HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.805 Roaring Fork Rd.0019.2018 (14).ARBK
Drainage Report
805 ROARING FORK ROAD
ASPEN, CO
81611
December 29th, 2017
Prepared by Richard Goulding, P.E.
Roaring Fork Engineering
592 Highway 133
Carbondale, CO 81623
01/22/2018
Drainage Report
805 ROARING FORK ROAD
ASPEN, CO
81611
I HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THIS REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AT 805 ROARING FORK
ROAD WAS PREPARED BY ME FOR THE OWNERS THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PITKIN COUNTY AND APPROVED VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS LISTED
THERETO. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF PITKIN COUNTY THAT PITKIN COUNTY
DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ASSUME LIABILITY FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES DESIGNED BY
OTHERS.
RICHARD GOULDING, P.E.
RFE Project # 2017-61
01/22/2018
Table of Contents
1.0 General ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Existing Site ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Proposed Site .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Previous Drainage Studies ............................................................................................... 5
1.4 Offsite Drainage ............................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Drainage Basins and Sub-basins .......................................................................................... 6
2.1 Drainage Basins................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Peak Discharge Calculations ............................................................................................ 8
3.0 Low Impact Site Design....................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Principles .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Storm Recurrence and Rainfall ...................................................................................... 11
4.2 Storage Volumes Methodology ...................................................................................... 11
5.0 Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Inlets ............................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 Pipes ............................................................................................................................... 14
6.0 Proposed Facilities ............................................................................................................. 15
6.1 Screened Rock Beds ....................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Biodetention Basin ......................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Drywell ........................................................................................................................... 16
7.0 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................... 16
7.1 Drywell ........................................................................................................................... 16
7.2 Pervious Paver Area ....................................................................................................... 17
7.3 Biodetention Basins........................................................................................................ 18
01/22/2018
4
1.0 General
1.1 Existing Site
805 Roaring Fork Road is located in Aspen, Colorado at the south end of Roaring Fork Road,
north of Highway 82 within the City of Aspen limits. The site contains an existing house with an
approximate footprint of 4,100 square feet, three stone patios, a paved driveway that extends into
the Right Of Way on North 3rd Street, approximately 358 square feet of gravel parking adjacent
to Roaring Fork Road, and vegetation including large fir trees, aspens, shrubs, and landscape
lawn.
The parcel is surrounded by heavy vegetation. The topography is generally flat, but slopes away
from the two-story residence, through the highly vegetated area surrounding the property, down
toward both Roaring Fork Road and N. 3rd Street. An aerial photograph is provided as Figure 1.
An existing conditions sheet is part of the building permit set.
A geotechnical report was developed by HP Kumar and is dated November 1, 2017. A copy of
the geotechnical report is included in the submittal package. The geotechnical investigation
resulted in an observation of relatively dense, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and possible
boulders found below the driveway on the west side of the property. No free water was
encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist
with depth. Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Figure 2 of the geotechnical report. A percolation rate of 6 inches per hour was documented in
the report and was used for the infiltration calculations in this report.
Figure 1: Aerial map of existing site.
01/22/2018
5
1.2 Proposed Site
This project is classified as a βMajor Projectβ per Table 1.1. of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff
Management Plan (URMP). The proposed development is over 1,000 square feet and disturbs an
area of approximately 11,000 square feet, roughly 90 percent of the site. The intent of this report
is to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the URMP. The Low Impact Design
(LID) Principles in the introduction of the manual were used as a guide throughout the design
process.
The proposed scope of work includes the renovation of a two-story, single family residence with
a basement level, driveway, and hardscape areas including a pathway around the house, three
patios and a walkway from an off-street parking spot on Roaring Fork Road. There are a number
of plantings and landscaped areas associated with this project as well.
The topography of the parcel is relatively flat with existing grade typically draining away from
site towards the existing roads. Drainage infrastructure to be installed for the site will include a
drywell, biodetention basins, and screened rock beds. This drainage report will focus on the
onsite and offsite basins being collected and conveyed by the proposed storm drainage systems.
The final collection point for basins that are no longer following historical runoff flow paths or
experience a change in historical peak runoff is a drywell designed for full detention of a 100-
year storm event.
1.3 Previous Drainage Studies
The parcel of land belonging to 805 Roaring Fork Road is located in basin 8, a 53.8-acre portion
of System 3 of the Aspen Master Drainage plan. The site is not located close enough to City of
Aspen drainage infrastructure to feasibly utilize. Full detention is being implemented, and
therefore will not affect the cityβs stormwater system capacity.
1.4 Offsite Drainage
The adjacent roads historically drain into the vegetation along the road within the right of way.
An offsite basin was analyzed to ensure that the existing swale in the right-of-way has capacity
for full detention of the impervious area for a 100-year storm event and will not overflow onto
the property. This existing swale will be maintained to ensure that this basin functions as
intended. The basin has been labeled OS1 and can be seen on page C.03 of the civil set.
Offsite 5 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations
1 Hour(P1)0.64
Return Period 5
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
OS1 10721.77 6097.53 56.87%0.370 5 3.29 0.30
Offsite 5 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations
1 Hour(P1)0.64
Return Period 5
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
OS1 10721.77 0.00 0.00%0.080 5 3.29 0.06
01/22/2018
The soils report called out a
small addition to the house, is
that still proposed? If so, how is
drainage from the new
impervious area routed for
treatment and detention?
The drainage report
states that all BMPs
are designed for full
detention not just the
drywell.
6
The neighboring property detains their flows on-site and Aspen GIS topography mapping, Index:
2735_12, shows that the neighboring property will transport any un-detained water to the north
and away from 805 Roaring Fork Road.
2.0 Drainage Basins and Sub-basins
The parcel is considered four onsite basins. These basins were then subdivided into smaller sub-
basins to aid with design of the storm water infrastructure. These sub-basin peak flows were
then used to size the proposed infrastructure. The sub-basins were created to calculate the
concentrated flow from each impervious area. Basin and Sub-basin delineations are shown on
sheet C.03 and C.04. These sheets list impervious areas, runoff coefficients, peak flows, and the
required volume of runoff to be detained.
2.1 Drainage Basins
Basin 1 is a major basin within the parcel and consists of the area south and west of the
residence, including the driveway, walkways, patio, and lawn areas. The basin has a total area of
10,721 square feet and is 56.87% impervious. Impervious sections of the basin include the roof
structure, driveway and patio surfaces. The pathway is to be constructed of pervious pavers,
which are proposed over Screened Rock Bed A. The remainder of the basin is made up of
pervious landscaped areas that surround the residence. Runoff from the basin is collected by
sheet flowing to inlets and downspouts. The runoff is conveyed into Screened Rock Bed A,
which is sized for full detention of a 100-year storm event.
Offsite 100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations
1 Hour(P1)1.23
Return Period 100
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
OS1 10721.77 6097.53 56.87%0.540 5 6.33 0.84
Offsite 100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations
1 Hour(P1)1.23
Return Period 100
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
OS1 10721.77 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.54
Offsite Full Detention Storage
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Impervious Full Detention Depth Factor of Safety Required Storage BMP
(ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)F.O.S.(ft3)
OS1 10721.77 6097.53 56.87%1.23 1 625 Offsite Biodetention Basin
Offsite Biodetention Basins
Storage System Basins Sectional Area Length Total Capacity Required Capacity
(Name)(#)(ft2)(ft)(ft3)(ft3)
Offsite Biodetention Basin OS1 4 175 700.00 625
01/22/2018
7
Sub-basin 1.1 consists of the landscaping to the south of the residence. The basin is graded to
slope to an inlet next to the pervious pavers, which will collect any excess runoff and disperse it
into the screened rock bed.
Sub-basin 1.2 includes the pervious paver walkway and the landscape surrounding the pavers.
This basin is collected by the paver system and infiltrates into the screened rock bed.
Sub-basin 1.3 is a portion of the driveway located in the right of way. Runoff from the
snowmelted driveway will be collected, so it does not disperse onto the right of way asphalt. The
sub basin is sloped to a trench drain, which collects the runoff and conveys it into the screened
rock bed.
Sub-basin 1.4 includes the portion of the driveway that is on the property. It is also collected by
a trench drain and is dispersed into the screened rock bed.
Basin 2 is a basin that consists of the landscaped area to the southeast of the residence, the
southeast portion of the roof, and multiple patios and walkways. It is 3,110 square feet with a 45
percent impervious area. Screened Rock Bed B, which is located under the pervious paver
walkway, collects runoff from this basin. Basin 2 (or Screened Rock Bed B) has been sized for
full detention.
Sub-basin 2.1 includes landscaped areas, with patios and pervious walkways. The stormwater
runoff will disperse onto the pavers, which will then infiltrate into Screened Rock Bed B.
Sub-basin 2.2 is the portion of the roof that is included in the basin. The downspout from the
roof is directly tied into Screened Rock Bed B.
Sub-basin 2.3 is an area including landscaping and a patio surface that drains to an inlet next to
the pervious pavers. This inlet connects into Screened Rock Bed B.
Basin 3 is located to the east of the residence and totals 2,448 square feet. It is 23% impervious.
Most of the basin is landscaped area, with a section of roof and a pervious paver walkway. The
entire basin is collected in Biodetention Basin C, which has capacity for full detention of the
stormwater runoff.
Sub-basin 3.1 consists of the landscaped area surrounding Biodetention Basin C, which all
sheetflows into Biodetention Basin C.
Sub-basin 3.2 includes the western roof of the residence. The downspout is hard piped to and
disperses into Biodetention Basin C.
Basin 4 is the largest onsite basin at 4,166 square feet and is approximately 69 percent
impervious. This includes the northern most section of the house, the backyard to the northeast
of the house, patios, and a spa. A pipe network collects several downspouts and several drains,
which tie into a drywell on the east side of the basin. This drywell is 6 feet diameter and 10 feet
deep, and has capacity for full detention of the basin.
01/22/2018
8
Sub-basin 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 are northern portions of the roof of the house. They are directly tied
into the pipe network and runoff is conveyed into the drywell.
Sub-basin 4.2 and 4.5 are patio areas sloped to a drain, which both tie into the proposed pipe
network. The runoff is conveyed directly to the drywell.
Sub-basin 4.6 consists of the landscaped area in the backyard. This area all slopes to the grated
lid of the drywell via sheet flow.
2.2 Peak Discharge Calculations
The peak flows were calculated for the Major Basin for 5 and 100-year storm events using the
Rational Method. The Rational Method is an acceptable method to calculate runoff for this basin
as the area is under 90 acres. Rainfall intensity was calculated using a Time of Concentration
(Td) of 5 minutes. The actual time of concentration for this site is less than 5 minutes, but
according to the City of Aspen URMP, equations used to calculate rainfall intensity are only
valid for a time of concentration of 5 minutes or greater so the smallest valid time of
concentration value was used. The 1-hour Rainfall depths (P1) used for these calculations was
taken from Table 2.2 of the URMP and is equal to 0.64 inches for the 5-year event and 1.23
inches for the 100-year event. Equation 2.1 was referenced when solving for the Rainfall
Intensity (I). π°π°= ππππ.ππ π·π·ππ(ππππ+π»π»π π )ππ.ππππππ (πΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈ 2.1)
Runoff Coefficients (C), a function of the Soil Group (in this case B for the onsite basin) and the
percentage of impervious area within each sub basin were developed using Figure 3.3. The
Runoff Coefficient (C) was then multiplied by the Rainfall Intensity (I) and the area of the Major
Basin (A, in acres) to determine the peak discharge. πΈπΈππ=πͺπͺπ°π°πͺπͺ ππππ=πππππΈπΈππ π·π·πΈπΈπ·π·π·π·βπΈπΈππππππ (π·π·πππ·π·) πΆπΆ=π π πΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈππππ πΆπΆπΈπΈπππππππΈπΈπ·π·πΈπΈπππΈπΈπΈπΈ πΌπΌ=π π πΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπΈπππΈπΈπ π π π πΌπΌπΈπΈπΈπΈπππΈπΈπ·π·πΈπΈπΈπΈπΌπΌ (πΈπΈπΈπΈπ·π·βπππ·π· ππππππ βπΈπΈπΈπΈππ) π΄π΄=π΄π΄πππππΈπΈ (πΈπΈπ·π·πππππ·π·)
These peak flow values were used to calculate the size of the proposed detention and conveyance
structures, such as swales, drywells, inlets and pipes. The tables below contain the peak flows for
developed and undeveloped conditions for 5 and 100-year storm events for the major basin, and
the 100 year peak flow rate for the sub basins.
01/22/2018
Address the emergency
overflow routes for all
basins.
9
3.0 Low Impact Site Design
Low Impact Development (LID) aims to mimic the natural pre-development hydrologic pattern.
The goal is to manage storm water as close to its source as is possible. This entire developed site
is approximately 25 percent impervious. The treatment train approach is used on all runoff to
increase water quality and infiltration.
3.1 Principles
Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process.
The grading and drainage design was coordinated between the architect, landscape architect, and
civil engineering teams throughout the design process and water quality requirements were
discussed early on. Site visits ensured proper understanding of existing conflicts and
opportunities to improve existing drainage patterns.
5 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations
1 Hour(P1)0.64
Return Period 5
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
1 5793.18 1824.10 31.49%0.250 5 3.29 0.11
2 3110.09 1384.31 44.51%0.300 5 3.29 0.07
3 2448.45 567.37 23.17%0.200 5 3.29 0.04
4 4166.05 2873.80 68.98%0.450 5 3.29 0.14
5 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations
1 Hour(P1)0.64
Return Period 5
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
1 5793.18 0.00 0.00%0.080 5 3.29 0.04
2 3110.09 0.00 0.00%0.080 5 3.29 0.02
3 2448.45 0.00 0.00%0.080 5 3.29 0.01
4 4166.05 0.00 0.00%0.080 5 3.29 0.03
100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations
1 Hour(P1)1.23
Return Period 100
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
1 5793.18 1824.10 31.49%0.480 5 6.33 0.40
2 3110.09 1384.31 44.51%0.500 5 6.33 0.23
3 2448.45 567.37 23.17%0.450 5 6.33 0.16
4 4166.05 2873.80 68.98%0.590 5 6.33 0.36
100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations
1 Hour(P1)1.23
Return Period 100
Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max
See(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)
1 5793.18 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.29
2 3110.09 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.16
3 2448.45 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.12
4 4166.05 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.21
01/22/2018
10
Principle 2: Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment.
Storm water quality was considered in the design of every part of the site that is being affected
by the proposed construction. Detention ponds and sheetflowing the runoff through landscaping
was implemented to increase infiltration and water quality.
Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
The total impervious area on the site was kept to a minimum while meeting the architectural
design goals by incorporating pervious landscaped areas throughout the site. All walkways were
designed with pervious pavers to reduce impervious area.
Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
All runoff from impervious surfaces on the property is collected and routed to BMP structures.
The infrastructure has been sized to capture and infiltrate all the 100-year runoff volume.
Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control.
By keeping the biodetention basin in the right of way, implications on the right of way will be
minimal. Water quality was maintained through sheet flowing runoff through landscaping and by
using biodetention basins.
Principle 6: Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site, the community and the
environment.
The design is proposing full detention for all stormwater, meaning no runoff will be leaving the
site. Depressions are continued to be used to ensure proper drainage of the right of way.
Principle 7: Use treatment train approach.
The design implements sheetflow across landscaping, pervious pavers, sumps in the pipe
networks, and multi chambered drywells to ensure treatment throughout the system.
Principle 8: Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
Inlets and piping will be vacuumed or flushed periodically to maintain adequate flow. Proper
grading reduces dangerous slopes and proper drainage to reduce ice buildup. Cleanouts are
located where necessary to ensure the lifetime of the drainage infrastructure. The drywell will be
easily accessible for maintenance.
Principle 9: Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Proper drainage and grading of the driveway and walkways reduces ice buildup and dangerous
icy conditions. All grading was done with safety in mind, and no steep slopes occur on the site.
01/22/2018
11
4.0 Hydrological Criteria
4.1 Storm Recurrence and Rainfall
The property is located outside of the commercial core and isnβt served by any storm system, so
this property classifies as a βSub-urban area not served by public storm sewerβ. Therefore,
the storm system for the site was designed to meet detention requirements for the 5 and 100-year
historical storm events.
The 1-hour Rainfall depth (P1) is given in Table 2.2 as 0.64 inches for the 5-year event and 1.23
inches for the 100-year event. The Intensity in inches per hour for different storm duration (Td)
was calculated using Equation 2.1 from the City of Aspen URMP.
4.2 Storage Volumes Methodology
The storage requirements for this site were calculated using the total impervious area along with
the historic and developed peak runoff rates that were established in section 2.2. The proposed
storm drainage system is designed for full detention of a 100-year storm event. No detention is
required for pervious areas. Below is a summary of the required storage.
5.0 Hydraulic Criteria
This property is not connected to the COAβs storm water infrastructure. All hydraulics are sized
for onsite infrastructure. Below is a table that was used for an in-depth analysis of the flows
through the conveyance structures.
Full Detention Storage
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Impervious Full Detention Depth Factor of Safety Required Storage BMP
(ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)F.O.S.(ft3)
1 5793.18 1824.10 31.49%1.23 1 187 Screened Rock Bed A
2 3110.09 1384.31 44.51%1.23 1 142 Screened Rock Bed B
3 2448.45 567.37 23.17%1.23 1 58 Biodetention Basin C
4 4166.05 2873.80 68.98%1.23 1 295 Drywell D
01/22/2018
12
5.1 Inlets
The peak flows for the 100-year event in each sub-basin were used to size the proposed inlets.
Equations 4.17 through 4.20 from the URMP were used in these calculations. The equations
incorporate a 50 percent clogging factor and assume a 40 percent opening in the grates. Water
depths used in these calculations are based on the grading around each inlet and safe ponding
levels above the inlets. The tables on the following page summarize the calculations for each
inlet as well as for the trench drain.
100 Year Sub Basin Peak Discharge Developed Calculations
1 Hour(P1)1.23
Return Period 100
Sub Basin Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Sub Basin Flow Rate
(Name)At (ft2)Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)01.052 Qsub (ft3/sec)
1.1 2001.20 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.10
1.2 2159.84 191.96 8.89%0.380 5 6.33 0.12
1.3 351.62 351.62 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.05
1.4 289.89 289.89 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.04
1.5 990.63 990.63 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.14
2.1 1790.46 286.60 16.01%0.430 5 6.33 0.11
2.2 985.80 985.80 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.14
2.3 333.83 111.91 33.52%0.480 5 6.33 0.02
3.1 1881.08 0.00 0.00%0.350 5 6.33 0.10
3.2 567.37 567.37 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.08
4.1 1031.29 1031.29 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.14
4.2 65.38 65.38 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.01
4.3 833.31 833.31 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.11
4.4 569.51 569.51 100.00%0.950 5 6.33 0.08
4.5 221.15 120.18 54.34%0.520 5 6.33 0.02
4.6 1445.41 254.13 17.58%0.430 5 6.33 0.09
01/22/2018
13
Sub Basin and Rectangular Inlet Calculations 1 Hour(P1)1.23m=40%Ys=.04 (Depress inlet by 0.04')Return Period100Cg=50%Co=0.65Inlet IDBasin IDTotal Area Imp. Area Impervious C ValueTime of ConcentrationIntensityQ MaxInlet TypeInlet WidthInlet LengthEffective Open Area (EQ. 4-20)Inlet Capacity (EQ 4-19)Has CapacitySee(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)(From Table) (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec)RectangularWo (inches)Lo (inches)Ae=(1-Cg)mWoLoQ=CoAeβ2gYs(Yes/No)A4-Trench Drain1.3351.62351.62100.00%0.95056.330.0494" x 24'42881.6001.605YesA5-Trench Drain1.4289.89289.89100.00%0.95056.330.0404" x 18'42161.2001.204YesD8-Slot Drain 4.5221.15120.1854.34%0.52056.330.017.25" x 28'0.253360.1170.117YesSub Basin and Circular Inlet Calculations 1 Hour(P1)1.23m=40%Ys=.04 (Depress inlet by 0.04')Return Period100Cg=50%Co=0.65Inlet IDBasin IDTotal Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value ConcentrationIntensityQ MaxInlet TypeDiameter Area(EQ. 4-20)Inlet Capacity (EQ 4-19)Has CapacitySee(D1)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 ft3/secWo (inches)Ae=(1-Cg)mAQ=CoAeβ2gYs(Yes/No)A3-Inlet1.12001.200.000.00%0.35056.330.10210" Round100.1090.127YesB2-Inlet2.3333.83111.9133.52%0.48056.330.0238" Round80.0700.081YesD4-Inlet4.265.3865.38100.00%0.95056.330.0098" Round80.0700.081Yes01/22/2018
14
5.2 Pipes
The pipes were sized by using the calculated flow from the sub-basins they are connected to.
Below is a table which groups what sub-basins are conveyed to each pipe. The Time Of
Concentration (TOC) is below 5 minutes for all sub-basins, so a reduction was not taken for the
intensity. Depth of flow was also calculated in the spreadsheets below. The pipes are all SDR 35
PVC with a manningβs coefficient of .01.
Design Q design / Q full charts were downloaded from FHWA. The equations in Section 4.8.4 was
used as the basis for these calculations.
Pipe sizes were tested for hydraulic capacity at 80 percent of their full flowrate. Design charts
giving Qdesign / Q full were downloaded from FHWA and the equations in Section 4.8.4 were used
as the basis for these calculations. Calculated pipe sizes and depth of flow for onsite pipes are
shown below.
Storm System Pipes
Pipe System Pipe Contibuting Sub-Basins Design Flow Rate
Qdes
A A1 1.5 0.14
A3 1.3 0.05
A4 1.3, 1.4 0.09
B B1 2.2 0.14
C C1 3.2 0.08
D D1 4.1 0.14
D2 4.1 0.14
D3 4.3 0.11
D4 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 0.27
D5 4.4 0.08
D6 4.4 0.08
D7 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 0.34
D8 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 0.36
K=0.462
Pipe Design Flow
Rate
Proposed
Slope
Manning
Coefficient
Required Pipe Diameter
Equation 4-31
Required Pipe
Diameter
Proposed Pipe
Diameter
Qdes (ft3/sec) S (%)n d (ft) = {nQdes/KβS}3/8 Dreq (in) Dpro (in)
A1 0.14 1.50%0.01 0.25 2.97 4.0
A3 0.05 1.50%0.01 0.17 2.01 4.0
A4 0.09 1.50%0.01 0.21 2.52 4.0
B1 0.14 1.50%0.01 0.25 2.96 4.0
C1 0.08 1.50%0.01 0.20 2.41 4.0
D1 0.14 1.50%0.01 0.25 3.02 4.0
D2 0.14 1.50%0.01 0.25 3.02 4.0
D3 0.11 1.50%0.01 0.23 2.78 4.0
D4 0.27 1.50%0.01 0.32 3.81 6.0
D5 0.08 1.50%0.01 0.20 2.41 4.0
D6 0.08 1.50%0.01 0.20 2.41 4.0
D7 0.34 1.50%0.01 0.35 4.20 6.0
D8 0.36 1.50%0.01 0.36 4.28 6.0
Pipe Sizing
01/22/2018
15
6.0 Proposed Facilities
This property is not connected to the COAβs storm water infrastructure, and all BMPβs are sized
for full detention, as clarified in section 2.2 of this report. Below is the analyses for the
individual detention structureβs capacity and infiltration.
6.1 Screened Rock Beds
Below are tables that show the proposed capacities meet the required volume of the screened
rock beds used in the design. The area in the table is the surface area of the pavers that are placed
on top of the beds and the depth is the distance form the bottom of the perforated pipes down to
the
Infiltration of the screened rock beds is shown below and uses the percolation rate given by the
Geotechnical report. The infiltration area is the side of the gravel bed. Infiltration through the
bottom was disregarded due to potential for clogging. The table below shows that the screened
rock bed infiltration rates meet the City of Aspenβs requirements.
Pipe Design Flow
Rate
Proposed Pipe
Diameter Slope 80% of Proposed
Pipe Diameter
Manning
Coefficient
Full Pipe Cross
Sectional Area Full Pipe Flow Rate Q Design /
Q Full d/D Hydraulic Grade Line
(Depth of Flow)
Depth of Flow Less Than
80% of Pipe Diameter
Qdes (ft3/sec) Dpro(in)S (%)Dpro*.8 (in)n A (ft) = Ο (Dpro/2)2 Qfull (ft3/s) = A(1.49/n)((Dpro/48)2/3)S1/2 Qdes/Qfull (from Chart)d (in) = (d/D)*Dpro (Yes/No)
A1 0.14 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.45 0.52 2.06 Yes
A3 0.05 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.16 0.30 1.20 Yes
A4 0.09 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.29 0.41 1.62 Yes
B1 0.14 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.45 0.52 2.06 Yes
C1 0.08 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.26 0.38 1.52 Yes
D1 0.14 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.47 0.53 2.12 Yes
D2 0.14 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.47 0.53 2.12 Yes
D3 0.11 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.38 0.49 1.94 Yes
D4 0.27 6.0 1.50%4.8 0.01 0.196 0.895 0.30 0.41 2.43 Yes
D5 0.08 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.26 0.38 1.52 Yes
D6 0.08 4.0 1.50%3.2 0.01 0.087 0.304 0.26 0.38 1.52 Yes
D7 0.34 6.0 1.50%4.8 0.01 0.196 0.895 0.39 0.49 2.91 Yes
D8 0.36 6.0 1.50%4.8 0.01 0.196 0.895 0.40 0.50 3.00 Yes
Hydraulic Grade Line and Pipe Capacity
Screened Rock Bed Storage
Storage System Basins Area Depth Void Ratio Total Capacity Required Capacity
(Name)(#)(ft2)(ft)(ft3)(ft3)
Screened Rock Bed A 1 349 2 0.3 209.40 187
Screened Rock Bed B 2 245 2 0.3 147.00 142
Full Detention Infiltration
BMP Max Volume Infiltration Area Infiltration Rate Time To Drain Volume Infiltrated in 24 Hours
(name)V (ft3)A (ft2)I (in/hr)(hr)Vtotal (ft3) = V*24/T
Screened Rock Bed A 209.40 200 6 2.09 2400.00
Screened Rock Bed B 147.00 68 6 4.32 816.00
01/22/2018
is historic release in
the historic location not
achievable on this
site?
16
6.2 Biodetention Basin
Below are tables that display the proposed volumes meet the required capacity for the
biodetention basin used in Basin 3.
The infiltration of the basin was calculated using the percolation rate provided in the
Geotechnical report. The area of the depression was used for the infiltration area. The table
below shows that the infiltration of the basin meets the City of Aspenβs requirements.
6.3 Drywell
Below is a table that shows the proposed drywell meets the capacity required for full detention of
basin 4.
Infiltration of the drywell is calculated using the percolation rate given by the Geotechnical
report. The infiltration area is through the side of the gravel surrounding the drywell. Infiltration
through the bottom was disregarded due to potential for clogging.
7.0 Operation and Maintenance
7.1 Drywell
Drywells must be inspected and maintained quarterly to remove sediment and debris that has
washed into them. A maintenance plan shall be submitted to the City in the Drainage Report
Biodetention Basins
Storage System Basins Sectional Area Length Total Capacity Required Capacity
(Name)(#)(ft2)(ft)(ft3)(ft3)
Biodetention Basin C 3 4 47 188.00 187
Full Detention Infiltration
BMP Max Volume Infiltration Area Infiltration Rate Time To Drain Volume Infiltrated in 24 Hours
(name)V (ft3)A (ft2)I (in/hr)(hr)Vtotal (ft3) = V*24/T
Biodetention Pond C 186.97 329 6 1.14 3948.00
Drywell Storage
Drywell Basins Diameter Storage Depth Internal Volume External (18" of Screened Rock) Volume Total Capacity Required Capacity
(Name)(#)D (ft)H (ft)Ο*H*(D/2)2) (ft3)0.3*Ο*4*((D/2)+1.5)2 - (D/2)2) (ft3)(ft3)(ft3)
Drywell D 4 6 10 283 42 325 295
Drywell Infiltration
Name Diameter Perforation Height Perforated Area Total Capacity Infiltration Rate Infiltration Time Volume Infiltrated in 24 Hours
(Name)D (ft)H (ft)A (ft2) = 3.14*D*H V (ft3)I (in/hr)T (hr) = V/(A*I/12)Vtotal (ft3) = V*T
Drywell D 6 4 75.40 325.15 6 8.625 2804.46
01/22/2018
The above storage
requirement table
states that basin 3
requires 58cf of
detention which is
provided in the
bioretention area.
Where did the 187cf
below come from? Is
this oversized?
17
describing the maintenance schedule that will be undertaken by the owners of the new
residence or building. Minimum inspection and maintenance requirements include the
following:
β’ Inspect drywells at least four times a year and after every storm exceeding 0.5 inches.
β’ Dispose of sediment, debris/trash, and any other waste material removed from a drywell at suitable disposal sites and in compliance with local, State, and Federal waste regulations.
β’ Routinely evaluate the drain-down time of the drywell to ensure the maximum time of 24
hours is not being exceeded. If drain-down times are exceeding the maximum, drain the
drywell via pumping and clean out the percolation area (the percolation barrel may be
jetted to remove sediment accumulated in perforations. If slow drainage persists, the
system may need to be replaced.
7.2 Pervious Paver Area
As per section 8.5.3.1 of the URMP, the following schedule will be undertaken by the owners of
the property to achieve long term performance of the BMPβs.
The perforated pipes should be cleaned and flushed yearly using the cleanouts on either end of
the pipe. Do not use soap or chemicals to clean the drain. Inspect annually during a storm event
to insure performance of drainage. If the drain has clogged outside of the drain pipe within the
01/22/2018
18
gravel bed, further maintenance or replacement of the gravel bed may be required. To access the
gravel bed, the pavers can be lifted, where the sand, filter fabric, and gravel detention bed can be
repaired as necessary. The pavers can be maintained similar to the recommended pervious paver
table 8.8 above, following the schedule as per section 8.5.3.1 of the URMP.
7.3 Biodetention Basins
Biodetention basins are generally considered a low-maintenance stormwater management
approach. The depressions should be landscaped with grasses and plants to the maximum extent
possible. Do not fill the depression with mulch, gravel, or any fill material, as the capacity of the
basin will be minimized. Plant maintenance will occur as needed, including mowing, irrigation
(if necessary), and pruning. Remove any debris that collects in the depression during general
landscape maintenance.
01/22/2018