HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Design Report - South 19th Widening - Stormwater STORMWATER DESIGN REPORT
FOR:
SOUTH 19TH AVENUE WIDENING
BOZEMAN, MT
Prepared By:
MADISON
ENGINEERING
Madison Engineering
895 Technology Blvd Ste 203
Bozeman, MT 59718
(406) 586-0262
MAY 2016 = = r ��, LLI
L:
01,
v
Gutter & Inlet Capacity Calculations
S. 19th Ave
Gutter Capacity Calculations
04.25.16
Allowable Pavement Encroachment
Given: T= 9 feet(max per city)
T W= 1.5 feet
w Ts Ts= 7.5 feet
SW= 0.06 ft/ft
Sx= 0.03 ft/ft
Q• a= 0.96 inches
d = 3.24 inches
d n = 0.015
So= 0.013 S. 19th Ave
°
S.
Sw/Sx= 2.00
T/W= 6
Capacity for Gutter
equations:
Q=QW +Qs Where:
Qs= Discharge within the Roadway
Qw _E°Q above the depressed section (cfs)
QS Qw= Discharge within the depressed
_
Q 1—E (gutter) section (cfs)
Cf= 0.56 for English units
Cr 5 g ' Sx= Pavement cross slope (ft/ft)
QS = SX3TSJSQ2
n Ts= Width of flow in the roadway above
depressed section
So= Gutter longitudinal slope(ft/ft)
S"'/S Sw= Gutter depression cross slope (ft/ft)
E° = 1+ " 8/3 T= Spread (ft/ft)
SN,/Sa W= Width of utter depression ft/ft
1+— — —1 9 P (ft/ft)
�T/W�-1
Capacity solution
S. 19th Ave
So= 0.015
Qs= 2.85 cfs
Eo= 0.42 cfs
Q= 4.93 cfs
Design Flow
Q10= 1.98 cfs
Q25= 3.48 cfs Design Flow< Capacity OK
Q100= 5.14 cfs
Summary
The gutter capacity is well above the calculated peak flows. Therefore,
the pavement encroachment will be less than the allowable(9-feet) by the City of Bozeman.
Page 1 of 1
S. 19th Ave
Inlet Capacity Calculations
04.25.16
Gutter Section
Given: T= 9.0 feet
T W= 1.50 feet
w T5 Ts= 7.50 feet
Sw= 0.06 ft/ft
Sx= 0.03 ft/ft
Q. a= 0.96 inches
a. S. d= 3.24 inches
d n = 0.015 Manning's n for curb&gutter
So= 0.013 S. 19th Ave Curb Inlet
s.
From Gutter Capacity
Inlet#1 Qw= 2.07 cfs
Qs= 2.85 cfs
Capacity for Inlet-S. 19th Ave
Based on Neenah inlet R-3067-L
Weir Equation
Q=3.3P(hj s Where: P= perimeter(ft)
h= Head (ft)
P: 5.90 feet
h: 0.35 feet(max per city)
Qwier= 4.03 cfs
Design Q for inlet#1 2+06.40, RT
Q10= 1.98 cfs
Q25= 3.48 cfs
Q100= 5.14 cfs
Inlet Design Ok
Page 1 of 1
Storm Drain Calculations
S. 19th Ave Roadway Improvements
Peak Q Values
Storm Information
Design Rainfall Freq. 25
OF coefficient a 0.78
OF coefficient b 0.00
OF coefficient n 0.64
Adjustment Factor Cf: 1.1
Peak Q Values for Roadway
Q
Total Area: 1.148 acres
C: 0.90
Average slope: 1.55 Percent
Travel Distance 1183.00 feet
Total tc: 6.11 minutes
intensity at tc 3.36 in/hr
peak runoff: 3.48 cfs
Q10 = 1.98 cfs
Q25 = 3.48 cfs
Q100 = 5.14 cfs
Page 1 of 1
T N O r M f0 O r M LO 00 O N M h h N
CD a $ O O O O C) r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
d
O C II
co
Y y 0 0 O O M CD O r (D h O O r N N N N N r h
(a >
d
a 00 T O O h W r V O h �-- r O LO O N V h •- O M
d m Cl) Oof4CD1- mm V' OI- mCri °� °Dco
a L O N IT 10 OD M O ((D � LO 0000 O M O M 0O0 N 0000 m r CN7 M
L 0 O N V' O LO
00 r-
Mo M � LO M O 0) t- (O NT N 0) (O O O O Cn
❑ (� ,0 r r (V CO V V LO (O h 00 M O O
E _
L
E LO co In O 00 O O h M O M V CO � O M h
L O CO M M O O O O M m O h 0 (O O co CN V N O
OOi N � 00 O CO 0) 0 N m � .h- m NNNN N N N V L0000
r
V
O O r N �' CO O N O O M h r O OD N LO h 0 OLD
O 66 66 O O N N M M
Q
N
O L N O O N V h r CO N N LO M N r r N of M -T N O
0 h O O O O O r N " M lO CO h CO O O N h
V 0 O O O O CoO O O O O C. O O O Cl O O r r r r
� to
U.
<
W — �
% O e h h 1- CDt O M N N M M W M r r M LC1 M r
~ i w CD 0 C. r r N N M M I M (D h O O O N LO N
N
_ C
t
/� �.. O c} O O O CO LO O N V' LO E N O LO O O O O V O
O LO h W O O r r N N N N N r r 0 0 O h LO O
p� !L~ O Cl O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O 00
0
H
u Q.
•� U O IF M N M M h O r M O W h 00 00 00 h to r
` 7 0 0 0 r r r N N N N M M M M co M M M M Cl) Cl)
0 0 0 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 666 6 6 6 6 66
N
a
L
@ d a+ O W O O W r M M r .y' CO O N g W N h M N CD M
Q > *'i 0) + O LO O O r M 1' M h O O O N M V W h O r M M
N N N N N N N M M vi
00 C C d
r W a
u
CY Q
O N W N h gyp' r M W M h -* N M LO r to 00
M O O O r r N C) M V' LO CD W h 00 O O O r r N N
Q
LO LO CO V) LO
r N 00 r O 6
r 0 0 O O O a) LO O N U) V' V Cl) d' LO a) M a) coCO
C) a) N lt7 00 C) MU) h a)O r LC') h M r c}' CO O M M N
WC; O r r r N N N N N vi M M M M -' V' 4 6 Ln CD
Z C
Z F-
L) C C
Q
Q W N ,0 ,0 T O CO M a) LO r CO V C) CD M a) LO r W � C) CD M O LO
O O r r N M M V LO tO CO CO h W 00 O O O r r N
J X O a+ C) C) C) C) CD CD O C) C) C) Cl C) CD O O r r r r r
CL
V C 0)d 11 d
a E E w a
La La E 0
U Cl oo cut
Mandeville Creek Culvert
Calculations
04
> r
a) 0 (L) (.0
70 0 CF) -
- C')
Z (0 N0 w m m C! Lq Iq 41 r OR Mr M Rr Mr h. r
2 r r— cn '2
T. T_ r T_ V_ V_ V_
cn
"D (1) 0 00 — m — r-- m 0 C'� 0
(1) -C cc 00 . . .
0 C.) (D "t m , — 0 r- M 0 — r- r- LO M 0 0 0
C) .t — (D CO Ce) 00 CN '-T P- 00 — 0) 00 00 (N —
0 CL t'- — LO 64 T U) U) — 0 0 1 LO CN CN — 00 0 0) (3)
a- . M 0 C) C-4 — 0) 0')
0 a) C (L) 4- ce) 't (D 0 r'- W M '.t I- M U') W 0 M
- c 0 >' 0 to co ce) (D M _ 0 0 0
0 (D (0 00 LO 00 u') C) (0 1,- (N CI) 0) 0) 00 MN
.cO Lr) E N C14 lq- I- Cl "T OD CO r-- N rl- — (D Cl M (D 00 0 LO
5; N (1) - - r N N M M It '.t U') LO LO LO LO LO
0 E
L�z 0 c cl w r-- q w m a m 0 T LO LO q W M U� 00
S OD co
ca a) 0 . c,4 m I-- N 4 r- r- a cD co cD
> t� w m W) r, m m 0) CD '%r - Cl) I- r'- '.t '.t
Lr) C�l LO a F- LO N r-. m LO m m 0 C;� 0 "T 10 0 0
0 m L') 'T 5 Lo N ow P- r-- t- I- F_ 6 V" N w N m LO
o" CL rZ 04 Lr) CN CO Ce) .t Lr) (D 1 CO (:1) C) - - C4 N -
(1) Cc U) M - - - - - -
" "yam < a)
m
N w 0 N .4t v OR cl 0! "'� OR Iq cl cl 41 ul
Z�' > 0 C4 'e . . . . . . CO 00 0 C-4 Cl) It Cl) 0 �e M U) W
no U)
M IZ I- w
V- T CL C13 (L) CY
rrrrTNNNNNNN
LO CL
C N
0 L:4- 0 C4 W C,4 a 00 W M 0 t 1- 00 00 t- a) 00 LO M C4
o �jj C� O 00 1, M M CA to 41 �R O� "It Lq LQ IR R
cNi vi 6 6 CO 0 4,
ca M M V
LL
<
C'i ('i N C'i Oi vi 4 6 h
a cc 0 T 0 d C'I (D r 00 0 00 r CD N a 0 r 0 W 0
01 h c! IR CA CA (q N h Cfl
R T N 'It Lq Iq h OR CA R r 7 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl C'i
:3
�6 d 2 a M O M h " N 0 W N h N I-
'At M et M U� N r
Col r 0 E N N M 4 4 6 6 6 t6 t,: t,� P. Wc6 c' cfl
00
w EZ
to to Itt M C) W r 0
CA al :q a) 0 w Ol OR R 'R .'t R 'q oi
. 0 '_
M T '* W W I,- W M C4 Cl) Iq U) Lf) LO
Iq CAD r-
to 00 T-m T-
le 1100
W C; C;
(7) N U) 00 0 Cl) LO F, a) rCl) LO f� a) r.0 0 MN
W C; C; N N N N N M M M M M4 4 4 L6 to (6
xw
UZ
z
w <
_J 3:
> a
W 0 0
W Q w y R N of IR (» r Cl to W R C! et t*-: 0) r c! (P OR R N to
X L:' L:l a 0 0 0 rr r r N N N N M M M M e qr tt
16 4. M
02 11 O� 0)
z L) c E 0 (1) 4 a) 0
E E 0.
0
< B B if
ry f MEMO
DATE: May 23, 2007
TO: Cordell Pool, Stahly Engineering and
CONFLUENCE Tracy Poole, Hyalite Capital Incorporated
i n c o r p o rated FROM: Ronda Burns, Confluence Inc.
RE: Mandeville Creek Hydrology and Hydraulics
This memo provides the results of the hydrologic analysis for Mandeville Creek. Three
methods were used to evaluate the flood flows for Mandeville Creek through the proposed
sub-division: current regression equations developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), a regional frequency analysis using surrounding gage data, and rainfall runoff
calculations performed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic
Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). The variables used to
estimate the flood flows using these three methods and their results are explained below.
This memo also summarizes the results of the hydraulic analysis performed using the
USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) to size the
culverts and map the floodplain through the Mandeville Creek subdivision.
USGS REGRESSION EQUATIONS
The regression equations developed by the USGS are formulated for different regions
within Montana and are based on drainage basin characteristics. Mandeville Creek is
located in the Upper Yellowstone—Central Mountain Region. The drainage basin area for
Mandeville Creek through the subdivision was determined through the use of topographic
information from the USGS map. The drainage basin has an area of 0.43 square miles and
is shown in Figure 1. No part of the drainage basin is above 6,000 feet elevation. In
addition to basin characteristics the USGS has refined their regression equations to include
channel geometry characteristics. From a reference channel, the average bankfull channel
width was estimated to be 2.9 feet. The results of the regression calculations based on
these characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Return'Interval
2-year 25-year 100-year
Discharge based on basin characteristics (cfs) 3 45 100
Discharge based on channel characteristics (cfs) 5 60 142
Discharge based on combination of 3 48 103
basin and channel characteristics cfs
REGIONAL FREQUENCY ANALYSIS FROM GAGE DATA
406-585-9500 This method consists of plotting the drainage area versus estimated flood frequency flow for
fax 406-582-9142 p g g q Y
nearby gages then drawing a best fit line through this data to determine a relationship. I
P.O.Box 1133 used the gages within a 50 mile radius of Bozeman and with drainage basins smaller than
1115 N.7 Ave,Suite 1 2,000 square miles. The resulting graph and equations are shown in Figure 2. Using the
Bozeman,MT 59771-1133 q 9 g p q 9 9
drainage area of 0.43 square miles, the results for Mandeville Creek are shown in Table 2.
www.confluenceine.com
Contract Holder
Creative Solutions for Natural Resources
MEMO
Table 2.
Return Interval
2-year 25-year 100-year'
Discharge (cfs) 2.3 1 23.6 47.9
RAINFALL RUNOFF CALCULATIONS
HEC-HMS uses the selected unit hydrograph method to estimate the runoff from a given storm for a
given drainage area. I selected the SCS curve number method. The predominant soil type for the
drainage basin is Blackmore Silt Loam which is in hydrologic soil group B. I assumed the antecedent
moisture class to be ll. With a land use of meadow (mowed for hay)for 70% of the basin and future
land use of residential with 1/8 acre or less average lot size for 30% of the basin, the SCS curve number
is 66. Based on this number, the initial loss is 1.03 inches. The basin lag time was estimated to be 122
minutes based on the slope of the basin and the length of the channel within the basin. The SCS has
developed 24-hour rainfall distributions for the entire country. Montana is located in the region where
the Type II rainfall distribution is applicable. The 24-hour rainfall for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year return
intervals for Bozeman measured at Montana State University are shown in Table 3. The results from
the HEC-HMS model are also shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Return;Interval
2-year 25-year 1'00-year
Precipitation (inches) 1.29 2.16 2.67
Discharge (cfs) 13.4 27.6 40.3
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY
Because Mandeville Creek is a low elevation stream with a very small drainage basin system, its
hydrology is more dependent on storm events than on snowmelt runoff. The gages used in both the
USGS regression equations and in the regional frequency analysis are generally associated with higher
elevation, larger drainage basin systems. Due to these differences we believe the results from the
rainfall runoff calculations to be the most applicable to the Mandeville Creek subdivision.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
The hydrologic information and the proposed stream channel geometry and culverts were entered into
HEC-RAS. The stream channel will be constructed by grading the proposed alignment down to the
stream bed elevation then replacing topsoil along the fringes to create mitigation wetland area next to
the channel. The wetland and stream channel corridor is 40 feet wide. The stream channel will
meander within this corridor. The proposed stream alignment and profile are shown in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively. The stream channel has a top width of 4 feet, and is 1 foot deep. To meet the existing
grade, slopes of 5H:1V will be used. Cross-sections for HEC-RAS were created by centering the stream
channel geometry in the proposed 40 foot wide wetland corridor and using 5H:1 V slopes to reach the
existing ground elevations. Cross-sections were created at least every 50 feet along the stream
channel. The typical stream cross-section is shown in Figure 5. A Manning's n-value of 0.04 was used
for the stream channel and overbank areas. The HEC-RAS model was run assuming normal depth at
the downstream end of the reach.
Creative Solutions for Natural Resources
MEMO
The culverts for Mandeville Creek were sized to meet the City of Bozeman specifications and allow for
fish passage. The City of Bozeman requires a culvert to pass the 25-year frequency flow with a
headwater depth of no more than 1.5 times the culvert diameter. This criterion results in a 36 inch round
equivalent concrete arch pipe culvert. The City also requires an emergency overflow path with a
capacity equal to 100% of the culvert. To avoid flooding of the lots upstream of the culverts, it was
decided that the culvert diameter should be increased. A 36 inch round equivalent concrete arch pipe
has a full flow water area of 6.4 square feet. In order to provide 100% of the capacity for an emergency
overflow, a 54 inch round equivalent concrete arch pipe (full flow water area of 14.3 square feet) is
necessary. The typical culvert cross-section is shown in Figure 5. Additionally, it is recommended that
the slope for the culverts be the same as the average stream bed slope which is 0.0114 ft/ft. The invert
of the culvert should be placed 0.5 feet below the stream bed elevation to allow for transport of
streambed material into the culvert.
For fish passage, the recommended maximum velocity for adult trout passage through a culvert is 3 ft/s
for culverts over 100 feet and 4 ft/s for culverts under 100 feet (Design of Road Culverts for Fish
Passage, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003). During all modeled flood events, the
velocities in the channel range between 0.7 and 6.2 ft/s with an average velocity of 3.4 ft/s. The
velocities in the culvert are similar to those found in the stream channel and are summarized in Table 4.
All culverts are passable at the 2-year return interval flood. Fish passage upstream is not expected to
coincide with the peak flows. Alternatively, sustained speeds, a speed that can be maintained for
minutes, for adult Cutthroat and Brown trout are given as 6 and 7 ft/sec respectively (Fisheries
Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria, Milo C. Bell, USACE, 1990).
Table 4.
Culvert Length (ft) Velocity US (ft/s) Velocity IDS (ft/s)
Q2 Q25 Q100 Q2 Q25 Q100
Alder Creek Dr. 90 3.06 4.02 4.68 2.10 3.94 5.64
Brookdale Dr. 90 3.06 4.02 4.68 2.10 4.02 5.68
Graf St. 120 3.06 4.01 4.61 2.10 3.98 5.62
Volmer St. 90 3.06 4.02 4.68 2.10 3.94 5.68
The extents of the 100-year floodplain boundary for the proposed alignment of Mandeville Creek are
shown in Figure 6. The 100-year floodplain is contained within the watercourse setback and does not
encroach on any lots or flow over the road. The results of the HEC-RAS model are provided in
Appendix A.
Creative Solutions for Natural Resources
� \ ;
� / E
oI !
�
i,
CPO
�
� � \
R
/ \
\ \ Lo
r
\Lu \
§ ±
z z
O O
_\ \ \ \
/ u / �
O c O 0 &
/ 0
�
\ <
2 L W
\ \\ \ 2 \
/ / / \ /
4 O 4 m /
E
@L » F-
/ / E (I-li
I \ / I Ln
w » � w
U)LLI / w W
/ b z Of O b / \
\ / Z \ LO G- (D\ \® o± g L mz
\ � E ¢ > \
� \ \ /
±
z
2
3
- -, uj :
} � �\
.. ....
Mandeville Creek "Arm" Culvert
Calculations
N
3.. > "t It N CR pl: OR OR 0! R R R R R C! cq
0
0 — C [L-
a)
0 C
3: 0 TCN
0
C14 tE N 000d7nd
(V M V M W W W W n n f- t, M w C6 06 C6 n r-:
(u :3 CO
(n
.cu > .75 >
E
O to c c E w W q 0) " CO t'- Lo W
ca a) =)
CL 0 m to C-) CD co M W CO M M a — '-t CO LO t- LO
N (n N It m r-- 0 (D r- 0 CD LO 00 CD LO a) LO CO 'Kt LO
U) cu C) 't CN r- IT N 0*) LO r- 0 LO 0
U) ci -t — (0 co fl- It
a) < r- co r- LO m — N 0) to It It (D CD M CO — ';t CO to
o -��=— -, . m C) Ce) N Co U,) co It N co V) rl- co 00 1q" (D C14 a) co r-
0. co 0 C\l -,t r.0 CD N (0 0 V, 00 04 CO CD IT r- CD — CN CO
0 (D Q) 0 LE 04 C\l C14 co CY) 14, 't 'T V) "I V)" = a 0 00
0
" �R
co CL 0 0 C) a)m 0 Ln _ Co Ce, COCD U*) t, _
N E 00 It N N CD LO It
" 4) LO M d,
a) -0 r- I -j w CL 00 NCO 0, 0 co m 0) CO (D - 0) 0 co 't N M �o
- NNE co - M CO 01) co (0 N N t- It CN fl- CD LO cv 0 CN C) Lo
O N "T coD C) 0 C)
M CN CL
0 cn CO M (0 "t C-4 C) M CO COCD U) CN a) "* 00 a)
>1 I_- . — — CN Ce) 'IT LO LO (D 00 0) (D . . . .
-a - - 2!
C 0) .0 cn
E a) N CO (o
p E C'j 0
5<- —CU C-4 (D
z 0 U) 4 o T- V- o V-
(1) c: 2 75 c —0
N a) a) a-
cu a
< M" c) cro- -(—,)
N
0 L:14— a eq (D M T r� NQ Tr 0) 1- r, 0 to to 40 N C) C
;z q Lq n C! rCi liq O) Ci CO R llq R 1p IIR
U.
:UJ
w 'm 0 cr) (O r m (n CD m 0 r- 0
3: R cq N -t (t! t--: CO C) O C) R C) C7 C) OR 1-: (q -t N Co R
Op-._
0
u)- T- V-
in IL
<
Wl N N N N N M M M M M4 4 4 6 6 c6
00
CY <
n n r-- I,- W W M M W W W
V: CV C4 C4 N cli N vi M
<
C%l W M V-
eq 00 0 io
N N cli N N M M MC-i vi 4 4 4 6 6 6
W UJ
V
a
w 3:
0 0
Lu U) T o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O r N cl --t Lq tq 1'.: Co CY! R r N cl et to 'R t-: CO 0n R
T-
W -J - &: %:
V- V-
CL
M 11 1�
Z L) 'E (D 0 s (D a)
E E CL a
m 'E 11 0
< B is a
Retention Pond Calculations
S 19th AVE
TEMPORARY STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN CALCULATIONS
Calculation of Required Volume for Storm Detention Pond
(Reference: Bozeman Stormwater Master Plan-1982)
Design Rainfall Freq. 10 year(see page III-5 of master plan)
IDF coefficient a 0.64
IDF coefficient b
IDF coefficient n 0.65
Pre-development Calculations Post-development Calculations
C C
Areas(ft): open space 0.20 Areas(ft): open space 0.20
med.res. 0.35 med.res. 0.35
dense res. 0.50 dense res. 0.50
comm.neigh. 0.60 comm.neigh. 0.60
comm.down. 0.80 comm.down. 0.80
industrial 15,610 0.80 industrial 48,100 0.90 (asphalt)
Total: 15,610 Total: 48,100
total area: 0.36 acres total area: 1.10 acres
composite C: 0.80 composite C: 0.90
Overland t� Overland t�
average slope: 1.36 percent average slope: 1.36 percent
travel distance: 1184 feet travel distance: 1184 feet
tc: 17 minutes tc: 12 minutes
Channel t� Channel tc
channel tc: minutes channel tc: minutes
Total tom: 17 minutes Total tc: 12 minutes
intensity at tc(fig 23): 1 A3 in/hr intensity at tc(fig 23): 1.86 in/hr
pre-devel peak runoff: 0.41 cfs post-devel peak runoff: 1.85 cfs
Detention Pond Calculations: Retention Pond Calculations:
design depth of pond 1.50 feet Q=CIA
max side slope 4.00 horizontal to 1.00 vertical C= 0.90 (post-development)
length/width ratio 3.00 I= 0.41 in/hr(10-yr,2-hr storm)
min.particle removed 40 microns(1 micron=1 x 10-6 meters) A= 1.10 acres
settling velocity of particle 0.0069 feet/second
Q= 0.41 cfs
min.pond to settle particle 268 square feet required retention storage(ft)=r 2.918 1 ft'
pond dimentions assuming vertical side slopes(actual pond footprint will be larger) design depth 1.50 feet
width 95 length/width ratio 1.00
length 48
pond dimensions assuming vertical side slopes
Volume held between contours: (actual pond footprint will be larger)
Cumulative width 44
Contour Area(ft) Delta V(ft) Volume(ft) length 44
4959.00 1,495
4960.0 2,270 1,883 1,883
4960.5 2,695 1,241 3,124
Design storage at 1.5'depth(ft')
Retention pond-25 yr