water supply and sewerage design

C E 4 6 5 W a t e r S u p p l y a n d S e w e r a g e S y s t e m D e s i g n

Water Supply and Sewerage Design

Term Project Anthony Fang, Jeremy Molayem, Viv Pitter,

Kirsten Rice, Ryan Williams Professor C.C. Wang

30 April 2013

Spring 13

Design Proposal 2

2

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary....................3 II. Water Demand.......4

i) Residential. ii) Coecial....4 iii) Industrial ... iv) Fie Flow........ III. Water Supply System................................6

i) Pipe Size...6 ii) Pipe Material.....6 iii) Water Tower and Reservoir Designs... iv) Pump Design...7 v) Fire Hydrant Locations ...8 vi) Valves 9 IV. Sanitary Sewer System........10

i) Pipe Size.10 ii) Pipe Velocity.10 iii) Pipe Material...10 iv) Pipe Connections.11 v) Manholes .12 V. Storm Sewer System.......13

i Muicipal Need.13 ii Desig Paaetes.13 iii) Stormwater Software ad Desig Methods..14 iv) Storm Intensity and Duratio Data .17 v) Ratio Flow to Full Flow Paaete.17 vi) Miiu Slope Paaete..9 vii) Minimum Velocity Paramete. iix) Minimum Diameter Parameter and Mateials Used.. ix) Hydraulic Profiles.. Sua of Results.. VI. Utility Cross Sections....25 VII. Works Cited......26 VIII. Appendix.........27

Executive Summary

Design Proposal 3

3

Our average and maximum daily flows were calculated for residential areas based on a

per capita consumption of 100 gallons per day. We selected a food processing industry for our

industrial zone calculations, and calculated the flows based upon consumption rate data found

through research (Water and Wastewater Use in the Food Processing Industry). The

commercial demand was based on consumption rates for malls based on estimated visitors per

day (George), as we decided to have one large shopping complex located in this area.

The water distribution system consists of 55 pipes with 38 junctions, and was designed

using EPANET after draw-offs at each node were calculated. The largest required flows are

located at the industrial and commercial areas, and therefore the major pipelines are located in

this area. The system was designed for three different scenarios: both a pumping station and a

water tower supply water to the community, the water tower fails and only the pumping

station is in operation, and lastly, the pumping station supply is cut off and the water tower

supplies all water. The last arrangement was the worst-case scenario, and therefore

determined the water supply model created and diameters of the pipelines selected.

The sanitary sewer system was detailed using an Excel sheet for calculations to

determine pipe diameter and manhole elevations required for the acceptable range of

velocities, and then modeled using these results. The modeling does not include wastewater

treatment specifications, which would be needed but are outside the scope of this project. The

storm drain system was designed using EPA SWMM (Storm Water Management Model), and

both systems run south to north to follow the natural grade of the area in consideration.

Design Proposal 4

4

Overall System Layouts

Water Demand

Residential

The residential area was calculated by hand totaled to 66.281 acres. A population density

assumption of 40 people/acres was made based on the design parameters given, which equates

to an expected population of 2652 people for the region. The average consumption of the

residential area is 2.652 x 105

gpd, the peak day consumption is about 5.304 x 105 gpd and the

peak hour consumption is about 1.608 x 106 gpd based on a consumption rate of 100 gpcd.

Commercial

The Commercial zone was a shopping center that took up the entire area of B and C, which

totaled to 3.2881 acres. The shopping center included parking, retail, and grocery stores. The

water consumption was calculated using equations based on population use (George).

Assumptions of the shopping area operating 10 hours a day and about 15% of the population,

or 389 people, visiting the shopping center daily were made. It was assumed that 50 employees

worked at the shipping center daily. Visitors consumption was approximately 497.5 gpd while employee consumption was about 10,000 gpd. Thus the total demand for the shopping center

came to 10,497.5 gpd with a flow rate of 17.5gpm. The peak day flow rate was 35 gpm.

Industrial

The industrial zone consists of a vegetable and fruit processing facility. The nature of a fruit

processing facility can consume large quantities of water, in washing including peeling and

pitting practices, blanching, fluming the produce after blanching, sorting, and conveying the

product within the plant. Reducing size, coring, slicing, dicing, pureeing, and juicing process

steps, as well as filling and sanitizing activities after processing, also contribute to the water use

Design Proposal 5

5

(Water and Wastewater Use in the Food Processing Industry). The industrial area consisted of

3.2881 acres with a population density of 20 people/acre giving a total population of 66.

These activities consume water relative to the type of vegetable or fruit being as well as the

quantity being processed. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the design criteria of 2000

gpm for 8 hours a day on working days and peak hour consumption of 3000 gpm would be

sufficient to supply this type of industry with the required water supply.

Fire Flow

Fire Flow was calculated based on the following equation NFF = (Ci)(Oi)[(1.0+(X+P)i].

Assumptions were based off photos of fruit and vegetable processing plants. The Construction

of the building was assumed to be a single story wood frame structure. Most of the work is

done in a warehouse and large packing sheds leading to exposed walls of over 400 feet. The

layout of structures on the site are spread out anywhere from 31-60 feet. Total processing

space was assumed to be 50,000 sq. ft. out of the total space in the industrial zone of 143,230

sq. ft. The influence of the occupancy in this case being fruit and vegetables was assumed to be

noncombustible. Given this information the fire was calculated to be 5200 gpm or 3.12 Mgd

(for a 10 hour duration). The 10 hour duration was chosen in order to provide a conservative

estimate. (See Appendix for Calculations)

Design Proposal 6

6

Water Supply System

Pipe Size

Each node was designated an area to which water would be supplied. The total demand for the

node was determined by the constraints of the designated area such as population and land

use. The sum of the demand at each node equaled the total demand of the community. The

distribution system was designed to meet a minimum pressure of 20 psi and a maximum

pressure of 80 psi. To achieve this standard, pipes were sized from 12 inches in diameter to 16

inches in diameter. The larger pipes were located closer to the water supply sources (water

tower and reservoir) because these pipes were required to carry more flow. The standards for

velocity ranged from 3 fps to 6 fps.

Pipe Material

Since all of the pipes were 12 inches to 16 inches in diameter, ductile iron was selected as the

pipe material. Ductile iron pipes are strong, durable, and resist to corrosion, making them a

long lasting, reliable selection for a water distribution system. The Hazen-Williams coefficient

used during design was C=130.

Water Tower and Reservoir Design

Part of the community will be supplied with water from an elevated water storage tower. The

water tower will have a height of 310 feet to meet the pressure requirements for the best-case

scenario (for when both water tower and reservoir are in operation) and for the worst case

scenario (for when the pump fails at the reservoir). The volume required for the water tower

design is based on the max day flow + fire flow assuming the demand is split evenly between

the water storage tower and the reservoir, which gives 2.75MG required storage. This gallon

storage will translate to roughly 367,622 cubic feet of storage. The actual water storage unit on

the tower will have a diameter of 50 feet and a design height of 187 feet. The reservoir should

also have a storage capacity of 2.75MG, so 367,622 cubic feet as well.

Design Proposal 7

7

Pump Design

The pups ee desiged to full suppl the ouits ate dead fo the eseoi. Although the water tower and pump would work together to supply the community on a daily

basis, it was important to design the system to be able to fulfill needs in the case of water

tower failure. Pumps were designed based on the TDH of the system (TDHH = 305 ft), the total

demand (Q = 3606 GPM), and an assumed pump efficiency (= .65). The total horsepower needed 427.28 HP, thus 500 HP pumps were selected. The system was designed with two

pumps, the second would serve as a standby pump.

Pump Curve During Best Case Scenario (Everything Working)

Pump Curve During Water Tower Failure

Design Proposal 8

8

Fire Hydrant Locations

Standard regulation requires that the location of all fire hydrants serving the residential and

commercial zones will be 300 feet apart. For industrial areas, fire hydrants should be located no

more than 150 feet apart. All fire hydrant locations shown on the following map are located so

to provide maximum area coverage.

Fire Hydrant Map

Design Proposal 9

9

Valves

Gate valves are located throughout the system with three at each tee junction, four at each

cross intersection and one at each hydrant. The ensures optimal control of water supply so that

each pipe can be isolated for any needed maintenance or shut off in the case of emergencies.

Check valves are to be located alongside gate valves to prevent backflows. This applies to all

zones for standard practice and the protection of public health. Air relief valves were placed at

system high points to reduce pressure build-up, while blow-off valves are located at system low

offs to control sedimentation build-up.

Gate & Check Valve Map

Design Proposal 10

10

Sanitary Sewer System Pipe Size

A gravity system was chosen for separating the wastewater, with the goal of keeping the depth

in the pipe no greater than 50% of the diameter. The sanitary sewer system was designed to

handle both process water from industry as well as wastewater from residential and

commercial zones. This led to a substantial increase in pipe diameter for pipes flowing through

the main corridor. For smaller pipes a minimum design criteria of 8 inches was chosen.

However, pipes carrying the main outflow were not calculated based on being half full allowing

for the diameter to be decreased substantially, following the guidelines in the textbook

(McGhee). The largest pipe diaete as foud to e ad as loated near the food processing industry, as this represents the largest point source of wastewater in the system.

Pipe Velocity

Velocity in the system was designed to maintain a minimum of 2 ft/s in an effort to keep

suspended solids from settling, while a maximum design velocity of 10 ft/s was chosen to limit

damage to the pipes. An exception was made for the first few pipes in the system (line numbers

1-4) which fall below the minimum velocity, due to low flow in the pipes. It was decided that

the additional cost that would be required to excavate the pipe further, and thus increase

velocity, would be greater than providing some additional maintenance in the future.

Pipe Material

Concrete was chosen as the pipe material since it provides the necessary strength when buried

at greater depths. For pipes that have a diameter larger than 24 inches reinforced concrete

(Class II) pipe will be used. Corrosion is a major concern in sanitary sewer systems, in this case it

is assumed that the location is suitable in terms of temperature and sewage characteristics.

Normally, clay pipes are superior in terms of corrosion resistance but given the depth of buried

pipes and large diameter concrete was the best alternative. The roughness (n) for the concrete

pipes was assumed to be 0.015 resulting in a more conservative calculation.

Design Proposal 11

11

Pipe Connections

Pipe joints will be designed using compression rings as recommended for sewage applications.

This kind of connection allows for less infiltration to occur.

Figure of Pipe Diameters

Figure Cross-sectional view of sewer system

Design Proposal 12

12

Figure Summary of Design Analysis

Manholes

Manholes are spaced at 300 to 500 feet along straight segments of the pipe, or where the pipe

changes in size, direction, or grade. Manholes will be standardized and built with a 24 inch

opening. The frame will extend down to the bottom of the sewer pipe and rest on brickwork.

The walls will be 8 inches thick for depths up to 12 feet and an additional 4 in for each

additional 6 foot drop (McGhee, 2007). Drop manholes will be used where smaller tributary

sewer branches meet with the mainline. For large drops and high flow areas in the vicinity of

the industrial and commercial zones horizontal plates will be put into place to reduce the

kinetic energy of the flowing water. Covers will weigh around 540 pounds to adequately

support the weight of street traffic.

* Please see additional sanitary sewer attachment printed separately to maintain formatting

Pipe Material PVCMin. Velocity 2 ft/sMax Velocity 10 ft/sRoughness (n) 0.015Min Ground Cover 6 ftPercentage Full 50%Min. Pipe Diameter 8 in.Max Pipe Diameter 40 inMax Velocity (Actual) 7.6 ft/sMax Depth 22 ft.

Design Proposal 13

13

Storm Sewer System

Municipal Need

Stormwater management systems are important to the safety and the quality of life of

residents and businesses. A primary purpose of stormwater systems is to prevent dangerous

flooding which can disrupt buildings, crops, transportation, and a wide range of other human

involvement in an urban center. In viewing the model city, it is evident from the municipal

elevations that Canter Street and Acorn Street will experience a high level of runoff from

neighboring subcatchments. Residents and businesses along these streets may have to deal

ith high uoff eloities due to thei steets gadiet o floodig ea thei popet. While environmental and regulatory concerns are important for stormwater management, the

prevention of damage and destruction from flooding is the primary purpose for an urban

conveyance system.

Design Parameters

For design of the municipal stormwater conveyance system, a number of design criteria were

considered to safely and efficiently channel stormwater from the city. The following table on

page 14 outlines criteria that were taken into consideration.

Design Proposal 14

14

Desig Criteria Value Miiu Value Maiu Flo Velocit ft/s ft/s Slope .% % Depth of Coer ft elo sufae N/A Diaeter ft N/A Roughess Coefficiet N/A N = . Capacit* N/A , . Horizotal Distace fro Drikig Water Lies**

ft N/A

Vertical Distace fro Utilities**

ft

Pipe Material PVC fo diaete less tha ihes

Reifoed Coete Pipe fo diaete geate tha ihes

*atio of flo depth to full depth **fo Haestad Methods, Stoate Coeae Modelig ad Desig

Desig Restitios Other design considerations to ensure an optimal conveyance system are as follows:

1) Hydraulic Gradient Lines should be below surface elevation at all times.

2) Curved storm sewers are unacceptable due to flow and maintenance problems

3) Depth of cover should be at least 5 ft deep to prevent the crushing of pipes due to loads

Stormwater Software and Design Methods

The program used to design the municipal stormwater system was EPA Storm Water

Management Model (SWMM). The model provided a relatively straightforward process. First,

the image of the city was able to be added as a backdrop to the program. This made it easier to

interpret and map the following:

a) locations of the subcatchments

b) street and possible conduit locations

Design Proposal 15

15

c) optimal catch basin locations (for example, basins are best near intersections)

d its topogaph ad eleatios With this backdrop, the basic structure of the municipal was mapped and ready for

design. Subcatchments were added for residential and commercial regions, subcatchments

were plotted, and conduits inserted. Subcatchment area was designed using acres (ac) and

conduit lengths were designated using (ft). Both area and length were calculated based on the

fat that o the ap as eual to fo the atual legth. Next, the storm data was inserted using a 5 minute duration interval and an intensity

curve was drawn based on the data. This storm data allowed the EPA SWMM program to

calculate all necessary parameters. Once storm data was inserted, simulations were conducted.

Data was analyzed to ensure design parameters were satisfied. If, for example, pipe capacity

was greater than 75% or velocity was less than 3 fps, the program issued notifications for the

conduits that violated design conditions. Conduits which did not meet design conditions

concerning slope, velocity, diameter, length, capacity, depth of cover, and other pertinent

factors were specifically designed to ensure a proper stormwater conveyance model.

Design Proposal 16

16

Design Proposal 17

17

Storm Intensity and Duration Data

Ratio Flow to Full Flow Parameter

The following figure is the result of an initial simulation. The parameter being analyzed is the

ratio of flow to full flow or capacity. Capacity must be less than 75%. The figure shows conduits

on Canter St. (main trunk), Acorn St., Forest Avenue, and Redwood Street which are causing an

excessive flow. Excessive flow is a violation of our conveyance design.

Duration, Min Intensity, In/Hr

5 7

10 5.5

15 5

20 4.3

25 3.9

30 3.75

35 3.5

40 3.35

45 3.2

50 3.15

55 3.125

60 3.1

Design Proposal 18

18

Fig. Notes: all coduit diaetes set to . Red coduits idicatig isufficiet pipe sizes that ae causing overcapacity. Figure shows ratio of flow to full flow. Capacity is unitless.

Once the conduits which did not satisfy design parameters were found, they were

incrementally changed to meet design. Conduits were enlarged to the next commercially

available size. Twelve-inch pipes ee adjusted to to eet desig. If desig as ot satisfied, it as adjusted to the the ad so and so forth until capacity was met. Theefoe, ou a diaete as o . The folloig shos the atios of flo afte pipe sizes were adjusted:

Design Proposal 19

19

Fig. Notes: Ratio of flow to full flow after all pipe diameters were adjusted.

75% Flow Satisfied.

Minimum Slope Parameter

The following figure shows the result of simulation with slope as a parameter. The design

specifications indicate that the slope of our system must be greater than 0.2% and the

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends a storm sewer slope of no greater than

10%. Originally, some conduits violated the slope condition; certain links were less than 0.2%

which makes flow difficult in some links. To correct for this, elevations of nodes and conduits

were adjusted to ensure a proper slope. For example, for the main trunk which included Canter

St., the conduit had to be buried deeper or the depth of cover had to decrease for downstream

conduits. In other words, the gradient between upper manhole and lower manhole was

increased by lower the invert elevation of the lower manhole. This ensured that pipe slopes

were accurate. The following figure indicates the slopes of all pipes in the system.

Design Proposal 20

20

Fig. Notes: all pipe slopes are satisfied. All gradients between upper manhole and lower

manhole have proper slope to allow for sufficient flow. Minimum 0.2% slope satisfied.

Minimum Velocity Parameter

The following simulation shows the velocities in each conduit. Units are feet per second. The

design criteria specified are to ensure that velocity is greater than 3 fps and lower than 15 fps.

The max velocity (15 fps) is recommended by the ASCE. To increase velocity, other parameters

such as conduit slope, elevation, and diameter were adjusted to increase or in some instances

decrease velocity. For example, velocity in the conduit lining Forest Avenue was at around 20

fps during one simulation. Twenty-feet per second velocity can cause problems for

maintenance and conduit upkeep. The following figure indicates the velocity in all pipes in the

system.

Design Proposal 21

21

Fig. Notes: Velocities of all pipes in the system. Units are in feet per second (fps). Greater

velocities occur at lower elevations (main trunk). Minimum velocity of 3 fps in each conduit

satisfied.

Minimum Diameter and Materials Parameters

The following simulation shows the pipe diameters in the system. The design parameters

speif that the iiu pipe size i the oeae sste should e . The speifiatios also state that Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipes should be used for sizes less tha ad Reifoed Coete Pipes RCP should e used fo sizes geate tha . Theefoe, the conduits that are on the main trunk should be made with reinforced concrete while the lateral

lies that hae diaetes of should e desiged ith PVC material. It is important to note that many engineers state that pipe diameters should increase or remain constant as flow

moves downstream. If pipe diameter decreases than creates differences in pressure, velocity,

and flow. For example, the conduit on Canter St. shows a 3 ft conduit transitioning into a 1 ft

conduit. As flow is moving downstream, this 3 ft to 1 ft decrease will increase velocity and flow

which can be problematic for the system.

Design Proposal 22

22

Fig. Notes: All pipes show conduit diameter in feet ft. Lagest diaete is o ft. Minimum diaete of is satisfied.

Hydraulic Profiles

Design Proposal 23

23

Design Proposal 24

24

Summary of Results

Pipe Material

PVC or Reinforced Concrete

(D>18'')

Min. Velocity 3.72 fps

Max. Velocity 12.3 fps

Roughness n=0.013

Min Ground Cover 5 ft

Max Capacity 75% fullness

Min. Pipe Diameter 12 inches

Max. Pipe Diameter 36 inches

Max Depth 22 ft

Design Proposal 25

25

Utility Cross Section

The storm and sewer lines were spaced 6 ft horizontally from the water distribution line with 1

ft and 2 ft of vertical clearance, respectively. This distance protects each line from cross-

contamination and facilitates maintenance. The water distribution was given 3 ft of cover to

reduce live loading, while the storm line has an average cover of 5 ft. The six foot depth of the

sewer line minimizes risk of overflow of the pipeline onto the surface in the event of rupture or

damage to the pipeline. Please note that while the sewer and storm pipes are depicted as

flowing full in the cross section figure, they flow at 50% and 75% full, respectively, in the

designs.

Design Proposal 26

26

Works Cited

George, Ron. "Estimating Cold Water Demand for Buildings." 2011. Web. .

"Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow." Www.ecs.umass.edu. ISO Properties, Apr.

2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

"Water and Wastewater Use in the Food Processing Industry." Knowledge Industry. North

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 6 July 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

.

Design Proposal 27

27

Appendix

Water demand calculations:

Residential Area: 2887215.2 ft^2 = 66.281 acres Residential population density = 40 people/acre Populatio = .* = . people Average Consumption = 100 gal/capita-day Maximum day consumption = 200% avg daily consumption Maximum hour consumption = 400% avg daily consumption Residential average consumption = 2.652*10^5 gpd Residential maximum day consumption = 5.304*10^5 gpd Residential maximum hour consumption = 1.0608*10^6 gpd A= 143230 ft^2 B= 142500 ft^2 C=90000 ft^2

Industrial Area: 143230 ft^2*(1 acre/43560ft^2) =3.2881 acres Idustial populatio desit = people/ae = . people Average Consumption = 2,000 gpm for 8 hrs on weekdays (no other consumption) Peak hourly consumption in any hour (?) = 3,000 gpm Industrial consumption on weekday (8 hr period) = 3000 gpm*60 min/hr*8hr = 1.44*10^6 gal Industrial peak hour consumption = 3,000 gpm*60 = 1.8*10^5 gal

Commercial zone Shopping Center Area: B+C = 142500+90000 = 232500 ft^2*(1 acre/43560ft^2) =5.3375 acres Industrial Area: 143230 ft^2*(1 acre/43560ft^2) =3.2881 acres Use: 10 hours per day Visitors: 15% of population visits the shopping center per day. 0.15*2652 = 398 visitors per day Employees: 50 people per day Water consumption for customers per day = customers per day x 1.25 gallons per day per customer

= 398*1.25= 497.5 gpd/customer Water consumption for employees = numbers of employees per day x 20 gallons per day per

employee = 50*200= 10,000gpd/employee Total=10,497.5 gpd Average flow rate = total gallons per day/ 600 minutes per day = avg flow rate = 10,497.5/600= 17.5

gpm

Design Proposal 28

28

Peak day flow rate = average flow rate x 2 = 35 gpm

Water Supply Network Demand, Head, and Pressure:

Pump and Water Tower Working:

Network Table - Nodes

Demand Head Pressure

Node ID GPM ft psi

Junc 7 7.89 303.06 41.58

Junc 6 7.34 303.08 41.11

Junc 5 6.33 303.15 40.36

Junc 3 7.89 304.58 32.75

Junc 4 6.19 303.53 37.06

Junc 11 7.43 303.23 39.92

Junc 15 5.76 302.91 41.99

Junc 13 574.2 302.91 40.39

Junc 9 7.19 303.23 39.1

Junc 14 571.24 302.88 40.89

Junc 18 571.46 302.85 43.31

Junc 19 3.83 302.88 43.88

Junc 28 571.79 302.89 43.67

Junc 30 11.37 303.02 43.12

Junc 31 6.57 303.03 42

Junc 21 5.54 303.04 41.4

Junc 20 5.54 303.04 41.4

Junc 12 571.36 302.99 40.16

Junc 26 574.08 303.03 42.82

Junc 27 3.29 302.96 42.97

Junc 10 8.64 303.23 39.1

Junc 25 3.46 303.33 43.3

Junc 17 3.82 303.35 42.83

Junc 16 4.25 303.45 44.17

Junc 23 4.34 303.54 43.78

Junc 22 5.12 303.71 45.59

Junc 33 6.69 303.9 40.17

Junc 39 5.11 303.02 41.69

Junc 38 4.19 303.05 41.19

Junc 29 5.7 302.98 43.62

Junc 37 4.35 303.14 40.88

Junc 36 2.93 303.33 41.22

Junc 24 1.98 303.42 42.86

Junc 35 2.18 303.44 41.27

Design Proposal 29

29

Junc 34 5.12 303.67 40.59

Junc 40 6.72 303.02 41.61

Junc 8 2.83 303.05 41.97

Junc 32 2.38 303.04 42

Resvr 1 -1973.35 310 0

Resvr 2 -1632.76 305 0

Pump Failure



Node ID GPM ft psi

Junc 7 7.89 288.83 35.41

Junc 6 7.34 288.92 34.98

Junc 5 6.33 289.21 34.32

Junc 3 7.89 293.44 27.92

Junc 4 6.19 290.39 31.36

Junc 11 7.43 288.98 33.74

Junc 15 5.76 288.66 35.82

Junc 13 574.2 288.67 34.22

Junc 9 7.19 288.95 32.91

Junc 14 571.24 288.62 34.72

Junc 18 571.46 288.48 37.08

Junc 19 3.83 288.5 37.65

Junc 28 571.79 288.49 37.43

Junc 30 11.37 288.65 36.9

Junc 31 6.57 288.73 35.8

Junc 21 5.54 288.74 35.2

Junc 20 5.54 288.76 35.21

Junc 12 571.36 288.69 33.97

Junc 26 574.08 288.5 36.53

Junc 27 3.29 288.5 36.7

Junc 10 8.64 288.95 32.91

Junc 25 3.46 288.55 36.89

Junc 17 3.82 288.58 36.43

Junc 16 4.25 288.56 37.72

Junc 23 4.34 288.55 37.29

Junc 22 5.12 288.55 39.02

Junc 33 6.69 288.55 33.51

Junc 39 5.11 288.56 35.43

Junc 38 4.19 288.54 34.9

Junc 29 5.7 288.57 37.38

Junc 37 4.35 288.54 34.55

Design Proposal 30

30

Junc 36 2.93 288.54 34.81

Junc 24 1.98 288.55 36.42

Junc 35 2.18 288.55 34.81

Junc 34 5.12 288.55 34.03

Junc 40 6.72 288.58 35.35

Junc 8 2.83 288.81 35.79

Junc 32 2.38 288.74 35.81

Resvr 1 -3606.11 310 0

Water Tower Failure



Node ID GPM ft psi

Junc 7 7.89 296.14 38.58

Junc 6 7.34 296.12 38.1

Junc 5 6.33 296.08 37.3

Junc 3 7.89 296.1 29.08

Junc 4 6.19 296.07 33.83

Junc 11 7.43 296.19 36.87

Junc 15 5.76 296.01 39

Junc 13 574.2 295.97 37.38

Junc 9 7.19 296.28 36.08

Junc 14 571.24 295.97 37.9

Junc 18 571.46 296 40.34

Junc 19 3.83 296.03 40.92

Junc 28 571.79 296.12 40.74

Junc 30 11.37 296.18 40.16

Junc 31 6.57 296.16 39.02

Junc 21 5.54 296.15 38.41

Junc 20 5.54 296.15 38.41

Junc 12 571.36 296.08 37.17

Junc 26 574.08 296.74 40.1

Junc 27 3.29 296.41 40.13

Junc 10 8.64 296.28 36.08

Junc 25 3.46 297.73 40.87

Junc 17 3.82 297.73 40.4

Junc 16 4.25 298.22 41.91

Junc 23 4.34 298.63 41.65

Junc 22 5.12 299.42 43.73

Junc 33 6.69 300.23 38.58

Junc 39 5.11 296.39 38.82

Junc 38 4.19 296.61 38.4

Junc 29 5.7 296.18 40.68

Design Proposal 31

31

Junc 37 4.35 297.03 38.23

Junc 36 2.93 297.76 38.81

Junc 24 1.98 298.12 40.56

Junc 35 2.18 298.25 39.02

Junc 34 5.12 299.24 38.67

Junc 40 6.72 296.35 38.71

Junc 8 2.83 296.14 38.97

Junc 32 2.38 296.15 39.02

Resvr 2 -3606.11 305 0

Pump Design

HP=QxH/(3960*n)

Q= 3606 GPM

H=305ft

n=65%

HP= 427.28 HP (500 HP pump needed)

Stormwater Results:

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022)

--------------------------------------------------------------

*********************************************************

NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are

based on results found at every computational time step,

not just on results from each reporting time step.

*********************************************************

****************

Analysis Options

****************

Flow Units ............... CFS

Process Models:

Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES

Snowmelt ............... NO

Groundwater ............ NO

Flow Routing ........... YES

Ponding Allowed ........ YES

Water Quality .......... NO

Infiltration Method ...... CURVE_NUMBER

Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE

Starting Date ............ MAR-18-2013 00:01:00

Ending Date .............. MAR-18-2013 01:00:00

Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0

Design Proposal 32

32

Report Time Step ......... 00:59:00

Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00

Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00

Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec

*************

Element Count

*************

Number of rain gages ...... 2

Number of subcatchments ... 38

Number of nodes ........... 42

Number of links ........... 40

Number of pollutants ...... 0

Number of land uses ....... 0

****************

Raingage Summary

****************

Data Recording

Name Data Source Type Interval

-------------------------------------------------------------

northwest SampleStorm INTENSITY 5 min.

northeast SampleStorm INTENSITY 5 min.

********************

Subcatchment Summary

********************

Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash 2.85 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest Ash1

ash_east 2.65 350.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest acorn1

sycamore_west 1.61 500.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest sycamore

sycamore_east 1.47 500.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest acorn2

forest_west 1.51 500.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest forest

forest_east 1.57 500.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest acorn3

cedar_west 2.70 350.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest cedar1

cedar_east 2.11 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest cedar2

elm_sw 1.92 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest forest1

elm_se 0.23 100.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast forest2

birch_west 1.74 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest birch1

birch_east 1.66 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast canter4

66 0.82 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast canter2

elm_west 1.48 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest elm

elm_east 1.31 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast elm1

69 2.47 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest oak

Design Proposal 33

33

70 0.93 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast oak3

71 2.30 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest oak2

72 1.60 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest maple1

73 1.91 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest maple2

74 1.40 400.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest maple3

75 2.03 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest main1

76 1.88 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest main2

77 1.25 100.00 25.00 0.5000 northwest main3


79 2.17 400.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast maple4

82 1.53 250.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast walnut1

83 1.49 250.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast walnut

84 1.02 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast forest3

85 1.31 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast forest4

86 2.07 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast birch

87 0.64 50.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast cedar

88 0.79 150.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast ashmount

89 0.75 150.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast aspen1

90 0.46 200.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast ashmount0


94 1.65 300.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast ashmount1

98 3.02 100.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast 155

************

Node Summary

************

Invert Max. Ponded

Name Type Elev. Depth Area

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash1 JUNCTION 210.00 1.00 0.0

acorn1 JUNCTION 205.00 1.00 0.0


sycamore JUNCTION 205.00 1.00 0.0

forest JUNCTION 205.50 1.00 0.0


cedar1 JUNCTION 213.00 1.00 0.0

cedar2 JUNCTION 201.60 1.00 0.0

canter2 JUNCTION 196.00 3.00 0.0

ashmount1 JUNCTION 206.00 1.00 0.0


birch1 JUNCTION 201.20 1.00 0.0


forest4 JUNCTION 201.70 1.00 0.0

Design Proposal 34

34

walnut1 JUNCTION 201.20 1.00 0.0


maple4 JUNCTION 180.00 2.75 0.0




oak2 JUNCTION 198.00 1.00 0.0

aspen1 JUNCTION 205.00 1.00 0.0

main1 JUNCTION 207.00 1.00 0.0



acorn JUNCTION 204.00 1.50 0.0


cedar JUNCTION 199.00 1.00 0.0

birch JUNCTION 202.00 1.00 0.0


elm1 JUNCTION 193.00 2.25 0.0


oak JUNCTION 202.00 1.00 0.0

oak3 JUNCTION 186.00 2.25 0.0


ashmount0 JUNCTION 201.50 1.00 0.0

ashmount JUNCTION 203.00 1.00 0.0

walnut JUNCTION 189.00 1.00 0.0

elm JUNCTION 201.00 1.00 0.0

154 JUNCTION 205.00 1.00 0.0

155 JUNCTION 195.00 1.00 0.0

outfall OUTFALL 175.00 2.75 0.0

************

Link Summary

************

Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ash2 Ash1 acorn1 CONDUIT 472.0 1.0594 0.0130

acorn3 acorn2 acorn3 CONDUIT 300.0 0.6667 0.0130

canter1 canter2 canter5 CONDUIT 200.0 2.5008 0.0130

maple4 canter8 maple4 CONDUIT 400.0 1.0001 0.0130

sycamore sycamore acorn2 CONDUIT 472.0 0.6356 0.0130

forest forest acorn3 CONDUIT 380.0 1.4475 0.0130

cedar cedar2 canter2 CONDUIT 400.0 1.4001 0.0130

forest1 acorn3 forest1 CONDUIT 600.0 0.3333 0.0130

aspen aspen1 canter2 CONDUIT 370.0 2.4332 0.0130

Design Proposal 35

35

birch birch1 canter4 CONDUIT 500.0 1.2401 0.0130

maple maple1 maple2 CONDUIT 600.0 1.1001 0.0130

main2 main2 main3 CONDUIT 500.0 0.6000 0.0130

main3 main3 maple4 CONDUIT 450.0 4.4488 0.0130

acorn cedar1 acorn CONDUIT 200.0 4.5046 0.0130

acorn1 acorn acorn2 CONDUIT 240.0 0.8334 0.0130

61 acorn1 acorn CONDUIT 65.0 1.5386 0.0100

cedar1 cedar canter2 CONDUIT 50.0 6.0108 0.0130

birch1 birch canter4 CONDUIT 90.0 7.8014 0.0130

elm3 forest4 forest3 CONDUIT 240.0 3.2100 0.0130

elm2 forest3 canter5 CONDUIT 50.0 6.0108 0.0130

elm1 elm1 canter5 CONDUIT 400.0 0.5000 0.0130

forest2 forest1 forest2 CONDUIT 80.0 3.7526 0.0130

oak oak oak2 CONDUIT 320.0 1.2501 0.0130

oak1 oak2 oak3 CONDUIT 525.0 2.2863 0.0130

maple1 maple2 maple3 CONDUIT 375.0 2.4007 0.0130

maple3 maple3 canter8 CONDUIT 75.0 5.3409 0.0130

ashmount2 ashmount0 canter2 CONDUIT 400.0 1.3751 0.0130

canter canter1 canter2 CONDUIT 370.0 1.0811 0.0130

ashmount ashmount1 ashmount CONDUIT 300.0 1.0001 0.0130

ashmount1 ashmount canter1 CONDUIT 50.0 6.0108 0.0130

forest3 forest2 elm1 CONDUIT 180.0 1.1112 0.0130

walnut walnut1 walnut CONDUIT 400.0 3.0514 0.0130

elm elm elm1 CONDUIT 380.0 2.1057 0.0130

oak2 oak3 canter8 CONDUIT 370.0 0.5405 0.0130

canter2 canter5 canter8 CONDUIT 600.0 1.1667 0.0130

110 walnut canter8 CONDUIT 400.0 1.2501 0.0100

outfall maple4 outfall CONDUIT 400.0 1.2501 0.0130

113 main1 154 CONDUIT 325.0 0.6154 0.0130

114 154 main2 CONDUIT 325.0 0.6154 0.0130

117 155 oak3 CONDUIT 100.0 9.0367 0.0130

*********************

Cross Section Summary

*********************

Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full

Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ash2 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 3.67

acorn3 CIRCULAR 1.75 2.41 0.44 1.75 1 12.94

canter1 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 1 16.61

maple4 CIRCULAR 2.75 5.94 0.69 2.75 1 52.89

sycamore CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 2.84

Design Proposal 36

36

forest CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 4.29

cedar CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 4.22

forest1 CIRCULAR 2.25 3.98 0.56 2.25 1 17.88

aspen CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.56

birch CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 3.97

maple CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 3.74

main2 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.23 0.31 1.25 1 5.00

main3 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 7.51

acorn CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 7.56

acorn1 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 1 9.59

61 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.75

cedar1 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 8.73

birch1 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 9.95

elm3 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 6.38

elm2 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 8.73

elm1 CIRCULAR 2.25 3.98 0.56 2.25 1 21.90

forest2 CIRCULAR 2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 43.82

oak CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 3.98

oak1 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.39

maple1 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.52

maple3 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 1 24.28

ashmount2 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 4.18

canter CIRCULAR 3.00 7.07 0.75 3.00 1 69.35

ashmount CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 3.56

ashmount1 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 8.73

forest3 CIRCULAR 1.75 2.41 0.44 1.75 1 16.70

walnut CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 6.22

elm CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.17

oak2 CIRCULAR 2.25 3.98 0.56 2.25 1 22.77

canter2 CIRCULAR 2.25 3.98 0.56 2.25 1 33.45

110 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 5.18

outfall CIRCULAR 2.75 5.94 0.69 2.75 1 59.13

113 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 2.79

114 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 2.79

117 CIRCULAR 1.00 0.79 0.25 1.00 1 10.71

*********************

Control Actions Taken

*********************

*********************** Volume Depth

Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches

************************** --------- -------

Total Precipitation ...... 19.846 3.815

Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000

Design Proposal 37

37

Infiltration Loss ........ 14.279 2.745

Surface Runoff ........... 4.995 0.960

Final Surface Storage .... 0.775 0.149

Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.023

***********************Volume Volume

Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal

************************** --------- ---------

Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000

Wet Weather Inflow ....... 4.778 1.557

Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000

RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000

External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000

External Outflow ......... 4.184 1.363

Internal Outflow ......... 0.407 0.133

Storage Losses ........... 0.000 0.000

Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000

Final Stored Volume ...... 0.297 0.097

Continuity Error (%) ..... -2.281

********************************

Highest Flow Instability Indexes

********************************

Link outfall (13)

Link forest2 (10)

Link canter2 (9)

Link acorn3 (9)

Link elm1 (8)

*************************

Routing Time Step Summary

*************************

Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec

Average Time Step : 30.00 sec

Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec

Percent in Steady State : 0.00

Average Iterations per Step : 3.36

***************************

Subcatchment Runoff Summary

Design Proposal 38

38

***************************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff

Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff

Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.95 0.07 4.68 0.250

ash_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.07 4.48 0.251

sycamore_west 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.83 0.255

sycamore_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.59 0.256

forest_west 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.66 0.255

forest_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.76 0.255

cedar_west 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.07 4.56 0.251

cedar_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.06 3.60 0.252

elm_sw 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.95 0.05 3.14 0.250

elm_se 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.98 0.01 0.41 0.257

birch_west 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.05 2.90 0.251

birch_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.04 2.78 0.251

66 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.98 0.02 1.45 0.256

elm_west 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.04 2.51 0.252

elm_east 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.03 2.25 0.252

69 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.06 4.14 0.251

70 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.02 1.64 0.255

71 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.06 3.89 0.251

72 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.79 0.253

73 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.05 3.28 0.252

74 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.04 2.46 0.255

75 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.05 3.47 0.252

76 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.05 3.23 0.252

77 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.95 0.03 1.95 0.248

78 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.06 4.07 0.253

79 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.06 3.77 0.253

82 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.04 2.63 0.253

83 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.04 2.57 0.253

84 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.03 1.78 0.253

85 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.03 2.24 0.252

86 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.95 0.05 3.35 0.250

87 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.95 0.02 0.99 0.248

88 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.02 1.37 0.253

89 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.02 1.31 0.253

90 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.98 0.01 0.81 0.257

93 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.97 0.05 3.10 0.254

94 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.96 0.04 2.86 0.253

Design Proposal 39

39

98 3.81 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.91 0.07 4.04 0.239

******************

Node Depth Summary

******************

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Average Min Max Time of Max

Depth Depth HGL Occurrence

Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash1 JUNCTION 0.64 1.00 211.00 0 00:09

acorn1 JUNCTION 0.73 1.00 206.00 0 00:09

acorn2 JUNCTION 1.18 1.75 203.75 0 00:10

sycamore JUNCTION 0.51 0.82 205.82 0 00:10

forest JUNCTION 0.38 0.57 206.07 0 00:10

acorn3 JUNCTION 1.37 2.25 202.25 0 00:10

cedar1 JUNCTION 0.38 0.56 213.56 0 00:10

cedar2 JUNCTION 0.46 0.71 202.31 0 00:10

canter2 JUNCTION 0.72 1.10 197.10 0 00:11

ashmount1 JUNCTION 0.44 0.68 206.68 0 00:10

canter4 JUNCTION 0.92 1.00 196.00 0 00:05

birch1 JUNCTION 0.43 0.63 201.83 0 00:10

canter5 JUNCTION 1.52 2.25 193.25 0 00:11

forest4 JUNCTION 0.28 0.41 202.11 0 00:10

walnut1 JUNCTION 0.31 0.45 201.65 0 00:10

forest1 JUNCTION 1.32 1.88 199.88 0 00:12

maple4 JUNCTION 1.95 2.75 182.75 0 00:12

canter8 JUNCTION 1.92 2.75 186.75 0 00:11

maple2 JUNCTION 0.54 1.00 198.00 0 00:11

maple1 JUNCTION 0.42 0.64 204.24 0 00:10

oak2 JUNCTION 0.70 1.00 199.00 0 00:09

aspen1 JUNCTION 0.23 0.33 205.33 0 00:10

main1 JUNCTION 0.61 1.00 208.00 0 00:09

main2 JUNCTION 0.80 1.25 204.25 0 00:10

main3 JUNCTION 0.75 1.14 201.14 0 00:21

acorn JUNCTION 0.97 1.50 205.50 0 00:09

canter1 JUNCTION 0.46 0.65 200.65 0 00:11

cedar JUNCTION 0.17 0.23 199.23 0 00:10

birch JUNCTION 0.28 0.40 202.40 0 00:10

forest3 JUNCTION 0.32 0.47 194.47 0 00:10

elm1 JUNCTION 1.40 2.25 195.25 0 00:12

forest2 JUNCTION 1.36 2.00 197.00 0 00:11

oak JUNCTION 0.54 1.00 203.00 0 00:10

Design Proposal 40

40

oak3 JUNCTION 0.86 1.09 187.09 0 00:10

maple3 JUNCTION 0.53 0.88 188.88 0 00:13

ashmount0 JUNCTION 0.21 0.30 201.80 0 00:10

ashmount JUNCTION 0.44 0.66 203.66 0 00:11

walnut JUNCTION 0.51 0.80 189.80 0 00:10

elm JUNCTION 0.34 0.49 201.49 0 00:10

154 JUNCTION 0.60 1.00 206.00 0 00:10

155 JUNCTION 0.33 0.43 195.43 0 00:15

outfall OUTFALL 1.80 2.40 177.40 0 00:25

*******************

Node Inflow Summary

*******************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max Max Lateral Total

Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow

Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume

Node Type CFS CFS D/HR/MIN 10^6 gal 10^6 gal

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash1 JUNCTION 4.68 4.68 0 00:10 0.071 0.071

acorn1 JUNCTION 4.48 8.29 0 00:11 0.066 0.134

acorn2 JUNCTION 2.59 14.92 0 00:11 0.037 0.264

sycamore JUNCTION 2.83 2.83 0 00:10 0.041 0.041

forest JUNCTION 2.66 2.66 0 00:10 0.038 0.038

acorn3 JUNCTION 2.76 19.07 0 00:11 0.040 0.333

cedar1 JUNCTION 4.56 4.56 0 00:10 0.068 0.067

cedar2 JUNCTION 3.60 3.60 0 00:10 0.053 0.053

canter2 JUNCTION 1.45 14.75 0 00:11 0.021 0.221

ashmount1 JUNCTION 2.86 2.86 0 00:10 0.042 0.041

canter4 JUNCTION 2.78 8.63 0 00:11 0.041 0.135

birch1 JUNCTION 2.90 2.90 0 00:10 0.043 0.043

canter5 JUNCTION 0.00 39.84 0 00:12 0.000 0.689

forest4 JUNCTION 2.24 2.24 0 00:10 0.033 0.033

walnut1 JUNCTION 2.63 2.63 0 00:10 0.038 0.038

forest1 JUNCTION 3.14 21.11 0 00:12 0.048 0.370

maple4 JUNCTION 3.77 66.80 0 00:12 0.055 1.252

canter8 JUNCTION 4.07 62.72 0 00:13 0.059 1.123

maple2 JUNCTION 3.28 5.66 0 00:11 0.048 0.087

maple1 JUNCTION 2.79 2.79 0 00:10 0.040 0.040

oak2 JUNCTION 3.89 7.86 0 00:11 0.058 0.118

aspen1 JUNCTION 1.31 1.31 0 00:10 0.019 0.019

main1 JUNCTION 3.47 3.47 0 00:10 0.051 0.051

Design Proposal 41

41

main2 JUNCTION 3.23 5.80 0 00:12 0.047 0.095

main3 JUNCTION 1.95 7.12 0 00:14 0.031 0.122

acorn JUNCTION 0.00 10.29 0 00:10 0.000 0.190

canter1 JUNCTION 3.10 7.05 0 00:11 0.045 0.105

cedar JUNCTION 0.99 0.99 0 00:10 0.016 0.016

birch JUNCTION 3.35 3.35 0 00:10 0.051 0.051

forest3 JUNCTION 1.78 3.96 0 00:10 0.026 0.058

elm1 JUNCTION 2.25 22.34 0 00:12 0.033 0.419

forest2 JUNCTION 0.41 21.50 0 00:13 0.006 0.375

oak JUNCTION 4.14 4.14 0 00:10 0.062 0.062

oak3 JUNCTION 1.64 10.75 0 00:10 0.024 0.203

maple3 JUNCTION 2.46 7.97 0 00:13 0.035 0.121

ashmount0 JUNCTION 0.81 0.81 0 00:10 0.012 0.012

ashmount JUNCTION 1.37 4.08 0 00:11 0.020 0.060

walnut JUNCTION 2.57 5.05 0 00:10 0.037 0.075

elm JUNCTION 2.51 2.51 0 00:10 0.037 0.037

154 JUNCTION 0.00 3.02 0 00:11 0.000 0.049

155 JUNCTION 4.04 4.04 0 00:15 0.072 0.071

outfall OUTFALL 0.00 62.11 0 00:25 0.000 1.229

**********************

Node Surcharge Summary

**********************

Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Max. Height Min. Depth

Hours Above Crown Below Rim

Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash1 JUNCTION 0.18 0.000 0.000









oak2 JUNCTION 0.27 0.000 0.000

main1 JUNCTION 0.11 0.000 0.000

main2 JUNCTION 0.19 0.000 0.000

acorn JUNCTION 0.10 0.000 0.000

Design Proposal 42

42

elm1 JUNCTION 0.02 0.000 0.000


oak JUNCTION 0.03 0.000 0.000

154 JUNCTION 0.13 0.000 0.000

*********************

Node Flooding Summary

*********************

Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Maximum

Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded

Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Volume

Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 1000 ft3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash1 0.18 0.98 0 00:10 0.002 0.000

acorn1 0.33 2.53 0 00:11 0.011 0.000

acorn2 0.20 1.97 0 00:11 0.005 0.000

acorn3 0.04 1.08 0 00:11 0.001 0.000

canter5 0.21 6.07 0 00:13 0.014 0.000

maple4 0.30 6.28 0 00:12 0.027 0.000

canter8 0.27 9.76 0 00:13 0.037 0.000

maple2 0.04 0.12 0 00:12 0.000 0.000

oak2 0.27 2.38 0 00:12 0.008 0.000

main1 0.11 0.64 0 00:10 0.001 0.000

main2 0.19 0.79 0 00:12 0.002 0.000

acorn 0.10 0.65 0 00:11 0.001 0.000

elm1 0.02 0.22 0 00:12 0.000 0.000

forest2 0.35 4.63 0 00:13 0.023 0.000

oak 0.03 0.13 0 00:10 0.000 0.000

154 0.13 0.23 0 00:12 0.000 0.000

***********************

Outfall Loading Summary

***********************

-----------------------------------------------------------

Flow Avg. Max. Total

Freq. Flow Flow Volume

Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CFS 10^6 gal

-----------------------------------------------------------

outfall 90.76 50.92 62.11 1.229

-----------------------------------------------------------

Design Proposal 43

43

System 90.76 50.92 62.11 1.229

********************

Link Flow Summary

********************

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum Time of Max Max Max/ Max/

|Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full

Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ash2 CONDUIT 3.96 0 00:11 5.51 1.08 1.00

acorn3 CONDUIT 13.93 0 00:11 6.27 1.08 1.00

canter1 CONDUIT 14.72 0 00:12 10.64 0.89 0.73

maple4 CONDUIT 56.59 0 00:12 10.38 1.07 1.00

sycamore CONDUIT 2.64 0 00:12 4.21 0.93 0.76

forest CONDUIT 2.56 0 00:11 5.75 0.60 0.56

cedar CONDUIT 3.46 0 00:11 6.05 0.82 0.69

forest1 CONDUIT 18.20 0 00:12 5.21 1.02 0.87

aspen CONDUIT 1.26 0 00:11 5.77 0.23 0.32

birch CONDUIT 2.76 0 00:12 5.51 0.70 0.61

maple CONDUIT 2.60 0 00:12 5.23 0.70 0.61

main2 CONDUIT 5.39 0 00:21 4.80 1.08 0.95

main3 CONDUIT 7.11 0 00:14 10.92 0.95 0.78

acorn CONDUIT 4.55 0 00:10 10.12 0.60 0.56

acorn1 CONDUIT 10.07 0 00:15 6.33 1.05 0.93

61 CONDUIT 6.16 0 00:25 8.41 1.07 1.00

cedar1 CONDUIT 0.99 0 00:10 7.40 0.11 0.23

birch1 CONDUIT 3.34 0 00:10 11.47 0.34 0.40

elm3 CONDUIT 2.22 0 00:10 7.41 0.35 0.41

elm2 CONDUIT 3.96 0 00:10 10.85 0.45 0.47

elm1 CONDUIT 21.62 0 00:12 6.35 0.99 0.84

forest2 CONDUIT 21.14 0 00:13 13.86 0.48 0.49

oak CONDUIT 4.18 0 00:11 5.93 1.05 0.90

oak1 CONDUIT 5.82 0 00:25 8.09 1.08 1.00

maple1 CONDUIT 5.82 0 00:13 8.21 1.05 0.91

maple3 CONDUIT 7.92 0 00:13 12.26 0.33 0.39

ashmount2 CONDUIT 0.77 0 00:12 4.10 0.18 0.29

canter CONDUIT 6.95 0 00:12 6.32 0.10 0.21

ashmount CONDUIT 2.77 0 00:11 5.06 0.78 0.66

ashmount1 CONDUIT 4.09 0 00:11 10.94 0.47 0.48

forest3 CONDUIT 17.88 0 00:28 8.07 1.07 1.00

walnut CONDUIT 2.56 0 00:11 7.57 0.41 0.45

elm CONDUIT 2.44 0 00:11 6.53 0.47 0.48

Design Proposal 44

44

oak2 CONDUIT 10.69 0 00:16 5.64 0.47 0.48

canter2 CONDUIT 36.19 0 00:14 9.83 1.08 0.96

110 CONDUIT 4.97 0 00:11 7.59 0.96 0.78

outfall CONDUIT 62.11 0 00:25 11.61 1.05 0.94

113 CONDUIT 3.02 0 00:11 4.17 1.08 0.96

114 CONDUIT 2.99 0 00:17 4.18 1.07 0.93

117 CONDUIT 4.03 0 00:15 12.67 0.38 0.43

*************************

Conduit Surcharge Summary

*************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hours Hours

--------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity

Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ash2 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.05 0.17

acorn3 0.10 0.19 0.10 0.21 0.19

maple4 0.20 0.26 0.20 0.07 0.26

forest1 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03

main2 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.18 0.18

acorn1 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.09

61 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.32 0.32

elm1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

oak 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03

oak1 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.04 0.26

maple1 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03

forest3 0.27 0.34 0.27 0.07 0.34

canter2 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.21 0.20

outfall 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.30 0.29

113 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.10

114 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.12

Analysis begun on: Sat Apr 20 21:07:16 2013

Analysis ended on: Sat Apr 20 21:07:16 2013

Wastewater calculations:

Domestic Wastewater Calculations:

Domestic wastewater calculations were found by taking 70% of the max hour consumption.

Sample Calculations from spreadsheet:

Increment Population = (Increment of Area) x (40 persons/acre)

Sample: 2.3 acres x 40 persons/acre = 92 persons

Design Proposal 45

45

Total Tributary Population => Cumulative Sum of Increment Population

Sewage Flow = (Total Tributary Pop.) x 0.7 x 4 x 100gpcpd/(24hrs x 60min)

Assumes max hourly use at 400%

Assumes only 70% of which is wastewater

Sample = 92 people x 0.7 x 4 x 100/(24x60) = 17.89

Commercial and Industrial Design Wastewater Flow Calculations:

Commercial and Industrial wastewater flows were found by fixture unit method as shown

below:

For a shopping center the following tables were used to calculate the fixture units for 3

restaurants and 2 offices.

Restaurant Fixture Unit Estimate = 25 F.U.

Office Building Fixture Unit Estimate = 10 F.U.

Figure of Fixture units for various plumbing devices

Design Proposal 46

46

Figure Relationship between discharge and number of fixture units

From the table above corresponding flow rates for the number of fixture units were found to

be :

25 F.U. => 40 gpm x 3 (Restaurants) = 120 gpm

10 F.U. => 30 gpm x 2 (Offices) = 60 gpm

Total = 180 gpm

Industry

For industry wastewater calculations 70% of the water used during the peak hour governed the

design flow.

For Industry = (3000gpm) x (70%) = 2100 gpm

Final Design Parameters:

Commercial = 180 gpm => 180gpm/5.471acres = 33gpm/acre

Industry = 2100 gpm => 2100gpm/2.792acres = 752gpm/acre

Adjusted Sewage Flow

Certain portions of the sewage layout included commercial and industrial portions. To account

for this the fraction of area estimated to be industrial, commercial, or residential corresponds

to the wastewater flow of that particular zone.

Example: Zone with 1/3 industry, 1/3 commercial, and 1/3 residential would be calculated as

(1/3 x Increment Area x 752gpm/acre) + (1/3 x Area x 33gpm/acre) + (Residential Sewage

Flow**) = Adjusted Sewage Flow

** Residential Sewage flow is adjusted by (area) x (Pop. Per Capita) x (1/3)

Upper and Lower Manholes (Inverted Elevations)

Manholes were dropped by the diameter plus a minimum of 6 ft. ground cover.

Design Proposal 47

47

Fall of Sewer

Fall of Sewer =( UpperManhole Elev.) (Lower Manhole Elev.) Grade of Sewer

Grade of Sewer = (Fall of Sewer)/(Length of Pipe)

Capacity Flowing Full

Usig Maigs Euatio: Velocity Flowing Full Ratio of Q to Qfull Ratio of V to Vfull

Values were determined by from Graph of Hydraulic Elements for Circular Sewers

Velocity

V =

Additional Drop and Adjusted Drops

Additional drop values reflect additional drop in feet of the lower manhole to increase the

grade of sewer. Adjusted drops are calculations provided to ensure that pipes were matched at

the crowns.

Sewer Diameter (in) Min Slope6 0.00438 0.0033

10 0.002512 0.001915 0.001418 0.001121 0.0009224 0.00077

Design Proposal 48

Fire Flow Calculations

NFFi = the needed fire flow in gallons per minute (gpm)

Ci = a factor related to the type of construction

Oi = a factor related to the type of occupancy

X = a factor related to the exposure buildings

P = a factor related to the communication between buildings

Building Parameters

Industrial Area Total = 143,230 sq. ft.

Assume: 50,000 sq ft. of processing

1- Story

Wood Frame (Class 1) => F=1.5

Oi (C-1) Noncombustable = 0.75

Distance to exposed building => 31-60 ft. => Xi = 0.15

Length of Facing Wall = Over 400 ft.

Unprotected Openings Pi = 0

Calculations

Ci=18F(Ai)0.5 = = 6037 gpm NFFi = (Ci)(Oi)[1.0+(X+P)i] = 6037x0.75[1+0.15] = 5207 gpm x 10 hour duration = 3.12 Mgd

Fire Flow

5200 gpm or 3.12 Mgd

water supply and sewerage design

Documents