for mount carmel grove city mob 3...south-west of mount carmel grove city, of which approximately...

Stormwater Management Report for

Mount Carmel Grove City MOB 3

North Meadows Drive Grove City, Ohio 43123

April 19, 2017

Stormwater Management Plan

Korda File: 2017-0001

Korda/Nemeth Engineering 1650 Watermark Drive Columbus, Ohio 43215

April 2017

jblood

Snapshot

2015-4002 Stormwater Management Plan.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. COVER LETTER

II. TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE

IV. APPENDIX

A. CRITICAL STORM CALCULATIONS

B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY SUMMARY

C. PRE-DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS

D. POST-DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF CHARATERISTICS

E. STORMWATER ROUTING CALCULATIONS



Project Stormwater Management Narrative April 2017 I. Project Information

HPLEX is constructing a 50,230 square foot Medical Office Building, located on North Meadows Drive in Grove City, Ohio. The demolition of existing trees and brush are planned with this development. The project will include the construction of the office building and associated parking lots, and a commercial drive located off North Meadows Drive. Storm water drainage improvements are also proposed with the new development. Utility services will be provided to the building, including water, fire protection, sanitary, and electric/lighting. The 10.8 acre property is situated on the east side of North Meadows Drive just to the south-west of Mount Carmel Grove City, of which approximately 6.6 acres will be disturbed by construction. The project site is bounded by North Meadows Drive to the north and west, Grant Run and associated protection easement to the north and east, and Mount Carmel Lane to the south, which is planned for future construction.

II. Pre-Developed Drainage Conditions

The existing project area consists of undeveloped grassy area that is currently being used for soil stockpiling from adjacent construction projects. The site topography has elevations ranging from 813 to 822 feet. The site predominately drains to Grant run to the north and an existing wet detention pond located on the site. The eventual outfall of stormwater drainage from this site is the Scioto River.

III. Post-Developed Drainage Conditions

General Stormwater Control Narrative The project site will be graded to drain to a proposed stormwater drainage system consisting of swales, catch basins, and sewers underneath the proposed parking lot. A swale will be graded to capture the offsite runoff from the adjacent area to the south west, which is to remain undisturbed. This area adjacent to the site is included the stormwater calculations. New catch basins will be constructed to capture runoff from the proposed parking lot pavement. The new storm sewer system will be routed to an extended wet detention basin in the southeast corner of the site.

Stormwater Quantity Control The critical storm for the project was calculated in accordance with the City of Grove City Stormwater Design Manual (May 2016). The resultant critical storm is a 2-year critical storm (See Appendix A). Therefore, the combined post-developed peak discharge from the site during the 2-year storm event will be reduced to that of the 1-year pre-developed site peak runoff. Additionally, the system will ensure that the combined post-developed peak discharge from the 100-year storm even is reduced to that of the 10-year pre-developed site peak runoff. Refer to Appendix C and D for pre-developed and post-developed site runoff characteristics. The time of concentration was assumed to be 10.0 minutes for pre-developed and post-developed conditions for the preliminary stormwater calculations included with this report.


Stormwater quantity control will be provided using a wet extended detention basin. The existing wet pond on site will be expanded to accommodate the post-developed runoff from the site. The existing outlet structure will be modified using a 15” x 6” orifice at an elevation of 816.00 to control the sites release rates. The existing outlet pipes route the flow underneath the future Mount Carmel Lane southeast of the pond and discharge into Grant Run. A summary of the site’s stormwater management calculations can be found in Appendix B. Preliminary stormwater routing calculations are included in Appendix E.

Major Flood Routing In the event that the 100 year elevation is exceeded, the water will overflow over the northeast bank of the pond and will be routed over the proposed asphalt path and down into Grant Run.

Stormwater Quality Control The area disturbed by the construction is greater than 1 acre, therefore post construction stormwater quality treatment is required in accordance with the requirements of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Permit No. OHC000004. Stormwater quality will be provided from the above ground wet extended detention basin used for quantity control. A 1 inch diameter orifice will be utilized to route water into the controlling structure. The invert elevation of this orifice is 815.50. This orifice was sized based on a 0.75” rainfall event released over 24 hours, as required by General Permit No. OHC000004. A summary of the stormwater quality calculation can be found in Appendix B.


APPENDIX A CRITICAL STORM CALCULATIONS

I. Existing Conditions

1 year, 24 hour storm

Project Area 10.80 acres

Rainfall, P 2.20 inches

Curver Number, CN 79Runoff, Q 0.64 inches

Total Runoff Volume 25221 cubic feet

II. Developed Conditions

1 year, 24 hour storm

Project Area 10.80 acres

Rainfall, P 2.20 inches

Curve Number, CN 80Runoff, Q 0.71 inches

Total Runoff Volume 27782 cubic feet

III. Runoff Increase Due to Development

Existing Runoff 25221 cubic feet

Development Runoff 27782 cubic feet

Percent Increase in Runoff 10 %

IV. Critical Storm

10 % Increase in Runoff; Requires a 2-yr critical storm.

A. Storm water runoff peak for the 2-yr developed storm will not exceed thestorm water runoff peak for the 1 year, existing storm.

B. For storms greater than the 2-yr storm, the developed storm water runoff willnot exceed the existing storm water runoff peak for each storm. Refer to the storm water runoff summary sheet for allowable and design peaks.

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL STORM


APPENDIX B STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY

SUMMARY

Existing Total Developed Developed Detention TotalOn-Site Allowable On-Site Runoff Basin Peak Site Percent

Return Peak Runoff Peak Runoff Peak Runoff Mt. Carmel Ln. Discharge Discharge Peak Storage AllowablePeriod Hyd. No. 1 Hyd. No. 1 Hyd. No. 2 Hyd. No. 4 Hyd. No. 3 Hyd. No. 5 Elevation Volume Peak(Yr.) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (FT) (CF) Discharge

1 9.6 9.6 10.4 2.5 0.3 2.5 816.17 18,239 26%2 14.1 9.6 15.0 3.2 0.8 3.2 816.31 22,121 34%5 21.1 9.6 22.2 4.2 1.8 4.4 816.59 29,681 45%

10 27.3 9.6 28.5 5.0 2.4 5.9 816.87 38,164 61%25 36.3 9.6 37.6 6.2 3.1 8.1 817.32 51,571 84%50 43.9 9.6 45.3 7.1 3.7 9.5 817.70 63,578 99%100 82.1 27.3 53.6 8.1 4.1 11.0 818.11 76,863 40%

Note: Total Site Discharge is calculated by combining Hydrograph No. 3 and Hydrograph No. 4 within Hydraflow.

Grove City, Ohio

Storm Water Detention CalculationSummary Sheet


Ohio EPA Water Quality Summary Sheet

Water Quality Volume = C * P * (A/12) where: C = composite runoff coefficient = 0.20P = 0.75" precipitation depth (in) = 0.75A = tributary area (Ac.) = 10.8

WQv = 0.135 Acre-feet

WQv = 5881 Ft3

EDv = 4410 Ft3 (75% of WQv)Total WQv Required = 4410

WQv Provided = 5219 Ft3 to Elev. 918.70Target Drain Time = 24 hrs.

Impervious Area = 2.8 AcresTotal Area = 10.8 Acres

i = 0.26 (Fraction of post-construction impervious surface)C = 0.20 (Using equation from OHC000004)

Composite Runoff Coefficient Calculation


APPENDIX C PRE-DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS

Project By Date

Location Checked Date

Check one: X Present Developed NOTES:

1. Runoff Curve NumberSoil Name CN 1

and

hydrologic (cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition; percent

group impervious; unconnected/connected impervious area ratio)

1 Use only one CN Source per line

CN (weighted) = = = ;

2. Runoff

Frequency ………………………… yr

Rainfall, P (24-hour)…..………...…. in

Runoff, Q………………..………… in

Volume ……………………………… cu. ft. (Use P and CN with Table 2-1, figure 2-1, or

equations 2-3 and 2-4)

2.20 2.63 5.63

Totals 10.8 853.2

79

0.64 0.93 3.35

Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3

1 2 100

total product 853.2 79.00

Use CNtotal area 10.8

Type C Grass - Fair 79 10.8 853.2

Worksheet 2: Runoff curve number and runoff

Cover descriptionArea Product

Ta

ble

2-2

Fig

ure

2-3

Fig

ure

2-4 acres of

CN x Area

25221

Mar. 22, 2017

-

0


Grove City, Ohio

JDB

-

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, Ohio(Mount Carmel Grove City MOB 3 Project Site)

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

3/22/2017Page 1 of 4

4413

110

4413

160

4413

210

4413

260

4413

310

4413

360

4413

410

4413

110

4413

160

4413

210

4413

260

4413

310

4413

360

4413

410

321880 321930 321980 322030 322080 322130 322180 322230 322280 322330 322380

321880 321930 321980 322030 322080 322130 322180 322230 322280 322330 322380

39° 51' 8'' N83

° 4

' 55'

' W39° 51' 8'' N

83° 4

' 34'

' W

39° 50' 57'' N

83° 4

' 55'

' W

39° 50' 57'' N

83° 4

' 34'

' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS840 100 200 400 600

Feet0 30 60 120 180

MetersMap Scale: 1:2,350 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Rating Polygons

A

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating LinesA

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D


Soil Rating PointsA

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D


Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

BackgroundAerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can causemisunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soilline placement. The maps do not show the small areas ofcontrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailedscale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL:Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercatorprojection, which preserves direction and shape but distortsdistance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as theAlbers equal-area conic projection, should be used if moreaccurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data asof the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Franklin County, OhioSurvey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 22, 2016

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 27, 2012—Mar10, 2012

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minorshifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, Ohio(Mount Carmel Grove City MOB 3 Project Site)



3/22/2017Page 2 of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group

Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Franklin County, Ohio (OH049)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

CrB Crosby silt loam,Southern Ohio TillPlain, 2 to 6 percentslopes

C/D 7.6 74.3%

Ko Kokomo silty clay loam,0 to 2 percent slopes

C/D 2.6 25.7%

Totals for Area of Interest 10.2 100.0%

Description

Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils areassigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when thesoils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receiveprecipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) andthree dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) whenthoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessivelydrained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of watertransmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. Theseconsist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or welldrained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consistchiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water orsoils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate ofwater transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) whenthoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swellpotential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or claylayer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly imperviousmaterial. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter isfor drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that intheir natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, Ohio Mount Carmel Grove City MOB 3Project Site



3/22/2017Page 3 of 4

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, Ohio Mount Carmel Grove City MOB 3Project Site



3/22/2017Page 4 of 4

Hydrograph Report

Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Wednesday, 03 / 22 / 2017

Hyd. No. 1

Pre-Developed Conditions

Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 9.585 cfsStorm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 12.03 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 26,009 cuftDrainage area = 10.800 ac Curve number = 79Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ftTc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 minTotal precip. = 2.20 in Distribution = Type IIStorm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)


Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year

Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

3.00 3.00

6.00 6.00

9.00 9.00

12.00 12.00

15.00 15.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

4.00 4.00

8.00 8.00

12.00 12.00

16.00 16.00

20.00 20.00

24.00 24.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

4.00 4.00

8.00 8.00

12.00 12.00

16.00 16.00

20.00 20.00

24.00 24.00

28.00 28.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 1



7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

60.00 60.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 1


APPENDIX D POST-DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS

Project By Date

Location Checked Date

Check one: Present X Developed NOTES:

1. Runoff Curve Number

Soil Name CN 1

and

hydrologic (cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition; percent

group impervious; unconnected/connected impervious area ratio)

1 Use only one CN Source per line

CN (weighted) = = = ;

2. Runoff

Frequency ………………………… yr

Rainfall, P (24-hour)…..………...…. in

Runoff, Q………………..………… in

Volume ……………………………… cu. ft. (Use P and CN with Table 2-1, figure 2-1, or

equations 2-3 and 2-4)

0

Worksheet 2: Runoff curve number and runoff

Totals

584.6Type C

--

Area

74 7.9

Storm #3

98 2.9 284.2

868.8

Storm #2

10.8

80.44

acres

80Use CN

Productof

CN x Area

Ta

ble

2-2

Fig

ure

2-3

Fig

ure

2-4

2.20

0.71

2 100

5.632.63

total area

Cover description

Grass - Good

Impervious

868.8

10.8

27782

Mar. 22, 2017

-

1.00 3.49

Storm #1

1


Grove City, Ohio

JDB

-

total product

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2

Post-Developed Conditions


1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

12.00 12.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

3.00 3.00

6.00 6.00

9.00 9.00

12.00 12.00

15.00 15.00

18.00 18.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

4.00 4.00

8.00 8.00

12.00 12.00

16.00 16.00

20.00 20.00

24.00 24.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

5.00 5.00

10.00 10.00

15.00 15.00

20.00 20.00

25.00 25.00

30.00 30.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 2



7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

60.00 60.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 2

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4

Mount Carmel Lane - Post-Developed Conditions


1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00

6.00 6.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00

6.00 6.00

7.00 7.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 4



7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 4


APPENDIX E STORMWATER ROUTING CALCULATIONS

1 2

3

4

5

Watershed Model SchematicHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5

Project: H:\Projects\2017\2017-0001_00 Mount Carmel Grove City Medical Center - MOB 3\Civil\Calculations\Hydraflow.gpwWednesday, 03 / 22 / 2017

Hyd. Origin Description

Legend

1 SCS Runoff Pre-Developed Conditions

2 SCS Runoff Post-Developed Conditions

3 Reservoir Detention Pond

4 SCS Runoff Mount Carmel Lane - Post-Developed Conditions

5 Combine Total Site Discharge

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond

Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.328 cfsStorm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 16.50 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 16,725 cuftInflow hyd. No. = 2 - Post-Developed ConditionsMax. Elevation = 816.17 ftReservoir name = Detention Basin Max. Storage = 18,239 cuft

Storage Indication method used.

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

12.00 12.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond


Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 18,239 cuft

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

3.00 3.00

6.00 6.00

9.00 9.00

12.00 12.00

15.00 15.00

18.00 18.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



3

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

4.00 4.00

8.00 8.00

12.00 12.00

16.00 16.00

20.00 20.00

24.00 24.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



4

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

5.00 5.00

10.00 10.00

15.00 15.00

20.00 20.00

25.00 25.00

30.00 30.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



5

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



6

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 3

Detention Pond



7

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

20.00 20.00

30.00 30.00

40.00 40.00

50.00 50.00

60.00 60.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)

Detention Pond



Pond ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Wednesday, 03 / 22 / 2017

Pond No. 1 - Detention Basin

Pond Data

Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 815.50 ft

Stage / Storage Table

Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)

0.00 815.50 25,833 0 01.00 816.50 28,481 27,144 27,1442.00 817.50 31,232 29,843 56,9863.00 818.50 34,083 32,644 89,630

Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures

[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]

Rise (in) = 18.00 6.00 1.00 0.00

Span (in) = 18.00 15.00 1.00 0.00

No. Barrels = 1 1 1 0

Invert El. (ft) = 814.00 816.00 815.70 0.00

Length (ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 n/a

N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a

Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

Multi-Stage = n/a Yes Yes No

Crest Len (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crest El. (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33

Weir Type = --- --- --- ---

Multi-Stage = No No No No

Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000 (by Contour)

TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00

Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Stage (ft)

0.00 815.50

1.00 816.50

2.00 817.50

3.00 818.50

Elev (ft)

Discharge (cfs)

Stage / Discharge

Total Q

Pond ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Wednesday, 03 / 22 / 2017

Pond No. 1 - Detention Basin

Pond Data

Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 815.50 ft

Stage / Storage Table

Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)

0.00 815.50 25,833 0 01.00 816.50 28,481 27,144 27,1442.00 817.50 31,232 29,843 56,9863.00 818.50 34,083 32,644 89,630

Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures

[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]

Rise (in) = 18.00 6.00 1.00 0.00

Span (in) = 18.00 15.00 1.00 0.00

No. Barrels = 1 1 1 0

Invert El. (ft) = 814.00 816.00 815.70 0.00

Length (ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 n/a

N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a

Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

Multi-Stage = n/a Yes Yes No

Crest Len (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crest El. (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33

Weir Type = --- --- --- ---

Multi-Stage = No No No No

Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000 (by Contour)

TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00

Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).

0 9,000 18,000 27,000 36,000 45,000 54,000 63,000 72,000 81,000 90,000

Stage (ft)

0.00 815.50

1.00 816.50

2.00 817.50

3.00 818.50

Elev (ft)

Storage (cuft)

Stage / Storage

Storage

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5

Total Site Discharge

Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 2.506 cfsStorm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 12.00 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 23,247 cuftInflow hyds. = 3, 4 Contrib. drain. area = 1.300 ac

1

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)



Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4

Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



2

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



3

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



4

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00

6.00 6.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



5

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



6

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




Hydrograph Report


Hyd. No. 5



7

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

6.00 6.00

8.00 8.00

10.00 10.00

12.00 12.00

Q (cfs)

Time (hrs)




for mount carmel grove city mob 3...south-west of mount carmel grove city, of which approximately...

Documents