HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Bressi Ranch-Lennar Communities Part 1; Bressi Ranch Mass Grading Part 1; 2002-06-01PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • SURVEY/GPS
File: 2244.00 //?.
July 26, 2002
Clyde Wickham
City of Carlsbad Engineering Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Bressi Ranch - Industrial 'B' Tentative Map Drainage Study
Dear Clyde:
The Bressi Ranch Mass Grading Drainage Report (mass grading report), dated June 2002,
prepared by PDC is being submitted in conjunction with the Bressi Ranch Industrial 'B'
Tentative Map (Industrial 'B' TM) submittal package. This report addresses the ultimate
conditions hydrology associated with industrial Planning Areas (PAs) 1 through 5, which
are identified on the Industrial 'B' TM. Note that the same analysis criteria and
methodology, and backbone drainage system calculations identified in the mass grading
report also apply to the Industrial 'B' TM. This is due to the following:
• The industrial lot layout and grading remain the same;
• The mass grading backbone storm drain system provides lateral connection
locations for future industrial PA storm drain systems;
• The design of the backbone storm drain system and the industrial PA lateral
drainpipe connections are based on the ultimate condition hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses.
To facilitate the Industrial 'B' TM drainage plan check process, the following mass
grading report sections are applicable to the Industrial 'B' TM drainage:
AES Rational Method Hydrology
• Appendix 3.1: System 100 (PA-2, 3, 4)
• Appendix 3.2: System 122 (PA-3)
• Appendix 3.3: System 130 (PA-4)
• Appendix 3.5: System 400 (PA-1, 2)
• Appendix 3.6: System 800 (PA-3)
• Appendix 3.10: System 2000 (PA-5)
R:\WP\2200\Letter\2244-INDTM-DR.doc
701 B Strcci, Suite 800
Diego, California 92101 s^ R,vy,-ii
619-235-6471 Tel Vl/ P[lper
619-234-0349 Fax
Wickriam
July 26, 2002
Page 2
AES Pipeflow Hydraulics
• Appendix 4.1.1
• Appendix 4.1.2:
• Appendix 4.1.3:
• Appendix 4.1.5:
• Appendix 4.1.6:
• Appendix 4.1.7:
System 100 (PA-2, 3, 4)
System 122 (PA-3)
System 130 (PA-4)
System 400 (PA-i, 2)
System 800 (PA-3)
System 2000 (PA-5)
Should you have any questions concerning the drainage report please feel free to contact
Matt Moore or myself at 619-235-6471.
Sincerely,
Adolpn Lugo, PE
RCE 50998 Expires 09/30/05
Assistant Vice President
R:\WP\Lcucr\2200\2244-lNDTM-DR.doi:
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
BRESSI RANCH MASS GRADING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2002
Prepared for
LENNAR COMMUNITIES
c/o LENNAR BRESSI VENTURE, LLC
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared By:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 'B' Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)235-6471
Job No. 1325.50
Adolph Lugo RCE 50998
Registration Expires 09/30/05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE 4
2.1 Existing Offsite Drainage 4
2.1.1 Regional Detention 4
2.1.2 Offsite Facilities 5
2.2 Existing Onsite Drainage 5
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 6
4.0 HYDROLOGY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 6
4.1 Hydrology Criteria 6
4.2 Hydrology Methodology 7
4.2.1 Mass Grading Condition Hydrology 8
4.2.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology 9
4.2.3 Detention Basin Hydrology 12
4.2.4 Water Quality Requirements 13
4.3 Explanation of AES Modified Rational Method Software 13
5.0 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 14
5.1 Hydraulic Criteria 15
5.2 Hydraulic Methodology 15
5.2.1 Storm Drainpipe Design Methodology 15
5.2.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Design Methodology 15
5.2.3 Curb Inlet Analysis 16
5.2.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis 16
5.3 Explanation of AES Pipeflow Software 17
5.4 Explanation of FLOWMASTERPE Software 18
6.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS RESULTS 18
6.1 Mass Grading Condition Hydrology 18
6.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology 18
7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS 18
7.1 Storm Drainpipe Analysis 19
7.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis 19
T:\Wntec Resoun;es\2244.0 Bressi Mass Grjiling\Repon\2244DR.(ltn: •
7.3 Curb Inlet Analysis 19
7.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, andD-41 Analysis 19
8.0 CONCLUSION 20
FIGURES Page
1 Vicinity Map 2
TABLES Page
1 Hydrology Criteria 6
2 Mass Graded and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Comparison 10
3 Comparison of El Fuerte Street Storm Drain Flows 10
4 Hydraulic Criteria 15
APPENDICES
1 Rational Method Isopluvials Map (100-year)
2 Mass Graded Condition Rational Method Computer Output (100-year)
3 Ultimate Condition Rational Method Computer Output (100-year)
4 AES Pipeflow Computer Output
5 Temporary Desilting Basin Calculations
6 Curb Inlet Calculations
7 Concrete Ditch/Swale/Rip-Rap/D-41 Hydraulic Calculations
8 Detention Basin Calculations
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A Existing Condition Drainage Map (1 Sheet)
Exhibit B Mass Graded Condition Drainage Map (1 Sheet)
Exhibit C Ultimate Condition Drainage Map (2 Sheets)
Exhibit D Mass Grading and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Acreage Comparison (1 Sheet)
Exhibit E AES Pipeflow and Ditch Calculation Node Number Map (2 Sheets)
T:\Wa<er Resources*2244.G Bressi Mass Gr:Kling\Repon\2244DR.Joc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for design of the proposed Bressi Ranch
Development (Project) mass grading drainage facilities. Specifically, the mass grading includes
the construction of "backbone" drainage facilities within the Project "backbone" streets, and
erosion control desilting basins within the mass graded pads. Note that fine grading for the
Project, i.e., individual planning areas, will occur once the mass grading and associated dry and
wet utilities are constructed within the backbone roadway system. The Project is located in the
City of Carlsbad and is bounded by Palomar Airport Road to the north, Melrose Drive to the
east, El Camino Real to the west, and Poinsettia Drive to the south. Refer to Figure 1: Vicinity
Map, for the project location.
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were designed to
provide connection points to the individual planning areas that satisfy both mass graded and
ultimate condition planning area development drainage conditions. This approach was used to
avoid the design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and, during
final engineering, provide the individual planning areas with a backbone system that can be
connected to without, or with minor, modifications.
The mass grading industrial planning area desilting basin lateral connections to the backbone
roadway also serves as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement associated
with ultimate condition planning area development. In the case of the residential planning areas,
the mass grading lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations, or positioned
slightly downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However,
note that the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact
connection point location, are approximately the same. From a hydrologic perspective, the land
use associated with the planning areas are 1) industrial for Planning Areas 1-5; 2) residential for
Planning Areas 6-14; and 3) mixed use for Planning Area 15.
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential PA's to the
backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
REPORTY2244DR.DOC i
Ujoo
u.G^a.
-MELROSC
DRIVE
POINSEfTIA
LANE
Figure I. Vicinity Map
The ultimate condition drainage design presented herein is also based on the following reports:
1) The Bressi Ranch Tentative Map Drainage report titled, "Preliminary Drainage Report, Bressi
Ranch Planning Areas 1 through 14, and Open Space 1-6," dated March 2000; 2} drainage report
prepared for the El Fuerte Street grading and improvement plans, titled, "Drainage Report for El
Fuerte Street, Bressi Ranch," dated April 2002 which is currently in the City plan check process;
and 3) Chang reports titled "Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies for La Costa Greens in Carlsbad"
dated August 1998, and "Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies for Bressi Ranch in Carlsbad" dated
March 2001, which address regional detention requirements for the overall watershed. See
Section 2.1.1 for a description of the relevancy of the studies to this Project. Note thai PDC is
currently designing the detention facilities for the Project. This information will be provided with
a subsequent report submittal.
From a water quality perspective, the mass grading storm drain design will also be designed to
meet State NPDES construction and municipal stormwater permit requirements. The post-
construction BMPs for the Project are currently being developed in conjunction with the overall
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Bressi Ranch. The SWMP was recently approved
as a part of the Tentative Map submittal. The final post-construction BMP design will be
provided during a subsequent submittal. Additionally the construction phase BMP for the mass
grading are addressed in the Grading and Erosion Control Plans and the SWPPP.
To facilitate the plan check process the following is a summary of the items that are included in
this drainage report submittal and those items that will be provide in subsequent submittals:
The following are included in this report submittal:
• Hydrology for mass grading and ultimate conditions construction phasing;
• Storm drainpipe hydraulic capacity (Pipeflow) calculations for the mainline systems;
• Temporary desilting basin and riser pipe calculations; and
• Curb inlet and catch basin design calculations;
• Ditch, swale, rip-rap and D-41 calculations;
REPORTV2244DR.DOC
The following will be provided in subsequent submittals:
• AES Pipeflow calculations for the curb inlet lateral pipes;
• Post-construction BMP design; and
• Detention analysis.
2.0 EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE
The following sections address mass grading existing conditions offsite and onsite drainage
patterns. These patterns provide the framework for the hydrologic evaluation of the mass graded
and ultimate conditions hydrology, which was used in the design of the mass grading storm
drainpipe system, and formulation of the detention scheme for the overall Bressi Ranch
development.
2.1 Existing Offsite Drainage
2.1.1 Regional Detention
The regional detention studies for the Bressi Ranch, La Costa Greens, and Rancho Carrillo
projects were previously prepared by Rick Engineering for the Rancho Carrillo project, and
Howard H. Chang Consultants for the La Costa Greens and Bressi Ranch developments. The
Chang studies, which integrate/adopt the Rick analysis, were used as reference material in the
final design of the Bressi detention basin(s). The latter reports are titled, "Hydrology and
Hydraulics Studies for La Costa Greens in Carlsbad" dated August 1998, and "Hydrology and
Hydraulics Studies for Bressi Ranch in Carlsbad" dated March 2001.
As a result of the previous studies, there are currently two offsite detention basins that affect the
final design of the Project detention basins. The first basin was constructed as apart of Rancho
Carrillo (Rick Engineering), and is located at the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia
Lane (southeast quadrant). The second basin (Alicante Basin) will be constructed with the La
Costa Greens development (O'Day Consultants/Chang), and will be located at the proposed
intersection of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane, just downstream of the Rick basin. The latter
basin is currently under review by the City.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
The existing Rick basin provides detention for the Rancho Carrillo Project and a small portion of
Bressi Ranch open space area. Due to a significant amount of diversion from the Bressi Ranch
development, a second basin will be located at the El Fuerte Street/Poinsettia Lane intersection.
The latter basin analysis and design are addressed in the second Chang report for Bressi Ranch,
and will be constructed as part of the El Fuerte Street grading and improvement plans. The City
is currently reviewing the El Fuerte Street improvement plans.
The Alicante basin also receives storm flow from a northerly tributary that drains the westerly
half of the Bressi Ranch development. Detention for this area is currently being evaluated and, if
required, will be addressed in a subsequent submittal of this drainage report.
2.1.2 Off site Facilities
There are two offsite storm drain systems that affect the design of the onsite improvements. The
first system is located within Palomar Airport Road and collects roadway storm flow prior to
discharging into an existing swale within the Bressi Ranch development. The discharge location
is at the proposed Palomar Airport Road/Street E intersection. In the ultimate condition, the
existing storm drainpipe system will be extended down Street E and tie into the backbone storm
drainpipe system in Street D.
The second system is an existing 36-inch RCP and 'F' Type Catch Basin, which conveys flow
from the northwest portion of the Project (to the west) across El Camino Real, just south of the
El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection. In the ultimate condition, this system will
be extended (System 800) to accommodate the same existing conditions flows. See Exhibits B,
C, and D for these system improvements, and Exhibit A for the Existing Conditions Drainage
Map for Bressi Ranch.
2.2 Existing Onsite Drainage
Bressi Ranch currently consists of gently rolling hills covered with perennial grasses, chaparral,
agricultural crops, and natural drainage channels. The site generally drains to the following three
locations: 1) the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia Lane (El Fuerte Basin); 2) the
intersection of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane (Alicante Basin); and 3) the intersection of El
REPORTV2244DR.DOC
Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (PAR Basin). Flows from the El Fuerte Basin and the
Alicante Basin are conveyed to an unnamed tributary of San Marcos Creek. Flows from the
PAR Basin are tributary to Encinas Creek.
See Exhibit A for the Existing Conditions Drainage Map for delineation of the onsite drainage
basins and acreages. Exhibit A was acquired from the approved Bressi Ranch Tentative Map
Drainage Report dated March 2000.
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The mass grading drainage improvements consist of a backbone storm drainpipe system, curb
inlets, catch basins, concrete ditches, riprap energy dissipaters, and temporary desilting basins.
The main difference between the mass grading and ultimate condition drainage improvements is
the temporary desilting basins required for the mass graded site. Lateral pipe stub-outs are
provided at key locations within the storm drainpipe system to accommodate ultimate condition
flows generated from the residential and industrial planning areas. See Exhibits B and C for the
mass graded and ultimate condition drainage maps, respectively.
4.0 HYDROLOGY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Hydrology Criteria
This section of the report summarizes the drainage criteria that were used in the hydrologic
analysis and key elements of the methodology. Table 1 summarizes the drainage criteria for the
project.
REPORTV2244DR.DOC
Table 1: Hydrology Criteria
Design Storm:
Land Use:
Runoff Coefficients:
Hydrologic Soil Group:
Intensity and Time of
Concentration:
100-year, 6-hour storm.
Existing, mass graded and ultimate open space, roadway, single-
and multifamily residential, and industrial.
Based on criteria presented in the "Standards for Design and
Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of
Carlsbad," Drainage - Design Criteria section, dated 4-20-93.
Soil Group 'D' per the County Soil Group Map.
Based on criteria presented in the County of San Diego
Hvdrolosv Manual. See Appendix 1 for the County Isopluvials.
4.2 Hydrology Methodology
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were design to
provide connection points to the individual planning areas that satisfy both mass graded and
ultimate planning area development hydrologic and hydraulic conditions. This approach was
used to avoid the design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and
provide the individual planning areas, during final engineering, with a backbone system that can
be connected to without, or with minor, modifications.
Specifically, the mass grading industrial planning area desilting basin lateral connections to the
backbone roadway also serve as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement
associated with ultimate planning area development. In the case of the residential planning areas,
the mass grading lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations, or positioned
slightly downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However,
note that the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact
connection point location, are approximately the same.
Mass grading and ultimate condition storm flows were calculated to determine the governing
flow for the design of the desilting basin and backbone storm drain facilities, respectively.
Specifically, the mass grading storm flows were used to design the temporary desilting basins
riser pipes and emergency spillways, and design the temporary bladed swales and riprap. The
REPORTY2244DR.DOC
ultimate condition storm flows were used to design the 1) backbone storm drainpipe system;
2) storm drainpipe lateral stub-out connections to the residential and industrial planning areas;
3) curb inlets and catch basins; and 4) permanent concrete ditches and riprap.
4.2.1 Mass Grading Hydrology
The Project mass grading provides an interim drainage condition that incorporates the following
design features:
• Overall site mass grading and backbone roadway improvements;
• Temporary desilting basins with riser pipes and spillways; and
• Temporary bladed swales and riprap erosion protection.
The hydrology for the mass grading was used, in lieu of the ultimate conditions hydrology, only
for the design of the temporary desilting basins and bladed swales within the industrial and
residential planning areas. The flows were not routed through the backbone storm drainpipe
system, since the backbone drainpipe system was only designed for ultimate conditions.
The desilting basins and temporary bladed swales were designed using the following criteria:
• City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing DS-3;
• Sheet and ditch flow over the graded lots;
• Runoff coefficient value of 0.55 to reflect the graded and compacted residential and
industrial pad areas;
• Desilting basin riser pipes and spillways were designed to pass the mass graded condition
100-year storm flows;
• Outflow pipes were designed to pass ultimate condition 100-year storm flows.
See Exhibit B for the mass grading drainage map which delineates the mass grading drainage
basins and temporary desilting basin locations.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
4.2.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology
It is important to note that ultimate condition hydrology analysis was prepared by assuming an
approximate storm drain layout within each PA and by using street grades for the pipe slopes.
This approach was used to acquire a more accurate estimate of future storm flows for the design
of the backbone system and PA stub-outs. The ultimate condition improvements consist of the
following:
• Proposed grading associated with the Bressi Ranch Development east of El Fuerte Street
and within Industrial Planning Area 5;
• Proposed grading within the industrial and residential planning areas associated with the
Bressi Ranch development as shown on the tentative map;
• Backbone storm drainpipe system and inlets;
• Concrete drainage ditches and riprap.
The ultimate condition hydrology for the Project is based on: 1) the mass grading and storm
drain plans for the backbone storm drainpipe system; 2) the tentative map for the areas within the
future residential and industrial planning areas; and 3) El Fuerte Street grading and improvement
plans. See Exhibit C for the ultimate conditions hydrology maps.
Mass Grading Storm Drain Plans and Tentative Map
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential planning areas to
the backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
A key element of the mass grading and backbone storm drainpipe design for the planning areas
was to minimize differences between: 1) the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage areas
and flow patterns; 2) the location of the backbone connection points between mass graded and
ultimate conditions; and 3) maintain the same drainpipe sizes for both mass graded and ultimate
conditions. Exhibit D and Table 2 provide a comparison of mass graded and ultimate condition
REPORT/2244DR. DOC
acreages at key points along the backbone storm drainpipe system. Table 2 shows that the
differences between the mass grading and ultimate condition drainage areas are minimized.
However, at several locations along the backbone storm drainpipe system, the mass graded
acreage is less than ultimate conditions. This situation occurs within the residential planning
areas at locations where the temporary desilting basins tie into the backbone storm drainpipe
system downstream of the ultimate connection point.
Table 2. Mass Graded and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Comparison
Node Number per
Ultimate Condition Hydrology Map
101.0
105.0
106.0
107.0
108.0
108.4
111.0
115.0
117.0
122.0
206.0
210.0
300.5
405.0
415.0
808.0
900.5
901.5
902.5
1205.0
2001.0
2015
4006.2
5025.0
5037.0
5060.0
5075.0
5080.0
5090.0
5095.0
6020.0
Mass Graded
Acreage
17.7
40.9
46.9
60.4
76.6
15.6
5.2
117.6
120.5
145.8
2.7
34.3
24.5
8.6
22.1
13.0
9.2
12.0
4.5
12.2
10.6
29.6
10.1
19.3
20.0
55.7
60.4
68.8
69.8
97.8
31.6
Ultimate Condition
Acreage
17.7
40.9
46.9
60.4
76.6
15.6
5.2
117.6
145.0
145.8
31.6
34.3
24.5
8.6
22.1
13.0
9.2
12.0
4.5
12.2
10.6
29,6
10.1
19.3
35.9
55.7
67.7
68.8
97.2
97.8
31.6
REPORT/2244 DR. DOC 10
Unlike the industrial planning areas, the proposed connection points for the residential planning
areas are more clearly defined. Stub-out connector pipes are provided at the intersections of
future residential streets to accommodate future flows.
Note that the hydrology within the individual industrial and residential planning areas will need
to be reanalyzed at the time of final engineering for the design of the interior systems that tie
into the backbone system. This approach is necessary to verify that the final 100-year storm
are equal to or less than those shown on the El Fuerte Street Plans and in this report.
El Fuerte Street Plans
The stand-alone El Fuerte Street Improvement Plans prepared by PDC show the proposed storm
drainpipe within El Fuerte Street and the 100-year design storm flows. Note that moderately
conservative flows were used in the design of the El Fuerte system to account for any minor
changes in storm flows resulting from the design of the mass grading backbone system. The
results of the hydrologic analysis indicate that the flows generated herein are consistent with the
El Fuerte system design. Table 3 below presents a comparison of the flows used for the El
Fuerte Street storm drain design and the storm flows calculated herein.
Table 3. Comparison of El Fuerte Street Storm Drain Flows
Street Name
'F Street
T>' Street
'C' Street
'B' Street
El Fuerte Street Station
42+50
System Name per
Exhibit 'C'
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Q 100 per El Fuerte
Plan (CFS)
110
6.4
40
200
60
Q100 per Current
Hydrology (CFS)
105.2
5.6
36.8
178.8
57.9
REPORTCZ44DR.DOC 11
4.2.3 Detention Basin Hydrology
A detention basin will be provided for the easterly portion of Bressi Ranch at the southwest
corner of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia Lane within OS-5. The design and analysis of this basin
will be provided in the drainage report for El Fuerte Street.
The need for onsite detention in the westerly portion of Bressi Ranch (Alicante Basin) is
currently being investigated in relation to the proposed downstream regional detention facility at
the corner of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane. Should onsite detention be required, the design
and analysis will be provided in a subsequent submittal of this report.
Detention was not considered for the PAR Basin that is located in the northwest corner of the
site. As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, there is an existing condition drainage area that drains across
El Camino Real to the Encinas Creek drainage basin. Detention was not considered at this
location since the storm drainpipe layout for proposed Pipe System 800 was configured to
deliver approximately the existing condition 100-year storm flow to the existing 36-inch RCP
under El Camino Real. This was accomplished by diverting a portion of industrial Planning
Area 3 in Pipe System 122 to the Alicante Road Pipe System 100. Note that the developed area
from Planning Area 3 will be over-detained in the proposed OS-1 detention basin.
4.2.4 Water Quality Requirements
From a water quality perspective, the mass grading storm drain design will also be designed to
meet State NPDES construction and municipal stormwater permit requirements. The post-
construction BMPs for the Project are currently being developed in conjunction with the overall
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Bressi Ranch. The SWMP was recently approved
as a part of the Tentative Map submittal. The final post-construction BMP design will be
provided during a subsequent submittal. Note that the construction phase water quality
requirements and BMP design will be addressed in the Grading and Erosion Control Plans and
the SWPPP.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 12
4.3 Explanation of AES Rational Method Software
The Advanced Engineering Software (AES) Rational Method Program was used to perform the
hydrologic calculations. This section provides a brief explanation of the computational procedure
used in the computer model.
The AES Rational Method was used to determine the 100-year storm flows for the Project. The
AES Rational Method Hydrology Program is a computer-aided design program where the user
develops a node link model of the watershed. The program has the capability of estimating
conduit sizes to convey design storm flows, or the user may input specific conduit sizes and open
channels. Soil types used in the model are based on hydrologic soil groups as outlined in the
Conservation Service's Soil Survey for San Diego County. The rainfall intensity distribution and
runoff coefficients utilized by the program can be user-specified to be based on either the County
of San Diego or the City of San Diego Drainage Design Manuals.
Developing independent node link models for each interior watershed and Unking these sub-
models together at confluence points creates the node link model. The program allows up to five
streams to confluence at a node. Stream entries must be made sequentially until all are entered.
The program allows consideration of only one confluence at a time. The program has the
capability of performing calculations for 17 hydrologic and hydraulic processes. These processes
are assigned code numbers, which appear in the printed output. The code numbers and their
meanings are as follows:
CODE 0: ENTER Comment
CODE 1: CONFLUENCE analysis at node
CODE 2: INITIAL subarea analysis
CODE 3: PIPE/BOX travel time (COMPUTER estimated pipe/box size)
CODE 4: PIPE/BOX travel time (USER specified pipe/box size)
CODE 5: OPEN CHANNEL travel time
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 13
CODE 6: STREETFLOW analysis through subarea, includes subarea runoff
CODE 7: USER-SPECIFIED hydrology data at a node
CODE 8: ADDITION of subarea runoff to MAIN-Stream
CODE 9: V-GUTTER flow through subarea
CODE 10: COPY MAIN-stream data onto memory BANK
CODE 11: CONFLUENCE a memory BANK with the Mainstream memory
CODE 12: CLEAR a memory BANK
CODE 13: CLEAR the MAIN-stream
CODE 14: COPY a memory BANK onto the Main-stream memory
CODE 15: HYDROLOGIC data BANK storage functions
CODE 16: USER-SPECIFIED Source Flow at a node
5.0 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
The following sections discuss the criteria and methodology employed in the hydraulic design of
the storm drainage facilities. Also included is a brief description of the computer software used
in the analyses.
REPORTY2244DR.DOC 14
5.1 Hydraulic Criteria
Table 4 summarizes the hydraulic criteria used in the design of the storm drain improvements.
Table 4. Hydraulic Criteria
Underground storm drainpipe
systems
Desilting Basins
Curb Inlets
Ditches and Channels
Rip-rap
100-Year storm HGL below the inlet opening and below
cleanout top-of-rim elevations
City of Carlsbad Standard DS-3 and basin capacity chart
City of San Diego Inlet Capacity formulas for inlets on
grade, and 2 CFS/ft for inlets in sump; no by-pass.
100- Year storm HGL contained within the ditch/channel
with 0.5-foot freeboard.
County of San Diego permissible velocity chart
5.2 Hydraulic Methodology
5.2.1 Storm Drainpipe Design Methodology
The storm drainpipe was designed based on the ultimate condition storm flows. As discussed in
Section 4.2.2 the hydraulic analysis assumes that drainpipes from the industrial lots will tie-into
the backbone storm drain at the desilting basin outlet pipe locations shown on the mass grading
storm drain improvement plans. The analysis also assumes that the residential area drainpipes
will tie-in at the stub-outs provided at the intersections of future residential streets.
The drainpipe hydraulic analyses using ultimate condition storm flows was performed to provide
HGLs: 1) that are maintained beneath the roadway or pads, 2) that minimize the use of water
tight joints, and 3) provide an HGL at the PA connection points that will not adversely impact
future storm drainpipe systems within the interior portions of the residential and industrial
planning areas.
5.2.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis
The temporary desilting basins were designed based on the City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing
REPORT72244DR.DOC 15
DS-3, which provides basic basin geometry and a sediment capacity table. The required basin
capacity was determined using the DS-3 capacity table based on the tributary acreage and slope.
The following is a summary of the desilting basin design criteria and methodology:
• The riser pipes were designed to pass the 100-year mass graded condition flow with
approximately 1 foot of head or less.
• The outlet pipes were designed to pass the 100-year ultimate condition flow, since these
pipes may be used in the future for the onsite industrial area storm drainpipe systems.
• The emergency spillways were designed to pass the 100-year mass graded condition flow
with 1 foot of head or less.
• The basins were sized using the entire tributary area, including open space, which
provides a conservative estimate of sediment volume.
5.2.3 Curb Inlet Analysis
Curb inlets were sized based on the 100-year ultimate condition storm flows with no by-pass.
The inlets were sized assuming that the future industrial areas will provide self-contained storm
drainpipe systems, i.e., will not discharge directly to the street.
5.2.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis
The mass grading plans provide concrete ditches and bladed swales to convey concentrated
water to outlet points. These improvements were sized using Manning's equation. Additionally,
riprap and concrete energy dissipaters were used to reduce flow velocities prior to discharging to
natural watercourses or pads. The riprap protection was sized using County Standard Drawing D-
40 and the permissible velocity chart shown in Appendix 7.
A concrete energy dissipater (D-41) was designed for the System 400 outlet drainpipe to OS-1.
This structure was sized using County Standard Drawing D-41, while the Federal Highway
Administration HY-8 Energy Dissipater Computer Program was used to determine the exit
velocity for the design of the riprap pad. See Appendix 7 for the calculations.
REPORTV2244DR.DOC 16
The AES Pipeflow software hydraulic model was used to determine the hydraulic grade line for
the storm drainpipe system improvements. However, FLOWMASTER, proprietary software by
Haestad Methods, was used in the street flow calculations, pipe inlet calculations, and concrete
ditches and channels. The following sections provide a brief description of the analytical
procedures used in each model.
5.3 Explanation of AES Pipeflow Model
The AES computational procedure is based on solving Bernoulli's equation for the total energy
at each section; and Manning's formula for the friction loss between the sections in each
computational reach. Confluences are analyzed using pressure and momentum theory. In
addition, the program uses basic mathematical and hydraulic principles to calculate data such as
cross sectional area, velocity, wetted perimeter, normal depth, critical depth, and pressure and
momentum. Model input basically includes storm drainpipe facility geometry, inverts, lengths,
confluence angles, and downstream/upstream boundary conditions, i.e., initial water surface
elevations. The program has the capability of performing calculations for 8 hydraulic loss
processes. These processes are assigned code numbers, which appear in the printed output. The
code numbers and their meanings are as follows:
CODE 0: ENTER Comment
CODE I: FRICTION Losses
CODE 2: MANHOLE Losses
CODES: PIPE BEND Losses
CODE 4: SUDDEN Pipe Enlargement
CODE 5: JUNCTION Losses
CODE 6: ANGLE-POINT Losses
CODE 7: SUDDEN Pipe Reduction
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 17
CODES: CATCH BASIN Entrance Losses
CODE 9: TRANSITION Losses
5.4 Explanation of FLOWMASTER PE Software
The FLOWMASTER model computes flows, water velocities, depths and pressures based on
several well-known formulas such as Darey-Weisbach, Manning's, Kutter's, and Hazen-
Williams. For this project, Manning's equation was used in the street flow calculations and
concrete brow ditches.
6.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS RESULTS
6.1 Mass Graded Condition Hydrology
The mass grading hydrology for the 100-year storm event was used for the basin and bladed
swale design. See Appendix 2 and Exhibit 'B' for the mass grading Rational Method computer
output and drainage map.
6.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology
The ultimate condition hydrology for the 100-year storm event was used to design the backbone
storm drainpipe system, curb inlets, and permanent ditches and energy dissipaters. See
Appendix 3 and Exhibit 'C' for ultimate condition Rational Method computer output and
drainage map, respectively.
7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
In general, the storm drains improvements for this project consists of:
• A system of underground drainpipes;
• Temporary Desilting Basins;
• Inlets and catch basins; and
REPORTV2244DR.DOC 18
• Concrete ditches, bladed swales, energy dissipaters (rip-rap and D-41)
The following sections address the results of the analyses associated with the above
improvements.
7.1 Storm Drainpipe Analysis
In general, the drainpipe systems have been designed as open channels for the 100-year storm
event. However, due to junction losses and required pipe grades, segments of the drainpipes are
under pressure adjacent to cleanouts. Systems 100, 122, and 800 have significant portions under
pressure due to grading constraints. As a result, watertight joints will be used at these locations.
The storm drainpipe analysis included in this submittal includes only the mainline backbone
storm drain system. Analysis of the curb inlet lateral pipes will be included in the next report
submittal.
See Exhibit F and Appendix 4 for AES node numbers and hydraulic analysis output,
respectively.
7.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis
Results of the temporary desilting basin analysis are provided in Appendix 5. The results include
the basin design flows, required sediment capacity, riser and outlet pipe design, and spillway
calculations.
7.3 Curb Inlet Analysis
The City of San Diego inlet design formula was used in the design of inlets on grade. For inlets
in sump, a maximum of 2 CFS per lineal foot is used for design purposes. Results of the
analyses are located in Appendix 6.
7.4 Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis
The results of the ditch, swale, riprap and D-41 analyses are provided in Appendix 7.
REPORT7ZZ44DR.DOC 19
8.0 CONCLUSION
This report provides hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for design of the proposed Bressi Ranch
Development (Project) "mass grading plan" (mass grading) drainage facilities. Specifically, the
Mass grading includes the: 1) construction of "backbone" drainage facilities within the Project
"backbone" streets, and 2) erosion control desilting basins within the mass graded pads. Note
that fine grading for the Project, i.e., individual planning areas (PA), will occur once the mass
grading, and associated dry and wet utilities, are constructed within the backbone roadway
system. The Project is located in the City of Carlsbad. Palomar Airport Road to the north,
Melrose Drive to the east, El Camino Real to the East, and Poinsettia Drive to the south bound
Bressi Ranch. Refer to Figure 1: Vicinity Map, for the project location.
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were design to
provide connection points to the individual PA's that satisfy both mass graded and ultimate PA
development hydrologic and hydraulic conditions. This approach was used to: 1) avoid the
design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and 2) provide the
individual planning areas, during final engineering, with a "backbone" system that can be
connected to without, or minor, modifications.
Specifically, the mass grading industrial PA desilting basin lateral connections to the "backbone"
roadway also serve as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement associated
with ultimate PA development. In the case of the residential planning areas, the mass grading
lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations or positioned slightly
downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However, note that
the Mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact connection
point location, are approximately the same.
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential PA's to the
backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
REPORT/2Z44DR.DOC 20
Specifically included in this report are:
• Hydrology for mass graded and ultimate conditions;
• Pipeflow calculations for the mainline backbone storm drainpipe systems;
• Temporary desilting basin calculations;
• Curb inlet design;
• Ditch, swale, rip-rap and D-41 calculations;
To be provided in subsequent submittals are:
• AES Pipeflow calculations for the curb inlet lateral pipes;
• Post-construction BMP design; and
• Detention analysis, if required.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 21
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
BRESSI RANCH MASS GRADING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2002
Prepared for
LENNAR COMMUNITIES
c/o LENNAR BRESSI VENTURE, LLC
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared By:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 'B' Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)235-6471
Job No. 1325.50
Adolph Lugo RCE 50998
Registration Expires 09/30/05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE 4
2.1 Existing Offsite Drainage 4
2.1.1 Regional Detention 4
2.1.2 Offsite Facilities 5
2.2 Existing Onsite Drainage 5
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 6
4.0 HYDROLOGY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 6
4.1 Hydrology Criteria 6
4.2 Hydrology Methodology 7
4.2.1 Mass Grading Condition Hydrology 8
4.2.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology 9
4.2.3 Detention Basin Hydrology 12
4.2.4 Water Quality Requirements 13
4.3 Explanation of AES Modified Rational Method Software 13
5.0 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 14
5.1 Hydraulic Criteria 15
5.2 Hydraulic Methodology 15
5.2.1 Storm Drainpipe Design Methodology 15
5.2.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Design Methodology 15
5.2.3 Curb Inlet Analysis 16
5.2.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis 16
5.3 Explanation of AES Pipeflow Software 17
5.4 Explanation of FLOWMASTERPE Software 18
6.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS RESULTS 18
6.1 Mass Grading Condition Hydrology 18
6.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology 18
7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS 18
7.1 Storm Drainpipe Analysis 19
7.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis 19
T:\Wmcr ResourcesC244.0 Bicssi Mass Gruding\Report\2244DR.doc -
7.3 Curb Inlet Analysis 19
7.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis 19
8.0 CONCLUSION 20
FIGURES Page
1 Vicinity Map 2
TABLES Page
1 Hydrology Criteria 6
2 Mass Graded and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Comparison 10
3 Comparison of ElFuerte Street Storm Drain Flows 10
4 Hydraulic Criteria 15
APPENDICES
1 Rational Method Isopluvials Map (100-year)
2 Mass Graded Condition Rational Method Computer Output (100-year)
3 Ultimate Condition Rational Method Computer Output (100-year)
4 AES Pipeflow Computer Output
5 Temporary Desilting Basin Calculations
6 Curb Inlet Calculations
7 Concrete Ditch/Swale/Rip-Rap/D-41 Hydraulic Calculations
8 Detention Basin Calculations
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A Existing Condition Drainage Map (1 Sheet)
Exhibit B Mass Graded Condition Drainage Map (1 Sheet)
Exhibit C Ultimate Condition Drainage Map (2 Sheets)
Exhibit D Mass Grading and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Acreage Comparison (1 Sheet)
Exhibit E AES Pipeflow and Ditch Calculation Node Number Map (2 Sheets)
T:\Waier Resoiirtes£244.0 Bitssi Mass Gtudmg\Report\2244DR.doc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for design of the proposed Bressi Ranch
Development (Project) mass grading drainage facilities. Specifically, the mass grading includes
the construction of "backbone" drainage facilities within the Project "backbone" streets, and
erosion control desilting basins within the mass graded pads. Note that fine grading for the
Project, i.e., individual planning areas, will occur once the mass grading and associated dry and
wet utilities are constructed within the backbone roadway system. The Project is located in the
City of Carlsbad and is bounded by Palomar Airport Road to the north, Melrose Drive to the
east, El Camino Real to the west, and Poinsettia Drive to the south. Refer to Figure 1: Vicinity
Map, for the project location.
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were designed to
provide connection points to the individual planning areas that satisfy both mass graded and
ultimate condition planning area development drainage conditions. This approach was used to
avoid the design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and, during
final engineering, provide the individual planning areas with a backbone system that can be
connected to without, or with minor, modifications.
The mass grading industrial planning area desilting basin lateral connections to the backbone
roadway also serves as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement associated
with ultimate condition planning area development. In the case of the residential planning areas,
the mass grading lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations, or positioned
slightly downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However,
note that the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact
connection point location, are approximately the same. From a hydrologic perspective, the land
use associated with the planning areas are 1) industrial for Planning Areas 1-5; 2) residential for
Planning Areas 6-14; and 3) mixed use for Planning Area 15.
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential PA's to the
backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
Ujoo
Q..
MELROSt
DRIVE
POINSEfTIA
LAN£
Figure I. Vicinity Map
The ultimate condition drainage design presented herein is also based on the following reports:
1) The Bressi Ranch Tentative Map Drainage report titled, "Preliminary Drainage Report, Bressi
Ranch Planning Areas 1 through 14, and Open Space 1-6," dated March 2000; 2} drainage report
prepared for the El Fuerte Street grading and improvement plans, titled, "Drainage Report for El
Fuerte Street, Bressi Ranch," dated April 2002 which is currently in the City plan check process;
and 3) Chang reports titled "Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies for La Costa Greens in Carlsbad"
dated August 1998, and "Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies for Bressi Ranch in Carlsbad" dated
March 2001, which address regional detention requirements for the overall watershed. See
Section 2.1.1 for a description of the relevancy of the studies to this Project. Note that PDC is
currently designing the detention facilities for the Project. This information will be provided with
a subsequent report submittal.
From a water quality perspective, the mass grading storm drain design will also be designed to
meet State NPDES construction and municipal stormwater permit requirements. The post-
construction BMPs for the Project are currently being developed in conjunction with the overall
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Bressi Ranch. The SWMP was recently approved
as a part of the Tentative Map submittal. The final post-construction BMP design will be
provided during a subsequent submittal. Additionally the construction phase BMP for the mass
grading are addressed in the Grading and Erosion Control Plans and the SWPPP.
To facilitate the plan check process the following is a summary of the items that are included in
this drainage report submittal and those items that will be provide in subsequent submittals:
The following are included in this report submittal:
• Hydrology for mass grading and ultimate conditions construction phasing;
• Storm drainpipe hydraulic capacity (Pipeflow) calculations for the mainline systems;
• Temporary desilting basin and riser pipe calculations; and
• Curb inlet and catch basin design calculations;
• Ditch, swale, rip-rap and D-41 calculations;
REPORT72244DR.DOC
The following will be provided in subsequent submittals:
• AES Pipeflow calculations for the curb inlet lateral pipes;
• Post-construction BMP design; and
• Detention analysis.
2.0 EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE
The following sections address mass grading existing conditions offsite and onsite drainage
patterns. These patterns provide the framework for the hydrologic evaluation of the mass graded
and ultimate conditions hydrology, which was used in the design of the mass grading storm
drainpipe system, and formulation of the detention scheme for the overall Bressi Ranch
development.
2.1 Existing Offsite Drainage
2.1.1 Regional Detention
The regional detention studies for the Bressi Ranch, La Costa Greens, and Rancho Carrillo
projects were previously prepared by Rick Engineering for the Rancho Carrillo project, and
Howard H. Chang Consultants for the La Costa Greens and Bressi Ranch developments. The
Chang studies, which integrate/adopt the Rick analysis, were used as reference material in the
final design of the Bressi detention basin(s). The latter reports are titled, "Hydrology and
Hydraulics Studies for La Costa Greens in Carlsbad" dated August 1998, and "Hydrology and
Hydraulics Studies for Bressi Ranch in Carlsbad" dated March 2001.
As a result of the previous studies, there are currently two offsite detention basins that affect the
final design of the Project detention basins. The first basin was constructed as apart of Rancho
Carrillo (Rick Engineering), and is located at the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia
Lane (southeast quadrant). The second basin (Alicante Basin) will be constructed with the La
Costa Greens development (O'Day Consultants/Chang), and will be located at the proposed
intersection of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane, just downstream of the Rick basin. The latter
basin is currently under review by the City.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
The existing Rick basin provides detention for the Rancho Carrillo Project and a small portion of
Bressi Ranch open space area. Due to a significant amount of diversion from the Bressi Ranch
development, a second basin will be located at the El Fuerte Street/Poinsettia Lane intersection.
The latter basin analysis and design are addressed in the second Chang report for Bressi Ranch,
and will be constructed as part of the El Fuerte Street grading and improvement plans. The City
is currently reviewing the El Fuerte Street improvement plans.
The Alicante basin also receives storm flow from a northerly tributary that drains the westerly
half of the Bressi Ranch development. Detention for this area is currently being evaluated and, if
required, will be addressed in a subsequent submitted of this drainage report.
2.1.2 Offsite Facilities
There are two offsite storm drain systems that affect the design of the onsite improvements. The
first system is located within Palomar Airport Road and collects roadway storm flow prior to
discharging into an existing swale within the Bressi Ranch development. The discharge location
is at the proposed Palomar Airport Road/Street E intersection. In the ultimate condition, the
existing storm drainpipe system will be extended down Street E and tie into the backbone storm
drainpipe system in Street D.
The second system is an existing 36-inch RCP and 'F' Type Catch Basin, which conveys flow
from the northwest portion of the Project (to the west) across El Camino Real, just south of the
El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection. In the ultimate condition, this system will
be extended (System 800) to accommodate the same existing conditions flows. See Exhibits B,
C, and D for these system improvements, and Exhibit A for the Existing Conditions Drainage
Map for Bressi Ranch.
2.2 Existing Onsite Drainage
Bressi Ranch currently consists of gently rolling hills covered with perennial grasses, chaparral,
agricultural crops, and natural drainage channels. The site generally drains to the following three
locations: 1) the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia Lane (El Fuerte Basin); 2) the
intersection of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane (Alicante Basin); and 3) the intersection of El
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (PAR Basin). Flows from the El Fuerte Basin and the
Alicante Basin are conveyed to an unnamed tributary of San Marcos Creek. Flows from the
PAR Basin are tributary to Encinas Creek.
See Exhibit A for the Existing Conditions Drainage Map for delineation of the onsite drainage
basins and acreages. Exhibit A was acquired from the approved Bressi Ranch Tentative Map
Drainage Report dated March 2000.
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The mass grading drainage improvements consist of a backbone storm drainpipe system, curb
inlets, catch basins, concrete ditches, riprap energy dissipaters, and temporary desilting basins.
The main difference between the mass grading and ultimate condition drainage improvements is
the temporary desilting basins required for the mass graded site. Lateral pipe stub-outs are
provided at key locations within the storm drainpipe system to accommodate ultimate condition
flows generated from the residential and industrial planning areas. See Exhibits B and C for the
mass graded and ultimate condition drainage maps, respectively.
4.0 HYDROLOGY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Hydrology Criteria
This section of the report summarizes the drainage criteria that were used in the hydrologic
analysis and key elements of the methodology. Table 1 summarizes the drainage criteria for the
project.
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
Table 1: Hydrology Criteria
Design Storm:
Land Use:
Runoff Coefficients:
Hydrologic Soil Group:
Intensity and Time of
Concentration:
100-year, 6-hour storm.
Existing, mass graded and ultimate open space, roadway, single-
and multifamily residential, and industrial.
Based on criteria presented in the "Standards for Design and
Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of
Carlsbad," Drainage - Design Criteria section, dated 4-20-93.
Soil Group 'D' per the County Soil Group Map.
Based on criteria presented in the County of San Diego
Hvdroloev Manual. See Appendix 1 for the County Isopluvials.
4.2 Hydrology Methodology
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were design to
provide connection points to the individual planning areas that satisfy both mass graded and
ultimate planning area development hydrologic and hydraulic conditions. This approach was
used to avoid the design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and
provide the individual planning areas, during final engineering, with a backbone system that can
be connected to without, or with minor, modifications.
Specifically, the mass grading industrial planning area desilting basin lateral connections to the
backbone roadway also serve as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement
associated with ultimate planning area development. In the case of the residential planning areas,
the mass grading lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations, or positioned
slightly downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However,
note that the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact
connection point location, are approximately the same.
Mass grading and ultimate condition storm flows were calculated to determine the governing
flow for the design of the desilting basin and backbone storm drain facilities, respectively.
Specifically, the mass grading storm flows were used to design the temporary desilting basins
riser pipes and emergency spillways, and design the temporary bladed swales and riprap. The
REPORT/2244DR.DOC
ultimate condition storm flows were used to design the 1) backbone storm drainpipe system;
2) storm drainpipe lateral stub-out connections to the residential and industrial planning areas;
3) curb inlets and catch basins; and 4) permanent concrete ditches and riprap.
4.2.1 Mass Grading Hydrology
The Project mass grading provides an interim drainage condition that incorporates the following
design features:
• Overall site mass grading and backbone roadway improvements;
• Temporary desilting basins with riser pipes and spillways; and
• Temporary bladed swales and riprap erosion protection.
The hydrology for the mass grading was used, in lieu of the ultimate conditions hydrology, only
for the design of the temporary desilting basins and bladed swales within the industrial and
residential planning areas. The flows were not routed through the backbone storm drainpipe
system, since the backbone drainpipe system was only designed for ultimate conditions.
The desilting basins and temporary bladed swales were designed using the following criteria:
• City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing DS-3;
• Sheet and ditch flow over the graded lots;
• Runoff coefficient value of 0.55 to reflect the graded and compacted residential and
industrial pad areas;
• Desilting basin riser pipes and spillways were designed to pass the mass graded condition
100-year storm flows;
• Outflow pipes were designed to pass ultimate condition 100-year storm flows.
See Exhibit B for the mass grading drainage map which delineates the mass grading drainage
basins and temporary desilting basin locations.
REPORT/2244 DR. DOC
4.2.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology
It is important to note that ultimate condition hydrology analysis was prepared by assuming an
approximate storm drain layout within each PA and by using street grades for the pipe slopes.
This approach was used to acquire a more accurate estimate of future storm flows for the design
of the backbone system and PA stub-outs. The ultimate condition improvements consist of the
following:
• Proposed grading associated with the Bressi Ranch Development east of El Fuerte Street
and within Industrial Planning Area 5;
• Proposed grading within the industrial and residential planning areas associated with the
Bressi Ranch development as shown on the tentative map;
• Backbone storm drainpipe system and inlets;
• Concrete drainage ditches and riprap.
The ultimate condition hydrology for the Project is based on: 1) the mass grading and storm
drain plans for the backbone storm drainpipe system; 2} the tentative map for the areas within the
future residential and industrial planning areas; and 3) El Fuerte Street grading and improvement
plans. See Exhibit C for the ultimate conditions hydrology maps.
Mass Grading Storm Drain Plans and Tentative Map
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential planning areas to
the backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
A key element of the mass grading and backbone storm drainpipe design for the planning areas
was to minimize differences between: 1) the mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage areas
and flow patterns; 2) the location of the backbone connection points between mass graded and
ultimate conditions; and 3) maintain the same drainpipe sizes for both mass graded and ultimate
conditions. Exhibit D and Table 2 provide a comparison of mass graded and ultimate condition
REPORT/2244DR-DOC n
acreages at key points along the backbone storm drainpipe system. Table 2 shows that the
differences between the mass grading and ultimate condition drainage areas are minimized.
However, at several locations along the backbone storm drainpipe system, the mass graded
acreage is less than ultimate conditions. This situation occurs within the residential planning
areas at locations where the temporary desilting basins tie into the backbone storm drainpipe
system downstream of the ultimate connection point.
Table 2. Mass Graded and Ultimate Condition Hydrology Comparison
Node Number per
Ultimate Condition Hydrology Map
101.0
105.0
106.0
107.0
108.0
108.4
111.0
115.0
117.0
122.0
206.0
210.0
300.5
405.0
415.0
808.0
900.5
901.5
902.5
1205.0
2001.0
2015
4006.2
5025.0
5037.0
5060.0
5075.0
5080.0
5090.0
5095.0
6020.0
Mass Graded
Acreage
17.7
40.9
46.9
60.4
76.6
15.6
5.2
117.6
120.5
145.8
2.7
34.3
24.5
8.6
22.1
13.0
9.2
12.0
4.5
12.2
10.6
29.6
10.1
19.3
20.0
55.7
60.4
68.8
69.8
97.8
31.6
Ultimate Condition
Acreage
17.7
40.9
46.9
60.4
76.6
15.6
5.2
117.6
145.0
145.8
31.6
34.3
24.5
8.6
22.1
13.0
9.2
12.0
4.5
12.2
10.6
29.6
10.1
19.3
35.9
55.7
67.7
68.8
97.2
97.8
31.6
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 10
Unlike the industrial planning areas, the proposed connection points for the residential planning
areas are more clearly defined. Stub-out connector pipes are provided at the intersections of
future residential streets to accommodate future flows.
Note that the hydrology within the individual industrial and residential planning areas will need
to be reanalyzed at the time of final engineering for the design of the interior systems that tie
into the backbone system. This approach is necessary to verify that the final 100-year storm
flows are equal to or less than those shown on the El Fuerte Street Plans and in this report.
El Fuerte Street Plans
The stand-alone El Fuerte Street Improvement Plans prepared by PDC show the proposed storm
drainpipe within El Fuerte Street and the 100-year design storm flows. Note that moderately
conservative flows were used in the design of the El Fuerte system to account for any minor
changes in storm flows resulting from the design of the mass grading backbone system. The
results of the hydrologic analysis indicate that the flows generated herein are consistent with the
El Fuerte system design. Table 3 below presents a comparison of the flows used for the El
Fuerte Street storm drain design and the storm flows calculated herein.
Table 3. Comparison of El Fuerte Street Storm Drain Flows
Street Name
*F' Street
'D' Street
'C' Street
'B' Street
El Fuerte Street Station
42+50
System Name per
Exhibit 'C'
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Q100 per El Fuerte
Plan (CFS)
110
6.4
40
200
60
Q 100 per Current
Hydrology (CFS)
105.2
5.6
36.8
178.8
57.9
R£PORT/2244DR.DOC 11
4.2.3 Detention Basin Hydrology
A detention basin will be provided for the easterly portion of Bressi Ranch at the southwest
comer of El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia Lane within OS-5. The design and analysis of this basin
will be provided in the drainage report for El Fuerte Street.
The need for onsite detention in the westerly portion of Bressi Ranch (Alicante Basin) is
currently being investigated in relation to the proposed downstream regional detention facility at
the corner of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane. Should onsite detention be required, the design
and analysis will be provided in a subsequent submittal of this report.
Detention was not considered for the PAR Basin that is located in the northwest comer of the
site. As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, there is an existing condition drainage area that drains across
El Camino Real to the Encinas Creek drainage basin. Detention was not considered at this
location since the storm drainpipe layout for proposed Pipe System 800 was configured to
deliver approximately the existing condition 100-year storm flow to the existing 36-inch RCP
under El Camino Real. This was accomplished by diverting a portion of industrial Planning
Area 3 in Pipe System 122 to the Alicante Road Pipe System 100. Note that the developed area
from Planning Area 3 will be over-detained in the proposed OS-1 detention basin.
4.2.4 Water Quality Requirements
From a water quality perspective, the mass grading storm drain design will also be designed to
meet State NPDES construction and municipal stormwater permit requirements. The post-
construction BMPs for the Project are currently being developed in conjunction with the overall
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Bressi Ranch. The SWMP was recently approved
as a part of the Tentative Map submittal. The final post-construction BMP design will be
provided during a subsequent submittal. Note that the construction phase water quality
requirements and BMP design will be addressed in the Grading and Erosion Control Plans and
the SWPPP.
REPORT72244DR.DOC 12
4.3 Explanation of AES Rational Method Software
The Advanced Engineering Software (AES) Rational Method Program was used to perform the
hydrologic calculations. This section provides a brief explanation of the computational procedure
used in the computer model.
The AES Rational Method was used to determine the 100-year storm flows for the Project. The
AES Rational Method Hydrology Program is a computer-aided design program where the user
develops a node link model of the watershed. The program has the capability of estimating
conduit sizes to convey design storm flows, or the user may input specific conduit sizes and open
channels. Soil types used in the model are based on hydrologic soil groups as outlined in the
Conservation Service's Soil Survey for San Diego County. The rainfall intensity distribution and
runoff coefficients utilized by the program can be user-specified to be based on either the County
of San Diego or the City of San Diego Drainage Design Manuals.
Developing independent node link models for each interior watershed and linking these sub-
models together at confluence points creates the node link model. The program allows up to five
streams to confluence at a node. Stream entries must be made sequentially until all are entered.
The program allows consideration of only one confluence at a time. The program has the
capability of performing calculations for 17 hydrologic and hydraulic processes. These processes
are assigned code numbers, which appear in the printed output. The code numbers and their
meanings are as follows:
CODE 0: ENTER Comment
CODE 1: CONFLUENCE analysis at node
CODE 2: INITIAL subarea analysis
CODE 3: PIPE/BOX travel time (COMPUTER estimated pipe/box size)
CODE 4: PIPE/BOX travel time (USER specified pipe/box size)
CODE 5: OPEN CHANNEL travel time
REPORT72244DR.DOC 13
CODE 6: STREETFLOW analysis through subarea, includes subarea runoff
CODE 7: USER-SPECIFIED hydrology data at a node
CODE 8: ADDITION of subarea runoff to MAIN-Stream
CODE 9: V-GUTTER flow through subarea
CODE 10: COPY MAIN-stream data onto memory BANK
CODE 11: CONFLUENCE a memory BANK with the Mainstream memory
CODE 12: CLEAR a memory BANK
CODE 13: CLEAR the MAIN-stream
CODE 14: COPY a memory BANK onto the Main-stream memory
CODE 15: HYDROLOG1C data BANK storage functions
CODE 16: USER-SPECIFIED Source Flow at a node
5.0 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
The following sections discuss the criteria and methodology employed in the hydraulic design of
the storm drainage facilities. Also included is a brief description of the computer software used
in the analyses.
KEPORT/2244DR-DOC 14
5.1 Hydraulic Criteria
Table 4 summarizes the hydraulic criteria used in the design of the storm drain improvements.
Table 4. Hydraulic Criteria
Underground storm drainpipe
systems
Desilting Basins
Curb Inlets
Ditches and Channels
Rip-rap
100- Year storm HGL below the inlet opening and below
cleanout top-of-rim elevations
City of Carlsbad Standard DS-3 and basin capacity chart
City of San Diego Inlet Capacity formulas for inlets on
grade, and 2 CFS/ft for inlets in sump; no by-pass.
100-Year storm HGL contained within the ditch/channel
with 0.5-foot freeboard.
County of San Diego permissible velocity chart
5.2 Hydraulic Methodology
5.2.1 Storm Drainpipe Design Methodology
The storm drainpipe was designed based on the ultimate condition storm flows. As discussed in
Section 4.2.2 the hydraulic analysis assumes that drainpipes from the industrial lots will tie-into
the backbone storm drain at the desilting basin outlet pipe locations shown on the mass grading
storm drain improvement plans. The analysis also assumes that the residential area drainpipes
will tie-in at the stub-outs provided at the intersections of future residential streets.
The drainpipe hydraulic analyses using ultimate condition storm flows was performed to provide
HGLs: 1) that are maintained beneath the roadway or pads, 2) that minimize the use of water
tight joints, and 3) provide an HGL at the PA connection points that will not adversely impact
future storm drainpipe systems within the interior portions of the residential and industrial
planning areas.
5.2.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis
The temporary desilting basins were designed based on the City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 15
DS-3, which provides basic basin geometry and a sediment capacity table. The required basin
capacity was determined using the DS-3 capacity table based on the tributary acreage and slope.
The following is a summary of the desilting basin design criteria and methodology:
• The riser pipes were designed to pass the 100-year mass graded condition flow with
approximately 1 foot of head or less.
• The outlet pipes were designed to pass the 100-year ultimate condition flow, since these
pipes may be used in the future for the onsite industrial area storm drainpipe systems.
• The emergency spillways were designed to pass the 100-year mass graded condition flow
with 1 foot of head or less.
• The basins were sized using the entire tributary area, including open space, which
provides a conservative estimate of sediment volume.
5.2.3 Curb Inlet Analysis
Curb inlets were sized based on the 100-year ultimate condition storm flows with no by-pass.
The inlets were sized assuming that the future industrial areas will provide self-contained storm
drainpipe systems, i.e., will not discharge directly to the street.
5.2.4 Concrete Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis
The mass grading plans provide concrete ditches and bladed swales to convey concentrated
water to outlet points. These improvements were sized using Manning's equation. Additionally,
riprap and concrete energy dissipaters were used to reduce flow velocities prior to discharging to
natural watercourses or pads. The riprap protection was sized using County Standard Drawing D-
40 and the permissible velocity chart shown in Appendix 7.
A concrete energy dissipater (D-41) was designed for the System 400 outlet drainpipe to OS-1.
This structure was sized using County Standard Drawing D-41, while the Federal Highway
Administration HY-8 Energy Dissipater Computer Program was used to determine the exit
velocity for the design of the riprap pad. See Appendix 7 for the calculations.
REPORTV2244DR.DOC 16
The AES Pipeflow software hydraulic model was used to determine the hydraulic grade line for
the storm drainpipe system improvements. However, FLOWMASTER, proprietary software by
Haestad Methods, was used in the street flow calculations, pipe inlet calculations, and concrete
ditches and channels. The following sections provide a brief description of the analytical
procedures used in each model.
5.3 Explanation of AES Pipeflow Model
The AES computational procedure is based on solving Bernoulli's equation for the total energy
at each section; and Manning's formula for the friction loss between the sections in each
computational reach. Confluences are analyzed using pressure and momentum theory. In
addition, the program uses basic mathematical and hydraulic principles to calculate data such as
cross sectional area, velocity, wetted perimeter, normal depth, critical depth, and pressure and
momentum. Model input basically includes storm drainpipe facility geometry, inverts, lengths,
confluence angles, and downstream/upstream boundary conditions, i.e., initial water surface
elevations. The program has the capability of performing calculations for 8 hydraulic loss
processes. These processes are assigned code numbers, which appear in the printed output. The
code numbers and their meanings are as follows:
CODE 0: ENTER Comment
CODE1: FRICTION Losses
CODE 2: MANHOLE Losses
CODE 3: PIPE BEND Losses
CODE 4: SUDDEN Pipe Enlargement
CODE 5: JUNCTION Losses
CODE 6: ANGLE-POINT Losses
CODE 7: SUDDEN Pipe Reduction
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 17
CODE 8: CATCH BASIN Entrance Losses
CODE 9: TRANSITION Losses
5.4 Explanation of FLOWMASTER PE Software
The FLOWMASTER model computes flows, water velocities, depths and pressures based on
several well-known formulas such as Darcy-Weisbach, Manning's, Kutter's, and Hazen-
Williams. For this project, Manning's equation was used in the street flow calculations and
concrete brow ditches.
6.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS RESULTS
6.1 Mass Graded Condition Hydrology
The mass grading hydrology for the 100-year storm event was used for the basin and bladed
swale design. See Appendix 2 and Exhibit 'B' for the mass grading Rational Method computer
output and drainage map.
6.2 Ultimate Condition Hydrology
The ultimate condition hydrology for the 100-year storm event was used to design the backbone
storm drainpipe system, curb inlets, and permanent ditches and energy dissipaters. See
Appendix 3 and Exhibit 'C' for ultimate condition Rational Method computer output and
drainage map, respectively.
7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
In general, the storm drains improvements for this project consists of:
• A system of underground drainpipes;
• Temporary Desilting Basins;
• Inlets and catch basins; and
REPORT/2244DR.DOC 18
• Concrete ditches, bladed swales, energy dissipaters (rip-rap and D-41)
The following sections address the results of the analyses associated with the above
improvements.
7.1 Storm Drainpipe Analysis
In general, the drainpipe systems have been designed as open channels for the 100-year storm
event. However, due to junction losses and required pipe grades, segments of the drainpipes are
under pressure adjacent to cleanouts. Systems 100, 122, and 800 have significant portions under
pressure due to grading constraints. As a result, watertight joints will be used at these locations.
The storm drainpipe analysis included in this submittal includes only the mainline backbone
storm drain system. Analysis of the curb inlet lateral pipes will be included in the next report
submittal.
See Exhibit F and Appendix 4 for AES node numbers and hydraulic analysis output,
respectively.
7.2 Temporary Desilting Basin Analysis
Results of the temporary desilting basin analysis are provided in Appendix 5. The results include
the basin design flows, required sediment capacity, riser and outlet pipe design, and spillway
calculations.
7.3 Curb Inlet Analysis
The City of San Diego inlet design formula was used in the design of inlets on grade. For inlets
in sump, a maximum of 2 CFS per lineal foot is used for design purposes. Results of the
analyses are located in Appendix 6.
7.4 Ditch, Swale, Rip-Rap, and D-41 Analysis
The results of the ditch, swale, riprap and D-41 analyses are provided in Appendix 7.
REPORT/2244DR. DOC 19
8.0 CONCLUSION
This report provides hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for design of the proposed Bressi Ranch
Development (Project) "mass grading plan" (mass grading) drainage facilities. Specifically, the
Mass grading includes the: 1) construction of "backbone" drainage facilities within the Project
"backbone" streets, and 2) erosion control desilting basins within the mass graded pads. Note
that fine grading for the Project, i.e., individual planning areas (PA), will occur once the mass
grading, and associated dry and wet utilities, are constructed within the backbone roadway
system. The Project is located in the City of Carlsbad. Palomar Airport Road to the north,
Melrose Drive to the east, El Camino Real to the East, and Poinsettia Drive to the south bound
Bressi Ranch. Refer to Figure I: Vicinity Map, for the project location.
From a drainage design perspective, the backbone storm drain improvements were design to
provide connection points to the individual PA's that satisfy both mass graded and ultimate PA
development hydrologic and hydraulic conditions. This approach was used to: 1) avoid the
design of separate storm drain systems for each development condition, and 2) provide the
individual planning areas, during final engineering, with a "backbone" system that can be
connected to without, or minor, modifications.
Specifically, the mass grading industrial PA desilting basin lateral connections to the "backbone"
roadway also serve as the point of connection for the internal drainage improvement associated
with ultimate PA development. In the case of the residential planning areas, the mass grading
lateral connection points are at either ultimate condition locations or positioned slightly
downstream in the system to accommodate mass grading drainage patterns. However, note that
the Mass grading and ultimate conditions drainage basins, regardless of the exact connection
point location, are approximately the same.
It is important to note, that drainpipe connections from the industrial and residential PA's to the
backbone system, other than those locations identified in this report, may invalidate the results of this
study. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the guest builder/developer during final engineering to make
certain that any new lateral connections, and/or changes in the connection location do not adversely
impact the overall development hydrology and hydraulics.
REPORT/2Z44DR.DOC 20
Specifically included in this report are:
• Hydrology for mass graded and ultimate conditions;
• Pipeflow calculations for the mainline backbone storm drainpipe systems;
• Temporary desilting basin calculations;
• Curb inlet design;
• Ditch, swale, rip-rap and D-41 calculations;
To be provided in subsequent submittals are:
• AES Pipeflow calculations for the curb inlet lateral pipes;
• Post-construction BMP design; and
• Detention analysis, if required.
REPORTV2244DR.DOC 21
APPENDIX 1
RATIONAL METHOD
ISOPLUVIAL MAP
100-YEAR
APPENDIX 2
MASS GRADED CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD
COMPUTER OUTPUT
BASIN 100
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
{c} Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY *
* SYSTEM 100 *
* 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN . *
**************************************************************************
FILENAME: C:\2244DB\SYS100DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:03 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
•"USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SI2E PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.30 IS CODE = 21
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«<«
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1050.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 438.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 407.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 31.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 22.363
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.807
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.33
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.70 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.33
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.70 TC(MIN-) = 22.36
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 27.33
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 106
********************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 106
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS106DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:00 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.20 TO NODE 106.22 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1080.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 404.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 380.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 24.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 24.932
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.617
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.80
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.80
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.22 TO NODE 106.40 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«<«
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 322.50
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 260.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2212
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 11.80
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 9.67 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22
TRAVEL TIME{MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 25.38
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 106.20 TO NODE 106.40 = 1340.00 FEET.
A**************************************************************-
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.21 TO NODE 106.40 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.587
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 12.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 20.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.73
TC(MIN) = 25.38
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 20.80 TC(MIN.) = 25.38
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.73
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 107
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
it************************* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 107 *
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN *
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS107DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:55 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as {Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.20 TO NODE 107.40 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 680.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 387.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 371.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 16.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 19.410
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.076
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.57
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 TOTAL RUNOFF{CFS} = 4.57
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.40 TO NODE 107.50 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 371.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 363.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 720.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0111
CHANNEL BASE(-FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.57
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) ~ 2.62 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.58 Tc(MIN-) = 23.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.20 TO NODE 107.50 = 1400.00 FEET.
******************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.30 TO NODE 107.50 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.683
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.14
TC(MIN) = 23.99
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.90 TC(MIN.) = 23.99
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.14
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 108
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ***********
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 108
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS108DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:50 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
— ^. ^ ^, r _____** *._. — ..-,— — -^ ____»_., — — — — ™ — —.
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO, (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
******************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.10 TO NODE 108.30 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 820.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 349.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 323.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 26.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 19.298
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.087
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) ~ 6.79
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.30 TO NODE 108.40 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 323.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 312.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 390.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0282
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 6.79
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 4.12 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 1.58 Tc(MIN-) = 20.87
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 108.10 TO NODE 108.40 = 1210.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 108.40 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.935
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS HD"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) =
SUBAREA AREA ( ACRES ) = 11.00
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 15.00
TC(MIN) = 20.87
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 15
PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 24
88
SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) = 17.76
TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 24.55
.00 TC(MIN.) = 20.87
.55
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 111
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c} Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY *
* SYSTEM Jtfff \\\ *
* 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY *
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS401DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:14 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (.FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 401.50 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 700.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 320.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 301.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 19.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 18.778
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.142
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.99
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.20 TC(MIN.) = 18.78
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS} = 8.99
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 206
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
|c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
****************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *******
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 206
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS206.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:35 05/30/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER~DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.10 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<;««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1000.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 415.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 360.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 55.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 22.574
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.790
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.50
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 360.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 320.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 200.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2000
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 11.50
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 9.33 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.36 Tc(MIN.) = 22.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 206.10 TO NODE 206.00 = 1200.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.20 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.762
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 24.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 47.96
TC(MIN) = 22.93
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.30 TC(MIN.) = 22.93
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 47.96
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 300
*******************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
|c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
•****.******* + DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY *
* SYSTEM 300 *
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN *
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS300DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 18:08 05/28/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO, (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.10 TO NODE 300.20 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1200.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 378.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 320.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 58.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.285
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.990
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.06
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.20 TO NODE 300.50 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 320.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 300.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 450.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0444
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 8.06
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 5.04 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.49 Tc(MIN-) = 21.77
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.10 TO NODE 300.50 = 1650.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.30 TO NODE 300.50 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.856
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 19.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 38.84
TC(MIN) = 21.77
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.50 TC(MIN.) = 21.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.84
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 408
******************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aesi
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ****•
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 409 /tyfi? Jtf)<$?
* 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SYS403DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:17 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT} (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
***************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.10 TO NODE 403.20 IS CODE = 21
»>»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 320.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 299.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 290.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 9.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 12.547
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.075
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.02
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.02
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.20 TO NODE 408.30 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 290.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 281.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 390.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0231
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS} = 2.02
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 2.44 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.66 Tc(MIN.) = 15.21
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 403.10 TO NODE 408.30 = 710.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 408.30 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.600
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.25
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.26
TC(MIN) = 15.21
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA (ACRES)
PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS)
8.60 TC(MIN. ) =
17.26
15.21
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 808
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes;
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 808
* 100-YR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
***************************************************
FILENAME: C:\2244DB\SYS108DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:33 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
********************************************************************** *.* * * *. *
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 808.00 TO NODE 811.00 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D11
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 590.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 320.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 303.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 17.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 16.900
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.363
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.18
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 811.00 TO NODE 806.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 303.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 301.25
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 670.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0026
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 5.18
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.70 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51
TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 6.56 Tc(MIN.) = 23.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 808.00 TO NODE 806.00 = 1260.00 FEET.
r****************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 808.10 TO NODE 806.00 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.722
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.45
TC(MIN) = 23.46
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.00 TC(MIN.) = 23.46
PEAK PLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.45
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 900.5
****************************************•*****.**
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes;
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *********
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADING
* SYSTEM 900.5: MASS GRADED CONDITIONS TO DESILT BASIN
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: C = 0.55
FILE NAME: SYS9005.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:19 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
A*****1**********************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 900.00 TO NODE 900.10 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«<«
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 450.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 362.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 350.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 12.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 15.145
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) = 3.610
SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) = 7.94
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 4.00 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 7.94
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 900.10 TO NODE 900.50 IS CODE = 51
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 350.00 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) = 265.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA (FEET) = 500.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1700
CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH (FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = 7.94
FLOW VELOCITY (FEET/ SEC) = 10.58 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.14
TRAVEL TIME (MIN.) = 0.79 Tc(MIN.) = 15.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 900.00 TO NODE 900.50 = 950.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 900.50 TO NODE 900.50 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH /HOUR) = 3.493
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.93
TC(MIN) = 15.93
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 9.20 TC(MIN.) = 15.93
PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 17.93
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 901.5
********************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ******'
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITION
* SYSTEM 901.50 DESILT BASIN
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: RISER PIPE DESIGN, C=0.55
FILE NAME: SYS9015.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:25 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100,00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0,67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SI2E PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 901.00 TO NODE 901.20 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 800.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 355.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 325.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 30.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 18.024
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY{INCH/HOUR) = 3.226
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.55
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 901.20 TO NODE 901.50 IS CODE = 51
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA {EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 325.00 DOWNSTREAM{FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 700.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0929
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.55
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 6.56 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.78 Tc(MIN.) = 19.80
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 901.00 TO NODE 901.50 = 1500.00 FEET.
*•******* + ********* + **********•*•************************** + * + *********-*****
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 901.50 TO NODE 901.50 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.036
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.25
TC(MIN) = 19.80
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.00 TC(MIN.) = 19.80
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.25
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 902.5
***************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *********
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITION
* SYSTEM 902.50: DESILT BASIN RISER DESIGN
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: C=0.55
FILE NAME: SYS9025.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:33 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.85
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as {Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*********************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 902.10 TO NODE 902.50 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 600.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 310.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 300.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 10.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.454
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.974
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.36
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.50 TC{MIN.) = 20.45
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.36
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 1200
********************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes!
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *********
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED DESILT BASIN
* SYSTEM 1200 (PA-12}: DESILT BASIN RISER PIPE DESIGN Q
* 100-YEAR STORM: MASS GRADED 'C' VALUE
FILE NAME: SYS1200.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:47 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
^^— ^ = = = = r:^s = ^ = = = ^ = = = = := = = = ^:r^:±:±^ = = = = = = = — = = = = = — =:r = =^= ^s™sr= :==;:==;=: —^
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1200.00 TO NODE 1201.00 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 600.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 200.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 180.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 16.234
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.451
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) ~ 5.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) ~ 5.69
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1201.00 TO NODE 1205.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 180.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 165.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 500.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0,0300
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 5.69
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 5.46 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19
TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 1.53 Tc(MIN.) = 17.76
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1200.00 TO NODE 1205.00 = 1100.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1205.00 TO NODE 1205.00 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<«
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.257
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.18
TC(MIN) = 17.76
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.20 TC(MIN-) = 17.76
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.18
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 2001
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY
* SYSTEM 2001
* 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN
***************************************************
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SY2001DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:28 05/23/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SI2E PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2001.00 TO NODE 2003.00 IS CODE = 21
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S- CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 750.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 445.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 430.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 15.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 21.520
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.878
SUBAREA RUNOFF{CFS} = 5.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 5.70
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2003.00 TO NODE 2003.20 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 427.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 500.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0060
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 5.70
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 2.31 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42
TRAVEL TIMEtMIN.) = 3.61 Tc(MIN.) = 25.13
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2001.00 TO NODE 2003.20 = 1250.00 FEET.
******************************* *£* ******************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2003. K) TO NODE 2003.20 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.604
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S, CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.02
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.72
TC(MIN) = 25.13
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.60 TC(MIN.) = 25.13
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.72
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 2011
********************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software {aes}
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ****
* MASS GRADING HYDROLOGY *
* SYSTEM 2011 *
* 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY: RISER DESIGN *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: C:\2244DB\SY1008DB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:21 05/28/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1008.00 TO NODE 1008.10 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«<«
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1200.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 428.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 405.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 23.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES} = 27.609
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.450
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.89
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 15.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.89
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 15.50 TC(MIN.} = 27.61
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.89
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 4000
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************'
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITION FOR DESILT BASIN
* SYSTEM 4000 - DESILT BASIN RISER PIPE DESIGN
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: MASS GRADED 'C' VALUE
FILE NAME: SYS4000.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:40 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4001.00 TO NODE 4006.20 IS CODE = 21
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 700.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 415.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 400.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 15.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.317
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.986
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.59
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.59
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.10 TC(MIN.) = 20.32
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.59
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 5025
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
******** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED DESILT BASIN DESIGN
* SYSTEM 5025 DESILT BASIN
* 100-YEAR STORM - RISER PIPE DESIGN FLOW
***************************************************
FILE NAME: SYS5025.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:23 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*****************-***************-**-*******
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5001.00 TO NODE 5025.00 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 800.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 410.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 376.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 34.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 17.288
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY{INCH/HOUR) = 3.314
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 19.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.18
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 19.30 TC(MIN.) = 17.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 35.18
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 5036
*******************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **'
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED SHEET FLOW TO DESILT BASIN
* SYSTEM 5036 DESILT BASIN
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: MASS GRADED 'C' VALUE WITH SHEET FLOW
FILE NAME: SYS5036.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:14 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**********************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5036.00 TO NODE 5036.30 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBARFJ^ ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1000.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 408.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 370.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 38.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.063
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) = 3.011
SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) = 19.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.21
(****************************************+***************•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5036.30 TO NODE 5057.00 IS CODE = 51
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 370.00 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) = 330.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA ( FEET ) = 800.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0500
CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 15.00 " Z " FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH (FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = 19.21
FLOW VELOCITY (FEET/ SEC) = 6.94 FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.18
TRAVEL TIMEtMIN.) = 1,92 .Tc(MIN.) = 21.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5036.00 TO NODE 5057.00 = 1800.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5057.00 TO NODE 5057.00 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) = 2.838
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 16.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.13
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.70 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 44.34
TC(MIN) = 21.98
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27,70 TC(MIN.) = 21.98
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 44.34
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 5050
********************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes!
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *************'
* BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITIONS
* SYSTEM 5050 - DESILTING BASIN RISER FLOW
* 100-YEAR STORM: MASS GRADED SHEETFLOW TO DESILT BASIN*******************************************************
FILE NAME: C:\aes2001\hydrosft\ratscx\Sys5050.dat
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:08 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
******************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5050.00 TO NODE 5055.00 IS CODE = 21
»>»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 800.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 408.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 368.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 40.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 16.376
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.432
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 12.27
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.50 TC(MIN-) = 16.38
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.27
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 5074
Ik-******************************************1
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes;
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
**************** DESCRIPTION *"^ STUDY
BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITIONS
SYSTEM 5074 DESILTING BASIN
100-YEAR STORM EVENT: MASS GRADED 'C' VALUE
**************************
FILE NAME: SYS5074.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:28 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C" -VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL : CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES : MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5074.00 TO NODE 5074.10 IS CODE = 21
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 800.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 322,00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION ~ 275.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 47.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 15.519
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.553
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.27
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.30 TCfMIN.) = 15.52
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.27
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 5086
********************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
<************************* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ****'
BRESSI RANCH - MASS GRADED CONDITION
BASIN 5086: RISER PIPE DESIGN FLOW
100-YEAR STORM EVENT •*+*******
FILE NAME: SYS5086.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:05 06/07/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.85
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
•"USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1
2
3
30.0
50.0
10.0
20.0
35.0
5.0
0.
0,
0.
.018/0
,020/0
.001/0
.018/0
.020/0
.001/
.020
.020.
0.67
0.67
0.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
0.0312
0.0312
0.0312
0.167
0.167
0.125
0.0150
0.0150
0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint =10.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5086.20 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION (APPENDIX X-A)
WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = 11.08(MINUTES)
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 370.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 410.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 270.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 140.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY{INCH/HOUR} = 4.416
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99
********* + *********•*************•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.20 TO NODE 5086.30 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «<«
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1000
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 3.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.99
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.11 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12
TRAVEL TIMEtMIN.) = 1.61 Tc(MIN.) = 12.69
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5086.30 = 670.00 FEET.
***********************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.30 TO NODE 5086.30 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<«
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.047
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.18
TC(MIN) = 12.69
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.30 TO NODE 5086.40 IS CODE = 31
»>»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<««
>»»USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 220.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 600.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.36
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.18
PIPE TRAVEL TIMEtMIN.) = 0.97 Tc(MIN-) = 13.65
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5086.40 = 1270.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.40 TO NODE 5086.40 IS CODE ~ 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.860
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.29
TC(MIN) = 13.65
***********************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.40 TO NODE 5086.50 IS CODE = 31
»>»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««<
>»»USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 220.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.} = 15.36
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 29.29
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 0.33 Tc(MIN.) = 13.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5086.50 = 1570.00 FEET.
*****************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.50 TO NODE 5086.50 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.802
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 23.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 43.92
TC(MIN) = 13.98
***************************.*********************************************,
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.50 TO NODE 5086.60 IS CODE = 31
>»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<««
>»»USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.70
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER{INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 43.92
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.) = 14.15
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5086.60 = 1720.00 FEET
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.60 TO NODE 5086.60 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<««
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.772
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.40 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 52.01
TC(MIN) = 14.15
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5086.60 TO NODE 5090.00 IS CODE = 31
>»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<««
»>»USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 198.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY{FEET/SEC.) = 16.28
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 52.01
PIPE TRAVEL TIME{MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 14.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5086.10 TO NODE 5090.00 = 1770.00 FEET
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.40 TC(MIN-) - 14.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 52.01
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
BASIN 6000
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
{c} Copyright 1982-2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2001 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:
ProjectDesign Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92109
619-235-6471
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* BRESSI RANCH - EL FUERTE ROADWAY *
* SYSTEM 6000: OS-3, PA-13 MASS GRADE DESILT BASIN RISER DESIGN *
* 100-YEAR STORM EVENT: CLEARED AND GRADED 'C' VALUE *
FILE NAME: C:\aes2001\hydrosft\ratscx\13256db.dat
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:37 05/29/2002
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.85
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
2 37.0 32.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint =10.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**********************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6002.00 IS CODE = 21
»>»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
OPEN BRUSH FAIR COVER RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II)- = 83
NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION (APPENDIX X-A)
WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = 10,88(MINUTES)
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 220.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 400.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 350.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 50.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.468
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40
A*************************************************************'
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6002.00 TO NODE 6003.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<««
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 350.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 700.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1143
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 1.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.40
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 2.81 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.15 Tc(MIN.) = 15.03
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6003.00 = 920.00 FEET.
***************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6003.00 TO NODE 6003.00 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<«
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.628
OPEN BRUSH FAIR COVER RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 83
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.60 TOTAL RUNOPF(CFS) = 12.48
TC(MIN) = 15.03
****************************•*********************.*************•**************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6003.00 TO NODE 6005.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 265.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 400.00 CHANNEL SLOPE * 0.0125
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 4.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 12.48
FLOW VELOCITY(FEETXSEC) = 6.20 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.62
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.07 Tc(MIN.) = 16.10
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6005.00 = 1320.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6005.00 TO NODE 6005.00 IS CODE = 81
>»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.470
OPEN BRUSH FAIR COVER RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "Dn
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 83
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.85
TC(MIN) = 16.10
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6005.00 TO NODE 6010.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«<«
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA {EXISTING ELEMENT) ««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 265.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 500.00 CHANNEL SLOPE * 0.0100
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
= = »WARNING: FLOW IN CHANNEL EXCEEDS CHANNEL
CAPACITY( NORMAL DEPTH EQUAL TO SPECIFIED MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE DEPTH).
AS AN APPROXIMATION, FLOWDEPTH IS SET AT MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE DEPTH AND IS USED FOR TRAVELTIME CALCULATIONS.
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 21.85
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 7.28 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 1.14 Tc(MIN-) = 17.24
==>FLOWDEPTH EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6010.00 = 1820.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6010.00 TO NODE 6010.00 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<«
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.320
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 19.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.89
TC(MIN) = 17.24
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6010.00 TO NODE 6010.00 IS CODE = 10
>»»MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 <««
r**************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6011.00 TO NODE 6012.00 IS CODE = 21
>»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<««
OPEN BRUSH FAIR COVER RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 83
NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION {APPENDIX X-A)
WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = 10.95(MINUTES)
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 250.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 400.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 340.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 60.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.449
SUBAREA RUNOFFfCFS) = 0.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6012.00 TO NODE 6013.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 340.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2333
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0,40
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.83 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.30 Tc{MIN.) = 12.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6011.00 TO NODE 6013.00 = 550.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6013.00 TO NODE 6013.00 IS CODE = 81
»>»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<«
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.138
OPEN BRUSH FAIR COVER RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 83
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.66
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 13.06
TC(MIN) = 12.25
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6013.00 TO NODE 6010.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«<«
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 400.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0250
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 13.06
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 8.36 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.80 Tc(MIN.) = 13.05
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6011.00 TO NODE 6010.00 = 950.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6010.00 TO NODE 6010.00 IS CODE = 11
>»»CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY«<«
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 13.06 13.05 3.973 7.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6011.00 TO NODE 6010.00 = 950.00 FEET,
** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 31.89 17.24 3.320 19.10
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6010.00 = 1820.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.} (INCH/HOUR)
1 39.71 13.05 3.973
2 42.81 17.24 3.320
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 42.81 Tc(MIN.) = 17.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 26.10
*************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6010.00 TO NODE 6020.00 IS CODE = 51
>»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
>»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 255.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 500.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0100
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 42.81
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 8.06 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.40
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.03 Tc(MIN-) = 18.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6020.00 = 2320.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6020.00 TO NODE 6020.00 IS CODE = 81
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.197
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 31.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS} = 52.48
TC(MIN) = 18.28
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6020.00 TO NODE 6021.00 IS CODE = 31
>»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<««
>»»USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) <««
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 250.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 210.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.} = 30.20
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 52.48
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 18.39
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6001.00 TO NODE 6021.00 = 2520.00 FEET.
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 31.60 TC(MIN-) = 18.39
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 52.48