Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP2015-000004 - Drainage Analysis• CAPSTONE COLLEGIATE COMMUNITY C3 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT & JUNCTION BOYS ROAD DRAINAGE ANALYSIS April 2015 PREPARED FOR: AMANDA WALLIS CAPSTONE-CS, LLC 431 OFFICE PARK DR IVE BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35223 Submitted to COLLEGE TAT! N the hean of tht Rmarch VaLley By MITCHELL MM MORGAN ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 3204 EARL RUDDER FREEWAY SOUTH COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 OFFICE (979) 260-6963 FAX (979) 260-3564 - CERTIFICATION This report for the drainage design for the Capstone Collegiate Community C3 Phase 1 Development and Junction Boys Road was prepared under my supervision in accordance w ith provisions of the Bryan/College Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improvements have been issued. ,,._,...,,,,,,,,, ..:--~ ~ OF 1"€: ''' -"'"" .... .. .. ~-1. ,,, _"'-, "*"·· , --J •• . •• IS' ; • ..... · ... if,, s*... ..._ *~ ~ ................................ : ..... ~ if. VERONICA J.B . MORGAN ~ ~-····:···························:·····I! \ l\ 77689 /$; 'I. Q \.~ <:>/kl,;;' lit ~· .. ~GtsTE~~ .. &~ .=' . ''',~fjoNAL~-/-t:D %f-/443 Veronica J .B. Morgan , P.E., C.F.M. '""'..,. f \A'.-;Vvl Registered Professional Engineer State of Texas No . 77689 Capstone Collegiate Community C3 Development -Phase 1 & Junction Boys Road Drainage Analysis INTRODUCTION The purpose of this drainage report is to present an analysis of the necessary drainage infrastructure for the proposed Capstone Collegiate Community C3 Phase 1 Development. The new multi-family residential site will be located in south College Station , just south of the Cottages of College Station on Holleman Drive and the new extension of Junction Boys Road. This drainage report provides analysis for the infrastructure required to facilitate attenuation and removal of onsite flow from this multi-family project. The report includes the analysis of the 8 .05 acre property (5.811 acres -Phase 1 and 2 .24 acres -Junction Boys Road) and surrounding properties that drain to and through this tract. GENERAL LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The C3 Phase 1 development will be located in College Station, Texas , south of the Holleman Drive and Market Street intersection . The site is currently undeveloped . The development is situated at the top of the White Creek Drainage Basin . An overall site plan for the project can be seen on Exhibit 1. The project will final plat and construct Junction Boys Road as part of the development. Once Junction Boys Road is complete, the site will gain full driveway access from Junction Boys Road as well as an exit driveway on Dowling Road . The proposed development includes a clubhouse , amenities , as well as an assortment of cottage buildings , duplexes, fourplexes and townhouse units . All underground utilities , paving and buildings on the site will be constructed with a staggered construction start with Junction Boys Road going first , Phase 1 second and Phase 2 third . It is the intent to obtain certificate of occupancies for all portions of the project at the same time and not by phase . Underground stormwater systems will be used to convey runoff from the Phase 1 site to Junction Boys Road and then to an existing irrigation pond which will act as a dual purpose irrigation and retention pond for the project. Junction Boys Road will contain its own stormwater system which will discharge into this pond along with Phase 1. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA All drainage design is in accordance with the Bryan/College Station USDG . As such: • Design rainstorm events cons ist of the 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-and 100-year, 24 hour duration hypothetical frequency storm events in order to analyze the effectiveness of the detention facilities as well as capture conservative peak flow values. • Flow calculations are based on the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number Loss Method. Curve Numbers are based on soil type and land use in the subbasins and impervious cover data was used to calculate percent impervious . Caps ton e Collegiate Community -C3 Phase 1 Developm ent & Junction Boys Road Drainage Report PRIMARY DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION The proposed project site is located within the White Creek Drainage Basin . As demonstrated in Exhibit 2.1, the property does contain regulatory 100-year floodplain on the Unnamed Tributary of Whites Creek per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 0305F , with an effective date of April 2 , 2014. STORMWATER RUNOFF ANALYSIS ON-SITE STORM SEWER SYSTEM Pre-Development Drainage Basin The pre-development analysis for the C3 development consisted of 3 drainage basins (See Exhibit 3). These basins were used to create the drainage area divides and compute flows to the one study point located at discharge into the westerly corner of the irrigation pond . Site Plan Post-Development Drainage Basin The development of the cottage , duplex and townhome style residential buildings will result in a significant addition of impervious cover and a larger peak runoff rate from the site. The post - development analysis of the C3 -Phase 1 and Junction Boys Road project includes 12.99 acres of drainage basins as seen in Exhibit 4.1. This area is larger than the site and right-of- way area because of some offsite flows from the Cottages and Phase 2 that are contributing to this storm sewer system . All subbasins will drain through a proposed stormsewer system to the irrigation pond . Storm sewer infrastructure was sized based on rational method flows determined from the defined proposed drainage areas . Exhibit 4.2 illustrates the site storm sewer locations as well as the inlets that pick up the drainage from each of the drainage basins . Exhibit 5 illustrates the drainage areas and the runoff contributing from each area based upon the Rational Method for each of the various storm events . Exhibits 6.1 & 6.2 show the pipe sizes calculated using the runoff from each of these drainage areas for the 10-year and 100- year storm events respectively . These exhibits also illustrate the outfall velocities at each outfall for the 10-and 100-year events . The outfall into the pond has a velocity less than 10 fps and the grading plans contain rock rubble at this outfall to help dissipate this energy . Please note that Drainage Areas DA-P11 and DA-P11 .1 do not contribute to the pond but rather to the ditch along Dowling Road and are used to s ize the 2 driveway/roadway culverts that we have along Dowling Road . This drainage continues east along Dowling Road to Holleman where it turns and heads south toward Bee Creek . These drainage areas do not have any increased runoff because the project does not drain in that direction . Capacity calculations were performed for the 10 & 100-year storm events to size the proposed curb and grate inlets . Peak runoff rates were calculated using the Rational Method (Exhibit 5) and this information was used for sizing. All curb inlets will be standard 5', 10 ' and 15 ' inlets , sized for the 10-year event. Grates were sized as well for the 10 -year event and the results can be seen in Exhibits 7.1 and 7.2 . As seen on these exhibits , the ponded water surface elevation for the 100-year storm event is calculated at each of these inlets and is lower than the top of the recessed inlet or less than 6" for the grates , as applicable. Please refer to partial grading plans (Exhibits 9.1-9.2) to see the grading in the areas around each inlet and where the ponded areas will occur at each inlet. Hydraulic grade lines (HG L's) were calculated for the storm sewer system for the 10 and 100- year storm event. Exhibits 8.1 & 8.2 show the HGL 's for all storm sewer pipes . Tailwater Capston e Collegia te Co mmu nity -C3 Ph ase 1 Develop ment & Jun ction Boys Road Dra ina ge Report 2 elevations for the storm sewer system were based upon the projected 10-year and 100-year water surface elevations in the irrigation pond for each storm event. As seen on Exhibits 8.1 and 8.2 all HGL elevations throughout the pipe system are less than the gutter grade of the inlet or the top of grate , as applicable. CONCLUSION Although the development of the new C3 Phase 1 and Junction Boys Road project will significantly increase volume of runoff from the site , a retention pond system designed with Phase 2 of the project will accommodate this increase in runoff. This will be demonstrated with the Phase 2 Drainage Report . With this report, it can be confirmed that the stormwater system designed for the C3 Phase 1 and Junction Boys Road project which will discharge into the retention pond system has been correctly designed to meet all ordinance requirements. Capstone Collegiate Community-C3 Phase 1 Development & Junction Boys Road Drainage Report 3 ATTACHMENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1: EXHIBIT 2 .1: EXHIBIT 3 : EXHIBIT 4.1 : EXHIBIT 4.2 : EXHIBIT 5 : EXHIBIT 6 .1: EXHIBIT 6 .2 : EXHIBIT 7.1 : EXHIBIT 7 .2 : EXHIBIT 8.1 : EXHIBIT 8 .2 : EXHIBIT 9.1 : EXHIBIT 9 .2 : EXHIBIT 10 .1: EXHIBIT 10.2: EXHIBIT 10.3: C3 -Phase 1 Overall Site Plan FIRMette -FEMA Map Panel 0305C (Effective April , 2014) Existing Site Drainage Areas Proposed Site Drainage Areas Proposed Storm Drain Location Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations Pipe Capacity Calculations -10-Year Storm Pipe Capacity Calculations -100-Year Storm Grate/Curb Inlet Capacity Calculations -10-Year Storm Grate/Curb Inlet Capacity Calculations -100-Year Storm HGL Calculations -10 -Year Storm HGL Calculations -100-Year Storm Partial Site Grading Plan Partial Site Grading Plan Storm Drain 1 -Phase 1 Plan & Profile Storm Drain 2 -Phase 1 Plan & Profile Storm Drain 1 -Junction Boys Road Ca pston e Co llegiate Commun ity -C3 Ph ase 1 Development & Jun ction Boys Road Drainage Report 4 < w ei:: < < c c w w z w .... C) ei:: :5 0.. z < < < 0 w u -' (/) -' :::!: -' z < (/) w w ~ ~ ~ .... > ~ 0 w 0 c .... C) c 0.. .... NO. AC . 0.40 0.7 0.95 P01 0.25 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.14 ..... ,, na!'i nnn nnn na!'i 0.90 P03 0.29 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.20 P04 0.51 0 .25 0.00 0.25 0.34 P05 0.89 0.00 0.00 0 .89 0.85 "'"' 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.11 P07 0 .66 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.63 ....... 0:2·1 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.13 P09 0 .63 0.25 0.00 0.38 0.46 P10 0 .15 0.11 nnn nn!'i nnR P11 1.29 1.03 0.00 0.26 0.66 P1 1.1 0.36 0.25 0.00 0.11 0.21 P12 1.72 0.35 0.00 1.38 1.45 P13 0.98 0.20 0.00 0:78 0.82 P14 2.25 0.34 0.00 1.9 1 1.95 P14.1 ORR 0.17 nnn nRa 0.72 P15 0.83 0.17 0.00 0.66 0.69 EXHIBIT 5 Rational Formu la Drainage Area Calculations C3 DE V ELOP MENT :: :: 0 0 :: :: -' -' u. u. 0 0 c c -' -' z z u. u. ~ :5 ~ :5 ei:: J: ei:: u " w .... w .... " ei:: C) ei:: -' ~ C) ~ -' 0 .... u Wz w -' ::::> as ::::> -' -' n; w >w >< C) i'.i': w (/) N 0 -' 0 u. C) -' > u ::::> !::! 0 ft . ft . ft. ft . ft/s min min In/Hr cfs 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 .4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10A 0.0 10.0 6.33 5.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 1.3 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1n .4 nn 1nn R '.-1'1 77 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 5.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6.33 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6.33 4 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6.33 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 nn rnn 6.33 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6 .33 4.2 1.0 1.0 .1.0 1.0 10.4 00 rnn R<i<i 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6.33 9.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6 .33 5.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 12 .3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10.0 6 .33 4 .6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 0.0 10 .0 6.33 4.4 Exhibit 5 0 0 Ii) 0 0 0 0 0 Ii) a 0 Ii) 0 0 ~ !::! !!! 0 !: In/Hr cf~ In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 8 .6 1.2 9.9 1.4 11.1 1.6 12.5 1.7 8 .6 7.8 9.9 8 .9 11.1 10.0 12.5 11.2 8.6 1.7 9.9 2.0 11.1 2.2 12.5 2.5 RR <in QQ '1.4 11.1 'IR 17 !'i .4'1 8.6 7.3 9.9 8.3 11 .1 9.4 12.5 10 .6 8.6 0.9 9.9 1.1 11.1 1.2 12.5 1.3 8 .6 5.4 9.9 6.2 11 .1 7.0 12.5 7.8 8 .6 1.1 9.9 ·1.3 11 .1 1.5 12.5 1:7 8.6 4 .0 9.9 4 .5 11.1 5.1 12.5 5.7 RR 0.7 QQ 0.8 11 .1 0.9 12.5 11 8 .6 5.7 9.9 6.5 11.1 7.4 12.5 8 .3 8.6 1.8 QQ 20 11.1 2.3 17" 7R 8.6 12.5 9.9 14.3 11.1 16 .1 12.5 18.1 8.6 7.1 9.9 8 .1 11.1 9.2 12.5 10.3 8.6 16 .8 9 .9 19 .2 11 .1 21.7 12.5 24.4 8 .6 6.3 9.9 7 .1 11 .1 8 .1 12.5 9.1 8.6 6.0 9 .9 6 .8 11 .1 7.7 12 .5 8.7 e < 0 ~ -u Q z ~ .... g ~ 00 ~ = ~ ~ t=.ll g ·;; 0 0 Col Q,) ~ ~ ~ ~ # # Ac. min yr ~ ,_ IN01 IN02 0 .14 10.0 10 IN02 IN05 1.04 10 .7 10 IN03 IN04 0 .20 10.0 10 IN04 IN05 0 .65 10.9 10 IN05 IN07 2.53 11.6 10 IN06 IN04 0 .11 10.0 10 IN07 IN09A 3.29 11 .9 10 IN08 IN07 0 .13 10 .0 10 IN09A IN09B 3.29 12.6 10 IN09B IN10 3 .75 12 .9 10 IN10 JB01 3 .83 13 .2 10 IN11 P11.1 0 .66 10.0 10 IN11 .1 out1 0 .86 10.5 10 IN12 IN13 1.45 10.0 10 IN13 JB02 2.27 10.1 10 IN14 IN15 0.72 10.0 10 IN15 OUT8 9.47 13.9 10 JB01 JB02 5 .78 13.5 10 JB02 I IN15 8 .05 13.8 10 EXHIBIT6.1 Pipe Capacity Calculations C3 DEVELOPMENT 10-year Design Storm Q,) Q,) Q,, Q,, ~ ~ Q Q,) 00 Q,) Q,, -Q,, ~ Q,) = Q .... ~ .~ 00 Q ~ .... Q,) Col = Q ·.: Cl. -~ z J;i;;.i J;i;;.i # cfs % % 1 1.5 0.18 0 .500 1 10 .9 1.06 1.300 1 2 .1 0.36 0 .500 1 6 .7 0.41 0 .500 1 20 .5 0.25 0 .500 1 1.2 0 .10 0 .500 1 26.4 0.41 0 .500 1 1.4 0 .05 0 .500 1 25.6 0 .39 0 .500 1 28.9 0 .49 0 .500 1 29 .3 0 .51 0.500 1 7 .1 0.46 0 .900 1 9.1 0.75 0 .900 1 15 .6 0.47 0 .750 1 24.4 1.15 1.200 1 7.8 0.55 1.000 1 70 .7 0.24 1.000 1 43.8 0.43 0 .500 1 60 .2 0 .17 0 .400 ~ N ..... 00 in. 12 18 12 18 30 12 30 15 30 30 30 18 18 24 24 18 48 36 48 - Exhibit 6 .1 Q,) s .e-= ~ "C ~ = ·o ~ ~ ~ ~ C'S z > @ Cl. C'S ~ C'S ~ -Col u ~ ~ ~ fps cfs ft. min min 3 .2 2 .5 139 0 .72 10 .72 6 .8 12 .0 215 0 .53 11 .25 3 .2 2 .5 179 0.93 10.93 4.2 7.4 164 0 .65 11.58 5 .9 29 .1 114 0 .32 11 .90 3 .2 2 .5 70 0 .36 10.36 5 .9 29 .1 263 0 .74 12.64 3.7 4 .6 132 0.59 10.59 5.9 29 .1 97 0.27 12.91 5 .9 29 .1 97 0 .27 13 .18 5.9 29 .1 110 0 .31 13.49 5.7 10 .0 175 0.52 10 .52 5 .7 10 .0 175 0.52 11 .03 6 .3 19 .6 55 0.15 10 .15 7.9 24 .8 255 0.54 10 .68 6 .0 10 .5 48 0.13 10 .13 11.5 144.0 30 0.04 13.94 6.7 47 .3 133 0.33 13 .82 7 .2 91 .1 33 0.08 13.90 < 0 ~ u z ~ g ~ ~ < ~ ~ g 0 0 y ~ ~ ~ # # Ac. min ~ ,_ IN01 IN02 0.14 10.0 IN02 IN05 1.04 10.7 IN03 IN04 0 .20 10 .0 IN04 IN05 0 .65 10.9 IN05 IN07 2.53 11 .6 IN06 IN04 0 .11 10.0 IN07 IN09A 3.29 11.9 IN08 IN07 0 .13 10.0 IN09A IN09B 3 .29 12.6 IN09B IN10 3.75 12 .9 IN10 JB01 3.83 13.2 IN11 P11 .1 0.66 10.0 IN11 .1 out1 0.86 10.5 IN12 IN13 1.45 10.0 IN13 JB02 2.27 10.1 IN14 IN15 0 .72 10 .0 IN15 OU T 8 9.47 13.9 JB01 JB02 5 .78 13.5 JB02 IN15 8 .05 13.8 EXHIBIT6.2 Pipe Capacity Calculations C3 DEVELOPMENT 100-year Design Storm e ~ ~ Q, Q. "' <I.I ~ Q Q ~ -~ .... Q. "' 00 Q, 00 ~ ~ = Q = i:i.. .s -.... 00 ~ Q ~ .... ~ ·;; y Q Q ·c Q, ~ r;:; ·-~ z ~ i:i.. yr # cfs % % 100 1 2 .2 0 .37 0.500 100 1 15.8 2 .24 1.300 100 1 3.1 0 .76 0 .500 100 1 9 .8 0 .86 0.500 100 1 29.9 0.53 0 .500 100 1 1.7 0.22 0.500 100 1 38 .3 0 .87 0 .500 100 1 2 .1 0.10 0 .500 100 1 37.4 0 .82 0 .500 100 1 42.2 1.05 0 .500 100 1 42.7 1.08 0 .500 100 1 10.3 0 .96 0 .900 100 1 13.3 1.59 0 .900 100 1 22 .7 1.00 0.750 100 1 35 .3 2 .43 1.200 100 1 11 .3 1.16 1.000 100 1 103.1 0 .51 1.000 100 1 63 .8 0 .91 0 .500 ~ t::= 00 in. 12 18 12 18 30 12 30 15 30 30 30 18 18 24 24 18 48 36 100 1 87 .9 0 .37 0 .400 ~ Exhibit 6.1- ~ e .e-. = ~ "Cl ~ = ·i::; ~ C,!) ~ ~ ~ z > @ Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ "' y u ~ ~ ~ fps cfs ft. min min 3 .2 2 .5 139 0 .72 10 .72 6.8 12.0 215 0 .53 11.25 3 .2 2.5 179 0 .93 10 .93 4 .2 7.4 164 0 .65 11.58 5 .9 29 .1 114 0 .32 11.90 3 .2 2 .5 70 0 .36 10 .36 5 .9 29 .1 263 0.74 12.64 3.7 4 .6 132 0 .59 10.59 5 .9 29.1 97 0.27 12.91 5.9 29 .1 97 0 .27 13.18 5.9 29.1 110 0 .31 13.49 5 .7 10 .0 175 0 .52 10 .52 5.7 10.0 175 0 .52 11 .03 6 .3 19.6 55 0 .15 10.15 7.9 24.8 255 0 .54 10 .68 6.0 10.5 48 0 .13 10 .13 11.5 144.0 30 0 .04 13.94 6.7 47 .3 133 0 .33 13.82 7.2 91 .1 33 0 .08 13.90 EXHIBIT7.1 C3 DEVELOPMENT INLET CAPACITY 10 -YEAR STORM SUMP CURB (RecessedU10 vear stonnl Dra i nage In let Q (cfs) Q clogged y• Length of Inlet Area (10 %) (ft) Need ed (ft) P09 IN09B 3 .96 4 .36 0 .83 1.92 P12 IN12 12.50 13 .74 0 .83 6.06 P13 IN13 7.11 7.82 0 .83 3.45 P14 .1 IN14 6 .25 6 .88 0 .83 3.03 P15 IN15 5.98 6.58 0 .83 2.90 Note• Recessed inlets curb open ing = Height of curb +de pression y = 6"+4 "=equal 10" SUMP GRATE (10 yearstonnl Drainage In let Q (cfs) Q clogged h Open Area Area (25 %1 (ft} Needed fft2 l P01 IN 0 1 1.20 1.50 0.5 0.44 P02 IN 02 7.75 9 .69 0.5 2.84 P03 IN03 1.71 2.14 0.5 0 .63 P04 IN04 2 .96 3.70 0.5 1.09 P05 IN05 7.30 9 .13 0.5 2 .68 P06 IN 06 0 .92 1.1 5 0.5 0 .34 P07 IN 07 5.40 6 .75 0.5 1.98 P08 IN08 1.15 1.43 0 .5 0.42 P09 IN09A 3.96 4 .95 0.5 1.45 P10 IN10 0.73 0 .9 1 0.5 0 .27 Length of inlet Selected (ft) 5 10 5 5 5 SUMP CURB: Q = 3.o•L•y'1 .5 L= Q/(3 .0•y'1 .5) Grate Inl et Open Area Calculated Selected Sel ected (ft2) h (ft) • V57 18 1.06 0 .09 • V5732 3.40 0.35 • V57 18 1.06 0.18 • V5724-1 1.86 0.17 • V5732 3.4 0 0 .31 • V571 8 1.06 0 .05 • V5732 3.4 0 0 .17 • V571 8 1.06 0 .08 • V5724-1 1.86 0 .30 • V5718 1.06 0 .03 SUMP GRATE: Q = 4 .82•A•h '0 .5 A= 01(4 .82.y'0.5) EXHIBIT7.2 C3 DEVELOPMENT INLET CAPACITY 100-YEAR STORM WSE SUMP CURB 1Recessedll100 vear storm! Drai nage Q clogged Length of Inlet Area Inlet Q (cfs) (10 %) Selected (ft) P09 IN098 5.74 6 .32 5 P12 IN12 18 .13 19 .94 10 P13 IN13 10 .31 11 .34 5 P14 .1 IN14 9.07 9 .97 5 P15 IN 15 8.68 9 .55 5 SUMP CURB: Q = 3.o•L •y•1 .5 L= Q/(3 .o•y•1 .5) SUMP GRATE 1Recessed11100 \ear storm) Dra i nag e Q clogged Grate Inlet Ca lculated "y " (ft) 0 .56 0 .76 0 .83 0 .76 0 .74 Open Area Area Inlet Q (cfs) (25 %) Selected Selected fft2l P01 IN0 1 1.74 2 .18 ·v57 18 1.06 P02 IN02 11 .25 14 .06 • V5732 3.40 P03 IN03 2.49 3 .11 'V5718 1.06 P04 IN 04 4 .30 5 .37 • V5724-1 1.86 P05 IN 05 10 .59 13.24 • V5732 3.40 P06 IN 06 1.34 1.67 'V5718 1.06 PO? IN 07 7.83 9 .79 • V5732 3.40 P08 IN 08 1.66 2 .08 • V5718 1.06 P09 IN 09A 5.74 7 .18 'V5724-1 1.86 P10 IN1 0 1.06 1.33 'V5718 1.06 • East Jord an Inlet Catalog# SUMP GRATE: Q = 4 .82.Nh'0.5 A= Q/(4 .82•y•0.5) Flowll ne at Top of Inlet WSE Recessed Curb Inlet 326 .85 327.41 327 .68 327 .82 328 .58 328 .65 327 .82 328 .65 328 .65 324 .54 325 .30 325 .37 324 .54 325 .28 325 .37 Flowllne at Calculated WSE Inlet h (ft) 336 .15 0.18 336 .33 335.15 0.74 335 .89 334 .37 0.37 334 .74 332 .5 0.36 332 .86 331 .59 0.65 332 .2 4 331 .7 1 0.11 33 1.82 330 .3 0 .36 33 0 .66 331 0 .17 331 .17 329 .53 0.64 330 .17 327 .65 0.07 327 .72 .... c: "' E Cl "' (/) "' c. ii: Storm Drain SD-1(PHASE11 IN01 I IN02 IN02 I IN05 IN05 I IN07 IN0 7 I IN09A IN09A I IN09B IN09B I IN10 IN10 I JB01 Storm Drain SD-2(PHASE11 IN08 I IN07 Storm Drain SD-3(PHASE11 IN03 I IN04 IN04 I IN05 Storm Drain SD-4 (PHASE 1 I IN06 I IN04 Storm Drain SD-1 (JBRI IN12 I IN13 IN13 I JB02 JB02 I IN15 IN15 I OUTS Storm Drain SD-1 fJBRJ IN 14 I IN15 Storm Drain SD-1 fJBRI JB01 I JB02 £ ~e ·-.. 0.."' .J !; u. "' c. :::> 330 .60 328 .71 325 .53 324 .54 321 .20 320 .17 319.49 326 .64 329 .79 327 .50 328 .53 323 .83 323 .33 318 .31 317 .64 320 .26 318 .83 g "' E c. .. a: ~ .J "' u. c: ~ 0 329 .21 326 .53 324 .64 323 .77 320 .27 319 .59 318 .83 325 .90 328 .00 326 .53 328 .00 323.43 320 .27 317 .64 317 .57 319 .74 318.41 g .<: c, c: ., .J 138.6 217 .8 118.0 104.0 154.5 96.5 109.7 98.1 179.4 129.4 70 .1 54.4 255 .1 167.2 7.0 52.3 84.2 0.0100 0.0100 0 .0075 0 .0074 0 .0060 0 .0060 0 .0060 0 .0075 0.0100 0.0075 0 .0076 0 .0074 0 .0120 0 .0040 0 .0101 0 .0099 0.0050 EXHIBITB.1 C3 DEVELOPMENT-PHASE 1 10-YEAR HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CALCULATIONS 12 1.2 0.0011 18 8 .7 0.0068 30 20 .5 0.0025 30 26 .4 0.0041 30 25 .6 0.0039 30 28 .9 0.0049 30 29 .3 0.0051 15 1.1 0.0003 12 1.7 0.0023 18 5.4 0.0026 12 0.9 0.0006 24 12.5 0.0030 24 19.5 0.0074 48 60.2 0.0017 48 70.7 0.0024 24 6 .3 0.0008 36 43 .8 0.0043 0.1564 1.4859 0.2932 0.4286 0.5984 0.4763 0.5566 0.0283 0.4062 0.3401 0.0445 0.1652 1.8852 0 .2922 0.0168 0.0404 0.3613 .<: Q. ., o~ -~ .. ~ E 0 z 0.40 1.04 1.36 1.61 1.70 1.87 1.89 0.38 0.49 0.83 0.37 1.17 1.34 2 .38 1.98 0.72 2.29 329.91 328 .38 326 .45 324 .23 323 .80 323 .20 322 .73 326 .18 330 .50 330 .09 330 .14 324 .83 323 .69 321 .81 321 .52 321 .56 322 .17 £ >--"' e .0 g' .. .J ·-., tr\ c !::; '-' c: "' :I: .. c: ~it 0 0 -E .... E ., ~ ~ 0 .... z ~~ >-:::> ~ .0 .<: .J .... (!) c. :I:~ 329 .75 331 .00 329 .61 331 .00 329 .75 t-----t----~11-----1-------. 326 .89 329 .75 327 .57 329 .75 327 .57 t-------+----·11----1-------'I 326 . 15 1---3--2_6_.8_9+--__ 3_2_6_. o_o,11 __ 3_2 __ 6_.8_9 __ 3_2--6_. 1-15 323 .80 326 .15 325 .38 326 .15 325 .38 t-----t-----11----1-------. 323 .20 322 .90 321 .97 323 .80 323 .20 322 . 731---3,.-,2....,2...,. 0-4+----,3....,2_1 _.4~6 11--3,-.,2....,3"".2'""0--3.,-2'""2"". 7,..,-13 322 .17 321 .38 320 .72 322 .73 322 .17 326 .15 327 .02 326 .28 327 .02 326 .28 330 .09 330 .28 328.49 330 .50 330 .09 t-----t-----11----1-------. 329 . 75 328 .33 327 .36 330 .09 329 . 75 330 .09 328 .90 328 .37 330 .14 330 .09 324 .67 325 .00 324 .60 325 .00 324 .67 t-----t-----1 1----~------. 321 .81 324 .67 321 .61 324 .67 321 .81 321 . 52 1---3,...,2....,0"".6'""9+---...,3....,2~0 ....,. 0~2 11--3,...,2-1 "". s-1·1--.,-32,...1-. 5,..,-12 321 .50 319 .62 319 .55 321 .52 321 .50 321 .52 320 .98 320.46 321 .56 321 .52 321 .81 321 .12 320 .70 322 .17 321 .81 ;: ., E Cl ., Cl) ~ i:i: Storm Drain SD-1fPHASE1J IN01 I IN02 IN02 I IN05 IN05 I IN07 IN07 I IN09A IN09A I IN09B IN09B I IN10 IN10 I JB01 Storm Drain SD-2 f PHASE 1 J IN08 I IN07 Storm Drain SD-3 f PHASE 1 J IN03 I IN04 IN04 I IN05 Storm Drain SD-4(PHASE1J IN06 I IN04 Storm Drain SD-1 (JBRJ IN12 I IN1 3 IN13 I JB02 JB02 I IN15 IN15 I OUT8 Storm Drain SD-1 (JBRJ IN 14 I IN15 Storm Drain SD-1 fJBRJ JB01 I JB02 g ~E ·-"' Cl. ., ...J !:; LI."' a. :::> 330.60 328.71 325 .53 324 .54 321 .20 320.17 319.49 326.64 329.79 327 .50 328.53 323 .83 323 .33 318.31 317.64 320.26 318.83 g ., E a. "' i:i: ~ ...J"' LI. ~ 0 c 329.21 326.53 324 .64 323.77 320.27 319.59 318.83 325.90 328.00 326.53 328.00 323.43 320.27 317.64 317.57 319.74 318.41 g .c. Ci c: ., ...J 138.6 217 .8 118.0 104.0 154.5 96 .5 109.7 98 .1 179.4 129.4 ~ ., a. 0 iii 0 .0100 0 .0100 0 .0075 0 .0074 0 .0060 0 .0060 0 .0060 0 .0075 0 .0100 0 .0075 70 .1 0 .0076 54 .4 0 .0074 255 .1 0 .0120 167.2 0 .0040 7 .0 0 .0101 52.3 0 .0099 84 .2 0 .0050 EXHIBITB.2 CJ DEVELOPMENT -PHASE 1 100-YEAR HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CALCULATIONS .c. a. ., c~ -~ "'~ E 0 z 12 1.7 0 .0023 0 .3140 0.49 18 12.6 0 .0143 3 .1168 1.50 30 29.9 0 .0053 0 .6238 1.75 30 38.3 0 .0087 0 .9020 2 .50 30 37.4 0 .0083 1 .2772 2 .50 30 42.2 0 .0105 1 .0157 2 .50 30 42.7 0 .0108 1 .1821 2 .50 15 1.7 0 .0007 0 .0676 0.47 12 2 .5 0 .0049 0 .8784 0 .62 18 7 .8 0.0055 0 .7095 1 .07 12 1.3 0 .0013 0 .0928 0.45 24 18.1 0 .0064 0 .3463 1 .53 24 28.3 0 .0156 3 .9707 2 .00 48 87 .9 0 .0037 0 .6229 3 .16 48 103 .1 0 .0051 0 .0357 2 .50 24 9 .1 0 .0016 0 .0842 0 .88 36 63 .8 0 .0091 0 .7666 3 .00 331 .86 331 .54 328.43 327.80 326.90 325.62 324.61 327.87 333.13 332.25 332.34 326.98 326.63 322 .66 322.04 322.12 323.43 ~ >--"' E' .c g> ta ...J ·-., "' c.; ...... c:"' :r:"' c: ::!: 3: 0 c - E "'"' E ., ~ ~ o-z~~ >-:::> ~ ..0 .c. ...J -(!) a. :r: ~ 331 . 54 1--_3_3_1_. 0_9+-__ 3_2_9 _. 7_011--3'-3_1_. 8-'-6.f-_3_3c_1_. 5-14 328.43 330.21 328.03 331 .54 328.43 >------+----11-----------.1 327.80 327 .28 326 .39 328 .43 327.80 1-----+----11----+----I 326.90 327.04 326.27 327.80 326 .90 >------+----11------------t 325.62 323.70 322.77 326.90 325 .62 324 .61 1--3""'2,_,2...,.6"'7+--...,3,..,2-,-2...,. o-9i1--3'""'2'°"5...,. 6...,2-1--3.,...2,...4-. 6-11 323.43 321 .99 321 .33 324.61 323.43 327.80 327.11 326.37 327.87 327 .80 332.25 330.41 328.62 333.13 332 .25 331 .54 f--.,3,..,2...,8~. 5=7 t----,3...,2~7 . ...,6-c10 1--...,3_,3...,2 ...,.2~51---3-3--'1 -,. 5,.-14 332.25 328.98 328.45 332.34 332 .25 326.63 f--3'-=2-'-5-'. 3-'-6 t-----'3-=24-".-'-9641---'3.=2c:.6 ;..:.. 9..:..81--_3:..;:2;..:.6;..;;.6~3 322.66 325.33 322.27 326.63 322 .66 >------+----11-----------.1 322.04 321 .47 320.80 322.66 322.04 322. oo 1---3,...2...,0-. 1~4+--...,3...,2-0 ...,. 0~7i1--3'""'2'""2-. o-'-4-t---'32""'2'-. 0-10 322.04 321 .14 320.62 322.12 322 .04 322.66 321 .83 321.41 323 .43 322 .66 WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates Stephen Jones Survey, A-27 College Station, Brazos County, Texas March, 2007 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering & Surveying 4101 Texas Ave., Suite A Bryan, Texas77802 (9 79) 846-6212 I I I I PURPO SE: WATER D ESIGN REP ORT Bradley Estates Stephen Jones Survey, A-27 College Station, Brazos County, Texas March, 2007 The purpose ofthis report is to analyze the proposed water distribution system for Bradley Estates. This report will verify lines sizes necessary to serve the proposed improvements under average daily, peak hourly, and fire flow demands. The proposed development includes 14 residential lots between two and fi ve acres each, with approximately 2,564 LF of 8" PVC waterline . Additionally, four fire hydrants are proposed for the development. This report is being conducted in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guideline Manual for Domestic Water. WATE R DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 2 SERVICE AREA: The service area is defined by the location of the proposed development. The site is accessed by White 's Creek Road , which intersects FM 60 (refer to Appendix 1 -"Vicinity Map "). The proposed water distribution system will be routed parallel to White's Creek Road in a 20' Public Utility Easement. The existing system is a Brushy Creek water district waterline , and is supervised and managed by Wellborn Special Utility District (SUD). Therefore the proposed system will be part ofthis Wellborn SUD . The proposed 8" PVC waterline will connect to an existing 12" PVC waterline that runs parallel to White 's Creek Road to the southeast then turns 90 ° to the northeast and runs parallel to the Texas A&M private drive (refer to the exhibit on the preceding page). The proposed water distribution system will supply domestic water and fire water to Bradley Estates. WATER DISTRIBUTION DESIGN CRITERIA: The proposed system will connect to an existing 12" PVC waterline at the intersection of White 's Creek Road and the Texas A&M private dri ve. The analysis starts at this connection point. The following table summarizes the pressure at this connection point. Table 1 NODE STATIC HYDRAULIC GRADE JUNCTION ELEV. PRESSURE LINE ELEVATION NODE LOCATION (ft) (psi) (ft) R-1 White 's Creek Road @ Texas A&M 282 .98 80 467.34 Private Drive *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node locations The pressure was provided by Wellborn SUD. The system will be field tested upon completion of construction. No major improvements have been made to existing system prior to construction of proposed improvements. 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 Tab le 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 2.67 persons per dwelling unit, as directed in Method 2. The peak hourly demand was determined using a peaking factor of four. Converted to gallons per minute (gpm), an average daily demand of 0.19 gpm per unit and a peak hourl y demand of 0. 7 6 gpm per unit were calculated. The following is a sample calculation . WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley E states 4 Average Daily Demand : 100 gp%erson (from Table I) Average Dail y Demand: 100 gpd / * 2.67 persons / 't = 267 gpd / 't J person I um I um 267 gpd /. * 1 day / * 1 hr ./ . = 0.19 gpm /. I umt /24 hrs . I 60 mm . I umt Peak Hourl y Demand : 0 .19 gpt%1it * 4 = 0.76 gp Yunit 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 (g p m) per Unit (gpm) 0.76 0 .19 Fire flows were calculated in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Domestic Water. Four 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 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 w ere 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 alternati ves to determine system adequacy as well as line sizes necessary to meet the demands. The following section will detail ke y demand and waterline system scenar10s. WATER D E SIGN REPORT Bradley Est ates 5 WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS & DESIGN: The analysis and design as represented in this report were conducted using the computer program "Cybernet" version 3 .1 by Haestad Methods , Inc. The water distribution system scenarios were created by combining demand alternatives and the proposed system configuration. Six demand alternatives were used and are summarized as follows: • Average Daily Demand: • Peak Hourly Demand: • Fire-1: • Fire-2: • Fire-3: • Fire-4: Calculated per Lot for all 14 Lots Average Daily Demand * 4 1000 gpm @ HYD-1 + Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-2 + Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-3 +Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-4 + Average Daily Demand For analysis purposes, lots were summed at locations instead of each lot having its own node. The following table summarizes the demands placed on each node in each of the four scenarios. Table 3 Average Daily Peak Hourly Node Demand (gpm) Demand (gpm) Fire-1 (gpm) Fire-2 (gpm) Fire-3 (gpm) Fire-4 (gpm) Node 1 2LOTS Node2 SLOTS Node3 4LOTS HYD-1 HYD-2 HYD-3 HYD-4 0.38-1.52 0.38 0.38 0 .3 8 1.52 6.08 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 .76 3.04 0.76 0.76 0.76 --1000 -- ---1000 - ----1000 ----- *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphic al representation of system node locations *Refer to Appendix 5 for domestic demand calculations 0.38 1.52 0 .76 - - - 1000 A complete list of results for both junctions and pipes can be found in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 , respectively. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 6 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Table 4 shows the minimum pressures and maximum velocities occurring in each scenario as well as the line or node where it occurs . Table 4 Minimum Pressure Maximum Velocity Scenario {Qill @ Node ffi!fil In Line Avg. Daily 77.16 HYD-2 0 .02 P-2 Peak Hourly 77.16 HYD-2 0 .07 P-2 Fire-1 75.49 HYD-2 6.40 P-2 Fire-2 72.60 HYD-2 6.40 P-2, P-10 Fire-3 69 .92 HYD-3 6.40 P-2, P-10 , P-11 , P-12 Fire-4 69.92 HYD-3 6.40 P-2, P-10 , P-11 , P-12 *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 HYD-2 or HYD-3. The maximum velocities for the various scenarios occur in pipes P-2, P-10, P-11, and P-12. In all cases , the minimum pressure and maximum velocity requirements are never exceeded. Refer to appendix 3 and Appendix 4 for computer program output for each analysis . CONCLUSIONS: Bradley Estates is a residential subdivision which includes 14 lots. 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 velocities are less than 12 fps. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 7 I I APPENDIX 1 VICINITY MAP )-. t: z ---. u ---. > KLING ENGINEERING & BR YAN , TEXASSURVEYING I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2 DESIGN CRITERIA R -1 P-2 p -1 0 Scenario: Base HY D -1 N 0 DE 1 2 L 0 TS p -1 1 p -1 2 p -1 3 P-8 WHITE 'S CREEK R 0 AD HY D-4 p -1 4 N 0 DE 3 4 L 0 TS p -1 5 J-1 P roject E ngineer: S . M . KLING h:\eng in e-1\b ra dle-1\w aterl-1 \wl-1 .w cd Kling Eng i neering & Surveying C y berne t v3 .1 [0 71 ] 031071 0 7 07 :07 :34 AM © H aestad M e t hods, I nc. 37 B rooksid e R o ad W aterbury, CT 06708 U SA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 3 DEMAND ALTERNATIVES I I Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J -1 253.96 Demand HYD-1 286.97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284.13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260.63 Demand Scenario: AVG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calcul ated Calcu late d (gp m) Pattern Demand Hyd raulic (g pm) Grade (ft) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0.00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .3 4 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467.34 0 .38 Fixed 0.38 467 .34 1.52 Fixed 1.52 467 .3 4 0 .76 Fixed 0 .76 467 .3 4 Pressure Fire Flow (psi) Upper Limit (gpm) 92 .27 0 .00 78.00 0.00 77 .16 0 .00 79 .23 0 .00 86 .51 0.00 77.58 0 .00 78.19 0 .00 89.39 0 .00 Project Engineer: S. M . KLING h :\en gine-1 \brad le -1 \waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [07 1] 03/06/07 09 :05 :18 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284 .13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286.52 Demand 4 LOTS 260.63 Demand Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand Hydraulic (gpm) Grade (ft) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467.34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 1.52 Fixed 1.52 467.34 6 .08 Fixed 6.08 467 .34 3 .04 Fixed 3 .04 467 .34 Pressure Fire Flow (psi ) Upper Limit (gpm) 92.27 0 .00 78.00 0.00 77 .16 0 .00 79.22 0.00 86 .5 1 0 .00 77 .58 0 .00 78 .19 0 .00 89 .39 0.00 Proj ect Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1\bradle-1\waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [07 1] 03/06/07 09 :05 :24 AM © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Wate rbury , CT 06708 USA (2 03 ) 7 55 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284 . 13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl -1.wcd I 03/06/07 09 :05 :31 AM © Haestad Methods , Inc. Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analys is Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 1,000 .00 Fixed 1 ,000 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0.00 0 .00 Fi xed 0 .00 0 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1.52 Fixed 1 .52 0 .76 Fixed 0 .76 Kling Engineering & Surveying ~alculated Pressure Hydraulic (psi ) Grade (ft) 463.47 90 .60 463.47 76 .32 463.47 75.49 463.47 77 .55 463.47 84 .83 463.47 75 .90 463.47 76.52 463.47 87 .71 Fire Flow Upper Limit (gpm) 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Proj ect Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 . 1 [071] 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253.96 Demand HYD-1 286.97 Demand HYD-2 288.90 Demand HYD-3 284.13 Demand HYD-4 267.29 Demand 2 LOTS 287.94 Demand 8 LOTS 286.52 Demand 4 LOTS 260.63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand ~alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gp m) 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 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1 .52 Fixed 1.52 0.76 Fixed 0.76 Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) Upper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 456.79 87 .71 0 .00 463.47 76 .32 0 .00 456 .79 72 .60 0 .00 456 .79 74.67 0 .00 456 .79 81 .95 0 .00 462.75 75 .59 0 .00 456 .79 73.63 0.00 456 .79 84.83 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1\waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [071] 03/06/07 09 :05 :36 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 I Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253.96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284 .13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260.63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-3 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 F ixed 0.00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 1 ,000.00 Fixed 1 ,000.00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .3 8 Fixed 0 .38 1.52 Fixed 1.52 0 .7 6 Fixed 0.76 Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) Upper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 445 .82 82 .97 0 .00 463.47 76.32 0.00 456.79 72 .60 0.00 445 .82 69 .9 2 0 .00 445.82 77 .20 0 .00 462 .75 75.59 0 .00 451 .18 71.21 0 .00 445 .82 80.08 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1 .wed Kling Engineering & Survey in g Cybernet v3 .1 [071] 03/06/07 09:05 :40 AM © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 7 55-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284 .13 Demand HYD-4 267.29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-4 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Deman d Demand Calculated (gpm) Pattern D emand (gpm) 0 .00 F ixed 0 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 F ixed 0 .00 1,000 .00 F ixed 1 ,000 .00 0 .38 F ixed 0 .38 1.52 Fixed 1.52 0.76 Fixed 0 .76 Cal cu lated Pressu re Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi ) Upper Lim it G rade (gpm) (ft) 433 .95 77.83 0 .00 463.47 76.32 0 .00 456 .79 72 .60 0 .00 445 .82 69.92 0 .00 43 3.95 72 .07 0.00 462 .75 75 .59 0 .00 451 .18 71 .21 0 .00 433.95 74.95 0 .00 Proje ct Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 lwate rl-1 \wl -1 .w ed Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [071 ] 0 3/06/07 0 9:05:45 AM © Haestad M ethods , In c . 37 Brookside Road Waterbu ry , CT 06708 USA (2 03) 75 5-1666 Page 1 of 1 I APPENDIX 4 SCENARIO RUNS --- Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398.00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h :\engine-1 \bradle-1\waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd 03/06/07 09 :06 :39 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150 .0 0 .35 150.0 0.74 150.0 1 .23 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0.50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0.39 Scenario: AVG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 2 .66 Open Open 2 .66 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0.00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculc;ited Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467.34 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 0 .61 e-4 0 .00 0 .61e-4 0 .31e-4 0 .00 0 .92e -4 0.00 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 0 .27e-3 0.02 0 .00 0 .02 0 .17e-3 0.01 0.39e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 0 .23e-3 0 .01 0 .00 0.49e-2 0.00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M. KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785.00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 36 4 .00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h :\engi ne-1 \bradle-1\waterl-1 \w l-1.wcd 03/06/07 09 :06 :45 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150 .0 1 .14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150.0 1.23 150 .0 0 .3 5 150 .0 0 .50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .39 Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 10.64 Open Open 10 .64 Open Open 9 .12 Open Open 3 .04 Open Open 3.04 Open Open 9 .12 Open Open 3.04 Open Open 0.00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467.34 467 .34 46 7.34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 © Haestad M ethods , In c. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (2 03) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 0 .79e-3 0 .12e-3 0 .89e-3 0.24e-3 0.92e-4 0 .98e-3 0 .12e-3 0.00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 0 .36e -2 0 .07 0.35e-2 0 .07 0 .24e-2 0 .06 0 .31 e-3 0.02 0.46e-3 0.02 0 .25e-2 0 .06 0 .34e -3 0 .02 0.00 0 .00 Project Engineer: S. M . KLING Cyb erne t v3 .1 [0 71] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h :\e ngine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl -1.wcd 03/06/07 09 :06 :49 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .74 150.0 1.23 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .50 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .39 Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharg e Status Status (g pm) Open Open 1,002.66 Ope n Open 2 .66 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .7 6 Open Open 2.28 Open Open 0.76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467.34 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 463.47 © Ha estad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head lo ss (ft) 3.87 0 .31 e-4 0 .61e-4 0.00 0 .00 0.61e-4 0 .31e-4 0 .00 Friction V elocity Slope (fUs) (fU1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 0 .87e-3 0 .02 0 .17e-3 0 .01 0 .00 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 0.15e-3 0.01 0 .84e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 (071] Page 1 of 1 ----- Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222.00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363.00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199 .00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl -1.wcd 0 3 106107 09:06 :54 AM -- Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150.0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .74 150.0 1.23 150.0 0 .35 150 .0 0.50 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .39 --Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 1,002 .66 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0.00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 463.47 462 .75 456 .79 456 .79 456.79 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 462 .75 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0 .72 0 .61e-4 0 .00 0 .00 5 .96 0 .31 e-4 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (fVs) (fV1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20 .53 6.40 0 .17e-3 0.01 0.00 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 14.96 6.40 0 .84e -4 0.49e -2 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071] Page 1 of 1 -- Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222.00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 36 3 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 3g8.00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 1g8.00 8 PVC h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl -1.wcd 03/06/07 09 :06:58 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0.74 150.0 1.23 150.0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .39 Scenario: FIRE-3 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002 .66 Open Open 1 ,002 .66 Open Open 1 ,002 .2 8 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002.28 Open Open 1,000.76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 463.47 462.75 456.79 451 .18 445 .82 445 .82 445.82 445.82 462 .75 456.79 451 .18 445.82 445.82 445.82 © Haestad Methods , In c. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0 .72 5 .61 0 .31 e-4 0 .00 5 .96 5.36 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20 .53 6.40 15.46 6.40 0 .39e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 14.96 6.40 14 .73 6 .39 0.00 0.00 Project Eng ineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 (0 7 1] Pag e 1 of 1 ---- Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785.00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364.00 8 PVC P-15 198 .00 8 PVC h :lengine-1 lbradle-1 lwaterl-1 \wl-1 .wed 03/06/07 09 :07 :06 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1 .14 150 .0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150.0 1.23 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .39 Scenario: FIRE-4 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002 .66 Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 1 ,002 .28 Open Open 1 ,000 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002 .28 Open Open 1,000 .76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 463.47 462 .75 456 .79 451 .18 445 .82 433 .95 433 .95 433 .95 462 .75 456 .79 451.18 445.82 433 .95 433.95 © Haestad Methods, In c . 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0.72 5.61 11.87 0.00 5 .96 5 .36 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (fUs) (fU1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20.53 6.40 15.46 6.40 15.12 6 .39 0 .00 0.49e-2 14 .96 6.40 14.73 6 .39 0 .00 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3.1 [071] Page 1 of 1 I I I APPENDIX 5 CALCULATIONS lJVc,.,kr De-~ I \//o/6 7 ___ .l _____ - . --------·--·~····-------·------' ----- --------------------- I I :1 ' .i - ' . '1-.(, .., fer J -> ...... r / {,.<> J, '/}v~ • 0"-d/" ( 0" /f' __,<_ f J' V--J O"'\ I ~,, ... I kJ-I c:::. qr4' I, ... "' l.o&A_. {'f -:-. o. (~ ( £t J ;. I '· I ' '· ' -. I i r-: ... 1 f ~ ....,. Io"' " '5/-I DRAINAGE REPORT FOR INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION PHASE VII COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 2005 SUBMITTED BY: McCLURE & BROWNE ENGINEERING/SURVEYING, INC. 1008 Woodcreek Drive, Suite 103 •Coll ege Station, Texas 77845 CERTIFICATION I, Jeffery L. Robertson, Registered Professional Engineer No. 94745, State of Texas, certify that the drainage report, for INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION, PHASE VII, were prepared by me in accordance with the provisions of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the owners thereof. L. Robertson, P.E. No. 94745 DRAINAGE REPORT I I SUMMARY Indian Lakes, Phase VII Drainage Report MBESJ # 1062-000 7 This storm drainage report is intended to analyze the drainage infrastructure proposed for the development of the Indian Lakes Subdivision, Phase VII . The existing and proposed conditions are included to show how the design will achieve the desired drainage objectives of Brazos County and the City of College Station. GENERAL INFORMATION Area encompassed by thi s phase : Anticipated land use : Anticipated number of lots : 18 .28 acres Single famil y residential 10 lots Notes on s urrounding d evelopment: The area surrounding the site is partially developed with existing phases of Indian Lakes to the north and west, undeveloped phases of Indian Lakes to the east and south. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FEMA FIRM Map #: 48041C02l5 C Effective Date : July 2 , 1992 Comments : No portion of the site is shown to be within the 100-y ear floodplain, so it is not currently regulated under the National Flood Insurance Program . Applicable Exhibits : A -Excerpt ofFEMA FIRM DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Primary System : The site is wooded with dense undergrowth. The topography slopes toward a tributary of Peach Creek flows from the north to south through the property. Peach Creek flows to the Navasota River. Se condary Sys tem : Runoff from the residential lots will be captured in roadside ditches where it will be conveyed to the natural streams that flow through the site . Corrugated metal pipes will be used as culverts at road crossings . Applicable Exhibits : B -Drainage Area Map SECONDARY STORM DRAIN DESIGN Design Storm : Design M ethodology Hydrology : Software Model: Tim e of Concentration : Runoff Coefficien ts: Curve Numbers : Drainage Report Indian Lakes, Phase VII 10-yr Return Period (Ditches) 100-yr Return Period (Culverts) Rational Formula (Culverts) SCS Runoff (Overall Runoff from Site) Excel Spreadsheet (Rational Method) HEC-1 (SCS Method) 10 min. 0 .40 -Undeveloped area 0 . 5 5 -Residential areas 0 . 90 -Paved areas 80 -Undeveloped Areas 94 -Paved Areas Page 1 of2 I I Hydraulics : Software Model : Manning 's N: Manning's Equation Excel Spreadsheet 0.024 (corrugated metal) Applicable Exhibits : C-1 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations HEC-1 Analysis D-1 E-1 E-2 F-1 G-1 Anasazi Bluff Drive Culvert Analysis Toltec Trail Culvert Analysis Drainage Area Parameters HEC-RAS Analysis of Peach Creek Tributary DETENTION REQUIREMENTS General Note : Summary: A summary of the pre-developed and post-developed runoff rates and water surface elevations are shown in the table below : Table 1 -Summary of Runoff Storm Event Existing Runoff Proposed Runoff 5 yr 201 cfs 211 cfs 10 yr 257 cfs 267 cfs 25 yr 322 cfs 332 cfs 100 yr 426 cfs 435 cfs 100 yr W.S .E . 234.74' 234 .76' When considered as a single development, the proposed runoff rates and the I 00-yr water surface elevation from Phase 7 are slightly higher than pre-development conditions. However, when considered in conjunction with the previous phases and the over-detention provided by Lake Arapaho, the runoff rates are far below pre- development runoff rates (approximately 1300 cfs less for the 100-year event as noted in the Drainage Report for Phases 2 & 5). Therefore, no additional detention is necessary with this phase of the subdivision. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS Control Measures : SWPPP : Drainage Report Silt fence Hydromulch seeding Rock Filter Dams Straw Bale Barriers Construction entrance/exit The contractor shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining the SWPPP in accordance with TCEQ requirements . · Page 2 of2 Indian Lakes, Phase VII N.T.S. ' I /I " \ l \\ \.) EXHIBIT A Flood Insurance Rote Mop Excerpt Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Mop Numbers: 48041C0215C Effective Dote: July 2, 1992 ~ 3: 0 0 0:: w ..J ..J c( ~ Q. c( LL w 0 j:: I-0 (!) 0:: ..J z c( z c( c( w z w () ~ I= ..J ~~ w :E ..J z ~ 0 w ~ 0:: (!) ~ iii > Wz 0 z 0:: w c( e >w 0 I-:> <l 0:: Q. 0..J NO . AC . 0.4 0.55 0.9 ft . To lte c 5.56 5 .21 0 .00 0 .35 2.40 139 .0 Anas a zi 20 .63 17 .93 0 .00 2.70 9.60 287 .0 -- - - EXHIBIT C-1 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations INDIAN LAKES , PHASE VII 3: 0 3: 3: ..J LL 0 0 0 ..J ..J z LL LL ~ ~ 0:: ::i:: 0:: u w I-w C3 I-u 0:: ..J I: (!) I: ..J 0 I-u w ..J :> z :> ..J ..J w > c( ~ ii I/) a It) OLL (!)~ (!) ~ () :> N !!? a ft. ft. ft. ftls m i n m i n In/Hr cfs I n/Hr cfs 1.0 670 .0 9.0 1 .5 8 .7 10 .0 6 .33 15 .2 7 .7 18 .5 9 .0 84 8.0 6 .0 1 .5 12 .3 12 .3 5.74 55 .1 7 .0 67 .4 0 ::: In/Hr 8 .6 7 .9 -- 0 It) .... It) N a ~ a cfs In/Hr cf s 20 .7 9 .9 23.7 75 .8 9 .0 86 .7 - s: 0 !!? a In/Hr cfs 11 .1 26 .7 10 .2 98 .1 - 0 0 0 0 a ::: In/H r cfs 12 .5 30 .1 11 .5 110 .3 4/27/2005 10620007-dra .xls Exhibit C-1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 * * ...... * ** ** ** ** * * *** * + * ** ............ * * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1 ) JUN 1998 VERSION 4 .1 RUN DATE 28APR05 TIME 08:40:53 x x x Exhibit D-1 HEC-1 Analysis x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x xx x x x x xxx U .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS , CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 THIS PROGRAM REPLl\CES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOilN AS HEC l (JAN 7 3), HEClGS , HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP -AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE US ED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEF INIT ION OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS I S THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERG ENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCU Ll\TI ON, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ T IME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULl\TION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT LINE ID ....•.. 1. •••.•• 2 ....•.. 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 .•..... 7 .•..... 8 •...••• 9 ...... 10 1 2 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ID I ndian Lakes Subdivi sion, Phase VII IT 1 FEB03 0000 144 0 IO 5 0 0 JR PREC 13.5 11 9 .8 8 .8 7 .4 EVENT 500 100 50 25 1 0 JP 2 KI< COMBINE D KM PLANl IS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR DRAINAGE AREA 2 KM PLAN 2 IS PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR DRA INAGE AREA 1 BA 0.1 4 72 PB 1 IN 30 PC • 0053 PC • 0712 PC .2042 PC .8676 PC .9588 LS 0 UD KP LS UD zz 0.6 2 0 0 .6 01FEB98 .0108 .0797 .2351 .8801 .9653 80 81 0000 • 0164 .0223 • 028 4 .0347 • 0887 .0984 .1089 .1203 • 2833 • 6632 .7351 • 7724 .8914 .9019 .9115 .9206 .9717 .9777 .9836 .9892 0 6 .2 4.5 5 2Yr. Sto rm .0414 .0483 .0555 .0632 .1328 .1467 .1625 .18 08 • 7989 • 8197 .8380 .8538 .9291 .9371 • 9446 • 9519 .994 7 1.000 PAGE FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND S TREET JUN 1998 VERSION 4.1 RUN DATE 2 8APR0 5 TIME 08:4 0 :53 Indian Lakes Subdivision , Phase VII 3 IO OUTPUT CO NTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 I PLOT 0 QSCAL 0. IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN !DATE lFEB 3 I TIME 0000 NO 144 0 NDDATE lFEB 3 HEC-1 Analys is Indian Lakes , Phase VII PRINT CONTROL PLOT CO NTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE MINUTE S IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL STARTING DATE STARTING TIME NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORD INATES ENDING DATE DAVIS , CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 Page 1 of2 I I I I JP JR NDTIME I CENT 2359 ENDING TIME 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL • 02 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.98 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECIPITATION DEPTH LENGTH , ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VOLUME SURFACE AREA TEMPERATURE MULTI-PLAN OPTION NP LAN MULTI-RATIO OPTION SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ACRE-FEET ACRES DEGREES FAHRENHEIT 2 NUMBER OF PLANS RATIOS OF PRECIPITATION 13.50 11.00 9.80 8.80 7.40 6.20 4. 50 PEAK FLOW AND STAGE (END-OF-PERIOD) SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE PLAN-RATIO ECONOMIC COMPUTATIONS OPERATION STATION AREA HYDROGRAPH AT COMB IN • 1 5 *** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ••* HEC-1 Analysis Indian Lakes , Phase VII FLOWS IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AREA IN SQUARE MILES TIME TO PEAK IN HOURS RATIOS APPLIED TO PRECIPITATION PLAN FLOW TIME FLOW TIME RATIO 1 13 . 50 543. 11.90 552. 11. 90 RATIO 2 11 .00 426. 11.92 435. 11. 90 RATIO 3 RATIO 4 RATIO 5 9.80 8. 80 7.40 369. 322. 257. 11.92 11.92 11.92 379. 332. 267. 11. 92 11. 92 11.92 RATIO 6 6.20 201. 11.92 211. 11.92 RATIO 7 4. 50 124 • 11.93 133. 11. 93 Page 2 of2 -- Anasazl Bluff Culvert ClrtD I C l I u ve 8SIQn r ter a Cu lvert Des c ripti on Circu lar Pipe No . Dual 30" CMP Dia . (ft.) Pioes n 2.50 2 0.0 14 Culvert Analvsls Calculations Total Flow per Critical Normal Des ign Flow Pipe Depth (ft .) Depth Sto rm (cfs ) (cfs l de (ft .) 5 68 .00 34 .00 2 .00 1.36 10 76 .00 38 .00 2 .10 1.46 25 87 .00 43 .50 2.25 1.60 50 99 .00 49 .50 2.35 1.75 100 111 .00 55 .50 2.42 1.93 Elhi = Hw i + Eli ho = TW or (de+ 0 )/2 (Whichever is Greater) EXHIBIT E-1 ANASAZI BLUFF DRIVE CULVERT ANALYSIS INDIAN LAKES PHASE VII ELhi~--t....-H_W_i--~~; - - -~ =P~:~ ~ ---"------!._____ ~~ Invert Outlet Cu lvert Elev. (Eli) Elev. (ELo) Length (ft .) (ft .) (ft .) 254 .69 252 .10 108 .34 INLET CONTROL HWi/D HWI ELh l 1.29 3 .22 257 .9 1 1.43 3.57 258 .26 1.65 4 .12 258 .8 1 1.92 4 .79 259.48 2.22 5.56 260 .25 H = 11+ke+((29"(n'2)"L YR'1 .33)J"((v"2 )12g) Elho = Elo + H +ho ELI _Jf Proposed Culvert :;:;r - - - --'-_ ELo Outfall Channel Desi n Criteria Top Lt. Side Rt. Side Bottom Slope of Slope Slope Slope W idth n (Mil Road ke I ft/ft ?:1 ?:1 ft . 0.0239 26 1.85 0 .50 I 0 .0 100 4.00 4 .00 0 .00 0 .024 HEADWATER CALCULATIONS Contro l Type Outlet OUTLET CONTROL TW de (de+ Dl/2 ho H EL ho 1.32 2.00 2.25 2.25 1.98 256 .33 1.39 2.10 2.30 2.30 2.47 256 .87 1.48 2.25 2.38 2.38 3.24 25 7.71 1.54 2.35 2.43 2.43 4 .19 258 .71 1.60 2.42 2 .46 2.46 5.27 259.83 HW of Elev. Control 25 7.9 1 In let 258 .26 In let 258 .81 Inlet 259 .48 Inlet 260 .25 In let Veloc it y Free boa rd (fps ) (ft .) 6.93 3.94 7.74 3.59 8.86 3.04 10.08 2.37 11 .3 1 1.60 4/28 /2005 Anasaz i Cu lvert .xis Exhib it E-1 -- Toltec Trail Culvert Culvert Des lan Criteria Cu lvert Descript ion Circula r Pipe No . Dua l 16 " CMP Dia . (ft.) Pioes n 1.50 2 0.0 14 C I A I I CI I ti u vert na1vs s a cu a ons Total Flow per Critical Normal Des ign Flow Pipe Oepth (ft .) Depth Storm lcfs l (Cfs) de (ft .) 5 16 .00 8.00 1.10 1.16 10 18.00 9 .00 1.15 1.33 25 2 1.00 10 .50 1.25 1.50 50 23 .00 11.50 1.30 1.50 100 26 .00 13 .00 1.35 1.50 ELh i = Hw i + Eli ho= TW or (de + D)/2 (Whichever is Greater) EXHIBIT E-2 TOLTEC TRAIL CULVERT ANALYSIS INDIAN LAKES PHASE VII ELM~ 1 HW I z: + - - -_-::~,.~~~¥'EI H ~--J---91.C:.. - - - - _ TW ELI Proposed Cu lvert ~ - - - --'-_ Invert Outlet Cu lvert Elev. (Eli) Elev. (Ela) Length (ft .) (ft .) (ft ,) 266 .00 265 .50 66 .00 INLET CONTROL HWi/D HWi Elhl 1.1 8 1.77 267 .77 1.24 1.66 267 .86 1.42 2.14 268 .14 1.56 2 .34 266 .34 1.79 2 .69 268 .69 H = [1+ke+((29•(n'2)"L)IR'1.33))"((v"2)/2 g) ELho = ELo + H + ho 0 tf II Ch u a Top Slope of Slope (ft/ft ) Road ke I (ft/ft ) 0 .0076 269 .49 0 .50 I 0.0100 HEADWATER CALCULATIONS OUTLET CONTROL TW de Ide+ Dl/2 ho 0.78 1.10 1.30 1.30 0.82 1.15 1.33 1.33 0 .86 1.25 1.38 1.38 0.89 1.30 1.40 1.40 0.93 1.35 1.43 1.43 anne I 0 I C It I es1an r er a Lt. Side Rt. Side Bottom Slope Slope W idth 1?:1) (?:1) (ft .) 4 .00 4 .00 0 .00 Contro l HW H Elho Elev. 0 .92 267.72 267 .77 1.16 267 .99 267.99 1.58 268 .46 266.46 1.90 268 .80 268 .80 2 .42 269.35 269 .35 n 0.024 T ype of Contro l Inlet Outlet Outlet Outl et Outlet Ela Outlet Ve loc it y Freeboard (fps ) (ft .) 4 .53 1.72 5 .09 1.50 5.94 1.03 6.5 1 0.69 7.36 0.14 4/26 /2005 Toltec Cu lvert .xis Exhi bit E-2 --- P lan 1 Plan 2 General ~ # DAI Ci ~ 0 ....< ~ ~~ ACRE S 94.19 87 .93 - ~ ....< G C/:J C/:J ffi ....< 5 ~~ Ci ~ ffi > ~~ i:i::: Ci 8 ~~ ~ C/:J ~~ s~ ACRE S ACRES ACRE S 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 6 .26 0.00 0.00 ~....< ~~ ffi ~8 d C/:J ~~ ACRES 0.00 0 .00 Exhibit F-1 Drainage Area Parameters g ~ C/:J ~ ~~ C/:J ~ ~ ;:J ~ ~ ;:J 0 P'.:i u ACRES ACRES ACRE S MILES LENGTH 0.00 0.00 94 .19 0.1472 30 54 0 .00 0 .00 94 .19 0 .1472 3054 Existing Cond. P LAN 1 "' ;:l ~ l !--< ~ i:i::: 0 E:5 ~ ....< .§ C/:J u DROP FT/F T # % 51 0.0 17 80 0 51 0.0 17 d j HOURS 0 .60 D evelopment of Phases 7-10 PLAN2 "' ;:l ~ 0 l E:5 d .§ < u ....< # % HOURS 81 7 0.60 Exhibi t F-1 Drainage Area Parameters 106 20007-lag .xls -- HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 01 Reach River Sta Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev (cfs) (ft) (ft) Phase VII Trib 200 426 233 234.74 Phase VII Trib 200 435 233 234 .76 Phase VII Trib 100 426 232 233 .74 Phase VII Trib 100 435 232 233 .76 Exhibit G-1 River: Peach Creek Reach: Phase VII Trib Grit W .S. E.G . Elev E.G . Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area (ft) (ft) (fUft) (ft/s) (sq ft) 234.74 235.19 0.006229 5.35 79 .62 234.76 235 .21 0 .006157 5.35 81 .23 233 .74 234.19 0.006252 5.36 79 .52 233 .76 234 .21 0 .006154 5.35 81 .25 Top Width (ft) 91 .29 92 .21 91 .23 92 .22 Froude #Chi 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Exhibit G-1 HEC-RAS Results 10620007-RAS.xls WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates Stephen Jones Survey, A-27 College Station, Brazos County, Texas March, 2007 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering & Surveying 4101 Texas Ave ., Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 (979) 846-6 212 I I I I PURPOSE: WATER DESIGN REP ORT Bradley Estates Stephen Jones Survey, A-27 College Station, Brazos County, Texas March, 2007 The purpose of this report is to analyze the proposed water distribution system for Bradley Estates. This report will verify lines sizes necessary to serve the proposed improvements under average daily, peak hourly, and fire flow demands . The proposed development includes 14 residential lots between two and five acres each, with approximately 2 ,564 LF of 8" PVC waterline . Additionally, four fire hydrants are proposed for the development. This report is being conducted in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guideline Manual for Domestic Water. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 2 I I I I I I I I SERVICE AREA: The service area is defined by the location of the proposed development. The site is accessed by White's Creek Road, which intersects FM 60 (refer to Appendix 1 -"Vicinity Map"). The proposed water distribution system will be routed parallel to White 's Creek Road in a 20' Public Uti lity Easement. The existing system is a Brushy Creek water district waterline, and is supervised and managed by Wellborn Special Utility District (SUD). Therefore the proposed system will be part of this Wellborn SUD. The proposed 8" PVC waterline will connect to an existing 12" PVC waterline that runs parallel to White's Creek Road to the southeast then turns 90 ° to the northeast and runs parallel to the Texas A&M private drive (refer to the exhibit on the preceding page). The proposed water distribution system will supply domestic water and fire water to Bradley Estates. WATER DISTRIBUTION DESIGN CRITERIA: The proposed system will connect to an existing 12" PVC waterline at the intersection of White's Creek Road and the Texas A&M private drive. The analysis starts at this connection point. The following table summarizes the pressure at this connection point. Table 1 NODE STATIC HYDRAULIC GRADE JUNCTION ELEV. PRESSURE LINE ELEV A TION NODE LOCATION (ft) (psi) (ft) R-1 White 's Creek Road @ Texas A&M 282.98 80 467.34 Private Drive *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node locations The pressure was provided by Wellborn SUD. The system will be field tested upon completion of construction. No major improvements have been made to existing system prior to construction of proposed improvements . 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 2.67 persons per dwelling unit, as directed in Method 2 . The peak hourly demand was determined using a peaking factor of four. Converted to gallons per minute (gpm), an average daily demand of 0.19 gpm per unit and a peak hourly demand of 0.76 gpm per unit were calculated. The following is a sample calculation. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 4 I I I I I I Average Daily Demand: 100 gpd / (from Table I) /person Average Daily Demand: 100 gpd / * 2.67 persons / . = 267 gpd / . /person I umt I urnt 267gpd /. *lday / *1hr./ . =0.19gpm /. /umt /24 hrs. /60 mm. /umt Peak Hourly Demand: 0.19 gpm / . * 4 = 0. 76 gpm / . /unit /urnt 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) 0.76 0.19 Fire flows were calculated in compliance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines for Domestic Water. Four 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 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 alternatives to determine system adequacy as well as line sizes necessary to meet the demands. The following section will detail key demand and waterline system scenar10s. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 5 I I I I I I I WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS & DESIGN: The analysis and design as represented in this report were conducted using the computer program "Cybernet" version 3 .1 by Haestad Methods , Inc. The water distribution system scenarios were created by combining demand alternatives and the proposed system configuration. Six demand alternatives were used and are summarized as follows: • Average Daily Demand: • Peak Hourly Demand: • Fire-1: • Fire-2: • Fire-3: • Fire-4: Calculated per Lot for all 14 Lots Average Daily Demand * 4 1000 gpm @ HYD-1 + Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-2 + Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-3 +Average Daily Demand 1000 gpm @ HYD-4 +Average Daily Demand For analysis purposes , lots were summed at locations instead of each lot having its own node. The following table summarizes the demands placed on each node in each of the four scenarios. Table 3 Average Daily Peak Hourly Node Demand (gpm) Demand (gpm) Fire-1 (gpm) Fire-2 (gpm) Fire-3 (gpm) Fire-4 (gpm) Node 1 2LOTS Node2 SLOTS Node3 4LOTS HYD-1 HYD-2 HYD-3 HYD-4 0 .38 1.52 0 .38 0 .38 0.38 1.52 6.08 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 .76 3 .04 0 .76 0.76 0 .76 --1000 -- ---1000 - ----1000 ----- *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node locations *Refer to Appendix 5 for domestic demand calculations 0.38 1.52 0 .76 - - - 1000 A complete list of results for both junctions and pipes can be found in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 , respectively. WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 6 DISCUSSIO N O F RESUL TS Table 4 shows the minimum pressures and maximum velocities occurring in each scenario as well as the line or node where it occurs. Tab le 4 M in im u m Pressu re Maximum Ve loc ity Scenario .illfil} @Node .(fnfil In Line Avg. D aily 77 .16 HYD-2 0.02 P-2 Peak Hou rly 77 .16 HYD-2 0.07 P-2 Fire-1 75.49 HYD-2 6.40 P-2 Fire-2 72.60 HYD-2 6.40 P-2, P-10 F ire-3 69.92 HYD-3 6.40 P-2, P-10 , P-11, P-12 F i re-4 69.92 HYD-3 6.40 P-2 , P-10, P-11, P-12 *Refer to Appendix 2 -Design Criteria for graphical representation of system node and pipe locations *Refer to Appendix 3 and 4 for complete summary ofresults 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 HYD -2 or HYD -3 . The maximum velocities for the various scenarios occur in pipes P-2, P-10, P -11, and P -12. In all cases, the minimum pressure and maximum velocity requirements are never exceeded. Refer to appendix 3 and Appendix 4 for computer program output for each analysis. C O NCLUSIO NS: Bradley Estates is a residential subdivision which includes 14 lots. As shown in the analysis, the proposed water distribution system adequate ly meets all demand s, including fire flows. In all scenarios, the pressures are greater than the required minimum of 20 psi and velocities are less than 12 fps . WATER DESIGN REPORT Bradley Estates 7 I I APPENDIX 1 VICINITY MAP I I I UJ _J ~ u ~ I I I I I I ~ I r ......... I z ......... u ......... > I I I I =======================~K L~I N G~E~NGl~NE:ERl~NG~&~S~;:;===================~ ~~.~~u~~ I APPENDIX 2 I DESIGN CRITERIA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I R -1 p -1 0 Scenario: Base HY D -1 N 0 DE 1 2 L 0 TS p -1 1 p -1 2 p -1 3 P-8 WHITE'S CREEK R 0 AD HY D -4 p -1 4 N 0 DE 3 4 L 0 TS p -1 5 J-1 Project Engineer: S. M. KLIN G h :\e ngin e-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \w l-1 .w ed Kling Eng i neering & Surveying C y bernet v 3 .1 [0 71 ] 03/07/0 7 07 :07 :34 AM © Haestad M ethods , I nc. 37 Brookside Road W aterbury, C T 06708 U SA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 3 DEMAND ALTERNATIVES Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288.90 Demand HYD-3 284 .13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287.94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260.63 Demand Scenario: A VG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand Hydraulic (gpm) Grade (ft) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0.00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .38 Fixed 0.38 467 .34 1.52 Fixed 1 .52 467 .34 0.76 Fixed 0 .76 467 .34 Pressure Fire Flow (psi) Upper Limit (gpm) 92 .27 0 .00 78 .00 0 .00 77.16 0.00 79 .23 0 .00 86.51 0.00 77 .58 0.00 78 .19 0.00 89 .39 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \w l-1 .wed Kling Engineeri ng & Surveyi n g Cybernet v3 .1 [071] 03/06/07 09 :05:18 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284 .13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analys is Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand Hydraulic (gp m) Grade (ft) 0 .00 Fixed 0.00 467.34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467.34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467.34 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 467 .34 0 .00 Fixed 0.00 467.34 1.52 Fixed 1.52 467.34 6 .08 Fixed 6.08 467.34 3 .04 Fixed 3 .04 467.34 Pressure Fire Flow (psi) Upper Limit (gpm) 92 .27 0 .00 78 .00 0 .00 77 .16 0 .00 79 .22 0 .00 86 .51 0 .00 77 .58 0 .00 78 .19 0 .00 89 .39 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd Kling Enginee r ing & Surveying Cybernet v3.1 [071] 03 /06/07 09 :05 :24 AM © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203 ) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node E levation Demand L abe l (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284.13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand K;alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0.00 Fixed 0.00 1,000 .00 F ixed 1 ,000 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0.00 Fixed 0.00 0 .00 Fixed 0.00 0 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1 .52 Fixed 1 .52 0 .76 Fixed 0 .76 Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (ps i) Upper Limit Grade (gpm ) (ft) 4 6 3.47 90 .60 0 .00 463.47 76 .32 0 .00 463.47 75.49 0 .00 463.47 77 .55 0 .00 463 .47 84.83 0 .00 46 3.47 75 .90 0.00 463.47 76 .52 0 .00 463.47 87.71 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h :\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl -1 .w ed Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybern et v3 .1 [07 1] 0 3/06/07 09:05 :31 AM © Haestad Me thods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (2 0 3) 755-1 666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Labe l (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 2 84 .13 Demand HYD-4 267.29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand Calculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gpm) 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 Fi xed 0 .00 1,000 .00 Fixed 1,000 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .00 Fixed 0 .00 0 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1.52 F ixed 1.52 0 .76 Fixed 0 .76 Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi ) Upper Lim it Grade (gpm) (ft) 456 .79 87 .7 1 0.00 46 3.47 76 .32 0 .00 456.79 72 .60 0 .00 456 .7 9 74 .67 0 .00 456 .79 81 .95 0.00 462 .75 75 .59 0 .00 456 .79 73 .63 0.00 456 .79 84 .83 0 .00 Proj ect Engineer: S. M . KLING h :\engine-1\bradle-1 \waterl -1\wl -1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 (071] 03/06 /07 09 :05 :36 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Wate rbury, CT 06708 USA (20 3) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284.13 Demand HYD-4 267 .29 Demand 2 LOTS 287.94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-3 Steady State Analysis Junctio n Report Demand Demand Calculated (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 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1 .52 Fixed 1.52 0 .76 Fixed 0 .76 ~alculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) Upper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 445.82 82.97 0 .00 463 .47 76.32 0 .00 456.79 72 .60 0 .00 445 .82 69.92 0 .00 445 .82 77 .20 0 .00 462.75 75 .59 0 .00 451 .18 71 .21 0.00 445.82 80 .08 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h:\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [071] 03/06/07 09 :05 :40 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterb ury , CT 06708 USA (203) 7 55-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Elevation Demand Label (ft) Type J-1 253 .96 Demand HYD-1 286 .97 Demand HYD-2 288 .90 Demand HYD-3 284.13 Demand HYD-4 267.29 Demand 2 LOTS 287 .94 Demand 8 LOTS 286 .52 Demand 4 LOTS 260 .63 Demand Scenario: FIRE-4 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Demand ~alculated (gpm) Pattern Demand (gp m) 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 .38 Fixed 0 .38 1.52 Fixed 1.52 0.76 Fixed 0.76 Calculated Pressure Fire Flow Hydraulic (psi) '-lpper Limit Grade (gpm) (ft) 433 .95 77 .83 0 .00 463.47 76 .3 2 0 .00 456 .79 72 .60 0 .00 445.82 69 .92 0 .00 433.95 72 .07 0.00 462.75 75 .59 0 .00 451.18 71.21 0 .00 433 .95 74 .9 5 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING h:\e ngine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1\wl-1 .wcd Kling Engineering & Surveying Cybernet v3 .1 [071] 03/06/07 09:05:45 AM © Haestad Methods , In c . 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I . I I I I I I APPENDIX 4 SCENARIO RUNS Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398.00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 198 .00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1.wcd 03/06/07 09 :06:39 AM Roughness M inor Loss 150.0 1.14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150 .0 1.23 150 .0 0 .35 150.0 0 .50 150 .0 0.35 150.0 0.39 -Scenario: AVG. DAILY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 2 .66 Open Open 2.66 Open Open 2.28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start Calcul~ted Hydraulic Grade (ft) 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467.34 467.34 --- End Head loss Calculated (ft) Hydraulic Grade (ft) 467 .34 0 .61e-4 467 .34 0 .00 467 .34 0 .61e-4 467 .34 0 .31e-4 467.34 0 .00 467 .34 0 .92e-4 467 .34 0.00 467 .34 0 .00 © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 75 5-1666 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 0 .27e-3 0.02 0 .00 0.02 0 .17e-3 0 .01 0 .39e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 0.23e-3 0 .01 0 .00 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071] Page 1 of 1 - Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35.00 8 PVC P-12 363.00 8 PVC P-8 785.00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398.00 8 PVC P-13 364.00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \bradle-1\waterl-1 \wl-1 .wcd 03/06/07 09 :06 :45 AM -- Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1 .14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150 .0 1.23 150.0 0.35 150.0 0.50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0.39 - ----Scenario: PEAK HOURLY Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 10.64 Open Open 10.64 Open Open 9 .12 Open Open 3.04 Open Open 3 .04 Open Open 9 .12 Open Open 3 .04 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) 467.34 467 .34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 467 .34 End Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) 467.34 467.34 467.34 467 .34 467.34 467 .34 467.34 467.34 © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 0 .79e-3 0 .12e-3 0 .89e-3 0.24e-3 0 .92e-4 0 .98e -3 0 .12e-3 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 0 .36e-2 0 .07 0 .35e -2 0 .07 0 .24e-2 0.06 0 .31e-3 0.02 0.46e-3 0.02 0 .25e-2 0 .06 0 .34e-3 0.02 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071] Page 1 of 1 - Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363.00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364.00 8 PVC P-15 198 .00 8 PVC h:\eng ine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1.wcd 0 3106107 09 :06 :4 9 AM - Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150 .0 1.23 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0.50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0.39 -- - Scenario: FIRE-1 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 2.66 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0.76 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying - - Start End Head loss Calculated Calculated (ft) Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 3 .87 463.47 463.47 0 .31e-4 463.47 463.47 0 .61e-4 463.47 463.47 0 .00 463.47 463.47 0 .00 463.47 463 .47 0 .61e-4 463.47 463.47 0 .31e-4 463 .47 463.47 0 .00 © Haestad Methods , In c . 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 0.87e-3 0.02 0.17e-3 0.01 0.00 0.49e-2 0.00 0.49e -2 0 .15e-3 0.01 0.84e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M. KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364 .00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h :\en9ine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1\wl-1.wcd 0 3106107 09 :06 :54 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150 .0 0 .35 150 .0 0 .74 150.0 1 .23 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .39 Scenario: FIRE-2 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002 .66 Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 2 .28 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002.28 Open Open 0.76 Open Open 0.00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463 .47 463.47 462.75 456 .79 456.79 456 .79 456 .79 456.79 456 .79 462.75 456.79 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 456 .79 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0 .72 0 .61 e-4 0 .00 0 .00 5 .96 0.31 e-4 0.00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20 .53 6.40 0 .17e-3 0.01 0 .00 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e-2 14 .96 6.40 0 .84e-4 0.49e -2 0 .00 0 .00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 (071] Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Material Label (ft) (in) P-2 222.00 8 PVC P-10 35.00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364.00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1 .wed 03/06/07 09 :06 :58 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1.14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150 .0 1 .23 150.0 0.35 150 .0 0 .50 150 .0 0 .35 150.0 0.39 Scenario: FIRE-3 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current Discharge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 1 ,002 .66 Open Open 1,002 .28 Open Open 0.76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002.28 Open Open 1,000 .76 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraul ic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 463.47 462 .75 455_7g 451 .18 445.82 445.82 445 .82 445 .82 462 .75 456 .79 451.18 445 .82 445 .82 445 .82 © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0 .72 5 .61 0.31e-4 0.00 5 .96 5 .36 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (ft/s) (ft/1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20 .53 6.40 15.46 6.40 0 .39e-4 0.49e-2 0 .00 0.49e -2 14.96 6.40 14 .73 6.39 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071) Page 1 of 1 Link Length Diameter Materi al Label (ft) (in) P-2 222 .00 8 PVC P-10 35 .00 8 PVC P-12 363 .00 8 PVC P-8 785 .00 8 PVC P-14 199.00 8 PVC P-11 398 .00 8 PVC P-13 364.00 8 PVC P-15 198.00 8 PVC h:\engine-1 \bradle-1 \waterl-1 \wl-1.wcd 03106107 09:07 :06 AM Roughness Minor Loss 150.0 1 .14 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .74 150.0 1.23 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .50 150.0 0 .35 150.0 0 .39 Scenario: FIRE-4 Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Initial Current D isch arge Status Status (gpm) Open Open 1,002.66 Open Open 1,002 .66 Open Open 1,002 .28 Open Open 1,000 .76 Open Open 0 .76 Open Open 1,002 .28 Open Open 1,000 .7 6 Open Open 0 .00 Kling Engineering & Surveying Start End Calculated Calculated Hydraulic Hydraulic Grade Grade (ft) (ft) 467 .34 463.47 463.47 462 .75 456.79 451.18 445 .82 433 .95 433 .95 433.95 462 .75 456 .79 451.18 445.82 433 .95 433.95 © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Head loss (ft) 3 .87 0 .72 5 .61 11 .87 0 .00 5 .96 5.36 0 .00 Friction Velocity Slope (fUs) (fU1 OOOft) 17.44 6.40 20 .53 6.40 15.46 6.40 15 .12 6 .39 0 .00 0.49e-2 14.96 6.40 14 .73 6 .39 0 .00 0.00 Project Engineer: S . M . KLING Cybernet v3 .1 [071) Page 1 of 1 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 5 CALCULATIONS -r ' 1: I i ._,tr;, ~<'()/ --?:J ~-::J ~(h) b) '(} ~ J,1 -'¥)"'? >,~1 -f'Y I ..,,,14 JJJO -::;: 'l..of-; J /-Y tit:. (1 o) "Ll,,.,,.0 • r;.,,,{/ (. ''<.. c=.. I,,, <'-f'-r (l)(j I • l,I '"Cl . '"t I ----------------------·-------------·-i---·--· ---~---·---~·--·--------··-. -------i··-· --. -- . ·--·· L o/011 t / ~?a f)-f"'fVl I --t?/p-.;:;-11 ----1 · I ' --' ·,, J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I