CE 585. Construction Site Erosion Control. The University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. New Chevrolet and Cadillac Dealership.

Similar documents
CE 585 Construction Site Erosion Control The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL. New Chevrolet and Cadillac Dealership Jasper, AL

Module 3 and Module 4 Watershed Analysis and RUSLE Calculation. Noboru Togawa. Presented to: Dr. Pitt Construction Site Erosion Control

Module 6 Temporary Pond and Silt Fence. Noboru Togawa. Presented to: Dr. Pitt Construction Site Erosion Control

Module 3: Rainfall and Hydrology for Construction Site Erosion Control

Design of Stormwater Wetlands

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT BARRY ASH POND ALABAMA POWER COMPANY

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT GASTON GYPSUM POND ALABAMA POWER COMPANY

DRAFT. Technical Memorandum. Whitney Road Drainage & Safety Enhancements Phase III Hydraulic Update. Prepared For:

INITIAL RUN-ON AND RUN-OFF CONTROL PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART 257

November 16, Ryan Bean. Brett Harrelson. Annie Smith. Brittany Wood

APPENDIX IV. APPROVED METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (NORTH ORANGE COUNTY)

Typical Local Erosion Control Requirements (Storm Water Management Authority, Inc.)

Final Report CE491 Sokol Park Ball-fields Michael Smothers

INITIAL RUN-ON AND RUN-OFF CONTROL PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART 257

Detention Pond Design Considering Varying Design Storms. Receiving Water Effects of Water Pollutant Discharges

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY

Modeling the Hydrologic Impacts of Control Structures Utilizing LiDAR, ICPR, and GIS Technologies

RUN-ON AND RUN-OFF CONTROL PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT DANIEL NORTH ASH MANAGEMENT UNIT MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY

Peak discharge computation

DRAINAGE STUDY. 645 Beard Creek Trail Lot 8, Cordillera Valley Club Filing No. 4 Eagle County, Colorado. November 4, Project No.

RETENTION BASIN EXAMPLE

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT GREENE COUNTY ASH POND ALABMA POWER COMPANY

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT YATES ASH POND 3 (AP-3) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Ponds. Pond A water impoundment made by excavating a pit, or constructing a dam or an embankment.

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT BOWEN ASH POND 1 (AP-1) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

DRAINAGE STUDY. 645 Beard Creek Trail Lot 8, Cordillera Valley Club Filing No. 1 Eagle County, Colorado. November 25, Project No.

Example 1: Pond Design in a residential development (Water Quantity calculations for a Wet Pond and Wet Extended Detention Pond)

Construction Site Erosion Control and Phase II of the Stormwater Permit Program

WinTR-55 Small Watershed Hydrology

HYDROLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS. 22 nd Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference Saratoga Springs, NY

Construction Site Erosion Control and Phase II of the Stormwater Permit Program

Construction Site Erosion Control and Phase II of the Stormwater Permit Program

Hydrology for Drainage Design. Design Considerations Use appropriate design tools for the job at hand:

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. Part PLANT MCINTOSH ASH POND 1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT YATES ASH POND B (AP-B ) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Learn how to design inlet grates, detention basins, channels, and riprap using the FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox and WMS

Appendix B. Storm Drain System Data

Aberdeen Airport Drainage Study. Todd Yerdon, PE Al Erickson, PE

Memorandum. Creekside Woods I & II Plymouth, MN BCWMC Summary: General Background & Comments. Floodplain

Treatment Volume: Curve Numbers. Composite CN or Not? Treatment Volume: Curve Numbers. Treatment Volume: Calculation. Treatment Volume: Calculation

Chapter 6. Hydrology. 6.0 Introduction. 6.1 Design Rainfall

Run-on and Run-off Control System Plan

Stormwater Management Impacts Resulting from the Volumetric Abstraction of Runoff from Frequent Storms per PADEP CG-1. Geoffrey A. Cerrelli 1, P.E.

Applying the Water Quality Volume

LAKE COUNTY HYDROLOGY DESIGN STANDARDS

HYDROLOGY CHECKLIST FOR LAND DISTURBANCE PERMITS

Precipitation Surface Cover Topography Soil Properties

MVP 17.3 WATER BAR END TREATMENT SIZING AND DETAILS 1/22/18

Dawson County Public Works 25 Justice Way, Suite 2232, Dawsonville, GA (706) x 42228

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT DANIEL ASH POND B MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY

Cumulative Precipitation

APPENDIX J-3. Orcem Stormwater Management and Treatment Facilities Design Summary

Engineering Hydrology. Class 16: Direct Runoff (DRO) and Unit Hydrographs

NEW CASTLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. through. (Name of Municipality) PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DRAINAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. September 2013

Green Station CCR Surface Impoundment

Summary of Detention Pond Calculation Canyon Estates American Canyon, California

E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

BMP Design Aids. w w w. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n. o h i o. g o v. Equations / Programs

Extended Detention Basin Design

Hydrologic Study Report for Single Lot Detention Basin Analysis

Drainage Analysis. Appendix E

DRAINAGE REPORT. Project Name: PG&E Gas Operations Technical Training Center Winters, CA. Date: February 4, Prepared by: BKF Engineers

Pre-Treatment Bioretention Cells Bioswales IOWA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL DECEMBER 16, 2015

Figure 1: Overview of all AutoCAD generated cross-sections.

Diversion Dikes. Fe=0.95

Runoff Hydrographs. The Unit Hydrograph Approach

Appendix F. Flow Duration Basin Design Guidance

San Francisco State University Site 1 Vegetated Infiltration Basin Monitoring Report: Rainy Seasons and

Rainfall, Runoff and Peak Flows: Calibration of Hydrologic Design Methods for the Kansas City Area

Ponds Planning, Design, Construction

Hydrology Study. For Bella Terrazza Portion of Lot 1, Block 39, Subdivision of S Tract, Rancho El Cajon El Cajon, CA 92021

INITIAL INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT MCMANUS ASH POND A (AP-1) 40 CFR

Hydromodification Computer Modeling

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION OLD STATE HIGHWAY

City of Katy Flood Protection Study (Meeting 3 of 3) October 23, 2017

Overview of NRCS (SCS) TR-20 By Dr. R.M. Ragan

Runoff Calculations. Time of Concentration (T c or t c ) from one location to another within a watershed. Travel

MOODY FLATS QUARRY STORMWATER, EROSION CONTROL, AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Prepared by:

0.0. Pervious CN = 40. (Unconnected impervious) (Total impervious) Total impervious area (percent) Composite CN

NRCS Hydrology methodology review Minnesota NRCS recommendation MnDOT recommendation Using Atlas 14 with HydroCAD

Land Development Characteristics in the Southeastern United States

WELSH POWER PLANT ASH LANDFILL. Run-on and Run-off Control System Plan

Water Resources Management Plan

PREDEVELOPMENT VERSUS POSTDEVELOPMENT VOLUME ANALYSIS: An Application of Continuous Simulation Modeling using PONDS Version 3 Software

Sunset Circle Vegetated Swale and Infiltration Basin System Monitoring Report: Rainy Seasons and

FEMA (from current study - not yet adopted) Flow Data Table 2 Summary of Discharges Floodway Data

3.3 Acceptable Downstream Conditions

APPENDIX H. Draft Storm Drainage Master Plan

SECTION III: WATERSHED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

HYDROLOGY STUDY LA MIRADA BOULEVARD La Mirada, California

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN CUHP AND RATIONAL METHODS James C.Y. Guo, PhD, P.E., and Ben Urbonas, P.E., D.WRD 08/04/2008

Final Drainage Report

Erosion Controls Control Site Discharges

Basic Hydrology Runoff Curve Numbers

Module 1: Construction Site Erosion Control

PEARCE CREEK CONFINED DISPOSAL AREA MODIFICATION

FAST WATER / SLOW WATER AN EVALUATION OF ESTIMATING TIME FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF

Contents. Drainage Analysis: Hunters Trace, Westpointe, and Hunters Creek

Transcription:

CE 585 Construction Site Erosion Control The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL New Chevrolet and Cadillac Dealership Jasper, AL Andrew Kennedy July 10, 2007 0

Table of Contents 1. Introduction.. 1 2. Objective..1 3. Watershed Description..1 4. Rainfall Information..3 5. WinTR-55 Results.4 6. Selection of Design Return Periods.5 7. Diversion Channels.5 8. Conclusions..5 List of Tables Table 3a: Watershed Data....3 Table 5a: Peak Rainfall Data.4 Table 6a: Design Return Periods.5 List of Figures Figure 3a: Division of Watersheds 2 0

1.0 Introduction This document is for a class exercise. The new Chevrolet and Cadillac dealership in Jasper, AL was chosen by the author to use for a class project in Construction Site Erosion, CE 585. The site is located in the southwest corner of the I-22 exit onto Industrial Blvd in Jasper, AL. This document contains a description of the site, the hydrologic characteristics of the site, hydrology calculation results, and preliminary suggestions for an erosion control plan. 2.0 Objective This homework assignment is intended to gather needed information and to conduct the basic hydrologic analyses. The results of these analyses will be used at a later time to design erosion and sediment controls. The following items are included in this report: 1) Drainage area delineation including upslope contributing areas, on-site sub-drainage areas, and downslope areas. 2) Determination and organization of the site information needed for a hydrologic analysis for each sub area as designated in 1). 3) Use WinTR-55 to calculate the peak runoff rates, and plot the hydrographs for each sub area. Select an appropriate design storm for each area based on the likely control being used for each area. 3.0 Watershed Description The new dealership has four watersheds (I, II, III, and IV) totaling approximately 30 acres. There are three up-slope watersheds (U1, U2, and U3). The locations of each watershed is shown in figure 3a. Up-slope watershed U1 will be diverted around the site while watersheds U2 and U3 will flow through a portion of the site. There are no down-slope areas beyond the outfall locations (Outlet 1, Outlet 2, and Outlet 3). Outlets 1 and 2 both flow into unnamed creeks which ultimately connect with Cane Creek to the South while Outlet 3 overflows into Bates Creek to the West. The project is bordered to the North by I-22, to the East by Industrial Blvd, and a portion of the South is bordered by Whitehouse Rd. Due to the nature of these borders U2 and U3 are each concentrated at the locations in which they will cross the project. Culverts will be utilized in each location. For drainage area U1, the runoff is already routed just beyond the southern border of the project and along Whitehouse Rd. U1 converges with drainage area I, II, and U2 at Outlet 1. 1

Figure 3a: Division of Watersheds (Internal and Up-slope) 2

The characteristics of the watersheds on this site are listed in Table 3a. Table 3a includes the discharge point, the area, the curve number, and the time of concentration. Curve numbers were determined considering soil type and land use. The soil type used is group D for all areas. It was determined that the soils were type D by comparing the geotech report with the table on page 119 of the textbook. The geotech report gives the soil as being silty clay which corresponds with group D in the table. Land use types were considered to be fair woods and grass for up-slope areas and newly graded areas for drainage areas I, II, III, and IV. The time of concentration was calculated using WinTR55. Sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and channel flow were each considered. For on-site areas with sheet flow were considered to have a smooth surface, shallow concentrated flows were considered to be unpaved, For areas which the time of concentration was calculated to be less than six minutes (0.1 hr) the value of 0.1 hr was used for the time of concentration. Name Reach Area (ac) RCN Tc(hr) U1 Outlet 1 7.04 82 0.417 I Outlet 1 2.9 94 0.1 II Outlet 1 7.45 94 0.1 U2 Outlet 1 97.28 82 0.481 U3 Outlet 2 13.28 94 0.1 III Outlet 2 17.95 77 0.309 IV Outlet 3 6.94 94 0.1 Total Const Area (ac) 35.24 Total Downslope Area (ac) 0 Total Upslope Area (ac) 117.6 Total Area (ac) 152.84 Table 3a: Watershed Data 4.0 Rainfall Information Type III rainfall distribution was used for this site. 3

5.0 WinTR-55 Results The hydrologic information for this site was input into the WinTR-55 program. Each drainage sub-area was simulated for each return period (1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years). The results are given below in Table 5a: Outlet 1 Walker County, Alabama Watershed Peak Table Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period Sub-Area 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) U1 11.26 16.18 19.81 23.91 27.13 30.34 9.1 I 9.15 11.92 13.91 16.15 17.88 19.62 7.88 II 23.52 30.62 35.74 41.49 45.96 50.4 20.26 U2 146.69 210.64 257.75 311.74 353.62 394.69 118.51 OUTLET 171.55 244.7 298.62 359.31 407.29 454.94 139.27 Outlet 2 Walker County, Alabama Watershed Peak Table Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period Sub-Area 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) III 41.93 54.58 63.72 73.97 81.92 89.85 36.11 U3 26.17 39.47 49.42 60.99 69.9 79.05 20.44 OUTLET 62.82 86.84 104.67 124.89 140.68 156.56 52.13 Outlet 3 Walker County, Alabama Watershed Peak Table Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period Sub-Area 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) IV 21.91 28.51 33.29 38.64 42.8 46.94 18.87 OUTLET 21.91 28.51 33.29 38.64 42.8 46.94 18.87 Table 5a: Peak Rainfall Data 4

6.0 Selection of Design Return Periods The selection of the design return period was based on the McGhee equation found in the text book on page 109. Figure 3.16 on page 109 was used to select the design return period. Based on a 90% or less chance of failure of sediment ponds and fill slopes and a 50% or less chance for the failure of the filter fence and diversion channels combined with the 1.5 year construction period, the actual design period for the erosion control structures should be five year return period and 20 year return period as shown in table 6a below: Table 6a: Design return period for tentative erosion control practices Site Activity Acceptable Failure (%) Design Return Period (yr) Selected Design Return Period (yr) Real Failure Probability (%) Diversion channels 50 3 5 28 Filter Fence 50 3 5 28 Slope Protection 10 15 25 6 Sediment Ponds 10 15 25 6 7.0 Diversion Channels In consideration of the site, it is expected that there will be no areas which will have a run of over 200 feet left unpaved once construction is completed. Therefore the only diversion channels will be the one which will be constructed for drainage area U1 at the southernmost portion of the project. 8.0 Conclusions The results of this report will be used to design the erosion control practices for this site. There will be a need for three sediment ponds, one diversion channel, and many feet of filter fence. During the construction phase as well as at the end of construction while vegetation is being established on the slopes. 5