"Design Parameters"). The previous reports referenced: Sanitary Sewer Impact Analysis, "Bert Wheeler, Inc. 8.741 & 4.242 Acre Tracts", Kling Engineering & Surveying, August, 1997. Wastewater Design Report, "University Town Center, Phasel ",Kling Engineering & Surveying, December, 2004. Wastewater Design Report, "University Town Center, Phase 2 & 3 11 , Kling Engineering & Surveying, May, 2005. Water & Sanitary Sewer Report, "M.D.W. Centre (Fully Developed) Commercial Development, 1200 University Drive East, College Station, Texas", Rabon Metcalf Engineering, January 23, 2006, Rev. April 5, 2006. Additional existing flows determined by calculation include the commercial sites adjacent to University Drive, which include the Amerisuites, Marriott, Microage, and Holiday Inn. Also, residential lots in University Park contribute to the existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line. To determine the flowrates for these areas, Method 2 -Land Use Determination was used as described in the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Sanitary Sewer (see Appendix 2 -"Design Parameters"). WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 4 The calculations of the existing sanitary sewer demands are as follows : Commercial = 6.10 Acres 6.10 acres • 30 persons/ acre = 183 people 183 people • 50 gpd/person = 9150 gpd Average Daily Demand = 6.35 gpm Peak Hourly Demand = 25.42 gpm Extended Stay Hotel = 95 units 95 units • 1 person/unit = 95 people 95 people • 100 gpd I person = 9500 gpd Average Daily Demand = 6.60 gpm Peak Hourly Demand = 26.39 gpm Hotel = 181 units 181 units • 2 people/unit = 362 people 362 people • 50 gpd/ person= 18100 gpd Average Daily Demand = 12.57 gpm Peak Hourly Demand = 50.28 gpm Residential = 44 lots 44 lots • 2.67 people /lot = 117.48 => 118 people 118 people • 100 gpd I person = 11800 gpd AverageDailyDemand = 8.19gpm Peak Hourly Demand = 32.78 gpm WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 5 Project Title: GATEWAY PHASE 4 h:l ... lgateway phase 4\drainagelstorm3.stm 12/07/06 10:40:42 AM <!:> Haestad Methods, Inc. /-k1vl9-r& 5~ -?~~ ( $·ov'4) Outlet P-1 1-13 KLING ENGINEERING 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA Project Engineer: KLING ENGINEERING StormCAD v1 .o (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pipe Upstrean Downstrear ~ Inlet Weighted Inlet Node Node Area ~oughnes: CA (acres) C:oefficien (acres) P-1 1-13 Outlet 1.4690 0.64 ).9345 Pipe Upstrean Downstrear lt...ength Inlet Weighted Node Node (ft) Area ~oughnes: (acres) C:oefficien P-1 1-13 Outlet 64.00 1.4690 0.64 Project Title: GATEWAY PHASE 4 h:\ ... \gateway phase 4\draina9e\storm3.stm 12/07/06 10:40:55 AM Pipe Report Total System Discharge Length Gonstructe 16ection ~oughnes Capacil) Upstrear1 Downstrear li.Jpstrear1 CA lntensil) (cfs) (ft) Slope Size (cfs) Invert Invert Ground (acres) (in/hr) (ft/ft) Elevatior Elevation Elevatior (ft) (ft) (ft) J.9345 9.86 9.29 64.00 0.010000 24 inct 0.013 22.62 275.60 274.96 279.10 Combined Pi pe/Node Report Inlet Total Inlet Section Capacil) Average Upstrean Downstrear ltonstructe; Description CA CA Discharge Size (cfs) Velocity Invert Invert Slope (acres) (acres) (cfs) (ft/s) Elevatior Elevation (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) ).9345 J.9345 9.29 24 inct 22.62 3.08 275.60 274.96 0.010000 KLING ENGINEERING © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Downstrear Ground Elevation (ft) 279.00 2'5 yt2. • pa-1v"1-rcr ~ ~ (5c.UTXI) l.lpstrean Downstrear 11.Jpstrearr Cover Cover HGL (ft) (ft) (ft) 1.50 2.04 277.34 Project Engineer: KLING ENGINEERING StormCAD v1 .0 Page 1 of 1 Pipe IJpstrean Oownstrear i Inlet Weighted Inlet Node Node Area Roughnes CA (acres) ~oefficien (acres) P-1 1-13 Outlet 1.4690 0.64 J.9345 Pipe IJpstrean ~ownstrear 1...ength Inlet Weighted Node Node (ft) Area '<oughnes (acres) Coefficien P-1 1-13 Outlet 64.00 1.4690 0.64 Project Title: GATEWAY PHASE 4 h:\ ... ldrainage\1 OOyr storm cadlstorm3.stm 12/07/06 10:41 :24 AM Total CA (acres) ).9345 Inlet CA (acres) J.9345 Pipe Report System DischargE Length Gonstructe Section '<oughnes Capacit) Jpstrean In tens it) (cfs) (ft) Slope Size (cfs) Invert (in/hr) (ft/ft) Elevatior (ft) 11.64 10.96 64.00 0.010000 24 inct 0.013 22.62 275.60 Combined Pipe/Node Report Oownstrean Invert Elevation (ft) 274.96 f COyL ~( p#r?;> ~ ~t><J~ ( SocfTH ~ ltJpstrean Oownstrear ltlpstrean Downstrear l.lpstreaJT Ground Ground Cover Cover HGL ~levatior Elevation (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 279.10 279.00 1.50 2.04 277.38 Total Inlet Section Capacicy ~verage Upstrean Oownstrear li:onstructe ! Description CA Discharge Size (cfs) ~elocity Invert Invert Slope (acres) (cfs) (ft/s) Elevatior Elevation (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) J.9345 10.96 24 incr 22.62 3.60 275.60 274.96 0.010000 KLING ENGINEERING • • © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Project Engineer: KLING ENGINEERING StormCAD · v1 .0 Page 1 of 1 .. • WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 Richard Carter Survey, A-8 College Station, Brazos County, Texas November, 2006 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering & Surveyi 4101 Texas Ave., Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 (979) 846-6212 PURPOSE: WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 Richard Carter Survey, A-8 College Station, Brazos County, Texas November, 2006 The purpose of this report is to analyze the proposed water distribution system for the Gateway Phase 4 subdivision. This report will verify line sizes necessary to serve the proposed improvements under average daily, peak hourly, and fire flow demands. The proposed development includes 78 condominium units in 15 different buildings, with associated parking and utilities. The proposed waterline design includes approximatel~ 539 LF of 8" PVC waterline and 1,455 LF of 3" PVC waterline. Additionally, two fire hydrants are proposed for the site. This report is being conducted in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guideline Manual for Domestic Water. WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 2 SERVICE AREA: The service area is defined by the location of the proposed development. The site is located in the Gateway subdivision, west of the tributary to Burton Creek. The site is accessed by a private drive crossing the tributary to Burton Creek, off of North Forest Drive (private drive) (refer to Appendix 1 -"Vicinity Map"). The proposed water distribution system will be routed through the site, and will connect to an existing 8" PVC waterline running through the creek crossing from North Forest Drive. The existing 8" PVC waterline is connected to an existing 12" PVC waterline running parallel to North Forest Drive, as shown in the preceding exhibit. The proposed water distribution system will supply domestic water and fire water to the Gateway Phase 4 subdivision. WATER DISTRIBUTION DESIGN CRITERIA: The proposed system will connect to an existing 811 PVC waterline at the west end of the creek crossing. The analysis starts where the existing 8" waterline connects to the existing 12" waterline at North Forest Drive. The following table summarizes the pressures at this connection point. Table 1 NODE STATIC HYDRAULIC GRADE JUNCTION ELEV. PRESSURE LINE ELEVATION NODE LOCATION (ft) (psi) (ft) R-1 North Forest Drive @ Creek Crossing 277.00 106 521.52 *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node locations The pressure was obtained by a flow test performed the City of College Water Services Department, and provided to Kling Engineering & Surveying by Spencer Thompson. No major improvements have been made to the system since this information was obtained. The peak hourly demand and average daily demand were calculated using Method 2 -Land Use Determination from the B/CS Uniform Design Guidelines for Domestic Water. The average daily demand was taken from Table I of the design guidelines. In this table the average daily demand for residential uses is 100 gpd/person. This was used to estimate the average daily demand per dwelling unit using four persons per dwelling unit. The peak hourly demand was determined using a peaking factor of four. Converted to gallons per minute (gpm), an average daily demand of 0.28 gpm per unit and a peak hourly demand of 1.12 gpm per unit were calculated. The following is a sample calculation. WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 4 Average Daily Demand: 100 gpd / (from Table I) /person Average Daily Demand: 100 gpd / * 4 persons/ . = 400 gpd / . /person I w11t I umt 400 gpd /. * 1 day / * 1 hr./ . = 028 gpm/. I umt /24 hrs. I 60 mm. · I umt Peak Hourly Demand: 0.28 gpm/ .t * 4 = 1.12 gpm/ .t /um /um The peak hourly demand and average daily demand for all of the lots are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Peak Hourly Demand Average Daily Demand per Unit (gpm) per Unit (gpm) 1.12 0.28 Fire flows were calculated in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Domestic Water. Two proposed fire hydrants were located based on the requirement that hydrants be placed no further than 1,000' apart and no further than 500' from any structure. The actual spacing between the proposed fire hydrants is approximately 580'. The fire flow requirement for residential subdivisions is 1,000 gpm, as described by the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Domestic Water. Minor losses through fittings such as bends, tees, reducers, and valves were incorporated into the analysis and design of the water distribution system using the Hazen-Williams Method. Fittings and valves were placed at locations consistent with the final design of the system. Multiple system scenarios were run with varying demand and line configuration alternatives to determine system adequacy as well as line sizes and routes necessary to meet the demands. The following section will detail key demand and waterline configuration alternatives as well as system scenarios. WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 5 WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS & DESIGN: The analysis and design as represented in this report were conducted using the computer program "Cybemet version 3.1 by Haestad Methods, Inc. The water distribution system scenarios were created by combining demand alternatives and the proposed system configuration. Four demand alternatives were used and are summarized as follows: • Average Daily Demand: • Peale Hourly Demand: • Fire 1: • Fire 2: Calculated per building based on number of units in each building Average Daily Demand * 4 1000 gpm @ HYD-1 + Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-2 +Average Daily Demand The following table summarizes the demands placed on each node in each of the four scenarios. Table 3 Average Daily Peak Hourly Demand (gpm) Demand (gpm) Fire-1 (gpm) Fire-2 (gpm) BLDG-1 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-2 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-3 0.56 2.24 0.56 0.56 BLDG-4 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-5 0.84 3.36 0.84 0.84 BLDG-6 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-7 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-8 0.84 3.36 0.84 0.84 BLDG-9&12 3.08 12.32 3.08 3.08 BLDG-10&13 3.36 13.44 3.36 3.36 BLDG-11 1.40 5.60 1.40 1.40 BLDG-14 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 BLDG-15 1.68 6.72 1.68 1.68 HYD-1 --1000 - HYD-2 ---1000 *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node locations *Refer to Appendix 5 for domestic demand calculations A complete list of results for both junctions and pipes can be found in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4, respectively. WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 6 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Table 4 shows the minimum pressures and maximum velocities occurring in each scenario as well as the link node where it occurs. Table 4 Minimum Pressure Maximum Velocity Scenario mill @ Node illill In Line Avg. Daily 104.90 J-5, J-9 0.32 P-8 Peak Hourly 104.81 J-5 , J-9 1.29 P-8 Fire-1 100.81 J-5, J-9 6.52 P-1 Fire-2 102.36 J-5 , J-9 6.51 P-1 *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node and pipe locations *Refer to Appendix 3 and 4 for complete summary of results The B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Domestic Water requires velocities within pipes not to exceed 12 feet per second (fps) and the residual pressure be at least 20 psi during fire flow. In all four scenarios shown above, these requirements are met. The minimum pressures for the all scenarios occur at nodes J-5 and J-9. Node J-5 is the connection point of Waterlines 'D' and 'E', and J-9 is the end point of Waterline 'E' where a blowoff valve is proposed. All other minimum pressures are significantly greater than the required minimum. The maximum velocity for the averag( daily and peak hourly scenarios occurs in pipe P-8 . Pipe P-8 is a 3" segment of Waterline 'B' that connects to Waterline 'E'. In the Fire-1 and Fire-2 scenarios, the maximum velocity occurs in pipe P-1. Pipe P-1 is the 8" waterline that runs through the creek crossing and connects to the existing 12" waterline at North Fore st Drive. Approximately 178 LF of this line is existing, the additional length is proposed as part ofthis project. In all cases, the maximum velocity is less than the allowable maximum. Refer to appendix 3 and Appendix 4 for computer program output for each analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Gateway Phase 4 includes a total of 78 four bedroom condominium units. As shown in the analysis, the proposed water distribution system adequately meets all demands, including fire flows. In all scenarios, the pressures are greater than the required minimum of 20 psi and the velocities are less than 12 fp s. WATER DESIGN REPORT Gateway Phase 4 7 I I • I APPENDIX 1 VICINITY MAP JYJAP KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING BRYAN, TEXAS APPENDIX 2 DESIGN CRITERIA G -otod- Flow Test Report Date: 11 I 6 \!tj Time: '-\: oo \""' Purpose of test: Flow Test Representative: City of College Station Witness: __ fv-'-"--'~'--=----~~---1\...-·_"l _~~----------- FlowHydrant#: G"'Ol.Ql.. Nozzlesize: Z.1/z. Pitot reading: __ 0_;_a ___ G.P.M.: __ t_'5_<-_io_· __ Static PSI: Residual PSI: I (')L{ COM PL ETED Comments: --------------------- P-19 3 " 215 .00 L F BLD G-1 P-21 3" BLD G-2 79 .00 LF P-20 3" 166 .00 LF BLD G-4 BLD G-6 J-3 P-22 P-5 8., 8 " 4.00 L F HYD-1 99 .00 LF P-6 3" 165.00 LF P-24 8" 1 5 .0 0 L F J-9 J-5 BLDG-9&12 P-45 3" 3 6 .0 0 L F P-26 3" 3 9 .0 0 L F J-2 P-25 8" 123 .00 LF BLDG-10&13 P-28 3" 168 .00 LF Scenario: Base BLD G-3 P-15 3" 117 .00 LF BLD G-5 BLD G-7 P-41 8" 3 7 .0 0 L F P-46 3" 139 .0 0 L F Kling Engineering & Surveying P-1 8" 255 .00 LF ~;,40 11 .0 0 L F BLD G-8 P-32 8" 110 .11 LF HYD-2 P-8 3" 54.00LF J-6 BLD G-14 BLD G-11 P-34 P-36 P-38 3" 3" 3" BLDG-15 36.00 LF 102 .00 LF 37.00 LF h:\engine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1.wcd 11113106 01 :36:46 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 R-1 P-39 3" 105.00 LF J-8 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING Cybernet v3.1 (071) Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 3 DEMAND ALTERNATIVES Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 273.55 Demand J-2 275.37 Demand J-3 276.56 Demand HYD-1 276.56 Demand J-5 278.93 Demand J-6 275.48 Demand HYD-2 275.27 Demand J-8 275.48 Demand J-9 278.93 Demand BLDG-3 274.50 Demand BLDG-1 274.58 Demand BLDG-2 274.98 Demand BLDG-4 276.01 Demand BLDG-6 275.92 Demand BLDG-9&12 278.71 Demand BLDG-10&13 276.81 Demand BLDG-8 273.55 Demand BLDG-14 275.48 Demand BLDG-11 275.48 Demand BLDG-15 275.48 Demand BLDG-5 273.55 Demand BLDG-7 273.55 Demand Scenario: AVG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated ~alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand Hydraulic (gpm) Grade (ft) 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .52 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .52 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.52 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .52 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.50 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.50 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.52 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .50 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.50 0.56 Fixed 0.56 521.51 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .51 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .51 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .52 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .52 3.08 Fixed 3.08 521 .50 3.36 Fixed 3.36 521 .50 0.84 Fixed 0.84 521.52 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .50 1.40 Fixed 1.40 521 .50 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .50 0.84 Fixed 0.84 521 .52 1.68 Fixed 1.68 521 .52 Pressure Fire Flow (psi) Upper Limit (gpm) 107.23 0.00 106.44 0.00 105.93 0.00 105.93 0.00 104.90 0.00 106.39 0.00 106.49 0.00 106.39 0.00 104.90 0.00 106.82 0.00 106.78 0.00 106.61 0.00 106.16 0.00 106.20 0.00 104.99 0.00 105.81 0.00 107.23 0.00 106.39 0.00 106.39 0.00 106.39 0.00 107.23 0.00 107.23 0.00 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING h:lengine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1\wtr-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3.1 [071] 11/13/06 01 :37:00 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 273.55 Demand J-2 275.37 Demand J-3 276.56 Demand HYD-1 276.56 Demand J-5 278.93 Demand J-6 275.48 Demand HYD-2 275.27 Demand J-8 275.48 Demand J-9 278.93 Demand BLDG-3 274.50 Demand BLDG-1 274.58 Demand BLDG-2 274.98 Demand BLDG-4 276.01 Demand BLDG-6 275.92 Demand BLDG-9&12 278.71 Demand BLDG-10&13 276.81 Demand BLDG-8 273.55 Demand BLDG-14 275.48 Demand BLDG-11 275.48 Demand BLDG-15 275.48 Demand BLDG-5 273.55 Demand BLDG-7 273.55 Demand Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated K;alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand Hydraulic (gpm) Grade (ft) 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.47 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.46 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.46 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.46 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .31 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.30 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.47 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521 .20 0.00 Fixed 0.00 521.31 2.24 Fixed 2.24 521.43 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521.41 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521.41 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521.46 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521.46 12.32 Fixed 12.32 521 .27 13.44 Fixed 13.44 521.26 3.36 Fixed 3.36 521.47 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521 .26 5.60 Fixed 5.60 521 .21 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521 .20 3.36 Fixed 3.36 521.47 6.72 Fixed 6.72 521.47 Pressure Fire Flow (psi) Upper Limit (gpm) 107.21 0.00 106.42 0.00 105.90 0.00 105.90 0.00 104.81 0.00 106.30 0.00 106.46 0.00 106.26 0.00 104.81 0.00 106.78 0.00 106.74 0.00 106.57 0.00 106.14 0.00 106.18 0.00 104.89 0.00 105.71 0.00 107.21 0.00 106.28 0.00 106.26 0.00 106.26 0.00 107.21 0.00 107.2 1 0.00 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING h:\engine-1\gatewa-4\waterl-1\wtr-1.wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3.1 (071 ] 11/13/06 01 :37:05 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1 666 Page 1of1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 273.55 Demand J-2 275.37 Demand J-3 276.56 Demand HYD-1 276.56 Demand J-5 278.93 Demand J-6 275.48 Demand HYD-2 275.27 Demand J-8 275.48 Demand J-9 278.93 Demand BLDG-3 274.50 Demand BLDG-1 274.58 Demand BLDG-2 274.98 Demand BLDG-4 276.01 Demand BLDG-6 275.92 Demand BLDG-9&12 278.71 Demand BLDG-10&13 276.81 Demand BLDG-8 273.55 Demand BLDG-14 275.48 Demand BLDG-11 275.48 Demand BLDG-15 275.48 Demand BLDG-5 273.55 Demand BLDG-7 273.55 Demand Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand K;alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 1,000.00 Fixed 1,000.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.56 Fixed 0.56 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 3.08 Fixed 3.08 3.36 Fixed 3.36 0.84 Fixed 0.84 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.40 Fixed 1.40 1.68 Fixed 1.68 0.84 Fixed 0.84 1.68 Fixed 1.68 :Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) Lipper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 516.44 105.03 0.00 514.54 103.43 0.00 510.94 101 .36 0.00 510.50 101 .16 0.00 512.06 100.81 0.00 515.54 103.81 0.00 516.42 104.28 0.00 515.53 103.81 0.00 512.06 100.81 0.00 513.73 103.45 0.00 512.17 102.74 0.00 512.66 102.78 0.00 512.94 102.46 0.00 513.11 102.57 0.00 512.46 101.08 0.00 514.02 102.58 0.00 516.43 105.03 0.00 515.54 103.81 0.00 515.53 103.81 0.00 515.53 103.81 0.00 515.44 104.60 0.00 515.53 104.64 0.00 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING h:\engine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3.1 [071] 11/13/06 01:37:1 o PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 273.55 Demand J-2 275.37 Demand J-3 276.56 Demand HYD-1 276.56 Demand J-5 278.93 Demand J-6 275.48 Demand HYD-2 275.27 Demand J-8 275.48 Demand J-9 278.93 Demand BLDG-3 274.50 Demand BLDG-1 274.58 Demand BLDG-2 274.98 Demand BLDG-4 276.01 Demand BLDG-6 275.92 Demand BLDG-9&12 278.71 Demand BLDG-10&13 276.81 Demand BLDG-8 273.55 Demand BLDG-1 4 275.48 Demand BLDG-11 275.48 Demand BLDG-1 5 275.48 Demand BLDG-5 273.55 Demand BLDG-7 273.55 Demand Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 1,000.00 Fixed 1,000.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0.56 Fixed 0.56 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.68 Fixed 1.68 3.08 Fixed 3.08 1.68 Fixed 1.68 0.84 Fixed 0.84 1.68 Fixed 1.68 1.40 Fixed 1.40 1.68 Fixed 1.68 0.84 Fixed 0.84 1.68 Fixed 1.68 ~alculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) Upper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 516.45 105.04 0.00 516.44 104.25 0.00 516.43 103.73 0.00 516.43 103.73 0.00 515.64 102.36 0.00 514.32 103.28 0.00 514.13 103.29 0.00 514.31 103.28 0.00 515.64 102.36 0.00 516.44 104.62 0.00 516.43 104.59 0.00 516.43 104.41 0.00 516.44 103.97 0.00 516.44 104.01 0.00 515.44 102.37 0.00 514.82 102.92 0.00 515.95 104.82 0.00 514.32 103.28 0.00 514.31 103.28 0.00 514.31 103.28 0.00 516.45 105.04 0.00 516.45 105.04 0.00 Project Engineer: S. M . KLING h:len9ine-11gatewa-4\waterl-1\wtr-1.wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3.1 (071] 11 /13/06 01 :37:15 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 4 SCENARIO RUNS Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-1 255.00 8 PVC P-40 11 .00 8 PVC P-15 117.00 3 PVC P-41 37.00 8 PVC P-5 4.00 8 PVC P-22 99.00 8 PVC P-6 165.00 3 PVC P-26 39.00 3 PVC P-45 36.00 3 PVC P-8 54.00 3 PVC P-34 36.00 3 PVC P-32 110.11 8 PVC P-20 166.00 3 PVC P-19 215.00 3 PVC P-21 79.00 3 PVC P-24 15.00 8 PVC P-25 123.00 8 PVC P-28 168.00 3 PVC P-46 139.00 3 PVC P-36 102.00 3 PVC P-38 37.00 3 PVC P-39 105.00 3 PVC P-43 7.00 8 PVC P-44 53.00 8 PVC h:\en9ine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1 .wed 11/13/06 01 :37:32 PM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 2.03 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.70 150.0 1.67 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.35 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.35 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.40 150.0 0.75 150.0 0.39 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.39 Scenario: AVG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 21 .84 Open Open 7.97 Open Open 2.04 Open Open -11.35 Open Open 4.07 Open Open -5.94 Open Open 4.07 Open Open 4.07 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -7.13 Open Open 4.76 Open Open -7.13 Open Open 1.48 Open Open -1.88 Open Open -0.20 Open Open -7.62 Open Open -9.30 Open Open 0.99 Open Open -2.37 Open Open 3.08 Open Open 1.68 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -12.19 Open Open -13.87 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .51 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .50 521 .50 521.50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .52 521.50 521 .50 521 .52 521 .52 521 .51 521.51 521 .51 521 .52 521 .51 521 .51 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .52 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521.50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .50 521 .52 521.52 521 .52 521 .52 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 0.37e-2 0.61e-4 0.21 e-2 0.18e-3 0.00 0.18e-3 0.01 0.29e-2 0.00 0.01 0.33e-2 0.18e-3 0.16e-2 0.33e-2 0.00 0.00 0.31e-3 0.79e-3 0.34e-2 0.39e-2 0.43e-3 0.00 0.61e-4 0.31e-3 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.49e-2 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.18e-2 0.04 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.32 0.09 0.22 0.17e-2 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.25e-2 0.06 0.47e-2 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.09 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING Cybernet v3.1 (071] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-1 255.00 8 PVC P-40 11 .00 8 PVC P-15 117.00 3 PVC P-41 37.00 8 PVC P-5 4.00 8 PVC P-22 99.00 8 PVC P-6 165.00 3 PVC P-26 39.00 3 PVC P-45 36.00 3 PVC P-8 54.00 3 PVC P-34 36.00 3 PVC P-32 110.11 8 PVC P-20 166.00 3 PVC P-19 215.00 3 PVC P-21 79.00 3 PVC P-24 15.00 8 PVC P-25 123.00 8 PVC P-28 168.00 3 PVC P-46 139.00 3 PVC P-36 102.00 3 PVC P-38 37.00 3 PVC P-39 105.00 3 PVC P-43 7.00 8 PVC P-44 53.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1 .wcd 11/13/06 01 :37:36 PM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 2.03 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.70 150.0 1.67 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.35 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.35 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.40 150.0 0.75 150.0 0.39 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.39 Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 87.36 Open Open 31 .80 Open Open 8.18 Open Open -45.48 Open Open 16.36 Open Open -23.87 Open Open 16.36 Open Open 16.36 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -28.44 Open Open 19.04 Open Open -28.44 Open Open 5.94 Open Open -7.50 Open Open -0.78 Open Open -30.59 Open Open -37.31 Open Open 4.04 Open Open -9.40 Open Open 12.32 Open Open 6.72 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -48.84 Open Open -55.56 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 521 .52 521.47 521.47 521.47 521.46 521.43 521.46 521.47 521.46 521.46 521.46 521.46 521.46 521 .31 521.31 521 .27 521.31 521.31 521 .30 521.47 521.30 521 .26 521.47 521 .47 521.43 521 .41 521.41 521.46 521.41 521.41 521.46 521.46 521.46 521.46 521 .27 521 .26 521 .26 521 .30 521.26 521 .21 521.21 521.20 521 .20 521.20 521.47 521.47 521.47 521.47 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 0.05 0.61e-3 0.03 0.27e-2 0.12e-3 0.2e-2 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.24e-2 0.02 0.04 0.24e-3 0.31 e-3 0.4e-2 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.37e-3 0.43e-2 Friction Velocity Slope (fUs) (fU1 OOOft) 0.19 0.56 0.06 0.20 0.24 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.92 0.74 0.99 0.74 0.00 0.00 3.11 1.29 1.21 0.86 0.02 0.18 0.13 0.27 0.20 0.34 0.31e-2 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.24 0.06 0.18 0.31 0.43 0.49 0.56 0.16 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.31 0.08 0.35 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING Cybernet v3.1 (071] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-1 255.00 8 PVC P-40 11 .00 8 PVC P-15 117.00 3 PVC P-41 37.00 8 PVC P-5 4.00 8 PVC P-22 99.00 8 PVC P-6 165.00 3 PVC P-26 39.00 3 PVC P-45 36.00 3 PVC P-8 54.00 3 PVC P-34 36.00 3 PVC P-32 110.11 8 PVC P-20 166.00 3 PVC P-19 215.00 3 PVC P-21 79.00 3 PVC P-24 15.00 8 PVC P-25 123.00 8 PVC P-28 168.00 3 PVC P-46 139.00 3 PVC P-36 102.00 3 PVC P-38 37.00 3 PVC P-39 105.00 3 PVC P-43 7.00 8 PVC P-44 53.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1 .wcd 11/13/06 01 :37:39 PM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 2.03 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.70 150.0 1.67 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.35 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.35 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.40 150.0 0.75 150.0 0.39 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.39 Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,021 .84 Open Open 69.19 Open Open 49.33 Open Open -950.13 Open Open 942.85 Open Open -897.44 Open Open -57.15 Open Open -57.15 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -68.35 Open Open 4.76 Open Open -68.35 Open Open 48.77 Open Open 45.41 Open Open 47.09 Open Open -899.12 Open Open -900.80 Open Open -60.23 Open Open -63.59 Open Open 3.08 Open Open 1.68 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -950.97 Open Open -952.65 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 521 .52 516.44 516.44 516.43 514.54 513.73 514.54 515.44 510.94 510.50 510.94 512.94 510.50 512.06 512.06 512.46 512.06 512.06 515.54 516.42 515.54 515.54 516.42 516.43 513.73 512.66 512.17 510.94 512.66 512.17 512.94 513.11 513.11 514.54 512.46 514.02 514.02 515.54 515.54 515.53 515.53 515.53 515.53 515.53 515.44 515.53 515.53 516.44 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 5.08 0.29e-2 0.81 0.90 0.44 1.99 1.56 0.41 0.00 0.88 0.33e-2 0.01 1.07 1.23 0.49 0.17 1.43 1.56 1.52 0.38e-2 0.49e-3 0.00 0.09 0.91 Friction Velocity Slope (fUs) (fU1 OOOft) 19.94 6.52 0.26 0.44 6.89 2.24 24.25 6.06 111 .05 6.02 20.14 5.73 9.46 2.59 10.39 2.59 0.00 0.00 16.32 3.10 0.09 0.22 0.11 0.44 6.45 2.21 5.72 2.06 6.22 2.14 11 .58 5.74 11 .63 5.75 9.26 2.73 10.93 2.89 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 12.85 6.07 17.12 6.08 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING Cybernet v3.1 [071) Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-1 255.00 8 PVC P-40 11 .00 8 PVC P-15 117.00 3 PVC P-41 37.00 8 PVC P-5 4.00 8 PVC P-22 99.00 8 PVC P-6 165.00 3 PVC P-26 39.00 3 PVC P-45 36.00 3 PVC P-8 54.00 3 PVC P-34 36.00 3 PVC P-32 110.11 8 PVC P-20 166.00 3 PVC P-19 215.00 3 PVC P-21 79.00 3 PVC P-24 15.00 8 PVC P-25 123.00 8 PVC P-28 168.00 3 PVC P-46 139.00 3 PVC P-36 102.00 3 PVC P-38 37.00 3 PVC P-39 105.00 3 PVC P-43 7.00 8 PVC P-44 53.00 8 PVC h:\en9ine-1 \gatewa-4\waterl-1 \wtr-1. wed 11/13/06 01 :37 :43 PM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 2.03 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.70 150.0 1.67 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.35 150.0 1.67 150.0 0.35 150.0 0.59 150.0 0.40 150.0 0.75 150.0 0.39 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.74 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.00 150.0 0.39 Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,020.16 Open Open 970.68 Open Open 3.39 Open Open -46.96 Open Open 39.68 Open Open -40.20 Open Open 39.68 Open Open 39.68 Open Open 0.00 Open Open 30.16 Open Open 4.76 Open Open -969.84 Open Open 2.83 Open Open -0.53 Open Open 1.15 Open Open -41.88 Open Open -43.56 Open Open 36.60 Open Open 34.92 Open Open 3.08 Open Open 1.68 Open Open 0.00 Open Open -47.80 Open Open -49.48 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 521 .52 516.45 516.45 515.95 516.44 516.44 516.44 516.45 516.43 516.43 516.43 516.44 516.43 515.64 515.64 515.44 515.64 515.64 514.32 514.13 514.32 514.32 514.13 515.95 516.44 516.43 516.43 516.43 516.43 516.43 516.44 516.44 516.44 516.44 515.44 514.82 514.82 514.32 514.32 514.31 514.31 514.31 514.31 514.31 516.45 516.45 516.45 516.45 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 5.07 0.50 0.01 0.29e-2 0.85e-3 0.01 0.79 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.33e-2 1.82 0.01 0.24e-3 0.49e-3 0.61 e-3 0.01 0.62 0.50 0.39e-2 0.43e-3 0.00 0.37e-3 0.35e-2 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 19.88 6.51 45.32 6.20 0.05 0.15 0.08 0.30 0.21 0.25 0.05 0.26 4.79 1.80 5.23 1.80 0.00 0.00 3.47 1.37 0.09 0.22 16.52 6.19 0.03 0.13 0.11e-2 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.28 3.68 1.66 3.58 1.58 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.31 0.07 0.32 Project Engineer: S. M. KLING Cybernet v3. 1 [071) Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 5 CALCULATIONS e DOMESTIC DEMAND: • . AVG.'DAILY 100 GPO/PERSON (TABLE 1-B/CS UNIFIED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DOMESTIC WATER) 4 BEDROOMS/CONDO UNIT 4 PERSONS/UNIT AVG. DAILY=(100 GPO/PERSON* 4 PEOPLE/UNIT) I 24 HR./DAY I 60 MIN./HR. 400 GPO/UNIT 0.28 GPM/UNIT PEAK HOURLY=AVG. DAILY * 4 1.11 GPM/UNIT AVG. DAILY PEAK HOURLY BUILDING# UNITS/BUILDING (GPM) (GPM) 1 6 1.67 6.67 2 6 1.67 6.67 3 2 0.56 2.22 4 6 1.67 6.67 5 3 0.83 3.33 6 6 1.67 6.67 7 6 1.67 6.67 8 3 0.83 3.33 9 6 1.67 6.67 10 6 1.67 6.67 11 5 1.39 5.56 12 5 1.39 5.56 13 6 1.67 6.67 14 6 1.67 6.67 15 6 1.67 6.67 FIRE DEMAND: 1000 GPM PER FIRE HYDRANT