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.4
ii) commetclol....4
iii) Industrial ...4
iv) llte llow........5
III. Water Supply System................................6
i) Pipe Size...6
ii) Pipe Material.....6
iii) Water Tower and Reservoir Designs...6
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
l) Moolclpol NeeJ.13
ll) ueslqo lotometets.13
iii) Stormwater Software ooJ ueslqo MetboJs..14
iv) Storm Intensity and Duratloo uoto .17
v) Ratio Flow to Full Flow lotometet.17
vi) Mlolmom 5lope lotometet..19
vii) Minimum Velocity Parametet.20
iix) Minimum Diameter Parameter and Motetlols useJ..21
ix) Hydraulic Profiles..22
x) 5ommoty of kesolts..24
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 10
5
gpd, the peak day consumption is about 5.304 x 10
5
gpd and the
peak hour consumption is about 1.608 x 10
6
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
1he pumps were deslgned Lo fully supply Lhe communlLys waLer demand from Lhe reservolr.
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 dlameLer was found Lo be 40 and was locaLed 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 PVC
Min. Velocity 2 ft/s
Max Velocity 10 ft/s
Roughness (n) 0.015
Min Ground Cover 6 ft
Percentage Full 50%
Min. Pipe Diameter 8 in.
Max Pipe Diameter 40 in
Max Velocity (Actual) 7.6 ft/s
Max 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
wlLh hlgh runoff veloclLles due Lo Lhelr sLreeLs gradlenL or floodlng near Lhelr properLy. Whlle
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

Des|gn Cr|ter|a Va|ue (M|n|mum) Va|ue (Max|mum)
I|ow Ve|oc|ty 3 fL/s 13 fL/s
S|ope 0.02 10
Depth of Cover 3 fL below surface n/A
D|ameter 1 fL n/A
koughness Coeff|c|ent n/A n = 0.013
Capac|ty* n/A , 0.73
nor|zonta| D|stance from
Dr|nk|ng Water L|nes**
10 fL n/A
Vert|ca| D|stance from
Ut|||t|es**
1 fL
|pe Mater|a| vC for dlameLer less Lhan
13 lnches
8elnforced ConcreLe
lpe for dlameLer
greaLer Lhan 18 lnches

*raLlo of flow depLh Lo full depLh
**from PaesLad MeLhods, SLormwaLer Conveyance Modellng and ueslgn

ueslgn 8esLrlcLlons
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) clLys Lopography and elevaLlons
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
facL LhaL 1 on Lhe map was equal Lo 400 for Lhe acLual lengLh.
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

llq. Notes. oll cooJolt Jlometets set to 1. keJ cooJolts loJlcotloq losofflcleot plpe slzes tbot ote
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 plpes were ad[usLed Lo 13 Lo meeL deslgn. lf deslgn was noL
saLlsfled, lL was ad[usLed Lo 18 Lhen 21 Lhen 24 and so and so forth until capacity was met.
1herefore, our max dlameLer was 36 or 3. 1he followlng shows Lhe raLlos of flow afLer plpe
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
speclfy LhaL Lhe mlnlmum plpe slze ln Lhe conveyance sysLem should be 12. 1he speclflcaLlons
also state that Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipes should be used for sizes less Lhan 13 and
8elnforced ConcreLe lpes (8C) should be used for slzes greaLer Lhan 18. 1herefore, Lhe
conduits that are on the main trunk should be made with reinforced concrete while the lateral
llnes LhaL have dlameLers of 12 should be deslgned with 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). lotqest Jlometet ls J6 ot J ft. Minimum
Jlometet of 1 ls sotlsfleJ.



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. <http://www.plumb
techllc.com/Plumbing%20Design%20Info/pdfs/Cold%20Water/CWDEMAND2011.pdf>.

"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.
<http://www.nwfpa.org/nwfpa.info/component/content/article/56-water-usage/372-
water-and-wastewater-use-in-the-food-processing-industry>.




Design Proposal 27

27
Appendix

Water demand calculations:

Residential
Area: 2887215.2 ft^2 = 66.281 acres
Residential population density = 40 people/acre
opulaLlon = 66.281*40 = 2631.24 2632 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
lndusLrlal populaLlon denslLy = 20 people/acre = 63.76 66 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
Network Table - Nodes
Demand Head Pressure
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
Network Table - Nodes
Demand Head Pressure
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
78 2.35 400.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast canter8
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
93 1.77 400.00 25.00 0.5000 northeast canter1
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
acorn2 JUNCTION 202.00 1.75 0.0
sycamore JUNCTION 205.00 1.00 0.0
forest JUNCTION 205.50 1.00 0.0
acorn3 JUNCTION 200.00 2.25 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
canter4 JUNCTION 195.00 1.00 0.0
birch1 JUNCTION 201.20 1.00 0.0
canter5 JUNCTION 191.00 2.25 0.0
forest4 JUNCTION 201.70 1.00 0.0
Design Proposal 34

34
walnut1 JUNCTION 201.20 1.00 0.0
forest1 JUNCTION 198.00 2.25 0.0
maple4 JUNCTION 180.00 2.75 0.0
canter8 JUNCTION 184.00 2.75 0.0
maple2 JUNCTION 197.00 1.00 0.0
maple1 JUNCTION 203.60 1.00 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
main2 JUNCTION 203.00 1.25 0.0
main3 JUNCTION 200.00 1.25 0.0
acorn JUNCTION 204.00 1.50 0.0
canter1 JUNCTION 200.00 3.00 0.0
cedar JUNCTION 199.00 1.00 0.0
birch JUNCTION 202.00 1.00 0.0
forest3 JUNCTION 194.00 1.00 0.0
elm1 JUNCTION 193.00 2.25 0.0
forest2 JUNCTION 195.00 2.00 0.0
oak JUNCTION 202.00 1.00 0.0
oak3 JUNCTION 186.00 2.25 0.0
maple3 JUNCTION 188.00 1.50 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
acorn1 JUNCTION 0.33 0.000 0.000
acorn2 JUNCTION 0.20 0.000 0.000
acorn3 JUNCTION 0.04 0.000 0.000
canter4 JUNCTION 0.91 0.000 0.000
canter5 JUNCTION 0.21 0.000 0.000
maple4 JUNCTION 0.30 0.000 0.000
canter8 JUNCTION 0.27 0.000 0.000
maple2 JUNCTION 0.04 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
forest2 JUNCTION 0.35 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
usloq Moooloqs pootloo.

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 Slope
6 0.0043
8 0.0033
10 0.0025
12 0.0019
15 0.0014
18 0.0011
21 0.00092
24 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